THE PARLIAMENT OF christ AVOUCHING AND DECLARING THE ENACted and received truth of the presence of his body and blood in the blessed Sacrament, and of other articles concerning the same, impugned in a wicked sermon by M. jewel, Collected and sethfurth by THOMAS HESKYNS Doctor of divinity. Wherein the reader shall find all the scriptures commonly alleged out of the new Testament; touching the B. Sacrament, and some of the old Testament, plainly and truly expounded by a number of holy learned Fathers and Doctors. ECCLESIAST. VIII. NON te praetereat narratio seniorum, ipsi enim didicerunt à patribus suis. Quoniam ab ipsis disces intellectum, & in tempore necessitatis dare responsum. Go not from the doctrine of the elders, for they have learned of their fathers. For of them thou shalt learn understanding, so that thou mayst make answer in time of need. AUGUST. LIB. 1. de moribus Eccle. CAP. XXV. AUDITE doctos catholicae Ecclesiae viros tanta pace animi, & eo voto, quo ego vos audivi. Hear ye the learned men of the catholic Church with as quiet a mind, and with such desire as I have heard you. printer's device of William Silvius SCRUTAMINI Imprinted in Antwerp, At the golden Angel, by William Silvius printer to the Kings Majesty. M.D.LXVI. With Privilege. THE NAMES OF such AUTHORS AS BE ALLEGED IN THIS BOOK OF THE PARLIAment of christ, placed as it were in two houses, that is to wit, such as were before a thousand years or very near, in the higher house, such as were since, in the lower house. jesus Christus. Apost. & Evangelist. joannes. Marcus. Paulus. Mattheus. Lucas. Andrea's. latins of the higher house. Clemens. Alexander. Sixtus, Pius. Soter. Tertullianus. Fabianus. Cyprianus. Silvester. Iwencus. Hilarius. Optatus. Ambrose. Hieronimus. Augustinus. Primasius. Vincentius lirinen. Sedulius. Leo primus. Hilarius PP. Cassiodorus Gregorius Isidorus. Grecians of the higher house. Martialis. Abdias. Anacletus. Ignatius. Dionysius Arcop. Telesphorus, justinus. Irenaeus. Origenes. Eusebius Caesarien. Athanasius. Eusebius emis. Basilius. Gregorius Niss. Gregorius Nazian. Efrem. Isichius. Chrysostomus. Theophilus Alexan. Amphilochius Didymus. Proclus Cyrillus. Euthymius Theodoretus latins of the lower house. Beda Haymo. Remigius Paschasius Lanfrancus Algerus Guitmundus Anselmus. Hugo de S. vict. Rupertus Bernardus Petrus Clu. Innocentius. 3 Thomas de Aqui. Nicolaus lyra Hugo Cardinalis Holkot. Roffensis Titelmannus Grecians of the lower house. Damascenus. Theophilactus. Occumenius Nicolaus Methonen. Nicolaus Cabisila. Germanus Bessario diagram of the Blessed Sacrament of the Catholic Church THE PARLIAMENT OF CHRIST UPON the matter of the B. Sacrament. 1 Figured Exod. 16. 2 Prophesied. Malach. 1. 3 Promised Joan. 6 4 Jnstituted Math. 25 5 Practised Jac in Miss. 6 Reserved. ●…in. epist ●… 7 Continued. ●. Cor. 11 8 Adore●… Privilegium. REgiae Maiestatis diplomate permissum est Thomae Heskins S. Theologiae professori, uti per aliquem Typographorum in hisce omnibus ditionis suae Regionibus admissorum, imprimendum curet librum, inscriptum: The Parliament of christ avouching and declaring, etc. Inhibitumue alijs omnibus intra eandem ditionem, ne ante triennium proximum absque ipsius Thomae licentia imprimant, aut alibi impressum diuendant: sub poena in eodem diplomate expressa. Datum Bruxellae 7. julij. 1565. Subsign. Burgeois, & Facuwez. TO M. IO. IVELL THOMAS heskin's WISHETH grace. AND Restitvtion of faith. DETESTING your heresy, yet loving your person, and therefore wishing your reformation and correction, I have, M. jewel compilled this book, wherebily as I trust the vanity of your brag is and shallbe disclosed and perceived: so do I wish that by the same both you and such as have erred, may be reduced from your foul error, and all the people of my native country, for whose cause especially I have taken these labours, so stayed in faith, that by your manifold untruths they be not seduced. You have not only enwrapped yourself in error, but also to maintain the same committed three heinous offences. One is the abuse and contempt of the authority and doctrine of the holy Fathers of the primitive and ancient Church. Those Fathers you do not only truncatelie allege, and with crafty sleight abuse and falsify: but also although you evidently see them impugning your doctrine and heresy, yet without all regard of their great learning and authority, of their perpetual consent and agreement, of their reverend antiquity, of their famous holiness, you run still in the race of your devised invention, and fantasy, utterly contemning whatsoever hath been by them said or done contrary to your blind affection, and wicked opinion. Now to use to you the words of the holy Father Leo to Eutyches: Quid iniquius, quam impia supene, & sapientioribus doctoribusue non credere? What is more wicked then to have ungodly opinions, and not to believe them that be wife's and better learned: Decet enim sequi patres nostros, nec commutare definitionem eorum perpetud; quorli regulam secundùm sacras scripturas esse didicimus. It becometh us (saith Flavianus) to follow our Fathers, and not to change their perpetual definition, whose rule we have learned to be according to the scriptures. But you stayed not here. It was not enough for you to contemn or abusethe perpetual definition of the Fathers, but you proceeded to the second offence even to mock and scorn the learned and holy Fathers of Chrysts Church not only them of the later days, but such as lived a thousand years agone, whereof some were famous for their learning, some so constant in their faith and perfect in life that of the universal Church they have been hitherto, and yet be reputed and esteemed blessed Saints. Soch I say as God hath exalted to his glory, such, as in heaven be honourable such have you in earth dishonoured yea mocked and scorned, and as much as in you lay, made despicable to the world. Thus have you used or raither abused S. Silvester, who lived in the time of Constantine the great, a manright virtuous and holy, and so reported in all good histories, as yourself know, and so esteemed and reverenced of the whole Church. Thus have you used S. Isidore, a man of great fame, and an holy bishop in the time of S. Gregory. Thus have you used Innocentius, the third, Thomas de Aquino and Roffensis all men of singular virtue, and in learning not inferior to you, I am sure, but a great way before you, wherefore no such as you aught to deride and mock. As for the Bishop of Rochester, who both learnedly and godly wrote against both Luther and Oecolamp. his works stand yet untouched, but of your mock, not able to be impugned by any Lutheran, Oecolampadian Caluinist, or otherlike, for of which sect you be, I think you disclose not. In this your mockery you are the right imitator of Porphirius the enemy of all chrystianitie. For he (as Euseb. and Niceph. witness) derided the evangelists and Apostles the writers of the scriptures: you deride the holy Bishops and saints their successors, writers upon the script. He contained the holy scriptures, he reprehended them; imagining contradictions in them, he reputed them (saith Niceph.) as things of naugh to you contemn the learned commentaries and writings of the Saints of God upon the scriptures, and matters incident and appertaining to the scriptures, with scoffs you travail to reprehend their grave authority and godly writings. Yowe play and dally with them before the people like a ioung Porphirie, as though they were things of nought. Thus you may see, as all that be wise and stayed by God's grace do see, how fully herein you bear the image, and justly follow the steps of him, that fiercely (as you do) persecuted with deadly hatred the church and religion of christ. Your third offence is yet worse and more heinous, where you have uttered so many untruths and lies even adversus Dominum, & adversus Christum eius, against our Lord, and against his christ, against his holy gospel, and against his holy word. Is your matter such (M jewel) as it can not be maintained without lies? and (as the holy man job said) Nunquid Deus indiget vestro mendacio? Hath God need of your lies? No, so little need hath he of lies, that he will destroy all them that speak lies, as the psalmist saith. But that I seem not to charge you without proof, as you do other, is not one of your challenging articles against the presence of Chrysts body and blood in the blessed Sacr? is not the doctrine you teach and preach in that point directly contrary to the doctrine of our Saviour christ? When he saith: This is my body, This is my blood: and you avouch and teach that it is very bread and very wine is not this a contrary doctrine to his? is it not plain against his manifest word? is it not in effect to charge him with untruth, though you day not yet in flat words say that he lied? The crafty sleight you use in handling the scripture, where the truth of Chrysts doctrine doth appear, and your wielie suppression of those words which chiefly declare the same truth, and open your untruth, do well prove your wicked meening to be none other. For taking the words of S. Paul for the theme of your sermon, you produced them truncatedlie, and passed them with much sleight. Thus you utter them: I have received of the Lord that thing, which also I delivered unto you: that is, that the lord jesus in the night that he was betrayed took bread, and there you end. Where, although you pretended to teach the first institution of the Sacr. yet either of malice to suppress Christ's truth, or for fear to disclose your own untruth, you would not or durst not rehearse the very words of the institution, which I wish all men to note, but both in the latin and english, as your faith staeth in bread, and as you would the faith of your audience should do the like, your theme ended in bread, in so much as when you come to your last matter, to speak of private Mass (as you term it, though falsely, for there is none such) and, to prove your Communion, begin again to repeat the words of the institution, Lord, what shift you make to suppress the words of christ: This is my body, This is my blood in the which lieth all the effect of his institution. These words you fly, as from a serpent, you can not abide the sound of them, and therefore with shameful craft, you pass them saying thus: christ in the last supper ordained a Communion, and showed no manner token of private Mass, as may plainly appear both by the words that he spoke, and also by the order of his doings. For be took the bread, broke it, divided it, and gave it to his Disciples, and said: Drink ye all hereof. These be your own words. Yowe pretended to prove your matter by Chrysts words and order, but when you come to the very point you do not as much as touch his words, but skip over them, so well may your prof appear by them, and so loath are you to utter Christ words, that his truth might appear, and your falsehood be disclosed. Against your first offence (which is your abuse of the doctors in mutilating their sayings, as you do Anacletus: in falsifying their meening, as you do Tertullian, and S. Cyprian: in crafty alleging two or three words, that apparently may seem to make for you, leaving out the rest that mightily maketh against you, as you do saint Augustine: in corrupting authors by putting words to their sayings, which they have not, as you do with Leo: whereby evidently appeareth your contempt of their authority, whom by so many means you labour to abuse, to shadow, and hide the truth by them so clearly settfurth) I come in right use, reverently alleging them, wholly and fully producing them, truly reporting them, and their meaning, justly letting every of them plainly to testify that, which he hath written, and causing every one to speak his own words without corruption. And that you may perceive that the catholic Church is strong, against the which the gates of hell, the power of heresy shall not prevail, know you, that it is Terribilis castorum acies ordinata, a terrible fortress in most goodly order appointed. Out of the which fortress in goodly order is comed a great number against you, marching by couples, each couple to show the unity of truth and faith professed in both Churches, being one of the greek church, and other of the latin church, and the seniors for the most part placed in the forward. These have I brought forth not one alone and by piece meal so to rheum away with the matter, as you do, but in good numbers, and with their full sayings, and the same do I oftentimes confer together, that the full and perfect clearness of the truth in their consonant sentences may appear, and shine to all that list to look thereat, and be disposed to know the truth. Against your second offence, which is the mocking of holy writers and Saints, whereby you seek to dishonour and deface both them and the religion they professed, I come with due reverence and honour of them, whom I know by Chrysts promise to be honourable before the Father in heaven for their constant confession of his holy name whilst they lived here upon earth. Wherefore as being upon the earth they were not gests and strangers but the fellows of Saints, and of the house of God, I term them as senators of the Parliament house of christ, as knowing the enacted and received truth of the matters of faith pertaining to that house. For this cause I regard all their writings which the catholic Church hath allowed, considering that the same Church that hath taught me that the gospel, that is the very word of God written by the motion and instruction of his holy Spirit, hath taught me that these men's wiritings upon the same are good and commendable. And as with S. Augustine I say, that I would not believe the Gospel but that the authority of the Church moveth me thereunto: no more would I believe the Father's expounding the scriptures, but that thereunto I am moved by the Church. Then it followeth well that as I ought to believe the Gospel for the authority of the Church: so ought I to believe the doctors for the authority of the Church. And here to overthrow your contempt of them and yourself also, I do oftentimes confer the expositions of the later Fathers with the expositions of the elder fathers, and finding them altogether gravely against your evil doctrine to consent, and it to confute as heretical and devilish, I let your light mocks and scorns fly home again to you as fleshflies to their carien. Against your third wickedness, I mien your contempt abuse and untrue handling of the holy scriptures, I come in every place, where mention is made of the bless. Sacrament, with the whole process there contained. In the vi of S. john, the xxvi. of S. Matth the xxiiii, of S. Luke, the x. and xi. of the first epistle to the Corinth, the v. to the Ephesians, and the xiii to the hebrews, somuch as the Fathers expound to appertain to the holy Sacr. I produce not truncatelie and falsely, but fully and truly every sentence, and every word, submitting myself to the authority of god's word, and not by slight subduing it to mine own authority. But here the learned perchance may marvel, that I would join with you in the scriptures considering the ancient counsel of Tertullian, who would not that any catholic should enter into disputation with an heretic with the scriptures. Nihil proficit congressio scripturarum cum haereticis, nisi planè ut aut stomachi quis meat eversionem aut cerebri etc. To join (saith he) in disputation with heretics with scriptures it doth nothing avail, except a man will turn up side down either his stomach or his brain. what shall though gain, if great learned man in the scriptures, when if if defend any thing it shall be denied of the contrary part: if thou deny any thing, it shall be defended etc. And after he concludeth thus: Ergo non ad scripturas provocandum est etc. We may not therefore appeal to the scriptures, neither may we appoint our disputation in them, in the which there is either none or unceten victory, or not very certain. For this cause, and for that S. Hierom saith that Scripturae non in legendo consistunt, sed in intelligendo the scriptures consist not in reading but in understanding: I have travailed by diligent scarching of the fathers from the Apostles to this our time, to try out by their common consent how the scriptures are to be understanded, and so have I (as by a line drawn from hand to hand) descended from age to age, that the true understanding of them received and approved in all that diversity of ages and places, might be perceived and known. In this my doing I have fulfilled the counsel of Vincentius lyrinen. who for remidies against errors among other willeth, that if any error hath been committed in the old time, either by certain men, or by any one whole city, or by any Province, to reform that, the decrees of ancient general councils must be sought, and if none soche can be found (as in these days though they be found, they be not regarded) then (saith he) operam dabit, ut collatas inter se maiorum consulat, interrogetiue sententias etc. He shall geue diligence to seek and learn the judgements of the elders, and confer them together but of those elders only, which although they were in diverse times and places abiding: yet in the Communion and faith of one catholic Church, were always allowed as masters, or men of authority. And what soever he shall know, what not one or two of them, but what altogether with one consent have holden, written, and taught openly, commonly, and continually, let him understand, that that is without all doubt to be believed. Thus he. As this counsel is on my part fulfilled in that I have searched and conferred the judgements of the fathers, and found them (though they were in diverse ages and places) fully and wholly agreeng in the matters of the presence of Chrysts body and blood in the blessed Sacrament, of the oblation of the same, and of other articles appertaining there to, which (as in this work it may be clerlie perceived) not one or two, but every one of them have, not obscurely but manifestly, not in one place, or at one time, but commonly and continually, holden, taught, and written: So would would I that you, M. jewel, if you regard the Fathers of the primitive Church in deed, as you brag in word, that you (I say) should receive and embrace these scriptures as expounded and delivered to you by their hands, and their expositions to accept as a clear and certain undoubted truth, which truth so opened by them, I bring forth against your untruths, and not the bare scripture alone, as Tertullian would I should not. This, I trust, you shall well perceive, if leaving your corruted affection apart, you will with a clear eye and upright judgement read this work, wherein you shall see all the Fathers that commonly have, expounding the scriptures, written of these articles of the Sacrament, which you in your jollity (I will not say more arrogantly than as a Christian preacher should, meek and lowly, more rashly, then wisely or advisedly) with so great brag wttered in your sermon, all such Fathers, I say, shall you see, aswell greeks as latins, aswell ancient, as of later time, with one common consent and agreement, so expounding the scriptures as though they had been in one time, and had conspired upon one sense and understanding: all those shall you see impugning your negatives, and by the scriptures affirming the catholic doctrine, and faith catholiquelie and universally professed, and thus shall the truth of the scriptures overthrow the untruth of your heresies. Now I have in a general manner showed your offences, which moved me to write against you: in like generality I have showed how I do procead against you: the speciality of your offences and of the process answerable to the same, you shall find in this work, though simply without colour, yet plainly without craft, declared. If my travail herein obtain not his enrended effect, namely your conversion and amendment, and to do you that good that you may be stayed from running to pertual damnation: yet staing other that by your pestilent heresies might be brought to that woeful danger, I shall not only do them that good I wish, but also help to make your damnation the easier, which how grievous it shall be, he knoweth best, that knoweth how many souls you have brought to damnation. If you being obdurated persist in your impiety, it can not be avoided but you do it of malice, having been advertised and admonished of your wicked errors and heresies heretofore by doctor Harding and other, and now by me. Yowe know who saith: Haereticum hominem etc. after one or two admonitions fly the company of an heretic, knowing that such one is subverted, forsomoche as he is even by his own judgement condemned. In deed being, as I said, thus admonished, and seeing with all your wicked doctrine by the whole multitude here alleged, so plainly and clearly condemned, it can not be but by your own judgement you must be condemned. For this is so evidently true that you or any man can not deny it, that no doctrine, now held of the catholic Church for a truth, and impugned by the Sacramentaries, was ever yet at any time by the church, or by any catholic writer, reputed as heresy or error. Again this is as true that every doctrine holden of the Sacramentaries, and now impugned by the catholics, hath been before time of the catholic Church and wtiters reputed and adjudged erour and heresy, a few late inventions only excepted, which also are now by catholics impugned, and by plain testimonies of the ancient Church proved to be errors and heresies, and so condemned. To make good the first saying, I will rehearse certain catholic propositions: Chrysts body is verily in the blessed Sacrament. Chrysts body is ossred in sacrifice in the Mass. The holy Sacrament is to be reserved for the communion of the sick. The blessed Sacrament may be received under one kind. The body of christ in the Sacrament is to be adored. Saints in glory pray for us and are to be prayed unto by us. The dead receive great benefit by the sacrifice of the Mass. Prayer and almose deeds done for the dead do avail them. These and such like the catholics do hold, the heretics deny. I will not here proclaim against you, but I will join this issue with you, that if you can bring any catholic Council or catholic doctor impugning these or any of them, as heretical or erroneous, I will subscribe unto you and say as you say: if you can not (as I am sure you can not) then will I say, as I may well, that your doctrine is erroneous, heretical, and devilish. Now to save your doctrine from this fowl reproach, prove by such testimony as I have said, that our doctrine is erroneous, or else the shame will be on your side that teach the contrary To make good my second assertion, I will also rehearse certain propositions of your doctrine: Chrysts body is not really in the Sacrament. The Sacrament is only a figure of christ and not his body. The substance of bread is not by due consecration changed, turned, transmuted, nor transelementated into the substance of the body of christ. There is no sacrifice of Christ'S body offered in the Mass. Prayer and almose deeds nothing avail the dead, neither the sacrifice of the Mass. These and such like do you and your likes teach and defend, for the which I will join this issue with you, that if I have not in this book sufficiently proved, or can not hereafter, if I be required, more fully prove every of these to be erroneous and heretical, and long agone for such to have been condemned, I will subscribe to them, and confess them to be good? If I have or can evidently prove them so to be, then confess you them to be nought and devilish. If you refuse thus to do: yet for the defence of your doctrine, if it may be defended, do that to us, that I have done to you. I have done to you in this book three things. First, I have showed you the beginning of the doctrine of the bless. Sacrament, the progress and continuance of it, and the defence of it. secondly, of the Mass which is the solemn sacrifice of Chrysts Church, I have showed you good precedents, certain and assured practices, and these right ancient. thirdly, for the Sacramentaries doctrine, I have showed when it began, by whom it was invented, when and where it was condemned, and so ce assed, and by whom it was raised again in these our days, in the which it is also lawfully again condemned. Now do you the like, for your doctrine, and against ours, Show the beginning, progress, continuance and defence of your Sacramentaries doctrine. Show the originals and ancient precedents of your Communion, which is the kay, and note of your religion, and confer them as we have done the Mass, with the ancient precedents of the primitive Church. Show how all your innovations, which within these feweyears were in no place of the christian world used, were put down, how and by whom that was compassed: in what Pope's time and emperors reign they were suffered to be done, if any suffered persecution or exile for them, who stood against these that overthrew them, who wrote against them that banished your religion, and where be the books, If your doctrine be so notably good and ours so notably wicked as you teach and preach it to be, so great an alteration and decay of religion from so great a good to so an evil, could not be done in the world without great note, without large testimonies of histores and chronicles of so lamentable a change. Bring forth therefore if you can the monimentes and testimonies of this change: If you can not, wise man will think and believe that there was never none such: If there was none, them be your proceedings but novelties, invented in these later days, and never before in use, and therefore well termed the new religion, new doctrine, new faith, new church, new Communion. Two things, M jewel, I doubt not, but you know. Thone, that in the primitive and ancient church there arose no notable heresy, but it was speedily impugned: Thother, that of the original and progress of every such there were notes made and monuments for memory left. As concerning the first, it is certain, that even in the beginning of Christ'S Church Ebion and Cerinthus sowing their heresy were straight impugded by S. john, against whom he was moved to write his gospel and epistles. Against the same also with other, as Valentinus, Martion, Cerdon, Simon Samarites Basilides, Carpocrates, and such like, wrote the holy Father Irenaeus not long after, who, as in his works it may be seen in diverse places, used for an argument against those heretics, the presence of Chrysts body in the Sacrament, and yet the same Irenaeus was never noted of error for his so affirming and teaching. Origen his works being found inspersed with diverse errors, was noted for them, but where he testifieth the presence of Christ'S body in the bless. Sacrament, he was never blamed: Cyprian the holy martyr was very vehement against Novatus the heretic, and his sect, he diligently laboured to cut of such weeds. This holy man in the matter of the presence wrote so plainly as no man more plainly, he wrote also of baptism. In the matter of the presence, the church hath allowed him, in the matter of Baptism notwithstanding his holiness they have refused him. To be short Epiphanius and S. Augustine wrote books of the heresies of them that were before and in their times, and although many besides the forementioned had spoken so plainly of the blessed Sacr. that they clearly confessed the presence of Chrysts body in the same, as Martialis, Ignatius, justinus, Tertullianus, Hilarius, and many other: yet be none of all these nor none other for that doctrine numbered there among heretics, which undoubtedly they should have been, if the matter had so deserved. But truly it was never yet red in any god writer, nor so much as dreamt, that the confession of the presence of christ in the bless. Sacrament is heresy or error. Now as touching histories witnessing the wicked beginning the miserable progress, and open end and confusion of heresies, it were superfluous for me to write, sith there hath been no notable heresy or heretic, which are not recorded either by Eusebius, Teodoret, Sozomenus, Nicephorus, Aeneus Silvius, and such other whose books be daily in men's hands. By whom when your Sacramentaries heresy begun we know, how long it continued openly we know, who withstood it and wrote against it we know, in how many councils it hath be condemned we know. further who have renewed the same in these later days we know, when and how Luther reigned we know: how Oecolampadius followed, though an other way, we know, how calvin hath controlled both catholics and heretics we know, what the doings of these and their complices have been and be, we know, and that they have been and be condemned for heretics we know. To be short, there hath been no notable alteration or molestation in religion by heresy, but it is committed to memory in histories. If then your doctrine and faith, your religion and profession, your notable Communion, or raither confusion, were once good and catholic, it can not be but of so great an alteration as to make catholic faith damnable heresy, or holy communion wicked division there must be some notable mention in histories or some ancient monument in writing to declare it. If you have any such bring them forth, and then you shall do fonwhat to allure wise men unto you. For in this point I hold him nothing wise that will repute either your doctrine, faith, religion or communion to be good and catholic until you show good testimonies and precedents of the catholic use of them, which I am certain you can never do. As for such evidences as yourself now and your ancestors heretofore have picked out of the right and true evidences of the catholic Church, I mien the holy scriptures, councils, doctors, and approved histories, and with great boldness have showed them to the world and avouched them to be yours and to assure your cause, they are already well known and tried not to be yours in deed, but to make all for the catholic faith and religion, and mightily against your singular fancies and to over throw your wicked heresies, when they be plainly opened, and delivered from your crafty corruptions, as they have been by sundry and many famous learned men as well in this age, as before our time. And I, to my power, have in this book, for such matters as I handle, detected your forgery, and corrupting of the evidences thereto appertening, by your wresting, glozing, cutting, peicing, diminishing, adding, and other wise falsifying the right, clear, whole, perfect, godly and true testimonies of the scriptures, councils and ancient doctors. And such as be so flat against your cause, as you can have no aid of them, but be forced therefore either to deprave their authority with mocking and scorning, or flatly to deny their works, they are defended, and held in their worthy estimations, and their denied works restored to the right authors. The first therefore, that is the scriptures councils and ancient doctors you can no more abuse for shame and challenge to be on your side, when being sifted from your sleights, and cleared from your falsehood all men may perceive them not to be your right evidence, making, as they do, so plainly against you, and mightily overthrowing your cause. The other, that is, the later learned writers and holy fathers, you may no longer contemn being proved to agree, as they do, with their elders and approved, as they be of the church, to be catholic and holy writers, your skoffesand mocks against them, will stand for no reason before wise men. Now you understand, M. jewel, what I have here done, to the which if either you or any other for you shall by railing Rhetoric make a pretenced answer, I do you to wit, that I will not vouchsafe to put my pen to the papire for that kind of answer. For I have begun with you in an other sort, and like a divine, railing I have left to ruffians and skoldes, and coolours of persuasions to rethoricians, directly according to my profession with all plain truth have I proceeded. If answer therefore shall be made, let it be either a direct answer or none. Direct answer is such as I make to you, where you abuse the understanding of the scripture, or doctor, to prove the same unto you: where you falsilie, to allege the place truly: where you corrupt, to show the right saying: when you add and put to, to declare what you add and put to: when you leave out, to express the words so by you left out. And finally, by full, plain, and express testimony of scriptures, councils, or doctors, as the condition of the matter requireth, to open and declare the truth, and by like authority to prove and confirm the same. Thus have I done to you in plentiful manner, in every matter here by me handled, so that the truth of every thing is so fully opened, and by good authority so confirmed, that I trust, every man that will see may see, and every man that will understand, may understand, where the weight of the truth is. Read therefore, M. jewel, and divorcing yourself from vainglory to the which ye have hen a long time married, let your understanding be captivated unto the service of christ, Let not your vain estimation in error and heresy detain you to come to the honourable estimation, that is gotten in the professing of God's truth. Let it not be said of you, as the holy father and Pope Leo said of Eutiches: Noluit intelligere ut bene ageret. Iniquitatem meditatus est in cubili suo. My good will was that this mi doing should have been in your hands a long timeer this, for it was finished full three years past, but sickness, poverty, and lack of opportunity to print it have thus long stayed it. But sith now at the last it is by Gods help comed abroad, I heseche him of his great goodness to grant that it may be to his honour, and to the help of his people and that it may be a medicine of health to you, and all that by your false doctrine and sleight, have been entrapped and deceived. Yowe promised that you would yield to him that would bringfurth to you one scripture, or one doctor, or one Council etc. as you know: This being now done by me and other I wish that you may yield yourself prisoner, not in warlike manner to us, but in lowly manner to Christ, and his dear spouse the catholic Church, by acknowledging their faith, and professing their religion to save your soul, which we shall be most joyful to understand, and for your such conversion yield to God most humble thanks. If you do not, yet let me wish you for some better stay of yourself hereafter, to have this old saying in mind: Ante victoriam ne canas triumphum. THE PROLOGUE TO THE GENTLE READER. THe Phylystynes (gentle Reader) moved sore and great Haereilques move Ware against the Church. war against the Israelites: The heretics against the catholic church of God, from whom is comed forth a new goliath mighty in his own conceit, with reproachful words to revile the host of our living God, and to blaspheme his holy name, to rail at his holy mysteries and to comdemne his holy ordinances, who with impudent mouth (trusting, in the strength of spear and shield) blustereth out such blasphemous words, as the like to my knowledge (Cranmer, mere his ancestor only excepted) never did phylistyne before him. He alone cometh out, and provoking Israel to battle, maketh proclamation Proclamation of the new Goliath thus: If any learned man of all our Adversaries, or if all the learned men that be a live, be able to bring any one sufficient sentence, out of any old catholic Doctor, or father: or out of any old general Council: or out of the holy scriptures of God: or any one example of the primitive church, whereby it may be elerely, and plainly, proved, that there was any private mass in the whole world at that time, for the space of six hundredth years after christ etc. and a few articles recited, he proceedeth thus: or that the people were then taught to believe, that christ body is really, substantially, corporally, carnally or naturally in the Sacrament: or that his body is, or may be in a thousand places, or more, at one time: and sofurth proceadeng to lay out his matters enombreth xv. articles, all which (four only excepted) be against the holy Sacrament of Christ's blessed body and blood, And for that he would not seem to faint in his doing, he saith, that he for his part would not only not call in any thing that he had then said, but also woldelaie more matter to the same, and so addeth he twelve more articles to the former, all which (one only excepted) be also against the blessed Sacrament, and the mynystration of the same. which his proclamation with the addition he knitteth up thus: If any one of all our Adversaries, be able to avouch any one of all these articles by any such sufficient anthorytie of Scriptures, Doctors, or councils, as I have required, as I said before, so say I now again: I am content to yield unto him, and to subscribe. Which stout brag as some of his likes (I suppose) misliked, and many good catholic men (I know) thought it arrogant: So I thinking the same, like little David, not in faith, might, and power: not in virtue and singular favour of God: but as the least and youngest of my breatherens, in the house of my ffather, not bearing this vile reproach so arrogantly, and shamelessly made against the host of God, of a good zeal having sure trust in my lord God (whose cause for my power, I would gladly defend) haning some stones gathered together in my sheperdes' bag, I come in the name of God against this Goliath, and for this time putting this stone out of my bag into my sling, I cast it at him, which, I trust, shall so hit him in the forehead, where is the seat of shamefastness, if any be in the man, that he shall be ashamed so to revile the whole church of God again. I say the whole Church, for these, his lucyferouse words, be not spoken only against such as were or be of the catholic Church in england: but to the contumely of all the whole catholic Church of Christendom, wheresoever is or hath been professed, and taught the real presence of Christ'S blessed body and blood in the holy Sacrament. And for that his chief force is bend against that Sacrament, which is our comfort, food, and nutriment to everlasting life: I have also bend myself therein chiefly to withstand him, not meddling moche with any other matter. Whereunto yet when I prepared myself, and considered one of the Articles of his proclamation, where in effect he saith, that never man was condemned as an heretic, for saying that the Sacrament was a figure, a pledge, a token, or a remembrance of Christ'S body: I began to be abashed, First at his craft and subletie used in so weighty matter of faith, where all simplicity and plain dealing should be used. for if he refer these his words to the six hundreth years next after christ, that in those there was never man condemned for Turrian heretic, that said that the Sacrament was a figure, a pledge, a token a remembrance. it is true. for in all that time never was their heretic that so said in that sense that this proclaimer and his likes do say it. wherefore that is but a crafty toy to bleer the eye of the hearer to make him believe that men in those days were not for so saying condemned, where in deed none did so say, and where none did so say none could be condemned for it. Moche like argument might a felon make for himself in these days saying that christ, in whom after his resurrection, was the fullness of authority and power, as he himself wittnesseth, did never condemn any of his Apostles or disciples to death for felony. wherefore he being a Christian man aught not be condemned for felony. This argument hath a truth, for christ condemned none of them. for none of them were felons: but it lacketh force, for though they not so offending were not condemned: yet this fellow so offending may justly be condemned. Likewise though none with in those six hundreth years, for as much as they so said not, were not condemned: yet this proclaimer so saying may well be condemned And here I will join issue with him that if he can bring one within those six hundredeth years that said, as he saith & was not condemned, I will subscribe. secondly I abashed at his impudency. for if the man be so impudent as to say, that never man was yet hitherto judged and condemned for an heretic, that said the Sacrament was a figure in that sense that he, and his complices do take it, namely to be a figure without the very presence of the body of Christ, the contrary whereof is known to all the world, and therefore not unknown to him: what shall it awaill me to buckle with so impudent a man? For such saiers have been condemned by eight councils all ready, as heretics, and their heresy so detested, hated, and abhorred of all christians, Sacramentaries condemned hyeight Counsels. that the catholic learned men, if they had but a suspicion, of any that did in any one title serve from the verity of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, they forth with addressed themselves to their pens, and with the sword of God's truth, vanquished, and overthrew it. This (as it is thought) moved Paschasius towryte in the matter of the Sacrament. for that Bertramus had in the time of king Charles written thereof Paschasi'. Bertramus wrote obscurclie and suspiciously of the Sacrament. suspycyouslie, and yet in such sort, as no man could be certain what he assuredly meant. Now that the truth of the matter of the Sacrament, should not be obscured with such doubtful writing, Paschasius wrote a book of the presence of the very body of christ in the Sacrament, in such express and plain words, as the simple man may preceave what was the faith of the church in that tymeof that matter. And for that, he was so plain, Gastius, one of this proclaimers faction, having gotten an old exemplar of that work (as it is appertynent to the syncerytie of such men) he razed it, he blotted it, yea, he cut out whole chapters of it. and that done (that it might to the world appear, that Paschasius, who wrote so long agone, wrote yet nothing against the Sacramentaries) he set it forth, so mutylated, so torn and so defaced, to be printed. But to return to speak of this proclaimer, considering, as I said, the article wherein he saith never man was condemned for an heretic, that affirmed the Sacrament to be a figure, sign etc. I was so abashed at his impudecye, that I was partly minded not to have joined with him. But remembering that it was more impudency to deny Christ'S presence in the Sacrament, which is taught by Christ'S own words delivered by saint Paul, believed in the primitive Church, so received of holy men, written by an infinite number of learned writers, confirmed by councils, and embraced and stayed upon, by all christian nations; I corrected myself, saying that if I would not spare to join with him in this wicked assertyon, moche less should I spare to join with him in that other. Wherefore resuming my former purpose, I will in this also join with him. and showing from the beginning of the first Author of this heresy even unto this Proclaimer, that they were all judged for heretics, which affirmed and taught that the Sacrament is a figure, (as this Adversary and his complices do) I shall with all open the vanity of his brag, wherein he saith, that the catholic Church▪ haith not one scripture, not one doctor, etc. for the maintenance of their faith. For the plain opening of which matter, it is certain, by testimony of many learned men, that though some did so confusedlie write in this matter, that they might be suspected, or did secretly (as men fearing the goodnesseof their cause) whisper in corners, which were very few: yet among all that rightly believed in christ, as God and man, Berengarius was the first, that did openly write and teach, denying (as this proclaimer doth) the Berengarius first openly impugned the sacrament. real presence of Christ'S body and blood in the Sacrament. Which Berengarius was about the year of our lord a thousand and three score, and So by computation five hundreth years agone, & more, a man, as sundry writers testify) neither excellent in learning, nor commendable Berengarius neither excellent in learning nor commendable in life. Leo nonus Platina in life: who publishing this doctrine by power scholars, to whom he gave stipend for that purpose, he spread it abroad in corners. Which when it came to the knowledge of Leo then Pope, a man (as Platina saith) of singular sanctymonye, and holiness of life: he condemned Berengarius in a Council. The words of Platina, for the certain declaration of the matter, I shall not refuse to report. Thus he writeth: Ad Leonem redeo virum certè pietate, innocentia, benignitate, gratia, hospitalitate, adeô insignem, ut eius Domus peregrinis, & pauperibus semper patuerit. Nam cum semel ante fores suas leprosum pauperem invenisset, cunque prae miscricordia collocari in lecto suo mandasset, apertis mane foribus à ianitore, nusquam pauper inventus est. Christum pauperis nomine, eo loci recubuisse creditum. In rebus praeterea ad religionem pertinentibus, tanta diligentia. & solertia usus est, ut & in Concilio Vercellensi Berengarium hereseos autorem damnaverit. I come again to Leo, a man truly in godliness, in innocency, benygnytie, grace, and hospytalytie so notable excellent, that to strangers, and pour people his house was always open. For when upon a time he found a power man, a leapre, lying before his gate, and through mercy had godly commanded him to be laid in his bed, in the morning when the gates were opened of the porter, the poor man was in no place found. And so it was thought that christ in the manner of a poor man was laid ther. Besides this in matters appertaining to religion he used so moche diligence and wise cyrcumspection, that in the Council at vercels he condemned Berengarius condemned in the Council of vercels, at Rome, and two other councils. Berengarius the Author of an heresy. Thus far Platina. This condemnation notwithstanding, the wicked man persysted in his impiety, wherefore an other Council was holden at Towers, where by diverse learned Fathers he was convinced, and so abjured his heresy. And in a Council holden at Rome, where were cxiij. Bishops (as Lanfrancus who then lived testifieth) he recanted also his heresies. Berengarius recanteth and abiureth. And yet all this notwithstanding, though this cankre of heresy seemed in the outward part to be cured: yet it fretted inwardly, and grew to an new sore, that where before he had taught that the Sacrament was but only a figure of the body of christ (as this proclaimer also tracheth) now he begun a new doctrine, affirming that in the Sacrament was the very body of Christ: but that there was also the Substance of bread, with the Substance of the body of christ. Whereupon there was an other council called under Gregory the seven, in the which the said. Berengarius being convinced, did Gregorius. 7. acknowledge his error, and by express words recanted the same. Not only these four councils condemned the heresy of Berengarius against the Sacrament but also the learned men that were in that time, pained themselves to write whole books to the confutation of the said Berengarius, and his heresies. For against him wrote Lanfrancus sometime Archbyshope of canterbury, of whom Tritemius said: that he was vir in divinis scripturis erudjtiss. et non minus Lanfrancus. Tritemius. sanctitate, quam scientia clarus a man in the divine scriptures most excellently learned, and no less in holiness, then in knowledge notable. Against the same also wrote Algerus, and Guitmundns. men not by my commendation only to be accepted, but by the judgement of Erasmus also, a man Algerus Guitmundus. not only known to the world, but also specyallie famous in this Realm of england, who opening to us what these two men were, showeth therwtih the benefit of God that cometh to his church by his sufferance of errors, and heresies to grow. And enombring diverse heresies conceived against the blessed Sacrament he saith thus: Et tamen horum omnium error in hoc profecit, ut in tanti mysterij cognitionem, magis ac magis tum erudita, tum confirmata Sras. in epistola ad Balthasarum Episc. Hildesùm. sit ecclesia. Nulli tamen plus debet quàm Berengario. imo non Berengario, sed Chrstisapiē tiae, qui malitiam hominum vertit in bonunsponsaesuae. Quos & qualium virorum calamos excitavit impudens error Berengarij? Nuper exijt opus Guitmundi, ex monacho Benedictino episcopi Auersensis. Nunc prodit Algerus ex scholastico monachus eiusdem instituti. Guitmundus acrior est & ardentior, & plus habet spiritus Rethorici: hic sedatior est ac religiosior, uterque tum Dialectices, tum reliquae philosophiae bellè peritus, licet citra ostentationem: uterque in canonicis scriptures, ac priscis illis doctoribus, Cypriano, Hilario, Ambrosio, Hieronimo, Augustino, Basilio, Chrisostomo (quorum scripta plurimùm adhuc reserunt spiritus Apostolici) studiosè versatus: uterque tantum habet eloquentiae, quantum requirere à theologo par est. Certè dictionis argutiam, & collectionis acumen, nusquam in eyes desideres. Agunt solidis rationibus, nec (ut nunc quidam faciunt) bonam voluminis partem rixis, & Christ turneth the malice of Heretics to the profit of his Church. contentionibus occupant, aut sophisticis ratiunculis rem tractant. And yet the error of all these (saith Erasmus) did prosytt in this, that in the hnowledge of so great a mystery, the Church should be both more and more instructed, and also confirmed, Yet is she to none more bound then to Berengarius, yet not to Berengarius, but to the wisdom of christ, who turneth the malice of men to the profit of his spouse▪ what writing, iea and of what men hath this impudent error of Berengarius stirred up? Of late went out Erasmus calleth the error of Berengarius impudent. the work of Quitmundus sometime a benedyctyne Monk, and Bishop of Auvergne: now cometh forth the work of Algerus of a scholar, made a monk of the same order: Guitmundus is sharp and vehement, and hath more of the rhetorical spirit: the other mild, and religious; both of them well learned both in logic and philosophy, although without ostentation; both of them well studied both in the canonical scriptures and in the old doctors Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, Hierom, Augustin, basil, and chrysostom. whose writings do yet declare moche of the Apostolical spirit: Both of them have as much eloquence as is meet to be required of a divine. As for witty speech, and sharpness of collection, there is no lack in them in any place. They go to it with substantial reasons, neither do they as some which occupy a good part of their books, with brawlings, and contentions, and handle the matter with sophistical disputations & reasons. Thus moche Erasmus. I have the more willingly transcribed thus moche of Erasmus because the Adversaries have had him in good price, and regarded his sainges. If this champion do the like, let him diligently observe that Erasmus calleth the error of Berengarius, an impudenterroure. Which so being, forsomuch as this man is drowned in the same, and maintaineth the same, may we not Error of the Proclaimer impudent. justly say, that he impudently maintaineth an impudent error? Let him also note, how he commendeth these men, and what judgement he hath of their learning both in liberal sciences, in Scriptures, and doctors. whom he doth also no less extol, but that by their writings God hath done a great benefet to his Church. which so standing it can not be but that the Scriptures, and doctors be plain, and evident for the proof of the verity If their writing be a benefett, than this challengers doimgeys a detriment. Petrus Waldo skoureth the estie heresy of Berengarius of the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament. which scriptures and doctors adduced by these learned men be more than one, or one score, and yet this Proclaimer crieth: bring one doc &c. After Berengarius rose one Petrus Waldo a citizen of Lions, a man unlearned, yet as vulearned as he was, when he had newly scoured the rusty condemned heresy of Berengarius (in such rude manner as it was) many were so foolish, and so ready to fall from faith to heresy, from life to death and damnation, from teaching of the learned to the teaching of the ignorarunt, that they chose raither to follow the fantasy of this one rude man void of knowledge, than to remain in the substantial tried doctrine of a number of holy, and most excellent learned men of Christ's Church. Thus (more piety it was) a mombre followed him, and became his disciples, and were called Waldenses. Waldenses. Heretics condemned Unto whom becoming an Author and blind guide, according to Christ's saying, he led them so, as both fell into the ditch. This sect and heresy of this Waldo, was not suffered to stand, but (as Guido saith) was condemned in a Council holden at Rome. And yet this Proclaimer saith there was never man judged for an heretic that said the Sacrament was a figure, a token, etc. In the time of saint bernard Satan would move yet some more trouble to the Church. and therefore raised one Peter de Bruis whom he taught to Petrus Brusian. his heresy. sell these lies to the people for truths, that though Christ in his last supper did in the Sacrament, give his body to his Apostles: yet no priest doth so now, by the power of his word, as it is said that they do. For never anione (quoth he) but Christ alone did give his body in the Sacrament. Although this heresy giving such pre-eminence to Christ that, by cause he said, this is my body, teacheth that he in deed gave to his Apostles his very body, is worthy of more favour than the heresy which this Proclaimer teacheth (for not withstanding that our Saviour christ said: This is my body, yet this Adversary teacheth it is not) yet passed not this heresy away in silence, but was written against by diverse. Among which Petrus Gluniacensis whose commendation is so moche settfurth in diverse Epistles of saint bernard, that he needeth not mine to commend him) wrote Petrus Cluniacen. a book in the matter of the Sacrament against the sect of the same Peter de Bruys, called Petrobrusians, and other cleaving to them, called Henrycyan, In the which book, I am certain, there be more than one scripture, one doctor Almaricus a sacramentary condemned in the Council of lateran. etc. alleged and brought forth. It is said that one Almaricus among other heresies, did also set forth this heresy against the Sacrament, who with this his heresy and his other, as Bernardus de Lutzemburgo saith, were condemned in the great Lateran Council. After all these cometh the famous heretic John Wycleff our country man, whom God suffered with many pestilent heresies to trouble the Church. Among which heresies he held two or three against john wicleff our country man an heretic condemned. the Sacrament. All whose articles being in number forty and five, joannes Hus, besides other of his own invention did hold and maintain, avouching them to be good and godly. And as he embraced the doctrine of Wycleff. So did Hierom de Praga both the doctrine of Wycleff and of the said joannes Hus, who being convented for the same in the Cowncell joannes hus condemned. Horonimus de Praga condemned. of Constance, did first, as Berengarius did, abjure his heresies. After, to declare what constancy was in him, he revoked his abjuration, and avouched the doctrine of Wicleff and Hus. All which three with their heresies were in that Council of Constance condemned. Luther and Oecolampadius, although repugnant one to the other, in this Luther Oecolampad. our time, they have said and done as much as this champion can do, and thought themselves as mighty as he. An yet they have not only been impugned by writers: but also condemned as heretics in the general Council of Trydent. Thus have ye now seen the whole descent of this heresy against the blessed Sacrament, even from Berengarius the first open teacher of the same, unto Luther and Oecolampadius the new furbushers and skourers of the same: Ye perceive that from time to time, they were ever condemned by councils as heretics, that taught the blessed Sacrament to be but a figure or token of Christ's body, and not the body it self: ye have seen that learned men have written against them, and with learning beaten them down, for that they reputed, esteemed, and judged them as heretics, and the enemies of gods truth, as the breakers, subverters, and destroyers of peace, and dissoluers of the unity of Christ's church. May I not therefore well say, that this proclaimer is an impudent man, a shameless man, which feareth not to speak so openly, to preach so boldly, to write so shamelessly so manifest an untruth, as to say in effect, that never man was judged an heretic, that denied the presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, when they were never yet otherwise judged? But to end this part of the matter, this dare I say (for that I know I shall speak it truly) that to this day there was never man judged or condemned by any general Council that ever was, to be an heretic that said, that Christ's body is really and substantially in the Sacrament. Now if this doctrine never, and the other ever, hath been condemned, it is easy to judge, what each of these doctrines is. To come to this our time, beside the condemnation of the heresies of Luther and Oecolampadius in the matter of the Sacrament, as before is said, Even as Lanfrancus, Algerus, & Guitmundus did against Berengarius, avouch the catho like doctrine by their works and Boorkes set forth for the same purpose: Even so a great number as well of hour country men, as other, have by scriptures, councils, and doctors, against the said Luther and Oecolampadius, done the like. For to begin with our country men first, hath not the learned, grave, and reverend Father John sometime bishop of Rochester, encountered against Rofensius never yet answered. them, and with Scriptures, councils. and doctors so mightily and inviuciblie overthrown them, that never till this day any Philistin durst take weapon in hand against him to help up and recover there Goliaths and champions? And can not this Goliath see one scripture, one Council, nor one doctor in all those his works written to that purpose? Tonstall of Tonstallus Dunelmen Steph. wint duresme, and Stephen of winchester, both reverend Fathers, men not one lie in england, but also in other nations right famous, have they not left their worthy monuments behind them, replenished with scriptures, Counsels, and doctors, for the assertion of their faith in this matter of the Sacrament, to the confusion of the adversaries. Also John late of winchester, joan wynton. hath he not collected into one book two hundredth witnesses of scriptures, councils and doctors, for the verity of Christ's body in the Blessed Sacrament? Doctor watson Bishop of Lincoln, as heys right worthily learned: watsonus Lincoln. So to his moche praise hath he written godly, and learned Sermons of the blessed Sacrament, in the which be more plain testimonies of scriptures, councils, and doctors, alleged for the truth of this matter of the Sacrament, than the protestants can bring apparent for their heresy. Doctor Alban Albanus Langdallue. Langdale Archdeacon of Chychestre in the confntation of the determination made by Redleye, at the disputation holden at Cambridge for the matter of the Sacrament, is so plentiful in scriptures, councils, and doctors, and so pithy withal, and so plainly layeth them forth for that purpose, that this Goliath with all his blasphemous, and proud words shall never be able to convince him. If heresy were not by election, and election of singularity, and singularity set not more by her own fantasy, then by most men's judgements, Heresy is by election. be they never so grave, never so wise, never so well learned, the judgement of these men in the scriptures, councils, and docturs, which they allege as sentences evident, and plain, certenlie and clearly proving the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament might suffice to pull down the peacocks tail of this singular man. But in the judgement of them that be wise I doubt not, but his brag seemeth more proud than true. Besides all these, to speak of other that be strangers hath not this man heard of the fame of Alfonsus, who not long sense was here in england, Alfonsus. and wrote here part of his book, which he hath written and set forth against all heresies, in the which he inveigheth against this new Goliath and all like Philistines, their adherents, and complices, yea and against all their Thirten sundry heresies against the Sacrament. Ancestors. Where he maketh rehearsal of thirten sundry heresies invented by that wicked generation against this holy and blessed Sacrament and convinceth them all as well with scriptures, and councils, as with many holy doctors and famous writers, and yet this proclaimer crieth: bring forth one scripture, one Council, one doctor, one example, etc. The time would not serve to number all that have written in this matter, and tediousness would encumber the Reader, wherefore leaving many, as Gropperus, who right learnedly, and largely hath handled and setforth the Gropperus. faith of the Church in all times of the high points of the Sacrament, avouching the same by scriptures, doctors, and councils: And Wernierus, who like unto the Nycen Council, hath made Collection of three hundreth Vernierus. eighten places of scriptures, doctors, and councils, for the assertion of the truth of the Sacrament: And also, Tavernerius, Eckius, Pighius, Hoffmeisterus, Garetius, Tavernerius. Eckius. Pighius. Hosfmeister. Garetius. with other many: I will only bring two, who be such as, I suppose, this man will better regard, and better like their judgements in this matter, then of these before mentioned. The one of them shall be, Erasmus who in his epistle above alleged writeth thus: Ex evangelio habemus, Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradi●ur. Ex Paulo Erasmus ad Balthas Episcop. habemus: Ego enim accepi à Domino quod & tradidi vobis, etc. Et qui ederit, & biberit indignè reus erit corporis & sanguinis Domini. Hoc nobis immobile fundamentum. Out of the Gospel we have: This is my body, which is delivered for you. Out of Paul we have: I have received of our lord, which I delivered also unto you, and so forth. And he that eateth and drinketh unwourthylie Erasmus his judgement of the Sacrament shall be guilty of the body and blood of our lord. This is unto us an umnoveable foundation. And after a few words he saith: Cum igitur tam evidens à Christo & Paulo habeamus testimonium, quum per hos viros evidentissimè declaratum sit priscos, quibus non sine causa tantum auctoritatis tribuit ecclesia, concorditer sensisse in Eucharistia veram esse substantiam corporis & sanguinis Domini, quum ijs omnibus etiam accesserit Synodorum constans autoritas, tantusque populi Christiani consensus, simus et nos concordes in tam caelesti mysterio, & hic sub enigmate edamus de pane et calice Domini, donec aliter edamus, & bibamus, in regno Dei. utinam autem qui Berengarium secuti sunt errantem, sequantur & paenitentem. Seeing then we have both of Christ and of Paul so evident testimony, seeing also by these men (meaning, Guitmundus and Algerus) it is most evidently declared, that the old ancient Fathers (unto whom the Church not without cause yieldeth so moche authority) have agreeably understand the very substance of the body and blood of our Lord to be in the Sacrament: also that to all these agreeth the constant Authority of the councils, and so great a consent of Christian people, let us also agree in so heavenly a mystery, and let us here in a dark manner, as under a covert, eat of the bread, and drink of the cup of our lord, until otherwise we may eat and drink in the kingdom of God. Would to God that all they that have followed, Berengariut in error, would follow him also in penance. Thus far Erasmus: Note gentle Reader, and I would the Adversary should note also, that here is most evident testimony affirmed, and avouched out of Christ, and Paul, and the common concord of all the doctors, the constant Authority of councils, the universal and whole consent of Christian people, all agreeing, believing, and teaching the very substance of Christ's body and blood to be in the Sacrament. Forasmoch then as here is produced asmuch and more to, than this challenger did require (for he did require but any one scripture, one doctor, one council) and here be produced sundry scriptures, all the old doctors the Authority of the Counsels, and besides these the common and universal consent of the Christian orb, if there be any truth in this man, he will perform his promiss and subscribe to this truth, which would to God were done by him, that (to conclude with Erasmus his saying) he might follow, Berengarius in penance, as he hath followed him in error. Now to the better confirmation of this matter, and to the more confutation of this his impudent boast, and shameful blasphemy, I shall join his own school with him, I mien the learned of the Germans, which writ thus: Decimus Articulus approbatus est, in quo confitemur nos sentire, quod in coena Domini verè & Apologia Confess. August. substantialiter adsint corpus & sanguis Chrysti, & verè exhibeantur cum illis rebus quae videntur, pane & vino, his qui sacramentum accipiunt. Hanc sententiam constanter defenderunt concionatores nostri. Et comperimus non tantùm Romanam ecclesiam affirmare corporalem praesentiam Chrysti, sed idem & nunc sentire, & olim sensisse Graecam ecclesiam, ut testatur canon Missae apud Graecos. Et extant quorundam scriptorum testimonia. Nam Cyrillus in joannem cap. xv. inquit Chrystum nobis corporaliter exhiberi in coena. Sic enim ait: Cyrillus Non tamen negamus recta nos fide, charitateue syncera Chrysto spiritualiter coniungi. Sed nullam nobis coniunctionis rationem secundùm carnem cum illo esse, id profectò pernegamus, idue à scripturis divinis omnino alienum dicimus. An sortasse putant ignotam nobis mysticae benedictionis virtutem esse, quae cum in nobis fit, nónne corporaliter quoque facit communicatione carnis Chrysti, Chrystum in nobis habitare? Et paulo post: unde considerandum est, non habitudine solùm, quae per charitatem intelligitur, Chrystum in nobis esse, verumetiam participatione naturali, etc. Haec recitavimus, ut clarius perspicerent, qui ista legent, nos defendere receptam in tota ecclesia sententiam, quòd in coena Domini, verè et substantialiter adsint corpus, The Germans acknowledge the very presence of christ in the Sacrament. et sanguis Christi. The tenth article is approved, in the which we confess that we believe that in the supper of our Lord be verily and substantially present, the body and blood of christ, and that they be verily given with those things that be seen, that is, with bread and wine, unto them that receive the Sacrament. This sentence have our preachers constantly defended, And we find not only the church of Rome to affirm the corporal presence of christ in the Sacrament, but also the greek church both now to believe, The greek and latin Churches, both now and in old time affirm the corporal presence. and of old time to have believed the same, as the Canon of the Mass among the greeks doth testify. And there be also extant the testimonic of certain writers. For Cyrillus upon john in the fifteen chapter saith, that christ is corporally delivered unto us in the Supper. Thus he saith: We do not deny that we be spiritually joined unto christ by faith and sincere charity. But that we have no manner of conjunction with him after the flesh, that we verily, deny, and that we say, is altogether against the scriptures. Doth he think the power of the mystical benediction to be unknown unto us? which when christ dwelleth in us corporally not only spiritually The received doctrine in all the Church is, that christ is verily, and substantially present in the Sacrament. it is done in us, doth it not also by the communication of Christ'S flesh, make christ corporally to dwell in us? And a little after he saith: Wherefore it is to be considered, that not by inward disposition only, wihiche is understand by charity, christ dwelleth in us: but also by natural participation, etc. These things have we recited, that what soever they be that shall read this, they should the more clearly perceive, that we defend the doctrine received in all the Church, which is, that in the supper of our Lord are verily and substantially present the body and blood of christ. Thus much the Germans in their Apology. I suppose this proclaimer will now take a better mind with him, and somewhat contract and draw in the large sales of his great brag, so vehemently puffed up with a mighty vain glorious wind, when he seeth the learned of Germany so frankly and plainly publishing their faith, which, though it be not in every point sound, yet avouch they the contrary to the doctrine of this proclaimer, and encounter with him in this challenge. For first they confess the very substantial presence of the body and blood of christ in the Sacrament. secondarily they confirm the same by the authority of all the Christian church, as well the latin, as the greek church, for that in them both, not now only, but of old time also, it hath been so taught, received, and believed. Thirdly they allege a clear and most plain place out of cyril, which by their judgement, as it doth appear, doth manifestly and invincibly prove the corporal presence of christ in the Sacrament. And as it so doth by their judgement: so doth it by the judgement of all catholic men, not only withstand this proud Goliath, But it plainly overthroweth him. Of the force of which sentence, more shall be said hereafter. fourthly earnestly acknowledging this truth, and willing it to be known to all the world, they declare that the cause of their thus writing is, that all men might know, that they do defend the truth received of all the Church, which is (say they (that the body and blood of christ be verily and substantially in the Sacrament. This then being a truth, that is and hath been received of all the whole Church of christ, as besides these men's confession, all catholic people through out all christendom do acknowledge it so to be, I pray thee (good Reader) what part doth this man take to defend, who with might and main doth maintain the contrary: And impugneth that, that the whole Church receiveth, revileth that, that the whole Church reverenceth: blasphemeth that, that the whole Church honoureth? and that so arrogantly and impudently? It is pity that there is so moche impudency, and so much arrogancy The Proclaimer is to be pitied. mixed with untruth in him. I say pity for that he is God's creature, and in Baptism once professed Christ's name, in this respect charity moveth me to pity him, and the more for that he receiving the plentiful gifts of God, doth so wickedly to the more increase of his damnation abuse them, and forsaking God and his truth, becometh enemy to them both, which he well declareth in that with such violence he impugneth, and blasphemeth them both. In this part and respect as I can not join with him: so for my master's cause, and the defence of my Mother the catholic Church, in whose house I desire to continue, I contend with him, and contemn him, yea and hate him, not the substance that God hath created in him, but the wicked heresy that the Devil hath breathed into him, by which as he is become enemy to God: so must all the people of God become enemies to him, as of the Prophet Heresiemaketh man enemy to God. Psalm. 148 David we have good example. Do not I, o lord (saith he) hate them, that hate thee? And am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? Yea, I hate them right sore, even as though they were my enemies. And yet as I move my pen against him: So shall I move my tongue to pray for him. Possible it is that he being in the highest of his mischief, may be stricken down as Paul was in the highest of his rage of persecution. Saint Augustine when he walked in heresy, and did most stoutly contemn the catholic profession of Christ's name: it pleased God, suddenly as it were, to give him a new mind, and caused him to reverence that, that before he despised. The like happy chance I wish this man, against whom if I have been, or in this book shall seem to be sharp, let it be referred to the evil cause which the man defendeth, and not the person himself. The doctrine is so wicked, so directly against God's holy word, so discrepant from the holy councils, so dissonant from the ancient Fathers, so dissenting from the common consent of Christian people, so injurious, and contumelious to the whole Church that hath been from Christ until this day, that it is by no means tolerable. Now Reader, I trust though seist, that as much as this jolly Challenger required, is now performed to him, let him therefore perform his promise, and subscribe to the catholic faith, and confess Christ's real presence in the Sacrament. If he will yet maliciously persist, and say; there is no scripture, nor doctor, nor Council brought forth, that plainly proveth it, them we must provoke to judges. If he will not believe the Germans being Protestants, not Erasmus, who is accounted of them an upright man, not the Catholics of our own country, and of other countries, not the councils, which be alleged, not Cyrils plain and manifest sentence, not the common received faith of the whole Church, as well of that of the old time, as that, that is now, both of the latins, and of the greeks, not the plain words of Christ, who plainly saith: This is my body: Which words Erasmus saith be hour sure and ummoveable foundation: I pray thee, Reader, whom will he believe besides himself? Who shall bring forth that one scripture, doctor, or Council, that he will accept, as plainly proving the matter? None but he himself, or his likes, much like to the Felon that pleadeth not guilty, and stoutly crieth to be tried by God, and the country. And when by verdict of the jury and sentence of the judge he is condemned, he defieth them all calling both judge and qnst false harlotts, ad saith, that true men would never have condemned him. But the true men that he meeneth be such as heys himself. Soche true men they be now also, that this man will credit in this matter, even such as he is himself, if he do refuse all these kinds of men above produced. But howsoever he shall take this, and the rest of my book in outward countenance, I trust it shall touch his conscience. And then (as Chrysostom small comfort where conscience is confounded. saith) Levis erit consolatio, ubi conscientiae sentiunt se esse confusas. It is but a light or small comfort, when the consciences of men perceive themselves confounded. God of his mercy reduce him and all, that be gone astray, home to his fold again, that they be not in his terrible judgement confounded before him and all his Angels. Now, Reader, that the order of this my rude work may be known unto Ordre of the Book. thee, understand that where the enemy of God's truth, hath in his said sermon made his boast, that he is sure, that not one sentence can be brought by the catholiqns to prove the Articles, there by him rehearsed, among the which, beside the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Sacrament, he addeth many other things appertaining to the same, which he joineth together under one predicament, that is, that we have no proof for them: that he may be perceived to be a vain and false man, I will prove it by scriptures, doctors, and councils. And incidentlie diverse other of his rehearsed matters, to this principal appertaining, Which, although I overpass them not in such manner as he doth, only to say, and nothing to prove or improve them, as they be of him uttered: yet ye shall find them answered, where occasion is ministered to speak of such matter. And although many profownde, and excellent learned men, whose latchettes of their shoes I am not worthy to lose, have woorthlie written in this matter: yet for that none of them, to my knowledge, hath after this manner proceeded orderly to expound the scriptures, that treact of the Sacrament, which methinks to the confutation of this man is necessary, I will, by the help of God, that way proceed, and not by mine own fantasy, but by the very minds of the doctors, truly seek out the true understanding of them. And for that these scriptures be in three sundry books of the Bible, that is, in the old Testament, in the Gospels, and in the epistles: there The contens, and order of this work. for the matter being long, I have divided this rude work into three books. In the first book are opened such promises, figures, and prophecies of the old Testament, as appertain to the Sacrament. The second book giveth you understanding of the scriptures appertaining to the same, contained in the vj. of saint John his Gospel, the xxuj of saint Matthew, and in the xxiv. of saint Luke. The third book expoundeth so moche of the tenth, and the eleventh chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians, as toucheth that matter, and also one sentence of the epistle to the Ephesians, and one other to the hebrews. In this exposition, to the more confutation of the Aduersaire, and confirmation of the catholic, I, for the most part, bringing sundry, and diverse doctors upon every text, do join a greek doctor and a latin together, that the concord and agreement of both churches may well appear, and fully be seen. So have I also joined the doctors that have written within the compass of these nine hundreth years, to them that have written before, that it may be judged, whether that these of the later time do differ, or dissent from them of the ancient time in the substantial points of our faith, as the adversary saith they do. By which process, gentle Reader, thou shalt, I trust, perceive, that where the arrogant Philistine both blasphemously, and untruely hath said of the Catholic Church of the living God, that it hath not one scripture, one doctor, nor one Council: it hath undoubredly, as touching the blessed Sacrament, and other articles appertaining to the same, not only all the holy Scriptures that treact of that holy mysteric, but also the holy Fathers, and councils, that speak of the same, both Greeks and latins, and them aswell of the ancient time before a thousand years, as them, that were of the later time, within the compass of a thousand years. So that the scriptures being thus explained by the common consent of so many doctors, and all the same also conspiring upon this one truth (as it shall be perceived, not by a vain brag, without proof, but by evident and plain testimony) we maic as truly as boldly, returning his brag into his own lap, say, that this philistine and his complices, for the maintenance of their heresy against the presence of Christ in the blessed Sacrament, have not one scripture, one doctor, nor one Catholiq Council to make for them. Which thing, I dare say, the indifferent Reader, when he shall have perused this book, will not fear to avouch with me. And wishing that this my labour might be profitable to the simple and Catholic Church Christ's Parliament house. unlearned, for whose help I have most specially taken it, I have framed my writing, as near as the matter will suffer, to their capacities. And where in civil, and politic regiment, Laws, Acts and statutes have their force by councils and parliaments, therefore where the verity of Christ's real presence in the Sacrament, is a truth establissed, enacted, and received by Christ's Parliament house (I mien the catholic Church) it liketh me oftentimes to allude to the name, and thereto agreeably to name this book. I have Title of the book. not intended to fall one here breadth from the faith of the Catholic Church. If any thing hath slipped from me, I submit it to the correction of Christ's catholic Church, and myself also, Prainge thee, god Reader, to accept my labours in good part, and remember me in thy prayers. Vale. THE first BOOK. THE FIRST CHAPTER UPON OCCASION THAT THIS ADVERSARY, THIS PROCLAIMER, AND Challenger would have the scriptures red of all men (presupposing the same to be easy to be understanded) entereth, as by preamble, to treact of the difficulty of the scriptures, and to prove that they aught not of all men to be red, without an able interpreter or teacher. HAVING in purpose to declare by the testimony of the noble men of Christ's Parliament house, the enacted and received truth, or true meening of all, or most of such scriptures, as treact of the blessed Sacrament of the body and blood of our saviour Christ, there cometh to my mind the doctrine of Luther, the great Progenitor of this Adversary, who in his book. De servo arbitrio Luther. de servo arbitr. (as other his imps likewise in their books) teacheth, that the scriptures of themselves be easy of all men to be understanded, and need no interpreter. Whereunto also (the more to infatuate the people) he addeth, that we be all, Theodidacti, that is to say, taught of God, and of his Spirit, so that it shall not need for one man to teach an other, or for one to learn of an other. Of which mind this Adversary seemeth also to be, in that he would the scriptures should be common to all men. Which doctrine if it were true, then is my purpose here vain and superfluous, which is to seek out the true meening of the scriptures by the holy fathers and doctors. Wherefore, as a preamble to this rude work, I have thought good to discuss, and by discussion to make plain to the unlearned Reader, that the scriptures be obscure, dark, and hard to be understanded, and for that cause not of all men indifferently to be red. whereby it shall appear, that my purpose shall be to good effect. And for the better compasing thereof, I mind to show to the unlearned the way to attain to the true understanding of the scriptures, and that done, to proceed to my matter principally intended. And where our chief purpose is, to treact of the blessed Sacrament this 1. Scriptures to be hard proved by seven arguments 2. may justly be the first argument, that the controversies thereof in these our days moved (which be to many) do make it more than manifest, that there be difficulties in the scriptures. If difficulties, then be they not plain. The second: the disciples which heard Christ's own disputation of this mystery, proceeding out of his own mouth, as out of the lively wellspring, and who, for that they were disciples, should better have digested Cristes' words, than the people of the jews, who grossly said: Quomodo potest hic dare nobis carnem suam ad manducandum? how can this man give us his flesh to eat? Yet they (the disciples I mien) in the end of the disputation said: Durus joan. 6. The disciples understood not Christ's own words. est hic sermo, quis potest eum audire? This is an hard saying, who can abide to hear him? So that neither the people of the jews, nor yet the very disciples of Christ, which should much have exceeded the other, did atteign to the true understanding of Christ's words, carnal reason prevailing against humble and lowly submission to faith. Upon the which words of the disciples, Chrystome saith, Quid ergo est, Durus? difficilis intellectu, & quem capere non posset eoram imbecillitas, plenus formidinis. Chrysost, in 6. Joan. What then is this word, hard? A saying not easy to be understanded, and which being full of dread, their imbecility could not bear or take. If than the words which Christ spoke, being the gospel (although unwritten) were (as chrysostom saith) not easy to be understanded, what more easiness may we think to be in them now being the gospel written? And further if we truly say that the scriptures be easy, and plain for every man to understand, it should appear, that it was no great benefet, 3. that Christ did to his Apostles, in opening their wits, that they might understand the scriptures. Neither was it any great matter that he Luc. 24. did to the two disciples that went to Emaus. unto whom beginning at Moses, and the prophets he interpreted in all scriptures which were written Jbid. of him. But certainly it was a great benefet, that Christ did at these two sundry Christ's interpreting of the scriptures, and opennig of wits to understand them argueth the difficulty. 2. Petr. 3. times give, in opening their wits to understand the scriptures to the one: and in interpreting the scriptures to the other. For without this benefet neither the one, nor the other could have attained to that gift. Wherefore the deepness of the scriptures weighed, and our infirmity considered, we may very well conclude with saint Peter, that as (he wittnessing) the epistles of saint Paul be hard: so be the rest of the scriptures hard. Of this the chamberlain of queen Candace, of whom is made mention in the acts of the Apostles, being so well affected to the scriptures, that passing from Jerusalem homeward, and sitting in his chariette he was reading 4. Acto. 8. them, and yet understood them not, had good experience. That he understood them not it doth well appear by his own confession. For Philippe being moved by the Spirit of God to join himself to his chariette, heard him read isaiah the Prophet, and asked him saying: understandest though, what thou readest? and he answered and said: how can I, except I had a guide? wherefore when Philippe was with him in his chariette, and the scripture was red, the camberlain asked him saying: I pray thee, of whom speaketh the Prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Philippe opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture and preached unto him jesus. This place teacheth us, that not only by the saying, and doing of the chamberlain, but also by the doing of the holy Ghost, the scriptures be obscure Philippe sent by the holy Ghost to expound the Scriptures to the Eunuch. and hard. For the holy Spirit of God doth nothing in vain. wherefore when the same Spirit mercifully beholding the good affection of this man, and knowing the scriptures to be such, as he could not understand them without an interpreter, did send Philippe unto him, to open and declare that unto him, that was obscure and dake before, it doth invincibly prove our purpose. Which fact of the holy Ghost had been vainly done, if the scriptures were plain and easy of all men to be understanded. Now if this man could not understand them without an interpreter, no more can any other common man do. And than what doth it avail the scriptures to be commonly red without an interpreter? The Apostles themselves, when our saviour Christ spoke unto them of 5. joan. 16. The Apostles understood not Christ's lively voice, his passion and resurrection (as it appeareth in the xuj. of john) could not understand him. For when he said unto them: After a while ye shall not see me, and again after a while ye shall see me. For I go to the Father: then said some of them amongst themselves: what is this that he saith unto us, after a while ye shall not see me, and again after a while ye shall see me? and that I go to the father? they said therefore, what is this that he saith after a while? we can not tell what he saith. As this manner of speech being uttered by the lively voice of Christ was dark unto the Apostles: so the same being now written in dead letters, is it not (trow ye) as dark to many as it was to them, till it be opened and declared? if it were not easy to them that heard Christ himself speak it: how should it be easy to the unlearned, that do but read it? For as saint Hierom saith: Habet nescio quid latentis aenergiae viva vox, & in dures discipuli de Autoris ore transfusa, fortius sonat. unde & AEschines, cum Rhodi Hieron ad Paulinum. exularet, & legeretur illa Demosthenis oratio, quam adversus eum habuerat, mirantibus cunctis atque laudantibus, suspirans, ait: Quid si ipsam audissetis Bestiam sua verba resonantem: The lively voice (saith saint Hierom) hath I wot not what an hidden virtue, or clearness of demonstration, and being uttered from The lively voice hath a more force in the ear then the dead letter in the eye. the mouth of the Author into the ears of the disciple, it haveth a more force in sound. wherefore Aeschynes, when he was a banished man at the Rhodes, and the oration, which Demosthenes made against him was red, when all men did wonder at it, and praise it, sithing he said: what if ye had heard the beast himself uttering his own words? Thus moche saint Hierom. In the which saying he declareth, that there is more clearness in a sentence lively spoken from the mouth of the Author, and the hearers shall more easily preceave it, and sooner understand it, than they shall only reading the same in the dead letter. It may therefore be concluded, that the gospel as it, is written is more hard to be understanded, then as it was of the mouth of Christ spoken. But as it was spoken it was hard to be understanded, wherefore being written it is more hard to be understanded. Saint Paul enombring the gifts of the Spirit, saith: To one is given 6. 1. Cor. 12. the utterance of wisdom: to an other the utterance of knowledge: to an other is given faith: to an other the gifts of healing: to an other power to do miracles: to an other prophecy: to an other judgement to discern spirits: to an other diverse tongues: to an other interpretation of tongues. All these (saith he) worketh one and the self same Spirit, dividing to every man a several gift even as he will. In the which distinction of gifts, ye perceive that the utterance of wisdom, the utterance of knowledge, the gift of tongues, be several gifts. And that they be not given to all men indifferently, but some to one, some to other, as it pleaseth the holy will of that blessed Spirit, that is the Author and distributour of the same gists. For saint Paul in the end of the same chapter, where the former alleged words be written, saith: Are all Apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all doers of miracles? have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? etc. which his manner of questioning includeth a negative, that every man hath not all th●se. Then forasmuch as every man hath not the giste of utterance, of knowledge, nor the gift of prophecy, nor the gift of interpretation etc. Every Interpretation of Scripture not given to every man. man hath not the understanding of the scriptures, Neither then be the scriptures easy to be understanded of every man. For unto him, that hath the gift of knowledge, prophecy, and interpretation of scriptures, the same be easy; But every man hath not these gifts, wherefore the scriptures to all men be not easy. This also saint Paul proveth very well by the order and disposition of the natural body, from which he diduceth and taketh an argument to 7. 1. Cor. 12. prove an order in the mystical body the Church. Ye are (saith he) the body of Christ, and members one of an other. And God hath also ordained in the Congregation: First Apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly Teachers, then them that do miracles, after that the gift of healing etc. In the which description of the order in Christ's Church, ye see that the three chiefest, and highest states be Apostles, Prophets, and teachers. Now if the Scriptures be easy for every man's understanding then either these states be superfluous, because every man understanding the Scriptures, there needeth no teacher, nor Prophet: Or else forasmoche as every man understandeth the scriptures he is in this state to be a teacher, All be not Prophets, nor teachers. and a prophet, which is directly against saint Paul's doctrine. For he saith all be not Prophets, neither be all teachers. forasmuch then as Christ hath appointed, as one of the chiefest states of his Church, the state of teachers, there must be of necessity a great number of inferior members, that must be hearers, and learners. And why should they so be, but that the scriptures being hard, and obscure, by the teachers they must be opened and declared, that other may learn. So that as by this scripture it may be perceived and learned that every man hath not the gift of knowledge, and therefore no easy understanding of the scriptures: So by all the other before alleged it is most manifest that the scriptures be hard and full of difficulties, which shall also by other means well appear to the Reader, in the process ensewinge. THE SECUNDE CHAPTER TO PROVE THAT THE SCRIPTURES BE NOT EASY, RECITETH CERtain hard and obscure places of the old testament. ALBEIT that this, that is all ready said, is sufficient to prove the scriptures to be hard, and not plain, ne easy to be understanded: yet that ye may see it more manysestlie before you face, certain places shall be laid before you, which for their obscurity and difficulty, shall compel and enforce you to confess that they be not easy for every man's understanding. And first shall be brought some places of the old Testament, out of the which I might bring, not places, but whole books, and of them not a few, as all the Prophets, as well the greater, as the less, the Book of job, the book of psalms, the book of the Preacher, and Cantica canticorum, englished the Ballett of ballets of Solomon. All which books, certain I am, be of such difficulty, hardness, and obsturitie, that, as queen Candaces Chanamberlain said, they can not be understanded with out a guide, or else Acto. ●. special inspiration of god. As for Genesis, although it be counted so easy, and so plain a book: yet Hieron presa. in Ezech. Genesis might not be red of the jews before thirty years of age. the jews (as saint Jerome witnesseth) might not read it before they were thirty years of age, as in which were many things very hard to be understanded, which required a stayed head, of mature, ripe, and grave judgement, soberly to seek the true sense, and understanding of them, which rash youth would soon overpass, and frame an understanding at their pleasure, such as they phantasied, as many do now a days. Out of this book, although saint Augustin, and other that have travailed in the exposition of the same do move many and sundry doubts: yet I shall overpass them, wishing the Reader to consider the 49. chapter, in the which are contained the blessings of jacob to his twelve Sons, and let him try how he can weighed through the understanding of them, as for example: In the blessing of juda, jacob said: juda is a lion's whelp, from the spoil, my son, if art comed on high. He laid him dowen, Gen. 49. and couched himself as a lion, and as a lioness, who will stir him up? And after a little: He shall bind his fool to the vine, and his Ass' colt to the branch. He washed his garment in wine, and his mantle in the blood of grapes. His eyes are reader then wine, and his teeth whiter than milk. Soche like be the other. How easy these be for the unlearned to understand I refer it to thy judgement, Reader. Exodus, and Leviticus, with the rest of Pentateuchon, although they require an higher sense for a Christian to understand, than the letter soundeth (as Origen declareth) which not all the learned atteign unto, besides the application of the figures to the things figured in the new testament by Allegories, as saint Paul doth in the Epistle to the Galatians, and in his Epistle to the hebrews: yet they contain diverse obscure senses, seeming almost to have no reason in them, as this in Levitious: Ye shall keep my ordinances. Thowe shalt not let cattle gender with a contrary kind, neither levit. 19 so we thy field with mingled seed. Neither shalt thou put on any garment of linen, and . And in Deutronomio, God thus commanded: If thou chance upon a birds nest by the way, in whatsoever tree it be, or on the ground, whether Deut. 22. they be young or eggs, and the dame sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs: Thowe shalt not take the dame with the young but shalt in any wise let the dame go, and take the young to thee, that thou mayst prosper and prolong thy days. Thowe shalt not sow thy vineyard with diverse seeds, lest the fruit of thy vineyard be defiled. Thowe shalt not Ibid. 23. plough with an ox and an ass together. And again in an other place: Thowe shalt not mosel the ox that treadeth out the corn in the Bearn. Shall we take these places in their grammatical sense? doth the high providence of God occupy it self in making ordinances for birds nests? And by god's ordinance, shall a man prosper, and prolong his days that taketh not the dame with the young? doth the wisdom of God join such rewards, to such trifles? And making the ordinance for the thressing ox, doth God (as saint Paul alleging the same asketh) take thought for oxen? No. it hath an other understanding, as their saint Paul alleging this 1. Cor. 9 ordinance of God, applieth it unto. It were enough to make a just volume, if all the obscure places should be recited, that be in the old Testament. But as by these it may be perceived, that the scriptures be not so easy, as men fancy them to be: So truly it is perilous that they (as the adversaries would) should be handled commonly of them, whose understanding atteigning to none other sense, than the grammatical sense, and oftentimes not to that neither, do wonderfully abuse them, to the great dishonour of God, and plain contempt of the scriptures, his holiewoorde. As if the rude and simple should read these sentences above alleged out of Genesis, Leviticus, and Deutronomium, would he not say they were fond and trifling things? And where as wisdom and knowledge be the goodly gifes of God: if the Eccls. 1. unlearned should read the book of the Preacher where it is said: I commoned with my own heart saying: lo, I am comed to a great state, and have gotten more wisdom than all that have been before me in Jerusalem. yea my heart hath great experience of wisdom and knowledge, for thereunto I applied my mind, that I might know what were wisdom and understanding, what were error and foolishness, and I perceived that this also was but a vexation of mind. For where much wisdom is, there is also great travail, and disquitnes etc. If the unlearned (I say) should read this, might he not take occasion to contemn both wisdom and knowledge, and so dishonour God in his gifts? whereunto appeareth more occasion to be given in the next chapter following, where it is written thus: Then I turned me to consider wisdom, error, and foolishness, for who is he among men that might be compared to me the king in such works? Jbid. 2. and I saw that wisdom excelleth foolishness, as far as light doth darkness. For a wise man hath his eyes in his head: but the fool goeth in darkness. I perceived also that they both had one end. Then thought I in my mind: If it happen to the fool, as it doth unto me, what needeth me them to labour any more for wisdom? So I confessed within my heart, that this also was but vanity. What may appear more vehement, to dissuade a man from wisdom? How moche is wisdom the goodly gift of God, abased to appearance in this saying? How is the gift of God magnified to the advancement of god's honour, when in appearance Solomon accounteth the labour for it to be but vanity? I say to you before God, whom I call to witness, that I speak truth. I heard a man of worship, of gravity, of wisdom, of godly life, and of competent learning, able to understand, and likewise excercised in in the scriptures, upon the reading of this book, and conference had betwixt him and me for the same, earnestly say, that it was a naughty book. If he did thus, what will the rude, the rash unlearned, and the ungodly reader do? How little incitament of virtue appeareth to be in the ballets of Solomon? Yea raitheir how ungodly and wanton seem they to be? raither in the outward face teaching, and provoking wantonness, than godliness of life. In the first chapter ye read thus: O how fair art though my love, how fair art though. though havest doves eyes, O how fair art though, my Cant. 1. beloved, how well fawoured art though. Hour bed is decked with flowers, the syllinges of our house are cedar tree. And again: O stand up my love my beautiful and come. For lo; the winter is now past, the rain is away and gone. The flowers are comed up in the fields, the time of the birds singing is comed, and the voice of the Turtle dove is heard in our land. The fig tree bringeth forth her figs, and the Vines bear blossoms, and have a good smell. O stand up my love, my beautiful, and come my dove out of the caves of the Rockke, out of the holls of the walls. O let me see thy countenance, and hear thy voice. For sweet is thy voice, and fair is thy face, etc. Like unto this is all that book. What can the unlearned find, or understand here? any thing to edification of godly life? or rather (as is said) a provocation to wanton life? Yet jesus Son of Syrac seemeth to have more unseemly words than these, yea so unseemly, as an honest men would be ashamed to speak them, as I also would be ashamed to write them, if they were not scripture. He speaking of an harlot, writeth thus Like as one that goeth by the way, and is Ecclesiast. 62. thirsty, so shall she open her mouth, and drink of every next water, that she may get. By every hedge shall she sit her down, and open her quoiver to every arrow. What trifling, what jesting, what pastime, I have heard and seen upon the reading, and reherfall of this text, and what unseemly, and unchaist words have fallen out by occasion of the same, it is unmeet in this place to be rehearsed. But this I will report, for that as truly as God liveth, I know it to be true. This text was spoken in the presence of a good virtuous gentlewoman, and one that feared God, and she misliking the same, it was avouched to her to be scripture. The book was turned, the place was red, she exclaimed, and said: that if the scripture had soche bawdy words, she would no more believe the scripture. for it was nought. with more such like words, which now memory retaineth not. May not this grieve a christian heart, that the scriptures Gods holy word should be thus blasphemed? And what is the cause of it? verily because they be made common to their hands, that understand them not. That this place was not understanded of them that handled the same, as is afore said, it is more manifest than I need report. For the effect well proveth it. Now to put a conclusion to this, that is here said: little doth it awaill them to read the scriptures, that understand not what they read. But raither (as Origen saith) they may as well take occasion of evil as of good by reading the scriptures, and not in their true sense and meeming understand them. whose sentence for the better declaration thereof, I have here noted: Opera carnis divinorum voluminum historia continet, non valde eos iwans, qui sic eam intelligunt ut scripta est. Quis enim non docebitur scruire luxuriae, & fornicationem habere Origen. 10. li. Strom. pro nihilo, cum judam ad meretricem legerit ingredientem, & Patriarchas multas pariter habuisse uxores? Quomodo non ad idololatrian provocabitur, qui sanguinem taurorum, & caeteras Levitici victimas, non plus quàm in litera sonat, putaverit indicare? Gene. 38. Quod autem inimicitias in aperto positus scripturae sermo, doceat, & ex hoc loco probatur: Filia Babylonis misera, beatus qui retribuet tibi retributionem, quam retribuisti nobis. Psal. 136. Psal. 100 Beatus qui tenebit, & allidet paruulos suos ad petram. Et exillo: In matutino interficiebam omnes peccatores terrae: et ex ijs similibus, de contentionibus videlicet, aemulatione, ira, rixis, dissentionibus. Ad quae, si non altius aliquid sentiamus, provocant nos magis historiae exempla quàm prohibent. Haereses quoque magis de carnali scripturae intellectu, quam de opera carnis nostrae (ut plurimi aestimant) substiterunt. Nec non ebrietates, et invidiam, per legis literam discimus. Inebriatur Noë post Diluuium, et Patriarchae apud fratrem joseph in AEgypto. The histories of God's books (saith Origen) contain the works of the flesh which history doth not much help them, which dooso understand it, as it is written. For who shall not be taught to serve voluptuous pleasure, and to account fornication for nothing, when he shall read judas to have taken an harlot, and the patriarchs to have had many wives at once? How shall he not be provoked to Idolatry, who shall think the blood of Bulls, and other levitical sacrifices, no more to show unto him then the letter soundeth? That the plain saying of the scripture teacheth enmities, it is proved both by this place: Daughter of Babylon, thou shalt come to misery thyself: yea happy shall he be that rewardeth thee, as though havest served us. Blessed shall he be that taketh thy children, and throweth them against the stones. And also by that place: I shall soon destroy all the ungodly that are in the land. And by such other like unto these, as of contention, envy wrath, brawlinges dissensions unto the which if ye understand not some higher thing, the examples of the histories do more provoke us than forbid us. Heresies also diverse histories of Scripture literally taken, do more provoke sin, than forbid it. have been more by the carnal understanding of the scriptures, then by the work of our flesh, as many do think. We learn also by the letter of the law drunkenness, and envy. Noë after the flood was drunken. And the patriarchs also were drunken, being with their Brother joseph in AEgypte. Thus Origen. Now then as in this chapter ye have heard a number of books and places of scripture recited, which well prove the obscurity and hardness of the same: So in the end ye have heard Origen declaring his mind, that to understand but the carnal sense of it, is raither hurtful to edification, then profitable. Peradventure some will grant that the old Testament is dark and hard, but the new Testament (they will say) is easy and plain: But that this likewise, is not easy for every man to understand, the chapter following shall declare? THE third CHAPTER TO DECLARE the new Testament not to be easy to be understanded bringeth diverse obscure places of the same. THAT the new Testament is hard to be understanded it is sufficiently proved in the frist chapter. Nevertheless that the Reader may have some experience of that, that by Authority is said: I shall lay before him certain places, which shall enforce him to confess, that by his own judgement to be true, which by the scriptures he hath already heard taught and affirmed. And first let him begin with the Genealogy of christ described unto us by two Evangelists, Matthew, and Luke. And let them be compared together, and trial made, whether it be isaiah to concile them or no. Matthew beginneth at the elders, as at Abraham, and so descendeth to christ: Luke beginneth at christ and ascendeth up to the elders; even unto Adam, and so to God. In the which Genealogy Luke saith that christ The Evangelists Matthew, and Luke seem to varte in the genealogy of christ. was the supposed son of joseph, and that joseph was the son of Heli: Matthew saith that jacob begat joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born jesus, which is called christ. So that Luke saith: that josep was the son of Heli, and Matthew saith he was the son of jacob. Which dysagrement julianus Augustus, the Apostata, as saint Hieron saith, objected unto us. Which objection all though it be solved by saint Hieron: yet there remaineth a great difficulty how these Genealogies should be true, and both pertain to christ: seeing that from joseph, to David there is none agreement betwixt them, as by comparing of the evangelists together, ye shall easily perceive. Which I say not as that there is in deed no agreement or consonant truth betwixt them: But that it may the raither appear and be well known, that the truth of the history of the Gospel lying hid, it is not easy for every man to find out the same. Chrysostom also findeth an other obscure place, for thus he saith: Illud Chrysostom. in pri. Matth. quoque inter occulta numeratur, quomodo Elizabeth de Levitica existens tribu Mariae cognata dicatur. That also is to be enombred among the hid things, how that Elysabeth being of the tribe of Levi, may be called the cousin of Mary Forasmuch as the law was, that men should marry within their own tribes it doth, appear that Elisabeth being married to Zacharie, she was of the same tribe. Likewise that joseph being of the tribe of juda, and marrying the virgin Mary, that she was of the same tribe. Which thing is declared by saint Hierom and Chrysostom also in soluing this double: Why the Evangelists do bring the order of the genealogle of Christ to joseph, seeing that joseph was not the father of Christ in deed, but his putative or supposed father? To this they answer, that joseph and Mary being of one tribe, the Genealogy cometh right to Christ. So then Mary being of the tribe of juda, and Elisabeth of the tribe of Levi, the doubt standeth how the virgin Marie should be cousin to Elisabeth. And yet the Evangelist saint Luke reciting the words of the Angel, saith: Et ecce Elizabeth cognata tua, & ipsa concepit filium in senectute sua. And behold Luc. 1. thy cousin Elisabeth she also hath conceived a son in her old age. Also it is not without Doubt that is said of our master christ (as the Evangelist saint Mark reciteth) where he speaking of the coming of Marc. 13. the Son of man to the general judgement saith: De die autem illa, & hora, nemo novit, neque Angeli in caelo, neque filius, nisi pater, But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the Angels which are in heaven, neither the Son himself, save the Father oneli. Which doubt is lively opened and set forth by the holy father Chrysostom in the xlviij homely upon saint Matthew, where among other godly words as touching this matter he saith thus: Quis haec unquam Chrysost. hom. 48. dicere potuit? Patrem filius optimè novit, & eo prorsus pacto, quo pater filium: diem autem illum ignorat? Praeterea, Spiritus dei profunda investigat: Filius verò nec tempus novit? Sed quomodò quidem judicare oporteat, non fugit eum, & archana singulorum clam eo non sunt, quod autem multo vilius est, id ignorat? Adhuc, quomodò is per quem omnia facta sunt, & sine quo factum est nihil diem illum ignorabit? Qui enim secula fecit, is profectò creavit & tempora, & diem produxit, quomodò igitur quae ipse produxit, ignorat? Who could at any time (saith Chrysostom) say thesethinges? The Son knoweth the Father very well, and even the very same way that the Father knoweth the Son, and doth he not know that day? Moreover the Spirit of God searcheth the deep bottoms of the secrets of God, and doth not the Son know the time? But how he must judge the world, he is not ignorant, and the secrets of all men are not hidden from him and is he ignorant of that, that is not so worthy a thing? How also doth he by whom all things are made, and without whom nothing was made, not know that day? he that made the worlds, he truly created the times, and brought forth the day, how then doth he not know that, that he produced? Thus moche chrysostom, whereby ye may see what doubt there is in the text, Which if it should be understanded as it lieth, what error and heresy should spring out of it? Thus as many a man swimming above upon the smooth of the water seeth not the deep bottom thereof: So many a man reading the smooth face of the Scripture, seeth not the deep doubts of the same. Algasia and Hedibia women both virtuous, and studious by their studies Hieron. ad Alg. qn. 1. perceived many dark places in the scriptures, which they not taking upon them rashly to explicate, as persuading themselves that the scriptures were not easy and plain, sent from the furthest parts of France to saint Hierom then being at Bethleem, the one of them twelve questions: The other eleven questions, which all be of the new Testament, as well of the gospels, as of the Epistles. Algasia moveth this doubt: why saint john the Baptist being in prison sent his disciples to christ ask him this question: Art if he that shall come, or do we look for an other? seeing before he had appointed him Luc. 7. joan. 1. with his fingar, saying of him. Ecce agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccata mundi Behold the lamb of god, behold him that taketh away the sins of the world. It augmenteth the doubt also, that John had baptized christ, at which time he knowing him to be christ the very Messiah, did not only say to christ, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest though to me? But also saw the heavens open and the Spirit of God descending like a dove, Matth. 3. and lighting upon him, and heard also the voice from heaven saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: how then doth he ask this, whether he be the Messiah that should come, or that they must look for an other? This (as I suppose) may well appear to be a doubt to a simple reader, and not without consultation of learned men to be dissolved. Hedibia moveth this doubt among other in the gospel, How saint Matthew saith, Marry Magdalen with the other Mary fell down at the feet of joan. 20. Matth. 28 Hed. qu. 5. Hieron. add Christ after his resurrection, and held his feet: seeing that saint john saith, that Christ forbade her saying: touch me not, For I have not yet asscended to my Father. It seemeth that one of these must be untrue. another doubt moche like unto this there is betwixt saint john and saint Mark. Saint Mark saith: when the Sabbath was past, Marry Magdalen, Marc. 16. and Mary jacobi, and Salome, bought sweet odours, that they might come and anoint jesus. And early in the morning the first day of the Sabbath, they came to the Sepulchre, when the Sun was risen. Saint john saith: The first day of the Sabbath came Mary Magdalen early in joan. 20. the morning when yet was yet dark. It is not very easy for an unlearned reader to agree these two. In the story of the resurrection of Christ, there be a great number of apparent Matth. 28. joan. 20. Marc. 16. contrarieties: as of the time of the resurrection: of the appearing of the Angels in the Sepulchre: of their number: of their place: and soche other, which all generally to enombre it were to long. The same Hedibia moveth also this doubt: whether that christ breathing on his Apostles (as saint john saith) and saying: Take ye the holy Hieron. ad Hed. q. 9 joan. 20. Act. 1. Ghost, gave them then the holy Ghost: that saint Luke saith, immediately before his ascension, he promised that he would send them the holy Ghost. If he gave them the holy Ghost before his ascension, it appeareth that he would not, or needed not to send him to them after his ascension. Tus it may be seen that there be obscure and dark places in the Gospel. To conclude there be innumerable places having moche doubt, which saint Austen with great labour and travail doth right learnedly dissolve, making for that purpose a great volume entitled, De consensu Euangelistarum. of the consent of the Evangelists, which had been vain and superfluous, if the gospels were easy & plain for every man to understand. What needed the commentaries of saint Hierom. and of saint Ambrose upon the Evangelists: The homilies of Chrysostom, and saint Austen upon the same: The expositions also of a great number of famous and learned men, which with great study, labour, and travail have made their works, if the scriptures be so plain and easy? I have brought but a few places of the Gospels to make a little show, and to advertise the reader, by these few to be circumspect in meddling. For the scriptures be a depth of a great profundity. And now will I do the like out of the Epistles. THE FOURTH CHAPTER CONtaineth certain hard places of the Epistles. TO begin with the Epistle of saint Paul to the Romans, In the epistle to the Romans be more obscure than plain places. which as it is first in the order of the epistles, so shall it be here first spoken of, it is more easy there to find obscure and dark places, loaden with difficulties and doubts, than it is to find easy and plain places. There is disputed the matter of justification, which how hard a matter it is, if there were none other argument to prove it, the controversies that be thereupon risen in this our time, might suffice to declare it. And yet it is not easy for all men, that read that same epistle, well to understand this place of saint Paul: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine Rom. 3. operibus legis. We hold that a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law: seeing saint james in his epistle saith: What availeth it my brethren, though a man say, he hath faith, if he have no works, can faith save him? After he concludeth thus: Even so faith, if it have no works, it is jaco. 2. dead in ytself. Again saint Paul saith: We say that faith was recknid to Abraham for Rom. 4. righteousness. And saint james saith: Was not Abraham our Father justified by works? Jaco. 2. In that epistle also is set forth the rejection of the jews, and the calling of the gentiles. In the discourse whereof saint Paul saith thus, alleging the Prophet isaiah for the calling of the gentiles: I am found of them that sought me not, I am manifested unto them, that asked not after me. But against Israel Rom. 10. he saith: All day long have I stretched forth my hands unto a people, that believeth not, but speaketh against me. And yet afterward he asketh thus: hath God cast away his people? He answereth: God forbid: And yet he saith again in the same chapter, speaking of the jews: If the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, etc. wherebily he showeth that the jews be cast away. In that same chapter also he asketh this question: Nunquid sic offenderunt, ut caderent? Have they so offended or stumbled, that they should fall? He answereth: God forbid. And yet within a few lines after he saith: Propter incredulitatem fractisunt. Because of unbelief they were broken of. These matters require a clearer seight of understanding, and heads of deeper study, and judgement to decise them, then have the common sort of readers, which oftentimes are most busy, thinking themselves to see, when in deed they see nothing at all. God give them grace and open their eyes to see their own ignorance, that they may walk within their compass, and not streign above their reach, In the matter of predestination, where upon saint Paul entereth deeply to dispute, there is no sentence without difficulty. So that, as where there be a great number of things a man stayeth, not knowing which to take first: Even so I, in this great multitude of difficulties, know not where to begin, or which to take first? But at the last I take one of the least which is this: Non Rom. 9 est volentis, neque currentis, sed miserentis Dei. It lieth not in the will of man, nor the running of man, but in the mercy of God. This sentence besides many other, hath this doubt: that saint Paul in a Supra ca 7 chapter before saith: Velle adiacet mihi, perficere autem bonum non invenio. Will is present with me, but I find no means to that, which is good. The same saint Paul saith also: Deus vult omnes hommes saluos fieri, & ad 1. Thim. 2 agnitionem veritatis venire? God will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. If God so will, and (as the same saint Paul saith in an other place) voluntati eius quis resistet? Who can withstand his will? Why then walk so many in the broad way to perdition? And why be Rom. 9 there so many Infidels, that come not to the knowledge of the truth? And so many heretics that forsake the truth? And again: if God will have all men to be saved, how standeth the truth of this scripture? Multi vocati, pauci electi: Many be called, but few chosen. If God will have all saved, than all must be chosen. For whom he will have saved, him he chooseth. Algasia also moveth a doubt to saint Hierom in the same chapter of the epistle of saint Paul to the Romans. What (saith she) meeneth saint Hieron. ad Alg. q 9 Algasia moveth great doubts to saint Hierom. Sup. 8. Paul by this saying: I have wished myself to be cursed from christ for my kinsmen as pertaining to the flesh? To the which saint, Hierom answering, openeth the question and saith: In very deed it is a great question, how the Apostle, who before had said: who shall separate us from the love of God? shall tribulation? or anguish? or persecution? or hunger? either peril? either sword? And again: I am sure that neither death, neither life, neither Angels, neither Rule, neither power, neither things present, neither things to come, neither height, neither lowght, neither any other creature shall be able to depart us from the love of God, which we have in christ jesus our Lord. Now under an oath he saith: I say the truth in christ, and lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness by the holy Ghost, that I have great heaviness by continual sorrow in my heart. For I have wished myself to be cursed from christ for my brethren my kinsmen after the flesh. If he be of so great love to God, that neither for fear of death, neither for the hope of life, neither for persecution, hunger, nakedness, peril, nor sword, he may be separated from his love: And if Angels also, and powers, and things present, and things to come, and all the strength of the heavens, and if the heights also, and the dephts, with the universal creature should come against him (which can not be) yet would he not be separated from the love of God, which he hath in jesus christ: what is this great mutation or change, yea rayther a wisdom never heard of before, that for the love of christ he would not have christ? And lest peradventure we should not believe him, he sweateth and confirmeth it by christ, and calleth the holy Ghost to witness of his conscience, that he hath no light, nor small, but great and incredible heaviness, not sorrow that stingeth or vexeth for an hour, but that continually abideth in his heart. Whether tendeth this heaviness? to what availeth this incessant sorrow? He wisheth to be cursed, from christ and to perish, that other may be saved. Thus moche saint Hierom. In the which words he openeth a great doubt that saint Paul, who so fervently loved christ that nothing either in heaven, or in earth, could separate him from christ, now seemeth to wish for the love he bore to the jews to be divided from christ. Which might be an argument, that he loved the jews above christ. As this, after the sentence of saint Hierom, is a great doubt: So is there an other by the same Algasia moved upon the same epistle to the Romans, Hieron. ad Alg. qu. 7. In what sense (saith she) is that to be taken, that saint Paul writeth to the Romans: Vix enim pro justo quis moritur. Nam pro bono forsitan quis audet mori. For scarce will any man die for the righteous man. Peradventure for a good man durst a man die. This sentence seemeth so plain, and the native sense thereof so easy to be perceived, that saint Hierom saith for lack of the true understanding of Two contrary heresies ground upon one scripture. Martion it, two horrible heresies being diverse, and unlike in sentence, but like in impiety and wickedness, took here moche occasion. Martion by this maketh two Gods: one the just God, and creator of the Law, and the Prophets: The other the good God, which is the God of the Gospel, and the Apostles, whose Sonneys christ. For the just God (saith he) few or none have died. But for the good God (which is christ) there have been innumberable Martyrs. Arrius the other heretic (saith saint Hierom) contrariwise, calleth christ the just God, and for his so saying allegeth scripture out of the Psalms, Arrius. where David prophesying of christ said: give the king thy judgements (to God) and thy righteousness unto the kings Son. The good God he Psalm. 71. calleth the Father of heaven, of whom (saith he) christ himself saith: what Luc. 18. callest thou me good? there is none good, but one God, the Father. As these heretics for the obscurity of this sentence of saint Paul (for it is a dark manner of speech in deed; to say: for a just man scarce a manwildie: But for a good man, a man will peradventure die, as though there were a great difference between the just and the good man) through their wicked rashness and headiness, have upon it maintained two notable, and abominable heresies, manifestly repugnant: So likewise have some in this our time, through their arrogant wilfulness upon one sentence founded two conttarie heresies, as much repugnant as these. But leaving the further opening of this to a more convenient place, I will proceed in that is here appointed to the doen. Amandus' a priest writeth to saint Hierom, desiring to be resolved in four Amandus. questions. Of the which one is upon the epistle of saint Paul to the Corinthians, where disputing of the resurrection, he cometh to this place: He must reign till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy that 1. Cor. 15. shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. When all things are subdued under him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him, that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. Besides many doubts, which may be moved upon this scripture, this is one very notable for the maintaining of the Arrians heresy, where he saith that when all things be subdued, then shall the Son himself also be subject unto him, as though the Son of God in Godhead, were subject to God the Father. Which manner of saying, for so much as the holy catholic faith confesseth that he is equal to the Father, is to be taken Hila. li. 11. de Trinita. detestable heretical. This proposition is learnedly handled, and treacted of by saint Hilary in his eleventh book against the Arrians, and this doubt there dissolved. It were to tedious, and all most unpossible for me to rehearse all the dark places of the epistles. Therefore one, or two more, and so an end. To the Collosians Saint Paul writeth thus: Now joy I in my sufferings Colloss. 1. for you, and fulfil that, which is behind of the passions of christ in my flesh, for his body's sake, which is the church. In the which sentence, he seemeth to make the passion of christ insufficient, in that he saith, that he fulfilleth that, that wanteth of the passions of christ. To the hebrews he hath this sentence: For it can not be, that they, which Hebr. 6. were once lightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were become partakers of the holy Ghost, and have tasted of the goodwoorde of God, and of the promiss of the world to come, if they fall away, and as concerning themselves crucify the Son of God a fresh, and make a mock of him that they should be renewed again by penance. And again in the same epistle he saith: For if we sin wilfully, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, but a fearful Ibid. 1●. looking for judgement, and violent fire which shall devour the Adversaries. These two sentences, if they had no favourablier interpretation, them they seem to bear in their grammatical sense, all Christendom might wail and mourn, For the former sentence seemeth to teach, that if a Christian fall in to mortal sin, after that he is christened, and hath received the gifts of God thereunto appertaining, that he can not be reconciled by penance, and so were all hope of mercy for the remission of sins clean taken away. Which thing one Novatus by occasion of this scripture understanding it in the Novatus sense, that it seemeth in the first face to have, taught very stoutly, and so became the Author of a woeful, and wicked heresy. Against which Athanasius wrote an epistle to Serapio, where he declareth that the same saint Paul received the incestiouse Corinthian, and also the Galathians, that had erred Athanas. in faith, to whom he said. O insensati Galatae, quis vos fascinavit, non obedire veritati? O insensate Galathians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth? And yet afterward he said: Filioli mei, quos iterum pariurio, donec Galat. 3. Ibid. 4. formetur in vobis Chrystus. O my little children, of whom I travail again in birth until christ be fashioned in you. The second sentence also seemeth utterly to deny all means to atteign to god's mercy, after we have wilfully fallen to sin, which sentence if it should be understanded as it soundeth, desperation should reign, and hope should be abandoned. What shall I say for the understanding of the scriptures by the common people unlearned, when not only many other learned men through their evil or wrong understanding of them, have swerved, and fallen into sundry and diverse heresies: But also saincteHierom, and saint Augustin, two lights and pillars of the Christian orb, have dissented upon the understanding of a saying of saint Paul to the Galathians, where he saith: When Peter Galat. 2. was comed to Antioch, I withstood him openly, because he was worthy to be blamed. In the which their disagreement there was nothing committed, that either charity betwixt them was impaired, or yet any heresy obstinately defended: but raither the truth learnedly inquired and searched. Wherefore, Reader, I say unto thee: Noli altum sapere, sed time. Be not high minded but fear For arrogancy is mother of error. Put on therefore an humble spirit, and in reading of the scriptures submit thyself to the teaching of thy Rom. 11. Arrogancy mother of error. Mother the church. For the loulie bowing man may easily go without harm, where the stout high looker shall break his brow. Be humble therefore and fear to trust thine own judgement in the exposition of the scriptures, and so will the Spirit of God rest upon thee. For upon whom (saith he) Esay. 66. shall my Spirit rest, but upon him that is humble, and fearing my words? THE FIFT CHAPITRE DECLARING THE Minds and judgements of the Fathers and doctors upon the difficulty of the Scriptures. IT needeth not to travail any more in this matter, when (as I suppose) the Reader is by this that is already said, so persuaded, that he will with hand and foot (as they say) go with me, and join with me in one sentence, and mind. Yet that the arrogancy of the stout ignorant and unlearned, and the untruth of the learned may be confounded, and suffer their worthy shame: the Reader shall hear the judgement of the famous learned Fathers, and doctors, as touching the difficulty, and obscurity of the scriptures. whereby the impudency of such arrogant persons may clerlie and manifestly be perceived, and they, if they have not (as the Prophet Hieremie in the voice of God saith of the people of Israel) gotten an whores forehead, and will not be ashamed, may then in deed be ashamed. Hierem 3. Origen, a man both ancient, and famous in learning handling this place of saint Paul to the Galathians: Vos in libertatem vocati estis fratres. brethren ye Galat. 5. Orig. 19 li. Storm. are called unto liberty, saith thus: Difficilis locus est et ita à nobis disserendus videtur. An hard place this is, and thus unto me it seemeth to be expounded. And after a long discourse in the exposition of the same text, he saith thus: Quamobrem spiritum scripturae, fructusque quaeramus, qui non dicuntur esse manifesti. Multo quip labore, et sudore, et digno cultu in scriptures fructus spiritus invenitur. unde arbitror Paulum, diligenter, et cautè de scripturae sensibus dixisse carnalibus: Manifesta sunt opera carnis. De spiritualibus vero, non ut ibi posuisse; Manifestus est fructus, Sed ita: Fructus autcm spiritus est charitas, gaudium, pax etc. Wherefore let us seek the Spirit of the scripture, and the fruits of the same, which are not said to be manifest. For truly the fruit of the Spirit is found in the scriptures with moche labour, and sweat, and worthy travail. Wherefore I Scripture must be studied with moche labour. think Paul diligently and warely of the carnal senses of the scriptures to have said; the works of the flesh are manifest. But of the spiritual senses not to have put as in the other, The fruit of the Spirit is manifest; but thus: The fruit of the Spirit is charity, joy, peace, etc. Hitherto Origen. In the which saying, first by express and plain words, ye perceive him to say of that place of saint Paul there alleged, that it is an hard place. And asterwarde he concludeth of the whole scripture, that the spiritual senses, and understandings thereof are not manifest, but are to be sought with moche labour, sweat, and worthy travail. Which he proveth by saint Paul. Now things that be easy, and plain are acquired and gotten with moche facility without Labour, or with very easy labour: hard things be not so gotten but contrary wise. Wherefore by Origen it may be concluded that uless as the right senses, which he calleth the spiritual sense, or understanding of the scripture, are to be gotten with moche labour, sweat and worthy travail, they be not easy, but raither hard. Saint Hierom exhorting Paulinus to the study of the scriptures as well by the examples of Ethnics and Philosophers, as Plato, Pythagoras, Apollonius, and such other, which for knowledge travailed over seas and countries: as also by the examples of christians, as of Saint Paul, Timothy, Tyte and such other, maketh it not an easy matter, but raither teacheth how much difficulty is therein. To the which purpose he saith: Aperiebantur coeli Ezechieli, qui populo peccatori clausi erant. Revela (inquit David) oculos meos, et considerabo mirabilia Hieron. ad Paulinum. de lege tua. Lex enim spiritualis est, et revelatione opus est ut intelligatur, ac revelata facie gloriam Dei contemplemur. Liber in Apocalypsi septem sigillis signatus ostenditur, quem si dederis homini scienti literas ut legate, respondebit tibi; Non possum. Signatus est enim. Quanti hody putant se nosce literas, et tenent signatum librum, nec aperire possunt, nisi ille reseraverit, qui habet clavem David, qui aperit, et nemo claudite claudit, et nemo aperit? In acts Apostolorum sanctus Eunuchus, imo vir (sic enim eum scriptura cognominat) cum legeret Esaiam, interrogatus à Philippo; Putàsne intelligis quae legis? Respondit; Quomodò possum, nisi aliquis me docuerit? Ego (ut de me loquar interim) nec sanctior sum hoc Eunucho, nec studiosior, qui de Aethiopia, id est, de extremis mundi finibus venit ad templum, reliquit aulam, et tantus amator legis divinaeque scientiae fuit, ut etiam in vehiculo sacras literas legeret, et tamen cum librum teneret, et verbum Domini cogitatione conciperet, lingua volueret, labijs personaret, ignorabat eum, quem in libro nesciens venerabatur. Venit Philippus, ostendit ei jesum, qui clausus latebat in litera. O mira doctoris virtus, eâdem hora credit Eunuchus, baptisatur, et sanctus factus est. The heavens were open to Ezechiel, which to the sinful people were shut. David saith: Open though mine eyes, and I shall see the wonderful things of thy law. The law is spiritual, and it hath need of revelation, that it may be understanded, and that with open face, we may behold the glory of God. The book in the Apocalypse is showed signed, or fastened with seven seals, which if thou give to a man having knowledge of letters, that he may read it, he will answer; I can not. For it is sealed. How many now a days think Many now a days hold the book of scripture scaled. themselves learned? and do hold the book sealed, neither yet can open it, except he onlocke it, which shutteth, and noman openeth, openeth, and no man shutteth. In the Acts of the Apostles the holy Eunuch, yea raither a man (for so the scripture doth call him) when he did read isaiah the Prophet, being asked of Philippe; Thinkest thou, thou understandest, what thou readest? he answered: how can I, except some body shall teach me? As for me (that I may speak something of myself) I am neither more holy, than this Eunuch, nor more studious, which came from Aethiope, that is from the furthest coasts of the world, unto the Temple. He left the Court, and was so great a lover of the law, and godly Science, that he would even in his Chariett read the holy scriptures. And yet when he held the book, and conceived in his mind the word of God, when he spoke it with his tongue, and sounded it with his lips, he knew not him whom unwitting he worshipped in the book. Philippe came, he showed him jesus, who lay hid in the letter. O great virtue of a teacher. The same hour the Eunuch believed, he was baptized, and made faithful, and holy, Thus far saint Hierom. In whose sentence mark well how many scriptures this holy doctor hath brought forth to declare, and prove, that the scriptures be obscure, and therefore of necessity require to have some exercised and learned in them, to open and declare them, as saint Hierom declaring the cause why, allegeth these scriptures, which ye have heard, and immediately addeth and saith: Haec à me breviter perstricta sunt, ut intelligeres te in scriptures sanctis sine praevio, et monstrante semitam non posse ingredi. These things are briefly touched of me to the intent thou shouldest understand, that without a leader, and one showing the path, thou canst not enter in to the scriptures. Not much unlike to this, declaring the obscurity and hardness of the old Testament he writeth in his epistle to Algasia: Quaestiunculaetuae de evangelio Hieron. ad Algasian tantum, & de Apostolo propositae, indicant, te veterem scripturam aut non satis legere, aut non satis intelligere, quae tantis obscuritatibus, & suturorum typis obu●luta est, ut omnis interpretatione egeat. Thy questions propownded only out of the gospel and the Apostle, do declare, that either thou havest not sufficiently red the old scripture, or else dost not sufficiently understand it. which is enwrapped with so many obscurities, and figures of things to come, that every part of it had need of interpretacon. Thus moche saint Hierom. Saint basil teacheth that all the scriptures are not to be published, and made common, for that some part of them seemeth to require a silence or closeness for their obscurity. Wherefore he divideth the scriptures into two sorts, or partis saying: Aliud est Dogma, aliud Praedicatio. Dogmata silentur: Basil. li. de Sp. S. ca 27 Praedicationes verò publicantur. Silentij autem species est & obscuritas, qua utitur scriptura, ita dogmatum sententiam construens, ut aegrè assequi possis. The points of learning be one thing, and moral instruction is an other. Points of learning, be kept close or secret: Moral instructions are published, and openly taught. A kind of silence also is the obscurity, which the scripture useth, so framing the meening of the secret points of learning, that a man may hardly attain thereto. Saint Ambrose also in a few words saith moche to this matter, calling Lib 7. epist 44. the scripture of God the great sea, having in it a deepness without Bottom of deep senses and understandings into the which many bloods do entre. Chrysostom also upon this text: Vae vobis qui clauditis regnum caelorum, Woe be Math. 23. Chrysost. oinel. 44. in Matth. to you which shut up the kingdom of heaven: saith thus: Regnum est beatitudo caelestis. janua autem eius est scriptura, per quam intratur ad eam. Clavicularij autem sunt sacerdotes, quibus creditum est verbum docendi, et interpretandi scripturas. Clavis autem est verbum scientiae scripturarum, per quam aperitur homimbus ianua veritatis. Adapertio autem est interpretatio vera. Videte, quia non dixit: Vae vobis qui non aperitis regnum caelorum, sed qui clauditis. Ergo non sunt scripturae clausae, sed obscurae quidem, ut cum labore inveniantur, non autem clausae ut nullo modo mueniantur. Propterea dicit Petrus in epistola sua de scripturarum obscuritate, quia non sicut voluit homo, locutus est spiritus: sed sicut voluit spiritus, ita locutus est homo. Ratio autem obscuritatis multiplex est: tamen satisfactionis causa dicimus duas. Obscurata est notitia veritatis, ne non tam utilis inveniatur, quàm contemptibilis. Contemptibilis enim est, si ab illis intelligatur, à quibus nec amatur, nec custoditur. The kingdom is the heavenly bless. The gates of it is the scripture, by the which we enter into it. The keibearers priests are the keiebearers of the scriptures. are the priests, unto whom the word is committed, to teach and interpret the scriptures. The key is the word of the knowledge of the scriptures, by the which the gate of truth is opened unto men. The opening is the true interpretation. Mark ye that he did not say: Woe be unto you, that do not open the kingdom of heaven: but to you which do shut it. Therefore the scriptures be not shut up, but obscure, that with labour they may be found, but not shut up, that by no means they may be found. Therefore Peter saith in his epistle of the obscurity of the scriptures: Not as man would, hath the Spirit spoken, but as the Spirit would, so spoke man. There be many causes of the obscurity of it. But to satisfy I tell twain: The knowledge of the truth is obscured, lest it should not be found as profitable, as contemptible, if it may be underded of those, of whom it is neither loved, nor kept. Thus moche Chrysostom. Who also giveth an other cause of the obscurity of the scriptures, which I reserve to be declared in the next chapter, minding to hear the saying of saint Gregory, forsomuch as it is moche like, and agreeable to the saying of chrysostom. Magnae utilitatis est ipsa obscuritas eloquiorum Dei, quia exercet sensum, ut fatigatione Gregorius super Ezech. hom. 9 dilatetur, & exercitatus capiat, quod capere non potest ociosus. Habet quoque adhuc maius aliud, quia siscripturae sacrae intelligentia in cunclis esset aperta, vilesceret, quae in quibusdam locis obscurioribus tanta maiore dulcedine, inventa reficit, quanto maiore labore fatigat animum, quaesita. The obscurity of the words of God (saith saint Gregory) is of great profit. For it doth exercise the understanding, that by weariness it may be stretched out, and being exercised it may take that, that it could not take being idle. It hath yet an other greater thing. For if the understanding of the scriptures were in all things open and plain, it should wax vile. The which understanding in certain obsture places being found, doth with so much the more pleasure or sweetness delight, as with the more labour, being sought it wearyeth the mind. Thus moche Saint Gregory. I might even to weariness load the Reader, with sayings of the Fathers, testifying the obscurity of the scriptures. But for that I have entered into this matter to use it but as a preparative to that, that is here principapallie intended to betreacted of, I will not tarry upon it, but hear the testimony Hieron ad Paulin. Few do well understand the epistles of Peter James, johum etc. of saint Hierom, as concerning the lesser epistles, called canonical, I mien the epistles of james, Peter, john, and Jude, of the which he saith thus: jacobus, Petrus, joannes, & judas Apostoli septem epistolas aediderunt, tam mysticas quàm succinctas, & breves pariter et longas. Breves in verbis, longas in sententijs, ut rarus sit qui in eorum lectione non caecutiat. The Apostles, james, Peter, john, and Jude, made seven epistles, as mystical, as succinct, and both short and long. Short in words, but long in Sentences. So as he is a rare man, that in the reading of them doth not want seight of understanding. Thus moche saint Hierom. Ye have now heard the censure and judgement of diverse famous Fathers, as touching the difficulty, and obscurytie of the scriptures, the contrary whereof hath not only most falsely, and shamefully been taught by Luther, as I have said, But also with like foolish arrogancy, hath been prattled by his petty disciples to the entrapping, and snaring of many a simple Soul. For they being persuaded that the scriptures were easy to be understanded, proceeded with rash boldness to understand every scripture, as their Heresy through arrogancy hath almost overrun Christendom. phansic moved them, using the scriptures as simple children do the bells, phatasing them to sound, even as their fancy conceiveth, according to the common saying: As the child doth sing: So doth the bell ring. By the which arrogant presumption heresy hath at this day onerrunne, yea almost overwhelmed a great part of christendom. Which how lamentable it is, the charitable christian heart feeleth and perceiveth. But now consider with me (gentle Reader) two things. first their arrogancy, and after their blindness. Their arrogancy is to manifest, that where the scriptures themselves (as yehave heard) do testify, that they are obscure and hard: And saint Peter by most plain words teacheth, that the epistles of saint Paul be hard to be understanded: the common consent and judgement of the noblest learned men of Christ'S Church be agreeable to the same, the experience also not only of this our miserable time, but of diverse other times, in the which heresies have vexed the church, which have risen upon the ohscuritie of scriptures (as Isidore saith) doth prove it, and convince it: yet these arrogant heretics will avouch them to be easy and plain. Is it not more than impudent arrogancy, to stand against so many true, substantial and invincible witnesses? is it not wicked that saint Peter saying that saint Paul's epistles be hard, Luther, and his disciples, yea his very petties, that can but read, and yet not that well, shall say that they be isaiah and plain? Is there any credit to be given to these wicked men in other matters, that so arrogantly against all truth teach this? How little will they bassh in some other matter, where they may through the darkness and obscurity of the scriptures, somewhat cloak and shadow their falsehood, when in so manifest a matter as this is they bassh never one whit? As touching their blindness, the ignorant, that through ignorance can nothing say, doth not more open his blindness then these men do theirs, in saying that the scriptures be isaiah and plain. For as learning, wit and knowledge, move question, Scruple, and doubt: So ignorant blindness doth perceive nothing but plainness, easincsse, and safety. The learned meddleth with the scriptures, with fear, diligence and painful Ignorance as bold, as blind. study: The ignorant with boldness negligence and slackness. whereby it cometh to pass, that is commonly said: who is bolder than blind biarde? As than Origen, Hierom, Ambrose, Augustin, chrysostom, and Gregory through knowledge and learning helped with grace did find perceive, and see the scriptures respersed with many difficulties and doubts: So Luther and his offspring, through blind arrogancy destitute and void of grace see no other but that the scriptures be easy and plain for every man to read and understand, and findeth neither Scruple, ne doubt. Wherefore, Reader, I wissh thee to be advertised raiher to follow Origen Hierom, and the other holy Fathers, and with them to perceive that the scriptures be hard, and so with circumspection, and instruction of the learned to read, or else contenting thyself to hear, to forbear reading, raither then to follow the blind, and so without mistrust walk in rough places, and there stumbling fall into the ditch. An objection. But here perchance ye will object and say: why teach ye the scriptures to the hard, and thereby dissuade men from the reading of them: seeing that Chrysostom in a number of places most earnestly exhorteth men to the reading of the scriptures, and doth not fear them with the obscurity and difficulty thereof? An answer. I am not ignorant (gentle Reader) that Chrysostom doth so. Neither do I forget that Erasmus being very earnest that the scriptures should be red of the common people, useth for this purpose; both the doing and authority of Chrysostom. Wherefore I shall first answer thee for Chrysostom, and after Erasmus. Although Chrysostom exhorteth you to read, yet he maketh you no warrantise of the easiness of the scriptures, that ye may understand, interpret, and expound them, and frame to yourself a doctrine, such one as shall like your fantasy. But (as all ready ye have heard) he teacheth that the scriptures be hard and obscure. But there be two causes why Chrysostom willed the people to read. One that he expounding the scriptures to his people, he thought it should be commodious to them for the better understanding of the scriptures, if they would read that scripture before they came to him, which he would expound unto them. An other that they should read them to follow them. To these purposes, and with this intent, with Chrysost. in psal. 90. the remembrance also, that they be full of difficulties, and therefore circumspectly to be red, it were tolerable they should be red. But otherwise to follow their fantasies, to be doctors and framers of a faith and doctrine to themselves, with the contempt of them, whom God hath called and placed to be teachers, that Chrysostom willeth not as in the next chapter following, ye shall hear him say. As for answer to Erasmus there needeth no better to be made, than Alfonsus Alfonsus maketh. And yet first to say to Erasmus, it is marvelous that he, confessing the scripture to be hard, as he doth in the argument of the epistle of saint hierom to Paulinus, and in the argument of the epistle of saint Paul to the Romans, where he doth with such manner of words set forth the difficulty of that epistle (and yet truly) that it would raither discourage a man from the reading of it, than otherwise move or provoke him to read: it is marvelous (I say,) that he would the common, rude and unlearned people should read that, that he teacheth to be so hard. In the which for lack of understanding many of them, either they spend their labour in vain, or else vainly abuse the scriptures to error, and heresy, according to the vanity of their mind. So that to confess the scriptures to be hard, and withal to will them to be common to the rude people it hath but little show of reason. If they were easy and plain (as Luther falsely teacheth) it might seem consonant to reason that the people might meddle with them, for that, that for the easiness thereof they might wade through them. Alfonsus answereth thus: that although saint Chrysostom would the the people should read the scriptures, as in that time, it is no good collection, that it aught to be so at this time. For oftentimes it is seen, that an order or a law taken & reputed to be good for the manners of the people, and condition of the time, at one time, is left and not put in execution at an other time. As in old time it was used to keep night watches at the monuments of holy Martyrs, the name whereof (which we call Vigils) yet remaineth. Unto the hwich all manner of ages, men, women, bachelors, maidens, and children repaired and came. Which thing was so esteemed in the time of saint Hierom, that when Vigilantius depraved it, saint Hierom wrote very sharply against him for it. And yet afterward (the manners of of the people so requiring) these Vigils were left. Why then doth not Erasmus as well seek to have these Vigils revived and restored, seeing they were used in the time of saint Hierom, and of chrysostom as well as the other was? In the time of saint Augustin, children were communicated: but now it is not in use. The Apostles made an ordinance at Jerusalem that strangled and blood, should be forborn, and not eaten of, but yet it is not now in use, for that the condicon of the time, and of the people is otherwise, Discipline and public penance were in use in the old days in the church, but we be loath now to have it again in use. So, true it is that the people in the time of Chrysostom did read the scriptures, but it followeth not therefore that it is good and expedient that it be so now. For the condition of the time, and manners of the people be farra different. Which two ostentimes, as they do alter & change, cause alteration of orders and laws, as it seemeth to the rulars expedient. It is the office of the people to hear, and learn, and so by that mean to know the law of their Lord God as the scriptures do testify, and putting it in practice, to use due obedience toward God, and his officers, as the next chapter more at large shall declare. THE sixth CHAPTER DECLARING how the people shall come to the understanding of the scriptures. Almighty God, who in most goodly wise disposith all things, and ordaineth nothing in vain, hath thus appointed that the law should be in the mouth of their priest, and that the people should learn it of him, as it is written: If there rise a matter Deuteron. 17 Matters of doubt must be referred to the priests. to hard for thee in judgement between blood and blood, between plea, and plea, between plague, and plague, and the matters come to strife within thy gates: Then shalt thou rise, and get thee up unto the place, which the Lord thy God hath chosen, and come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and ask, and they shall show thee the sentence of judgement. And thou must do according to that which they of that place, which the Lord had chosen, show thee. And thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee, according to the sentence of the Law, which they teach thee, and according to the judgement which they tell thee, shalt though do and bow not from that which He that will not hear the priest shall die. they show thee, neither to the right hand neither to the left. And that man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken to the priest that standeth there before the Lord thy God to minister, or unto the judge, that man shall die, and thou shalt put away evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more presumptuously. accordingly to this also almighty God saith by his prophet Malachi. Malac. 2. Labia sacerdotis custodient scientiam, et legem requirent ex ore eius, quia Angelus domini exercituum est. The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall require the law at his mouth. For he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. And forsomuch as it is so, God willed the prophet Aggaeus, to ask the Aggae. 2. the priests the law, saying: Interroga sacerdotes legem, Ask the priests the law. Upon the which text saith saint Jerome: Considera sacerdotum esse officij, de Hieron. in 2. Agg. Office of priests is to know, and expound the scripture. lege interroganti respondere. Si sacerdos est, sciat legem Domini: si ignorat legem, ipse se arguit non esse Domini sacerdotem. Sacerdotis est enim scire legem, & ad interrogationem respondere de lege. Consider (saith saint Hieron) that it is the office of a priest, to aunsweer him, that asketh of the Law. If he be a priest, let him know the law of God: if he be ignorant he argueth himself that he is not the priest of God. For it is appertaining to a priest to know the law, and to answer unto a question, out of the law. Thus moche saint Jerome. This order thus appointed in the old law, so far was it from the mind Authority is to be obied where corruption of life reigneth. of our Saviour christ to break it in the new law, that although the priests were of corrupt manners, and wicked life: Yet he willed their authority to be obeyed, and their office to be regarded. The Scribes and the Phariseis (saith he) sit in Moses' seat. All therefore what soever they bid you observe, that observe and do: But do not ye after their works, for they say, and do not. Which thing also saint Hierom by express words teacheth to be continued in Hieron. in Hggaei. c. 2 the new law, and that by saint Paul's order to Timothee, and Titus, saying. Et ne forsitan in veteri solùm instrumento haec praecepta videantur, loquitur & Apostolus ad Timotheus: Episcopum non solum irreprehensibilem esse debere, & unius uxoris 1. Tim. 3. virum, & sapientem, & pudicum, et ornatum, et hospitalem: sed etiam doctorem. Et ne casu hoc dixisse videatur, ad Titum quoque super presbyteris (quos et Episcopos intelligi vult) ordinandis, eadem cautela servatur. Propter hoc reliqui te Cretae, ut quae residua erant corrigeres, et ordinares per civitates presbyteros, sicut ego praecepi tibi: Si quis est irreprehensibilis, unius uxoris Tit. 1. vir, filios habens fideles, non in accusatione luxuriae, vel insubiectos. Oportet enim Episcopum irreprehensibilem esse, sicut Dei dispensatorem, non procacen, non iracundun, non vinolentum, non percussorem, non turpis lucri cupidum, sed hospitalem, benignun, justum, sanctum, continentem, habentem in doctrina sermonem fidelen, ut possit cohortari in doctrina sana, et eos qui contradicunt arguere. Sunt enim multi non subiecti, vaniloqui, et seductores, maximè qui de circumcisione sunt: qui bus oportet imponere silentium. Haec prolixius posui, ut tam ex veteri, quàm ex novo Testamen to, sacerdotum esse officium noverimus, scire legem Dei, et respondere ad quae fuerint interrogati. And lest peradventure (saith saint Hierom) these things may seem to be commanded only in the old Testament, the Apostle also speaketh to Timothy that a Bishop should not only be irreprehensible, and the husband Bishops and priests described. of one wife, and wise, sober, discrete, and a keeper of hospitality: But also a teacher. And lest peradventure he should seem to have spoken this by hap or chance, the same cautel is observed unto Tite, for the ordering of priests, whom also he will to be understanded Bishops. For this cause have I left thee at Crete, that if shouldest reform the things, that are unperfect, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I have commanded thee. If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, which are not slandered of riot, neither are dissobedient. For a Bishop must be blameless, as the Steward of God, not stobbourne, not angry, not given to much wine, no fighter, not given to filthy lucre, but a keeper of hospitality, one that loveth goodness, sober, righteous, godly, temperate, and such as hath the true word of doctrine, that he may be able also to exhort by wholesome learning, and to reprove them, that say against it. For there are many unruly, and talkers of vanity, and deceivours of minds, specially they that are of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped. These things I have set forth at length, that we might know as well out of the new testament, as out of the old, that the office of the priests is to know the law of God, and to answer to such things as they be asked of. Thus moche saint Jerome. To this also may be added, that saint Paul saith to the Corinthians, that god hath so ordered his Church, that he hath appointed some Apostles, 1. Cor. 12. God's order in his Church. some prophets, some doctors and teachers. All that is hitherto alleged, as well of the scriptures, as of saint Jerome teacheth and includeth three things. The first is the duty, and office of a priest: The second that the scriptures have doubts, and difficulties. The third that the people must be taught them, and learn of the priests. As touching the first, the duty of a priest is to be learned in the law of god, and godly life also, To both which saint Paul moveth Titus in one sentence, joining them together, even as they anght to be jointly Duty and office of priests. in him that is a priest. In all things (saith he) show thyself an ensample of good works, in the doctrine with honesty and gravity, and with the wholesome word, which can not be rebuked, that he which withstandeth Tit. 2. may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you. As for the office of a priest, saint Paul declareth it to Timothee: I testify (saith he) before God, and before our Lord jesus christ, preach 2. Tim. 4. though the word, be fervent in season, and out of season, improve rebuke, exhort, with all long suffering and doctrine, do the work of an Evangelist, fulfil thine office to the wttermoste. As here the office and duty of a priest is briefly and truly declared: So wish I that they may as briefly and truly be planted, and take good root in all that bear that office. For I writ this with the grief of my heart before God that it grieveth me to see the great lack of these two parts in those that take the office upon them, of the which many lack both good living and good learning. God take mercy upon his people, and send them faithful pastors, which may feed his sheep with the wholesome food of true doctrine, and example of godly living, that God both in his pastors and people may be glorified. As concerning the second, that the scriptures have doubts and difficulties: Scriptures full of doubres. It appeareth by the express word of God, when he saith: If there rise a matter to hard for thee in judgement, etc. Thou shalt get thee up to the priests the Levites. But forsomoch as this matter is already sufficiently treacted of and proved, it is enough here now to have touched it and so to pass to the third: Which is that the people must be taught, and learn the laws of god of the priests. Which thing is so manifestly declared and in so plain words Doubts in the law of God must be dissolved by the priests. opened in the scriptures alleged, that I shall not need to make any further declaration thereof: forasmuch as it is plainly there said, that the doubts of the people in the law of God must be dissolved by the priests, to whose sentence and judgement they must in any wise stand, and not decline from it neither on the right hand, nor on the left, and that on the pain of death. In the which saying of God it is evident, how moche God would that the determination of his church in the doubts of his law should be esteemed and reverenced, and his priests in that respect obeyed. Which how much it is now disdained and contemned, and gods order and commandment neglected, his holy faith and religion infringed and violated, it is more with Scythes and tears to be lamented, then being so manifest as it is, needful to be opened and declared. Of whose mouth the people should learn the law, AlmightieGod by his prophet Malachi telleth. Likewise that of the priests the people should ask People must learn of the priests. the law, God by the Prophet Aggaeus commandeth. Who should teach the people, the new Testament he also prescribeth, Appointing some Apostles, some Prophets, some Doctors or teachers, who to these offices are appointed to rule and instruct the people, In ijs quae ad Deum pertinent, in those things that appertain to God. But now all this order is inverted in many places. The people teach the priests, and not the priests the people. The people dissolve the doubts of the law, the priests not being asked for. The people God his order inverted. speak, the priests hold their peace. The people make laws in religion, the priests are compelled to obey. The people take in hand the things that appertain to God, the priests are put to silence. A much like state we find in the time of Moses' among the children of Israel in the time when Moses was in the mount with God. For they perceiving him to be long absent, and thinking that he would no more come, they began to take the rule upon themselves. And whereas Aaron before commanded and taught them the religion of the true God, now they taking the rule, and inverting the order, commanded Aaron, and taught him such Religion as liked them, of a false God. When the people saw (saith the book of Exodus) that it was long ere Moses came down out of the Mountain, they gathered themselves together Exod 32. unto Aaron, and said unto him: Up make us Gods to go before us. For of this Moses the fellow, that brought us out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become. Hereby may it be perceived, what religion shall be, when the order that God appointed being broken, they will teach and command, which in matters to godward, should be taught and commanded. But with all it is to be remembered, that for this wickedness the wrath of God waxed hot against the people, and notwithstanding that there was immediately Plaguesfor breaking Gods appointed order in religion and ministry. a great slaughter of the people, about the number of three thousand, and that Moses made intercession to God for the people: Yet almighty God in the end said: Never the latter in the day when I viset, I will viset their sin upon them, and the Lord plagued the people because of the calf which Aaron made. Wherefore seeing that the moche like transgression is committed among the Christian people, it is to be feared, that the wrath of God will wax hot against us. But God grant us a Moses, that by earnest intercession, may yet mitigate the plague of God that shall come for this wickedness. The plague, I fear me, will be sore upon Corah, Dathan, and Abiron, and upon the capitanes of the multitude, which be the great and famous men in the Num. 16. congregation, which have gathered themselves together against Moses, and Aaron, and can not content themselves with such order, as God hath put in his Church, and which by his pleasure hath so long continued: But yet they come to Moses, and Aaron, and say, ye make much to do, seeing all the multitude are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Whieheave ye yourselves up above the Congregation of the Lord. I must stay my hand, I shall else be to tedious to the reader in this matter, in the which I thought not to have written the fourth part of that that is written, and for expedition leave unto him to read the strory in the book of Numbers, and so further to consider it. And where there be many stories declaring the displeasures of God to have commed upon the people because they would not submit themselves to the ordinance of him, and his ministers, but would usurp upon them both: Yet I will speak but of one, in the first book of the kings, which is, that where God appointed Samuel, his beloved and holy Prophet to be the ruler of the people, they being a stiffnecked and disobedient people, to gods 1. Reg. 8. order so long before) used, all the elders gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel, and said unto him: Behold thou art old, and thy Sons walk not in thy ways, Now therefore make us a king to judge us, as all other nations have. See their fantastical providence, and therewith their disobedience. They take in hand to provide for their common wealth, as though God could not provide them as good a ruler after Samuel, as he did in providing of Samuel. And therefore (the ruler which God appointed rejected) make us, say they, a king. But what said Almighty God to Samuel? Hear the voice of the people, for they have not cast thee away, but me, that I should not reign over them. 1. Reg. 12. And after that they had a king, Samuel, to cause them to understand, that their offence was great, said: I will call unto the Lord, and he shall send thunder, and rain, that ye may perceive and see how that your wickedness is great, which ye have done in thee seight of the Lord, in ask you a king. And they said, Pray for us thy servants unto the Lord thy God that we die not, for we have sinned in ask us a king. As these people offended for that they abid not in the order that God appointed them: So our people now a days following the inventions of their heads, and casting away their rulers, which God hath appointed, and taking such as God hath not appointed, rejecting also the holy religion and faith of God universally received, and framing themselves a faith and Religion newly invented, and but privately used, have not only offended, but (as saint Augustine saith) they have showed their great madness. Si quid divinae Aug. ad. januar. Epla. 118. scripturae praescribit autoritas, non est dubitandum, quin ita facere debeamus, ut legimus. Simi litter etiam si quid per orbem frequentat Ecclesia. Nam hoc quin ita saciendum sit disputare, insolentissimae insaniae est. If the authority of the scripture of God doth prescribe any thing, it is not to be doubted but that we aught to do as we read. Likewise what so ever the Church through the world doth observe for to dispute but that this aught so to be done, it is most arrogant or foolish madness. As, I say, our people have offended with the children of Israel in these and other before mentioned: So God grant than to be contended with Gods order, and to repent with the children of Israel and say: peccavimus, we have offended, and so their eyes through meekness opened, theymaie meek see their igno rance, and acknowledging the same, may judge themselves more meet to hear then to speak, to learn then to teach, to obie then to rule, as the authority and examples of the most famous fathers and men of Christ'S Churchemaie move. Of which some shallbe showed in the next chapter. THE SEVENTH CHAPTER DECLARING THE same by examples of the Fathers and authorities of the Doctors of the Church. Moyses', when his death drew near, willing that the great wonders that God had wrought should not by oblivion, be wiped out of memory, not only to the children of Israel that then lived, but to all their posterity, as well their spiritual, as carnal children, he gave this rule: Interroga patrem tuum, & annunciabit tibi, maiores tuos & dicent tibi. Ask thy father and he will show thee, thy Elders and they will tell thee. Deut. 32. Although Moses had written five books, wherein he had most excellently declared the mighty works, and wonderful miracles of God: Yet he did not send all the people only thither to learn, but he willed them to learn of Scripture must be learned of the Fathers. The Father's learned of their elders. The Apostles learned of Chryst. Prayer required to understand the scriptures. their Elders, what were the great works of God: Even so now a days all men may not be sent to the scriptures to learn, but they must learn of their fathers, what be the goodly works of God contained in the Scriptures. If ye ask all the holy ancient Fathers of whom they learned, they will answer, of their teachers, Fathers, and Elders. The Apostles learned of our master christ, who were not in a soddein absolutely, and perfectly learned, but were three years and more in learning, although they learned of so noble a Schoolmaster, whom it pleased so to use his Scholars the holy Apostles, as thereby to insinuate unto them, that the knowledge of the scriptures is not rashly to be had, either with a days hearing, or with a years studying, but it is (as Origen saith) withgreate study and prayer to be gotten. Non studin solum nobis adhibendum est, ad discendas sacras literas, verùm & supplicandun Domino, & diebus ac noctibus obsecrandun, ut veniat Agnus ex tribu juda, & ipse accipiens librum signatum, dignetur aperire. Not only study (saith Origen) is to be applied to learn the holy scriptures, but supplication must be made unto our Lord, and prayer used days and nights, that the Lamb of the Tribe of juda may come, and that he taking the sealed book, may vouchesaif to open it. Thus moche Origen. After this manner the holy disciples and fathers did learn of their seniors as Fathers of the Church learned of their Elders. the histories do declare. So did Mark, Clemens, Linus, and Cletus learn of saint Peter. So did Titus, Timotheus, Lucas, and Dionysius of saint Paul. Ignatius, Policarpus, and Papias of saint Ihon. Of Papias, Tertulian. Of Pantenus Origen. Of Origen, Dionysius Alexandrinus. Of Tertulian, Cyprian. Of Dydimus and Gregory Nazianzen, saint Hieron. Of Theophilus, saint cyril. Of saint Ambrose, saint Augustin. Of saint Augustin, Primasius, and Orosius. And so a great number of other, which did not only with holy life, and devout prayer apply their great and plainfull study: but also travailed many and diverse countries to seek famous and holy learned men, of whom they might be instructed in the Scriptures. The Ecclesiastical history declareth that two notable learned holy Fathers Eccles. hist. li. 11. ca 9 Saint basil and Grego Nazian. how they learned the scriptures. Basil, and Gregory Nazianzen lay thirteen years in a Monastery, in the study of the Scriptures, and yet presumed not of their own heads, but used the learned help and instruction of their elders, whose learning and authority, they diligently and obedientlie followed. The words of the history be these: Gregorius cum se totum dei seruitio mancipasset, tantum de collegae amore praesumpsit, ut sedentem Basilium de doctoris cathedra deponeret, ac secum ad Monasterium manu iniecta perduceret, ibiue per annos (ut aiunt) tredecim, omnibus Graecorum saecularium libris remotis, solis divinae scripturae voluminibus operam dabant, eorumue intelligentiam, non ex propria praesum ptione, sed ex maiorum scriptis, & autoritate sequebantur, quos & ipsos ex apostolica successione intelligendiregulā suscepisse, constabat. Gregory, when he had given and bound himself wholly to the service of God, presumed so moche upon the love of his fellow, that he put Basille sitting, from the chair of a doctor or teacher, and taking him by the hand led him with him to the Monastery, and there by the space of thirteen years (as it is reported) all profane or secular books of the Grecians removed, they applied their diligence and labour to the only books of God's Scripture, and poursewed the understanding of the same, not of their own presumption, but by the writings and authority of their Elders, who also themselves (as it was well known (received the rule of understanding by succession from the Apostles. Thus much the history. Saint Jerome of himself saith: Nobis curaefuit, cum eruditissimis Hebraeorum hunc laborem subire, ut circumiremus provinciam, quam universae ecclesiae Christi sonant. Fateor Hier. ad Domnion, et Rogatian Saint Hierom how he learned the scriptures. enim mi Domnion & Rogatiane charissimi, nunquam me in divinis voluminibus proprijs viribus credidisse, nec habuisse opinionem meam, sed ea etiam, de quibus scire me arbitrabar, inter rogare me solitum. Quantomagis de ijs, de quibus anceps eram? This care had I, that with the best learned of the hebrews I would go round about the Province, which all the churches of christ do speak of. For I acknowledge (my dearest beloved Domnion, and Rogatian) that I never trusted moche to my own judgement in the study of gods books, neither have I had my own opinion, but I have used to ask of other, yea even those things, which I thought I did understand, how moche more those things of the which I was doubtful. Thus moche saint Hierom. By the which saying, how may they bash and be ashamed who having rash readers, and arrogant teachers may be abashed. scant any taste of learning, take upon them not only to read the scriptures, but also to determine, to expound, to answer, to dissolve, yea without all stop to wade through all matters of the scriptures? where saint Hierom a man of great learning, and famous in knowledge, did not so far presume in matters, that he did think hïmself to understand, but he would consult, and learn the ïudgement of his Elders being learned, and much more would he so do in doubtful matters. Although in the time of Saint Hierom many did study the scriptures, which if the people could now reverently and meek use, taking no more upon them, than becometh them, and as to their calling appertaineth, Many presume to teach before they learn. Hieron. ad Prulinum. might be tolerated, but the arrogant abuse, than beginning among the people, which now hath invaded and troubled a great part of the Church; that is, that every man would be a teacher before he haveth learned saint Hierom could not contain, but complain and exclaim upon it saying: Ad minores artes veniam, & quae non tam lingua, quàm manu administrantur. Agricolae, cementarij, fabri metallorum, lignorumúe caesores, lanarij quoque & fullones, & ceteri, qui variam supellectilem, & vilia opuscula fabricant, absque doctore non possunt esse quod cupiunt. Quod medicorum est, promittunt medici, tractant fabrilia fabri. Sola scripturarum ars est, quam sibi passim omnes vendicant. Scribimus indocti, doctic poëmata passim. Hanc garrula anus, hanc delirus senex, hancsophista verbosus, hanc universi praesumunt, lacerant, docent antequam discant. Alij adducto supercilio grandia verba trutinantes, inter mulierculas de sacris literis philosophantur. I will come to the lower sciences, and such as are exercised, not so much with tongue as with hand. ploughmen, Masons, metal smith's, Carpenters, Wollmen, fullers, and other which do make diverse things of household, and vile works, without a teacher they cannot be that they would be. physicians promiss what to Physicians appertaineth, Crafts men handle things to crafts men appertaining. It is only presumptuous teachers. the science of the scripture, which all men every where challenge, and take upon them. Learned and unlearned, we writ Poëtes works every 〈◊〉 This science of the scripture, the chattering old wife, this science the old●●otinge man, this science the babbling Sophistre, this science all men presume on, they tear it, they teach it before rhey can learn it. Some with high look and great pride weighing grave words, utter their wisdom out of the scriptures amongst women. Thus moche saint Jerome. Whose words if a man will apply to this our time, he shall perceive them, in every part to be true And by these words the Reader may well perceive how moche it misliked saint Jerome, that all manner of people would be prattelers, babblers, manglers, and mincers of the scriptures, meddling, reasoning, and disputing of things they can no skill of, and presuming to teach before they have learned. Which great abuse. I would to God it were yet no more in this our time, than it was in saint Hieroms' time. Note further (which is the thing that is intended here to be spoken of) No man may be his own teacher in the scriptures. that willing no man should be his own master and teacher in the understanding of the scriptures, he bringeth forth for an example mechanical arts, or handy crafts, which (he saith) be not perfectly learned without a teacher, as though he should thereby conclude, that the scriptures can much less be learned, except the reader have a teacher. He proveth the same also by the sciences liberal, for the obteininge of which, many philosophers have travailed diverse and many far countries to hear famous men teach the same. Jbidm. Likewise in the same epistle when he had by diverse scriptures proved the difficulty of the same, he assigneth the cause of his so doing, as is before showed in the first chapter, by these words. Haec à me breviter per stricta sunt, ut intelligeres te in scriptures sanctis, sine praevio & monstrante semitam non posse ingredi. These things (saith he) are of me breifli touched, that if shouldest understand, that without a foreleader and a shower, thou canst not enter the path into the holy scriptures. Now where this Proclaimer would, that it should be proved by some ancient writers, that the lay people were forbidden to read the word of God in their own tongue, as though the Church had now forbidden them, and would thereby bring the Church in hatred with the people: I let him understand that I never knew any such prohibition given to the lay people universally. For if there had been any such, there should not have been so many learned lay men, both in this Realm, and in other, Proclaimer chargeth the Church with an untruth. as there have been, and be, which have both red, and written of the scriptures in their native tongues, and set their doings abroad to the common reading of all people, as well before these days, as now, and were not reprehended for their so doing, if it were well done, I mien according to the catholic faith. Wherefore I say that he chargeth the Church in this point with an untruth, But this I say that the Church hath feared the abuse of the scriptures, by such of the laity as be unlearned, and therewith rash, and therefore hath rebuked it from time to time, as ye may perceive, saint Hierom did in his time. And I would learn of the Adversary, whether it be not better for the lay people to hear and learn, then to read and read with misunderstanding, uless as misunderstanding maketh heresy, and Mysunderstading maketh heresy Hilarius. heresy condemnacon. De intelligentia enim haeresis, non de scriptura est, saith Hillarye. Heresy riseth upon the understanding of the scripture, not upon the scripture it self. Seeing then, as it is proved, and yet more shall, that the scriptures be full of obscurities, full of difficulties, and heardnes; seeing also the scriptures have Scripture is full of hardness and diverse senscis. many senses, and in some places require Tropes and figures, in some none, in some place they bear one sense, in some other place they will not bear the same: And the unframed capacity of the unlearned, can not thereunto atteign: shall it not be better for them, to learn the true understanding of the scriptures by hearing, then by reading to fall into misunderstanding? marvel not, Reader, at this that I say. For the learned, if they be rassh fall into this danger. For the Arrians, the Macedonians, the Nestorians, the Eutychians, the Pelagians, the Lutherans, the Oecolampadians (of the which sect this proclaimer is) were learned men, and yet following their own arrogant fantasy fell in to the misunderstandind of the scriptures, and by misunderstanding into heresy. Moche sooner the unlearned may thus fall. knowledge of mysteries not common to all. Hieron. prafa. in Ezech. It hath been used among most people of sundry sorts, not to make the knowledge of their high things common of all to be handled. The jews were forbidden to read Genesis and the Balletts of Solomon, before they were thirty years of age. Among the Romans, the Books of the Sibells were read but of certain selected, and special chosen men. Among the Philosophers, Moral philosophy, and specially Metaphysic, was not to be handled of all men, but of such as were thought meet for that study. How moche more than is the scripture of God, with reverence and fear to be handled of the Christians: not that I would it should not be known of all, as it aught to be known, but that it should not be red of all, and thereby through misunderstanding God to be dishonoured, the scripture abused, and not only they that read but other also by them deceived. And thus Reader I wish thee to perceive the godly meening of the Church, to see the shaunder of this proclaimer against it, and with all to understand that the scriptures be hard. Which meaning is not to be imagined now to be in these latter days invented (as this Proclaimer seemeth to charge the Church) but the weighty consideration of this matter, that the people should raither learn then read themselves, was not only in the latin church (as it appeareth by saint Hierom) but also in the greek church, as it appeareth by Chrysostom. For he declaring the causes of the obscurities of the scriptures, and alleging this for the first, saith: Primum, quia voluit Deus alios esse doctores, alios discipulos. Si autem omnes omnia scirent, doctor necessarius non erat, & ideò esset rerum ordo confusus. Nam ad eos quidem, Chrystomel 44. in Matth. Esay. 40. Deutr. 32. quos voluit esse doctores, sic Deus dicit per Esaiam prophetam: Loquimini sacerdotes in cordibus populi. Ad eos autem, quos voluit discendo cognoscere mysteria veritatis, sic dicit in Cantico: Interroga patrem tuum & dicet tibi, presbyteros tuos, & annunciabunt tibi. Et sicut sacerdotes, ne si omnem veritatem manifestaverint in populo, dabunt rationem in die judicij, sicut dicit Dominus ad Ezechielem: Ecce speculatorem te posui domni Israel, si non dixeris impio ut à vijs suis pravis discedat, ipse quidem in peccatis suis morietur, animam autem eius de manu tua requiram: sic & populus nisi à sacerdotibus didicerit, & cognoverit veritatem, dabit rationem in die judicij. Sic enim dicit Sapientia ad populum: Et extendebam sermones meos, & non audiebatis. Ideò & ego in vestra perditione ridebo. Sicut enim paterfamilias cellarium aut vestiarium suum non habet cunctis expositum, sed alios habet in domo qui daunt, alios autem qui accipiunt: sic & in domo Dei alij sunt qui docent, alij qui discunt. First because God would some should why God would the scriptures to be obscure. be teachers, some learners. If all men should know all things, a teacher were not necessary, and therefore should the order of things be confounded. For unto them, whom he would should be doctors or teachers, God saith thus by Isaiah the Prophet: Speak ye priests in the hearts of the people. But unto them whom he would to have knowledge of the mysteries of truth by learning of other, he saith thus in the Canticle: Ask thy father and he shall tell thee, thy elders, and they shall show thee. And even as the priests, except they open all truth to the people, they shall make an account in the day of judgement, as our Lord saith to ezechiel: Behold I have set thee a watch man to the house of Israel. If thou say not to the wicked, that he may depart from his naughty ways, he shall die in his sins, but I shall require his soul at thy hand: So also the people except they learn of the priests, and shall know the truth, they shall make an account in the day of judgement. So saith Sapience unto The storehouse of God not common to all. the people: I did set forth my words, and ye did not hear. Therefore shall I also laugh in your perdition. As the householder doth not make his storehouse or his wardrobbe common to all men, but he hath in his house some that deliver, some that receive: So in the house of God, there be some that teach, some that learn. Thus moche chrysostom. Whose saying I need not to expownde it is so plain of it self. Ye perceive that he teacheth you, that God hath set this order, that the priests should be teachers, and the people learners, and that for this cause God hath willed the scriptures should be obscure. Which in the end of his saying he commendeth unto us to be remembered by a goodly Similitude that the householder maketh not his storehouse, and wardrobbe common to Scripture the storehouse of God. all but certain do deliver, and other do receive, no more than is delivered. The Storehouse is the scripture, where in for the feeding and clothing of man's soul, is reposed great plenty of knowledge, which yet God hath not made common to all men, to take at their own pleasures. But he hath appointed officers to be keepers of this store, which be his priests, to give it forth to the people in due time, and in due manner and form. As all men have not discretion to use plenty well, but some will waste it, some will abuse it, and turn it to other uses than it was made or appointed for & therefore they have not access unto it: So all men having not grace, and discretion to use the plenty of God's knowledge in the scriptures well, they wast it, that is they set little by it, they do but babble and talk of it, it runneth about their lips, as the meat doth about the child's mouth, bosom, and clothes, and is wasted, but it entereth not into their stomachs, I mien into their solves, there to feed them, and make them lusty and fat, that it may appear in their faces, in their outward conversation, and godly living. These be the very wasters in deed, not worthy to have access to treasure houses, storehouses and places of plenty. Some other likewise lacking grace and discretion abuse things of plenty. As the father leaving to the Son great treasure for the maintenance of his living, and the merciful relieving of such as have need, the son abuseth and absumeth the same, in maintaining of quarrels, Suits, contentions, and molestations of his brethren and other, for which cause better it had been that such treasure had been delivered unto him as he had needed it, to help his necessity, than he having the liberty of the whole, wickedly should abuse it: Even so men without grace and discretion having liberty to come to the treasure of the scriptures, where it was given them to good use, as to maintain the godly life that they should lead in Christ, and by counsel to relieve them, that have need of it, they abuse it to Schism and Heresy, whereby cometh contention, Sects, and division, to the great molestation of their christian brethren. Wherefore were it not better, that this treasure were delivered unto them, by such as God hath appointed, and so to use it well, then having liberty of the whole to abuse all? Howsoever than this Proclaimer, to win the people by flattery, would have the scriptures common to all sorts, yet as to the ancient Fathers it hath appeared the best way, that it should be delivered: So shall our miserable experience teach us at the last, that it is the best way? Valdo, a man altogether unlearned having a desire to come into this storehouse of God, caused certain books of the scripture to be translated, Valdo which he reading without understanding, fell into diverse heresies, and became an Author of heresy, having many following, as his Sect, which Valdenses, sive Pauperes de Lugduno. were called after his name Valdenses. and by an other name Pauperes de Lugduno, the poor men or people of Lions. Out of the same fountain of ignorance (saith Alfonsus) sprang an other sort of Heretics called Begradi Turelupini men plainly ignorant, and clear Begardi Turelupini without all learning. All which men's errors proceeded of a perverse sense, and wrong understanding of the scriptures, which they through ignorance mixed with malice, framed to themselves according to their fancies? Now Reader, having heard the minds of the great learned and holy Fathers of the Church, as touching the difficulty of the scriptures, the Luther and zuing. their strange doctrines Luther. in Assertion. reading also, and understanding of the same, of whom also and at whose hands ye must learn the understanding of them: what truth is to be thought in Luther, and Zuinglius, which so plainly to the contrary, arrogantly affirm the scriptures to be easy and plain for all men to understand make it free for all men to read and expowde them, teach that not only men, but also women may openly preach the word of God? And for the maintenance of the same most wickedly avouch all christian men and women to be priests: and to all these mischeivouse and wicked heresies add this most pestilent heresy, that as well a child and a woman absolveth, as the Bishop: O Lord how manifestly repugnant be these pestiferous assertions unto the scriptures? how moche confownding and breaking the orde of the catholic Church? how far dissenting from all the holy Fathers? Luther contrary to himself. yea and in some of these how moche doth Luther dissent from himself. In one book he teacheth (as is said before) that there is no difficulty in lib. de servo arbitrio. Luther's prowdbragges and lies the scriptures, and boasting himself to be ignorant in no part of them provoketh all men to bring him any one place that he can not expound. This is one meet to be an Heresiarch in Satan's synagogue, that to get him credit with his disciples extolleth himself with Luciferane pride accompanied with falsehood and lying, even unto the heavens. But saint Augustine endued with an other Spirit and depressing and making himself low, saith of himself thus: Fateor me in scripturis Dei, plura nescire quam scire. I acknowledge myself, not to know more things in the scriptures of God, then to know. Thus saith saint Augustin. And it is easy for all men to judge, that betwixt these two their is no comparison, whether ye have respect to excellency of learning, or sanctimony of lief. But what truth is in this saying of Luther, his own words in an Luther, in praefatione super psalmos. other place shall be judge, thus he saith: Quocirca ingenuè me confiteri oportet, me ignorare, an legitimam habeam psalmorum intelligentiam. wherefore I must frankly confess, that I am ignorant whether I have the lawful understanding of the psalms or no. And a little after that he saith again: Scio impudentissimae temeritatis eum esse, qui audeat profiteri unum librum scripturae, à se in omnibus partibus intellectum. I know him to be (saith Luther) of most impudent Luther speaketh diversely, as though he were not one, but two diverse men. rashness or foolish blodnesse, that dare say that he understandeth any one book of the scripture in all parts. Confer these two sayings with his other sentence before, and then judge of the Spirit of the man. would ye not think them the sainges raither of two men, the one sober, and the other drunk, or the one sober, and the other stark mad? When I conferred him in his first saying with saint Augustin it seemed to me that I heard Goliath and David, the conditions of the parties, so well resembled each other. Nevertheless how wicked so ever his Spirit and doctrine is. there have been, and yet be to many, that embrace and follow the same. For have not The people's arrogant irreverencia to divine matters. the people, upon this persuasion of the easiness of the scriptures, taken a great boldness, to read and dispute of the highest and hardest matters of all the scriptures? Will they not dispute, and determine in predestinacon? Is it not a common matter almost at every meeting, that man hath no free will? Do not the Taverns sound of justification? Are not Barbre Shops Schools, teaching God to be cause of Sin? do not Inns and Alehouses swarm with disputers of the Sacraments, How many there be, what is the force of them, what is the Sacrament of the Altar, what is the worthiness of it, And what it containeth? Do not the mouths of women, boys, and Girls, breath out most filthy stinking, and abominable Blasphemy, against this blessed Sacrament and the ministracon of the same in streets, high ways and fields? Ah Lord is this the reverence that aught to be given to the holy scriptures, and to the high mysteries of God? Be these matters meet food for all kind of people? If there be any strong meat in all the scriptures this is strong meat. And saint Paul saith: Perfectorum Hebr. 5. est solidus cibus, eorum, qui pro ipsa consuetudine exercitatos habent sensus ad discretionem boni et mali. Strong meat belongeth to them that be perfect, even those, which by reason of use, have their wits exercised to discern both good and enell. agreeably to Saint Paul, saith Gregory Nazianzen. Non cuiusuis Christiani est, Grego. Nazian lib. 1. Theolog. de Deo disserere, non adeò res hec est vilis: neque eorum, qui humi serpentes terrenis studijs occupantur. Quoniam eorum tantùm est, qui habito delectu, ad tantum munus videntur idonei, quique contemplandi acumine caeteros antecellunt, qui iam antè corpus et animam ab affectu purgarunt. It is not appertaining to every christian to reason and dispute of God. This is not so vile a matter: neither is it appertaining Every christian may not reason and dispute of God. to them, which creeping upon the ground, are occupied in earthly studies. For it belongeth only to them, which being chosen, are perceived to be meet for so great an office, and which also in sharpness of perceiving do excel other, which have already purged both body and soul from affection. Thus moche Gregory. In which sentence ye may percceave what difference in judgement there is between these destroyers of religion and order, and this holy ancient Father, for the meddling with matters appertaining to God. Yet the wicked confownders have not only wrought this mischief, but they have Lay men have usurped the office both of preaching and ministering of Sacraments. also brought the people to such contempt, that lay men have in diverse famous places, openly preached, and not only such as have followed study, but plain Artificers, Bricklaiers Shoemakers, Tanners, Stacionars, Grossers, and such like men all void of learning, but filled with pride and arrogancy. Yet Luther desirous to have all order broken, and nothing to be done in order, he giveth liberty also to women to preach. do ye not see a wonderful confusion? And yet there is more. For it is known that diverse lay men have ministered Sacraments, aswell Baptism as other, and have not abashed to minister them openly in churches. O Reader doth it not loath thee to read these things, as it grieveth me to write them? Time will not suffer me to go so far in the rehearsal of these abominations, as grief would enforce me. And yet see how far grief hath drawn me, and as it were by force and violence thrust me on, when I would have stayed. But God open their eyes to see in the scriptures, which they be so desirous Paral. 26. Luc. 6. ibid. 10. Act. 14. 1. Tim. 4. etc. 5. None may exercise the office of a priest but he that is called. to read, the plagues that God hath sent upon them, that have usurped the priests office, being not called thereunto, as these do, and that they may behold the order that our Saviour Christ began in choosing his Apostles, and disciples, and giving them authority to execute their office: to behold also the imitation of the same in saint Paul in the institution of bishops and priests with his own hand, and the order prescribed to other to be circumspect before they did lay on their hands: And then shall they perceive, that not every man for his own fantasy may intrude himself, but only such as be called. THE EIGHT CHAPTER EXHORTETH MEN to hear, or to read the expositions of the scriptures, and not to praesume upon their own understanding. SIt omnis homo (saith saint james) velox ad audiendum, tardus autem ad loquendum, et tardus ad iram. Let every man be swift to hear, but slow to speak, and slow to wrath. This counsel truly is very good and Jacob. 1. profitable. For as in the man of many words there lacketh not of fence: So the (fool as the wise man saith) if he hold his peace, he shallbe Prou. 10. Ibid. 17. Jbid. 17. reputed wise, and to have understanding, when he shutteth his lips. And why, for he hath the property of a wise man. For as Solomon saith he is wise and discreet that tempereth his words. As by silence, is showed wisdom: So by hearing wisdom is gotten. For (as Solomon saith) Audience sapiens, sapientior erit, & intelligens gubernacula possidebit. Jbidem, Sup. 1. By hearing the wise man shall come by more wisdom, and having understanding shall attain to government. Upon the which place saint Hierom hath a goodly saying. Quód autem ait, sapientem cum audierit verbum, sapientiorem effici: ostendit neminem in hac vita ita sapientem fieri posse, cuius sapientia nequeat augeri, semperque moris esse sapientum, ut dictis maiorum, aliquando etiam minorum auscultent, Hieron. in ca prim. Prou. & quicquid in illis utilitatis audierint, ad se replicent, suoue in cord recondant. Denique audivit sapiens minor maiorem, regina Saba Salomonem, & sapientior redijt. Audivit Moises socerum, multo inferiorem sublimior, et sapientior redditus est. Audierunt discipuli Christum, & spiritum sapientiae percipere meruerunt. Audivit Nicodemus, audivit Gamaliel, audivit discipulus eius, tunc Saulus, nunc Apostolus Paulus, sapientes utique verbum evangelii, & sapientiores sunt facti. Qui etiam Paulus cum ad tertium calum raptus audivisset ea, quae non licet hominibus verba loqui, nihilominus ad terram reversus aiebat: Quia ex part cognoscimus, & ex part prophetamus. Whereas he saith the wise man to be made wiser, when he heareth the word, he showeth that no man in this life can be made so wise, whose wisdom The wiseman by hearing may be wiser. may not be increased, And further he showeth it to be alway the manner of wisemen, to take heed to the sainges of their betters, and sometime also of their inferiors, that what profit so ever they find in them; they may reply it to themselves, and lay it up in their heart. To be brief, the lesser wise heard the greater, the queen of Saba Solomon, and she returned wiser, Moses heard his father in law, the higher the far lower, and he was made the wiser. The disciples heard christ, and they received the Spirit of wisdom. Nichodemus heard, Gamaliel heard, Saulus being then his disciple, now the Apostle Paul heard, all these being wise men heard the word of the gospel, and they were made wiser. The which Paul also when he was rapt into the third heaven, and had heard those words, which it is not lawful for a man to speak, yet being returned to the earth he said: Our knowledge is unperfect, and our prophesying is unperfect. Thus moche saint Hierom. In the which sentence two things may among other be noted: the one is, that be ye never so wise, yet ye may be wiser. Wherefore disdain not to learn either by hearing, or by reading. The other that all these, which S. Hierom bringeth in for example, contented themselves to hear, and by hearing came to more wisdom. Let not then the proud or arrogant, be singular in his own conceit, for the superior may hear and learn of the inferior, as here ye have perceived Moses to do of jetro, his wife's Father. If then we should hear and learn of all men, much more should we hear and learn of them, whom God hath appointed in his Church, to be pastors and teachers, whom of duty we aught to hear, as being commended unto us by God and his Church, and preaching unto us now by their books, as sometime they did by their mouths, whose holiness and learning was such, that they may very well be taken for the elders that jesus Sirach speaketh of saying: Ne despicias narrationem presbyterorum sapientium, & in proverbijs eorum conversare. Ab ipsis enim disces sapientiam & doctrinanintellectus, etc. Despise not the sermons of such Eccles. 8. elders, as have understanding, but acqueint thyself with the wise sentences of them. For of them shalt thou learn wisdom, and the doctrine of understanding. But for asmuch as men may appoint to themselves such elders, as they 2. Tim. 4. fantasy, as saint Paul prophesying both of such masters and disciples saith: The time shall come, when they shall not suffer wholesome doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they, whose ears do itch, get them an heap of teachers, and shall withdraw their ears from the truth, and shall be turned to fables: it is expedient that we learn of the wise what elders we shall follow. jesus sirach teacheth us to learn of such elders, as had learned of their Fathers. Ne te praetereat narratio seniorum, ipsi enim didicerunt à patribus suis, quoniam ab ipsis disces intellectum, & in tempore necessitatis dare responsum. Go not from the doctrine Ibid. ●. of the elders, for they have learned it of their fathers. For of them thou shalt learn understanding, so that thou mayst make answer in the time of need In this godly counsel ye perceive the cause given, why ye should learn of your elders, because (saith he) they have learned of their Fathers. As who Elders that are to be followed. might say, the learning that is learned of the Fathers, is no new invented doctrine, it is no strange doctrine unknown to the congregation, of the which S. Paul giveth you admonition, saying. Doctrinis varijs, et peregrinis nolite abduci. Optimun est enim gratia stabilire cor. Be not carried away with diverse and strange doctrines, for it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace: But Strange doctrines are not to be followed. it is a doctrine tried and continued from succession to succession, a doctrine that is permanent, through all ages. Elders that are not to be followed Therefore go not from that doctrine, neither chose you any other elders to learn of, but such as have learned of their fathers. Therefore chose not such elders, as be inventors of their own doctrine, as the Lutherans chose Luther, who teaching that women may preach, teacheth an invented doctrine against the scripture. For S. Paul saith. Mulieres in ecclesiis taceant, non enin permittitur eye loqui, etc. 1. Cor. 14. Let your women keep silence in the congregation, for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but to be under obedience, as saith the law. If they will learn any thing let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for women to speak in the congregation. Luther's strange doctrine. Luther taught that contrition maketh a man a more sinner. In assert. art. 6. And that the righteous man doth in every good work, that he doth, mortally offend. Luther also taught that every christian man is a priest for the common ministry. Ibid. ar. 31 These be strange doctrines, both to the scriptures, and to our elders, and therefore we may not learn of him, for he hath not learned of the Fathers. Zuinglius strange doctrine Zuinglius taught that original offence is no sin. In libel. de Baptismo. Yet David in the psalm humbly confesseth. Psalm. 50. Ecce in iniquitatibus conceptus sum, et in peccatis concepit me matter mea. Behold (saith he) I was conceived in iniquity, and in sin hath my mother conceived me. And saint Paul saith: Natura sumus filii irae. of nature we be the children of wrath or damnation. Zuinglius taught also, In articulis in fine. that the children of christian men need not to be baptized, but if they die without Baptism, they shall be saved: yet christ saith: joan. 3. Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei. Except a man be born again of the water, and the holy ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God. Luther's lucifero use pride. Of this man therefore may ye not learn, neither do ye hear him, for why he hath not learned of the fathers. Which thing most arrooantlie, even Luther (like as it becometh a Lucyferan) following his master Lucifer prowdelie protesteth not a few times, and saith, that he will not be taught of men but of God. O devilish and wicked saying. This is a second Paul. The first Paul saith speaking of the gospel. Neque ab homine accepi illud, neque didici, sed per revelationem jesu Christi. Nether have I received it of man, neither learned it, but by the In lib. con●. Canon. revelation of jesus christ. The second Paul saith that he will not learn of man, but of God. But as there is a first Adam, and a second, the one earthly, the other heavenly: And as in the first Adam all do die, and in the second 1. Cor. 15. all be revived. So our first Paul is heavenly: this second earthly that first leadeth to salvation; This second to damnation. Zuinglius wrote de claritate verbi Dei, of the clearness of the word of God, an whole book, to the intent to make you suppose hard things to be Zuinglius wrote a book of the clearness of scripture easy, and so to pass through them not as the truth would lead you, which is hard to find, but as your fantasy should move you, which is at hand, and that he might with like facility bring you to error, schism, and heresy, and so consequently to damnation. Whereof he being soche a second Paul, is the right ministre. How falsely that book is compiled, this that is here said doth manifestly declare, and invincible prove. What should I trouble thee, Reader, with rehearsal of the false doctrine of Heretics descent among themselves but conspire all against the Church Heretics what Fathers they follow. Oecolampadius of Bullingerus, of Calvinus, of Bucer and of such like? Who although they descent among themselves in many things: yet in many they agree, and specialle in this, that they be all mortal enemies to the catholic Church. Of these fathers hath this our Aduersaire learned his doctrine, of the which he is a stout maintainer as ye have partly heard. But may we hope to drink sweet water, out of a stinking puddle? May we gather (as our Saviour christ saith) grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? May we hope to learn the wholesome truth of him, who hath sucked the loathsome poison of Heresy, of Luther and Zuinglius, of whose detestable doctrines ye have Math. 7. heard, of many their wicked assertions, afewe rehearsed, that by them ye may judge of the rest. He that followeth such doctors and buildeth upon such sands, forsaketh the strong rock: he also leaveth the fountain of the water of life, and puddleth Heretics why they are not to be follow. in the fowl puddles which they have digged, which can not hold water. Wherefore as they be not to be followed, no more is this Adversary, being certain, that none of them all have taught the doctrine that they learned of holy catholic Fathers, but of such fathers as be of the number of the elders, and teachers that faincte Peter spoke of, which should come among us. Fuerunt in populo Pseudoprophetae, sicut & in vobis erunt magistri mendaces, qui introducent sectas perditionis, etc. Theridamas were false Prophets in the people, as among you there shallbe false teachers or lying masters, which shall bring in damnable sects even denying the Lord, that hath bought them, and shall bring upon them selfs swift damnation. Wherefore count them not as elders meet to learn of, least ye be of the number of them, that saint Peter immediately speaketh of: And many (saith he) shall follow their damnable ways, by whom the way of truth shall be blasphemed Of these followers there be some, that solowing the arrogancy of their masters, Corner teachers. will assemble companies in corners, and being rude and illiterate, not brought up in the study of science, but only in trade of worldly crafts will take upon them to teach before they learn as S. Hieron saith. And this among other is lamentable, that men will set so little by the faith of their Lord God: so little by the doctrine of God's Church: so little finally by their own souls, that they will hazard all these upon the credit of such an ignorant uppestarte, who never learned of his Fathers, neither knew what the Fathers had taught. But be not so light (o Brethren) be not so light, have a more stay in you, be not so easily carried away from your Lord God, to your destruction. If ye have committed yourselves to such light masters, open now your eyes, and be hold how ye have been deceived. And to exhort you with saint Paul's words, from hencefurth be no more babes, wavering, and carried about Ephes. 4. with every wind of doctrine, by the wiliness of men, through craftiness, wherewith they lay in wait for you, to deceive you. But follow the truth in charity, and in all things grow in him which is the head, even christ. And this shall you the better do if ye will well regard the counsel of Solomon, who saith thus to every one of you: Audi fili mi disciplinam patris tui, Teachers meet to be believed. Prou. 1. et ne dimittas legem matris tuae. My Son hear thy father's doctrine, and forsake not the law of thy Mother. Upon the which text saint Hierom saith thus: Notandum, quod ita nos disciplinam patris audire praecipit, ut legem quoque matris nullo modo dimittamus, quia non sufficit ut quis se Deum diligere, & eius praeceptis obtem Hier. ibid. perare dicat, si unitatem Ecclesiae fraterna charitate non sequatur. It is to be noted, that he commandeth us so to hear the doctrine of the father, that we also by no means forsake the law of the Mother. For it sufficeth not that any man shall say that he loveth God, and obeyeth his commandments, if with brotherly charity he follow not the unity of the Church. Note well, Reader, this note of saint Hierom, and by this learn to know both when your teacheries good, and when his learning is good, How to know good teachers. if your teacher remain in the unity of the Church, and his learning serve not from the same, nor teach dissension from that, that in it is taught, then is your teacher, and his learning such, as ye may without danger accept. If otherwise, slay it, as from a serpent. And if ye would learn or being learned would be resolved in doubts (as is before said) seek not only such as be only learned, but seek such as being best learned, have learned of their Fathers, and abiding in the same do so embrace the doctrine of their Fathers, that they in no point forsake the law of their mother the Church, as by this Adversary ye are taught to do. For if all christendom may be called the Church, them teacheth he you to forsake the law of your mother the Church. For where is this doctrine of his professed through out the Church, and not raither the contrary? Before Strange doctrines these few years, where was it taught in all the Christian world, that Christ'S body is not in the Sacrament? that it is not to be offered for the quick and the dead? that it ought not to be reserved for the commodity of the sick? that it aught not to be honoured? that soules departed are not to be prayed for? that we may not make requests to Saints to pray for us? and many such other. Teachers not meet to be believed. then he forsaketh the law of his mother, though he pretend to have learned of the Fathers: yet is he not to be followed, because he hath not both these two, that is, both the learning of his father, and also the law of his mother. For they only are to be followed, that have both these. Thus shall ye find the holy Fathers to have done, as first for example saint Hieron, a man not of the common sort of learned men, but an excellent, and singular man, who neither having affiance in his own judgement, notwithstanding his great learning neither seeking obscure teachers, but most famous, reporteth this of himself: Non ab adolescentia aut legere unquam; aut doctos viros ea, quae nescieban, Hieron in Prohemio Epist. ad Eph. ad Paul. & Eusto. Saint Hierom how he learned the scriptures. interrogare cessavi, & meipsum tantùm (ut plerique) habui magistrum. Denique nuper ob hanc vel maximè causam, Alexandrian perrexi; ut videren Didymun, & ab eo in scriptures ommbus, quae habebam dubia, sciscitarer. I have not from my youth ceased at any time, either to read, or else to ask of learned men, such things as I knew not. Nether have I had or used myself (as many do) as master to myself. But of late even specially for this cause I went to Alexandria, that I might see Didymus, and that I might ask of him, such doubts as I had in all the scriptures. Thus saint Hierom. In the which report ye do hear (how cleresoever Luther and Zuinglius make the scriptures) that saint Hieron found doubts therein, and for dissolution of them travailed to Alexandria to Didymus. In which fact also it may be learned that if saint Hieron so notable a man, sought a famous man to learn him, it may well beseem other so to do. Did not Damasus being Bishop of Rome send to saint Hieron to be answered in certain doubts, and disdained Damasus learned of S. Hierom. S. Augustin of S. Amb. Many learned of S. Aug. not to learn of him? Did not saint Augustin go to Millen to saint Ambrose to hear him, and to learn of him? How many that were learned wort to saint Augustin to be taught of him in diverse matters of scripture? It would well fill an whollvolume to number up those that have travailed countries, to hear and learn of good holy learned men, and that have written to other for the like. And therefore to conclude this matter, I will no more but bring in the saying of saint Clement the holy Martyr, and disciple of saint Peter the Apostle, and then enter into the matter, which principally I have in purpose to treacte of. Saint Clement in his fist epistle writeth thus: Relatum est nobis, quòd quidam in Clemens epist. 5. vestris partibus commorantes, adversantur sanis doctrinis, & prout eye videtur, & non secum dum traditiones patrum, sed secundum suum sensum docere videntur. Multas enim quidam (ut audivimus) vestrarum partium, secundum ingenium hominum, ex ijs quae legunt verisimilitudines capiunt. Et ideò diligenter obseruandum est, ut lex Dei cum legitur, non secundum propriam intelli gentianlegatur, vel doceatur. Sunt enim multa verba in divinis scriptures, quae possunt trahi ad eum sensum, quem sibi unusquisque spontè praesumpsit. Sed fieri non oportet. Non enim sensum, quem extrinsecus adulteretis, alienum & extraneun debetis quaerere, aut quoquo modo it sum ex scripturarum autoritate consirmare, sed ex ipsis scripturis sensum capere veritatis. Et ideò oportet ab eo intelligentiam discere scripturarum, qui à maioribus secundum veritatem sibi traditam seruavit, ut & ipse possit ea, quae rectè suscepit, competenter asserere. It is reported unto us, that some duelling in your parts, are adversaries to wholesome doctrines, and are perceived to teach even as it liketh themselves, and not according to the traditions of the Fathers, but according to their own understanding. Some of your countries (as we have heard) take many likelihoods of those things, that they do read, according to the wit of men. And therefore it is diligently to be looked unto, that the law of God when it is red, be not red or taught according to men's own understanding. For there be many words in the scriptures of God, which may be drawn to that understanding, that every man at his own pleasure hath chosen. But it may not Scripture may be drawn to diverse senses. so be doen. For ye ought not to seek an understanding diverse and strange, which ye may adulterate, or by any manner of means by authority of the scriptures in the outward face to confirm, but of the scriptures themselves to take the true understanding. And therefore ye must learn the understanding of the scriptures of him, who keepeth it according to the truth delivered unto him from his elders, that he may also agreeably teach, that he hath well received. Thus far Saint Clement. To take and embrace this order, I mien, to mistrust our own judgements, and therefore to hear our Fathers, and upon their judgements, not upon our own fantasies, to stay ourselves in the true understanding of the scriptures, I have if my judgement fail me not given thee (gentle Reader) god occasion. For first to remove and disprove the false saying of Luther and Zuinglius, who have taught that the scriptures be easy and plain to be understanded (wherun to this proclaimer willing the scriptures to be common, seemeth to agree, and consent, I have proved by diverse and sundry places, yea and by whole books of the old Testament, that the same is very hard, and full of difficulties not able to be dissolved, but by a man well exercised in the reading and knowledge of the same. And the like have I done of the gospels. As for the epistles of saint Paul, it is proved by the invincible testimony of saint Peter, that they be hard, and be depraved of many to their own damnation. And that this might fully appear to thee I have at large opened and proved the same, not only by the saying and judgements of the best and most ancient fathers of Christ'S Church, as of sancte Clement, Hierom, chrysostom and other: but also by their manner of atteigning to the understanding of the scriptures for that they be hard. Which their manner I have also declared by their own testimony. The difficulty of the scriptures thus proved, contrary to the sainges of Luther and Zuinlius, I have proceeded to declare by the scriptures first, and after by the famous learned Fathers, how we shall come to the understanding thereof. Where it is made manifest that we must attain thereunto by the teaching of the priests, which God hath appointed to be pastors and teachers, and Fathers of the people, to feed them, to teach them, and to bring them up in God. And yet may we not learn of every one that taketh upon him the Teachers meet to be followed. name of a pastor, teacher or Father, but of such as teach the law of our heavenly Father, and there withal forgetteth not the law of our mother the holy church. These two properties he must have jointly, for the one without the other sufficeth not in a teacher, as by saint Hierom it is declared. Who also (as saint Clement teacheth) must be such one as teacheth the understanding of the scriptures according to the truth that he hath received and learned of his elders. According to which counsel I minding to search the understanding of certain scriptures which be in controversy, I will repair to them that be the elders of Christ's Church, which I term his Parliament house, and to learn of them the true understanding of those scriptures. I wish therefore the reader, to submit his judgement unto them, as I will do, and all affection set apart, to learn of them, we ought to learn of, who, I doubt not, will so well and clearly open to us the truth of that matter, that we seek, that except we will not see, we shall perceive it. The holy spirit of God give us the gift of understanding, and an humble and docible heart to receive and embrace his truth. THE NINGHT CHAPTER DECLARING that our redemption was prenunciated by promises, figures, and prophecies, and what the promises be, and to whom they were made. Almighty God beholding the miserable ruin of man, and mercifully intending the repair of the same, by his provident wisdom, Sap. 8. quae disponit omnia suaviter, which disposeth all things lovingly, according to his foreknowledge, which was from ever, declared unto man the mean, how by whom, and when his laps or fall should be restored, assuring him of his redemption, even by the word of his own mouth, that where man through his fall had experience of the sore burden of God's justice, he might also have a taste and hope of his mercy, and beholding the goodly contemperament of both in God, might frame also in himself a right temperature of fear and love, fearing for justice, and loving for mercy, and thereby in good order of spiritual melody, yoifullie finge with the Prophet David: Misericordiam et iudicui cantabo tibi Domine. Mercy and judgement will I sing to thee, o lord Psal. 102. For Misericors Dominus et justus. Our Lord is merciful and righteous. Thus I say Man having in practice that God is a God of justice, lest he Assurance of mercy promised to man before full sentence of justice was pronounced. should be overwhelmed and depressed with desperation for lack of mercy, Before the full sentence of God's justice was pronounced, assurance of mercy was made, that man being now pressed with the one, should be relieved with the other. Inimicitias ponam inter te, et inter mulierem, et semen tuum & semen illius: ipsa conteret caput tuum. I will put enmity (said almighty God to the Serpent) between thee, and the woman, between thy seed and her seed, the same shall tread down thine head. By the which words assuredly our first Parents conceived a firm hope of a Messiah, of a Redeemer, and of a Saviour to come of the seed of a woman, that as the Enemy the Devil had craftily supplanted, and thereby overthrown man: So he by noble victory wrought on the cross, and accepted and approved by the justice of God, should debel the enemy the devil and take the spoil from him, which was mankind. And as our righteous, and never the less our merciful Lord God had signified this glad tidings of Redemption to our first Parents, that they might understand the mercy of God, and thereby conceive and have hope and comforth: Even so likewise did he to our Fathers the holy patriarchs, and other our elders notify the same by diverse means, as by promises, figures, and prophecies. Of the which three I shall by God's help severally speak. And first as the order leadeth, I will treacte of promises. To our Father Abraham God declared the glad tidings of our Redemption by promiss, saying thus: In semine tuo benedicentur omnes nationes terrae. Gen. 22. In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. Who was this seed, by whom all nations should be blessed, and how they should attain promiss made to Abraham. unto it, saint Paul to the Galathians by the teaching of the holy Ghost, declareth saying: To Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, in thy seeds, as to many: but in thy seed as of one which is Christ. As saint Paul here by the instruction of the holy Ghost, expoundeth this promiss to be made of Christ: So doubt ye not but the same holy Galat. 3. Spiritie, had breathed the like breath into the holy Patriarch Abraham, whereby he understood, that Christ after the flesh should descend from him, and that this blessing should by him happen to all nations. For all nations shall attain to this blessing, that believe with faithful Abraham (as saint Paul declareth in the same chapter: The scripture (saith he) seeing before hand that God would justify the heathen through faith, showed before hand glad tidings to Ahraham, saying: In thee shall all nations be blessed. So Ibid. 3. then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. In the which declaration we may learn, that the promise was made to Abraham: the fullfilling of the said promiss should be done by Christ, who is that one seed: the receivers of this promiss are the faithful, To king David also he opened the same by promiss saying: De fructu ventris tui ponam super sedem tuam. Of the frnicte of thy body, shall I seeteuppe upon thy seat. which words of the psalm, are a rehearsal of the promiss made to king David in the second book of the kings, where it is written thus: I will set up thy seed, which shall proceed of thy body, and will 1 Reg. 7. establish his kingdom, he shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the seat of his kingdom for ever. Which promiss although the Jews would have to be understanded and performed in Solomon: yet it can not so be, for that these words I will establish the seat of his kingdom for ever can not be verified in Solomon, whose worldly kingdom is finished, and utterly extingnisshed, and was so before the coming of Christ, according to the prophecy of the holy Patriarch jacob, who prophesied thus: Non auferetur sceptrum de juda, & dux de femore eius, Gen. 49. donec veniat qui mittendus est: & ipse erit expectatio gentium. The sceptre shall not be taken from juda, and the lawgiver from betwixt his feet, until he come that shall be sent, and he it shall be, whom the gentiles shall look for. By which prophecy it is manifest, that at the coming of Christ, the kingdom of the jews should cease, whereby it is consequent, that the Christ is the seed Promised to David and not Salemon. Rom. 1. promiss of God made to David, tendeth not to Solomon and his Succession, whose kingdom must have an end, as the prophecy of jacob signified: But it respecteth Christ, who lineally descended from David. Qui factus ost ei ex semine david secundum carnem, which was borne to him of the seed of David after the flesh as saint Paul saith, whose kingdom is everlasting according to the prophecy: Super solium David, et super regnum eius sedebit, ut confirmet et corroboret illud in judicio et justitia, amodò et usque in sempiternum. He shall sit upon the seat of David, and in his kingdom to set up the same, and to establish it with equity and righteonsuesse from hence forth for Esay. 9 evermore. That this is to be understanded only of Christ, the rest of the sentence going immediately before doth make it so plain, that all men of judgement must needs confess, that it can not admit any other understanding. For thus the prophet ordereth the will sentence: Unto us a child is born, and unto us a Son is given, upon his shoulder doth the kingdom lie, and he is called by his own name, wonderful, the giver of counsel, the mighty God, the everlasting father, the prince of peace, he shall make none end to increase the kingdom, and peace. And shall sit upon the seat of David, and in his kingdom, to set up the same, and to establish it with equity and righteousness from hencefurth for ever more. Who is he that is a child born to us, that is or may be called the mighty God, and the everlasting Father, but our Messiah, our Saviour Christ, God and man? who is the Son given to us, that shall sit upon the seat of David, for ever more, making no end to increase his kingdom, and stablish it with equity and righteousness for ever more, but jesus Christ, our very Messiah, the very natural Son of our heanenlie Father, which 1. Cor. 1. is given to us to be our Redemption, justification, and sanctification? Who giving his commission to the Apostles, to preach his Gospel appointed them no terms, limits or bounds, neither did he make any difference of creatures or people, but Ite, (said he) in universum mundum, et Mar. vlt. praedicate evangelium omni creaturae. Go ye through out all the world, and preach the Gospel to all creatures. which thing they so doing, In omnem terram exivit sonus eorum, et in fines orbis terrae verba eorum. Their sound is gone Psal. 18. into all lands, and their words into the ends of the world. His kingdom is wonderfully increased, so that the prophecy of Malachi is fulfiled: Ab ortu solit usque ad occasum magnum est nomen meum in gentitibus, et in omni loco sacrificatur, et offertur nomini meo oblatio munda. From the rising Malac. 1. of the Sun unto the going down of the same my name is great among the gentiles, yea in every place is there sacrifice done, and a clean meat offing offered up unto my name. It is to be noted that the Prophet saith: To the name of God in every place shall sacrifice be done, which manner of doing of sacrifice, being meant of the Sacrifice of Christ's Church so to be done everiewher, well declareth the great increase of Christ's kingdom. Which must needs so be, For Dominabitur à mari usque ad mare, et à flumine usque ad terminos orbis terrarum. His dominion shall be from the one sea to the other, and from the flood unto the Psal. ●1. woorldes' end. They that dwell in the wilderness shall kneel before him, his enemies shall lick the dust. The kings of Tharses, and of the Isles shall give presenttes, and the kings of Arabia and Saba shall bring gifts. All kings shall fall down before him, all nations shall do him service. Here jacobus de valentia expounding the dominion of Christ, which shall jacobus de Valentia. be from one sea to an other, saith that it is from the Sea Mediterranean unto both he Ocean Seas, and unto the south, and so it comprehendeth all Afrique, and unto the north Sea, and so it comprehendeth all Europe: And he shall have dominion from the flood Nilus and Tanays', unto the ends of the world that be toward the east, which comprehendeth all Asia, and so his dominion is over all the world. For being over these three parts, all which three received Christ's faith, and submitted themselves to his holy religion, in to the which three parts the whole world is divided, it may well be said, that his dominion, is over all the world. Christ then alone and no pure earthly king is he, that is promised to David, to sit upon his seat for ever, and to dilate his kingdom, so that there christ, not Solomon promised to David. Act. 13. shall be none end of the increase of it That in this promiss made unto David was meant Christ, saint Paul, also in the Acts of the Apostles declareth. inveni david filium Iesse virum secundùm cor meum, qui faciet omnes voluntates meas. Huius ex semine Deus secundùm promissionem eduxit Israëli salvatorem jesum. I have found (saith almighty God) David the Son of jesse, a man after my own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. Of this man's seed (saith saint Paul) hath God, according as he had promised brought forth to Israel a Saviour jesus. By which words saint Paul teacheth plainly that jesus our saviour, was promised to comen of David. And for that the promiss was made both to Abraham and to David (as it is declared) that Messiah should descend from them both: Therefore the Evangelist saint Matthew describing the Genealogy of our Saviour Christ after the flesh, beginneth the same at Abraham and David, calling Christ the Son of David and Abraham, saying: Liber generationis jesu Christi, filii David, filii Abraham. The book of the generation of jesus Christ the Son of David, the Son of Abraham. And to conclude, two prophets of the new Testament, namely the most excellent prophetess the virgin Marie, the mother of that promised seed Christ, and Zacharias the Father of john the Baptist, do testify this also. She saith: Suscepit israel puerum suum, etc. He hath helped his servant Israel in remembrance of his mercy, even as he promised to hour Fathers, Luc. 1. Abraham and his seed for ever. The other saith: Et erexit corna salutis nobis, in domo David etc. And he hath raised up an horn of salvation to us in the house of his servant David, Even as he promised by the mouth of his holy Prophets, which were sense the world began. In the which prophecies we may perceive, that the holy Ghost did strike an uniform sound in these two instruments fownding that the promises made to Abraham and David, and spoken by the prophets sense the world began, were now fulfiled in that, that Christ the saviour of the world was conceived and incarnate in the womb of the immaculate virgin Mary, by whom the blessing promised, should come to all the nations of the earth, as now we have seen profourmed. THE TENTH CHAPTER TOUCHETH THE Figure's of Christ's Incarnation, passion, Resurrection, and Ascension. AS unto these two noble Fathers before spoken of, God by manifest promise opened the joyful coming of our saviour into shesh: So to other did he describe, and paint by figures, all the mystery of our Redemption to be wrought, done, and perfected, by the same our Saviour. whereby their faith in Christ to come was much nourished, and they by hope of redemption in God's mercy much comforted. Unto the wife of Manoah, the Angel of God appeared and said: Ecce sterilis es, concipies, & paries filium. Behold as yet thou art barren, or hast judic. 13. Figures of Chrysts in carnation. had no child before. Thowe shalt conceive, and bring forth a Son. This was a figure of the Salutacon of the Angel to the virgin the mother of Christ Ecce (said the Angel to the virgin) concipies & paries filium. Behold thou shalt conceive and bring forth a Son. Observe and note the conformity, and likeness of both messages. Wherein note by whom the messages were done, to whom they were done, and what manner of persons they were done, unto by who the thing promised should be performed, of what force value and wourthinesse the things promised be, And then shall ye perceive, how lively the figure (for that part that it is a figure) painteth and setteth forth the thing that is figured. Figures be not in every point comparable to the things figurated. Note also that I say, that a figure for that part that it is a figure, doth paint and set forth the thing figurated, For every story containing a figure, is not a figure for the whole story, neither the persons of the figure, are in all points to be likened, compared, or assembled to the thing figurated. As for example. joseph being sold of his brethren for money, was a figure of Christ Gen. 38. Joseph and christ compared together. sold by judas to the jews for money. In the which figure application may not so be made, that the person, who is the figure, shall express or answer the thing figured in all points and every condition: or that the person, who is the figure, shall counteruaill the wourthinesse of the person figured. For joseph the person in this figure was a pure man: Christ the person figured God and man. joseph subject unto sin: Christ free from sin. joseph sold not to die, but to be saved from death: Christ sold not to be saved from death, but to die. wherefore joseph in these parts and consideracons, is not a figure of Christ, but in this part, that as joseph being innocent, his brethren conspired against him: So Christ being innocent, judas with the lindsays conspired against him. joseph was sold of his brethren: Christ of judas his elect Apostle, and brother. joseph was called the Saviour of the world: Christ was called, and is the saviour of the world. Vocabis nomen eius jesum: ipse enim saluum faciet populum suum à peccatis Math. 1. eorum, though shalt call his name jesus, saith the Angel. For he shall save his people from their sins. In these points joseph is a figure of Christ. So the Mother of Samson, and Sampson himself being the persons of the figure, may not answer the persons figured in all parts. For the mother of Samson conceived by man: The mother of Christ without man. Samson a sinful man: Christ void of sin. Therefore let us consider the figure in that part that it is a figure: and first by whom the message of the conception of those children was doen. The conception of Samson was declared by an Angel: The conception of Christ likewise by an Angel. The Angel said to the mother of Sampsom: Sampsons' conception and Christ'S compared together. Ecce concipies & paries filium. Behold thou shalt conceive, and bring forth a Son: The Angel to the virgin said, Ecce concipies & paries filium. Behoholde thou shalt conceive, and bring forth a Son. The Mother of Samson was alone when the Angel appeared to her: The mother of Christ was alone, when the Angel saluted her. secondly, consider what manner of persons they were, to whom these messages were sent. It is to be supposed that the mother of Samson was in Mother of Samson compared with the mother of Chryst. Bernardus epist. 174. God's favour, to whom he did vouchesaif to send his Angel with a message much desired: It is to be believed that the mother of Christ was certenlie in God's favour, who sanctified her in her mother's womb, and appointed her to be the mother of his own Son, and certifiied her there of by the Angel. The mother of Samson had never child before: The mother of Christ had never child before. Now thirdly. Let us consider by whom the things promised, that is the conception of these children should be performed. The mother of Samson being barren, where the order of nature could not cause her to conceive, conceived by God's disposition helping nature: The mother of Christ being a virgin, and not knowing man, could not by the course of nature conceive, but conceived by the power of God, and operacon of the holy Ghost. Spiritus sanctus superueniet in te, & virtus altissimi obumbrabit tibi. The holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee. Luc. 1. fourthly and last, let us search of what wourthinesse these children Samson and christ compared. together. promised were. Samson was an a Nazarite unto God from his youth: Christ most acceptable to God from his youth. Samson began to deliver the children of Israel out of the hands of the Philistines tirannouslie reigning over them: Christ began to deliver the people out of the hands of the Devil tirannoustie reigning over them. Thus beholding and weighing, how goodly the order of the conception of Christ answereth the order and manner of the conception of Samson, we may well perceive the one did prefigurate the other. As the conception of our saviour Christ was thus prefigurated: So was his passion and death also. Abraham having but his only begotten Son and best beloved Isaac, yet at the commandment of God, willing to slay him, and offer him, he was a figure of the merciful will of God the Gen. 22. Father, who having but his only begotten, and beloved Son jesus Christ, was willing that he should suffer death and be offered for us. Isaac bearing the wood to the place of Sacrifice, and obedient to his father's will, thereto be slain and offered, was a figure of Christ bearing the Isaac a figure of Christ Philip. 2. wood of his cross to the place where he should suffer, and being obedient to his Father's will did suffer death, even the death upon the cross. In which fact he did not only fulfil the Scriptures, but also answereth the figures, which prefigurated that this his death should be the salvation of them, that should believe in him. Which figure is the setting up of Num. 21. ca Joan. 3. the Brazen Serpent mentioned in the book of Numbers. Of the which figure he himself maketh mention in the Gospel, applying it to himself, saying: Sicut Moises exaltavit serpentem in deserto, ita exaltari oporiet filium hominis, ut omnis qui credit in ipsum, non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam, As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness: Even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him may not perish but have eternal life. As God opened the mystery of our redemption by these and such other like figures to the Fathers in their owen persons: So did he the like by sundry and manifold figures in ceremonies and sacrifices of the law of Moses. What was the whole priesthood of Aron, with all the sacrifices thereto appertaining, but a prefiguration of the sacrifice done by our Saviour Christ upon the Altar of the cross? Whereof saint Paul being not ignorant, doth at large treacte in his epistle to the hebrews, not only conferring and comparing the thing figurated to the figure: but also thereby proving the excellency, wourthinesse, value and force of Christ's sacrifice, confirmeth and establissheth the placing and continuance of the new Testament so set forth by the same new sacrifice to endure for ever. In the ninght chapter he teacheth that the old law had ordinances, and seruinge of God and describeth the order of the tabernacle, and the order also of things Hebr. 9 therein contained in a brief manner, of which he saith, he can not speak particularly. And after that he had in a like compendious sort, touched the manner of sacrifices done as well in the first Tabernacle, as in the second, into the which the high priest alone entered once every year, and that not without blood which things were figures of better things to come, as there he saith, that the holy Ghost by these things signified, that the way of holy things was not yet opened, he descendeth to the things signified and figurated. But Christ (saith he) being an high priest of good things to come, came by a greater, and a more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building, neither by the blood of goats, and calves, but by his own blood he entered once into the holy place, and found eternal redemption. In the which saying it is worthy to be noted, how wonderfully well he adapted the things figurated to the figures, and therewith declareth the excellency of them, above these. In which application this we may learn, that the high priest of the law figured Christ our high priest. The tabernacle by which he entered into the holy place, figured the tabernacle of Christ's body, by which he entered into the holy place. The blood wherewith the priest entered, figured the Chrysost. in 9 ad Heb. blood of Christ. The entering and sacrificing of the high priest once in the year, figured the sacrificing of Christ, and his entering into the holy place of heaven once for all. The cleinsing and purifying of the people by virtue of the sacrifice of the high priest which (as saint Paul saith) purified the unclean as touching the purifying of the flesh, figured the cleansing and purifying of the consciences of the believers, from dead works, and all filthiness of sin For Lavit nos à peccatis nostris in sanguine suo. he hath washed us Apoca. 1. from our sins in his blood (saith saint John) As the death and blood shedding of kids and calves, and such other, and the sacrifices done by them, did figure the passion, and bloodshedding of Christ and the holy sacrifice offered by him (for he was sacerdos & victima, both priest and sacrifice) by the which the believing people in christ to come, were instructed, that the Saviour of the world should die for the sins of the same: So by figures also were they taught, that he should rise again the third day: As by that figure which christ applieth to himself for that purpose in the Gospel: Sicut enim jonas suit in ventre ceti tribus diebus, & tribus noctibus: sic erit filius hominis in cord terrae, etc. As jonas (saith he) was three days and three nights in the whalls belly: So shall the Son of man be three days, and three Matth. 12 nights in the heart of the earth. Which figure lively declareth not only that christ should be three nights in the earth, as jonas was in the belly of the whale: But that as jonas the third day can out of the whalls belly alive: So Christ the third day should rise out of the earth alive. Which thing to be verified, and so done in christ all the Evangelists do testify. As his burial, and abode in the grave, and his resurrection was figured by jonas: So was his Ascension by the taking up of Elias in a chariett of fire into heaven. Elias went to heaven by the power of God: christ ascended into heaven by the power of his Godhead. Tediousness that should much offend the Reader, moveth me to stay to bring in any more figures of christ, at this present to this purpose. Wherefore I will cease at this time any farther to proceed therein, and treact of the like matter by prophecies, which is the third way, by which God used in sundry times and ages, to reveill the mystery of our redemption. THE ELEVENTH CHAPTER DECLARETH by the Prophets of what line Messiah should come, with his conception, birth, passion, and death. IN the showing and opening of the prophecies I will observe this order before used. First, to set forth of what line Messiah shall come. secondly, of his conception and birth, thirdly, of his passion and death. fourthly, of his resurrection, and last of his ascension. As concerning the first: As God promised that the same Messiah, Saviour of Prophecy of the line and stock of Christ. the world should be of the seed of Abraham, and of the fruit of the body of David: So long after their times, by his prophet isaiah did he manifestly speak the same Egredietur virga de radice jesse, et flos de radice eius ascendet. There shall come a rod out of the kindred of jesse, and a blossom, or flower shall flourish out of his root. Who is the root, the rod, and the flower, S. Ambrose expoundeth, Esay. 11. saying. Radix, familia judaeorum: virga, Maria: flos Mariae Christus est, qui foetorem mun Ambr. de Benedict patriarch. ca 4. danae collwionis abolevit, et odorem vitae aeternae infudit. The root is the family, of the jews: The rod is Marie. The flower of Marie is Christ, who hath taken away the stink, and hath powered in, the odour of everlasting life. That Christ is that flower, that the Prophet speaketh of, the scriptures also, that do there immediately follow, do evidently prove. Which to avoid prolixity, and in consideration that I writ not to jews, but to Christian men I leave to induce, referring the Reader to the place of the Prophet, which he may easily peruse, supposing it sufficient to show how God's words and his truth is constant, uniform, and permanente in all ages, and how agreeable his word spoken by his prophet is to his promissemade to Abraham, and David as before is mentioned. Now therefore let us proceed to weigh other prophecies, how they will Prophecy of the conception of Christ Esay. 7. answer the figures. And first the prophecy of the conception. What the figure was ye have heard. The Prophet isaiah being taught of God thus said: Ecce virgo concipiet, & pariet filium. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son. As the person of the figure, for that, that nature failed, conceived and brought forth a child by God's power: So a virgin, where nature hath not her order to conceive, hath beside nature, and against the order of nature, conceived by God's power. And this prophecy of isaiah doth well open and declare the former prophecy. He said a Rod shall come forth of the kindred of jesse, and a flower shall flourish out of his root. Virga virgo est. The rod is the virgin, the flourishing flower is the Son of the virgin. What manner of Son it is, the Prophet immediately declareth: Et vocabitur nomen eius Emanuel. And his name shall be called Emanuel. Matth. 1. What Emanuel is the Evangelist declareth: Quod interpretatur nobiscum Deus, which, if a man interpret, is as much to say, as God with us. Which interpretation giveth us to understand, that the Son of this wirgen is the very Messiah God and man, who was God with us: For In terris visus est, & cum hominibus Baruch. 3. conversatus est. He was seen in the earth and was conversant with men, or dwelled with men. So then where the prophet said. A rod shall bring forth a flower, now by plain words he saith: A virgin shall bring forth a Son called Emanuel. And that this was fulfilled as it was prefigured and prophesied, the Evangelist testifieth: Cùm esset desponsata matter jesu Maria joseph, antequam convenirent, inventa Math. 1. est in utero habens de spiritu sancto. When Marie the mother of jesus was married to joseph, before they came to dwell together, she was found with child by the holy Ghost. That she conceived by the holy Ghost, the Angel testified to joseph: joseph fili David, noli timere accipere Marian coniugen tuam. Quod enim in eanatum est, de spiritu sancto est: Ibidem. joseph the son of David (saith the Angel) fear not to take unto thee Marry thy wife. For that, that is conceived in her, cometh of the holy Ghost. And to conclude thus the Evangelist saith. Hoc autem totum factum est, ut adimpleretur quod dictum est à Domino per Prophetam dicentem: Ecce virgo concipiet, & pariet filium, & vocabunt nomen eius Emanuel. All this was done that it might be fulfilled which wasspoken Esay. 7. of our Lord by the Prophet: saying: Behold a maid shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Emanuel. In this process it is easy to be perceived, how the prophecy answereth the figure, and the Evangelist answereth both figure, and prophecy, certifying us that to be fulfilled and done in fact, that they promised, the one in figure the other inwoord Christ's passion and all notable parts thereof conferred to the prophecies. joan. 3. isaiah. 53. Prophecy of Christ's passion. We have heard of Christ'S coming into flesh by his conception and birth: Now let us proceed to speak of the third, which is his passion and death. And for entry thereunto, first let us search by the prophecies wherefore he can into flesh christ himself saith: Venit filius hominis quaerere, et saluum facere quod perierat. The Son of man came to seek, and save that, that had perished. But by what means was it his pleasure to save that, that had perished? The Prophet declareth, saying. Ipse autem vulneratus est propter iniquitates nostras, attritus est propter scelera nostra. Disciplina pacis nostra super eum, et linore eius sanati sumus. He was wounded for our offences, and smitten for our wickedness. For the chaistesement of our peace was laid upon him, and with his stripes are we healed. By what means did he come to his passion? and how came he into the hands of his enemies? By the treason of one of his Apostles, who (as by the figure was prefigurated) sold him to the jews, as the Brethren of joseph sold him to the Ismaelites. But that prolixity may be avoided, and yet so notable a matter not omitted, as wherbie the faithful may take occasion to rejoice in the sowndenesse of their faith, and therein glorify God, I will by the help of God, pass through the story of the Passion, as it is written of the Evangelists, comparing every notable part of it with the prophecies, whereby shall appear, that the faith of the Christians, believing christ to have died for the sins of the world, and by that death to have wrought the redemption of the same, is a sure, substantial, and a ground faith, founded upon the unmovable truth of God's word. As it was by his foreknowledge, by his holy prophets lively and plainly spoken, how, and by what means Messiah should work the salvation of man: Even so plainly and lively hath our Messiah wrought and done the same in fact, that was before spoken in word, as by this brief comparison ensuring it shall appear. And to begin, the hour of the passion of our Lord drawing near, which he right well knew: Sciens jesus quia venit hora eius, ut transeat ex hoc mundo ad Patrem, jesus knowing that his hour was comed, that he should depart out of this world to the father, he prepared him, and willingly went to Jerusalem. Appropinquante hora passionis, appropinquare voluit loco passionis. The hour of Joan. 13. his passion drawing near, he would also draw near to the place of his passion. And therefore (as S. Matthew saith) he going up to Jerusalem, took the xii. disciples aside in the way, and said to them. Behold we go up to Gregor. Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests, and unto the Scribes, and they shall condemn him to death and shall deliver him to the gentiles to be mocked, to be scourged, and to be crucified, and Matth. 20 the third day he shall rise again. By the which his saying and doing it appeareth, that he willingly went to suffer his passion. Which yet at the instant of the same, when judas with his company came to the garden, where he and his disciples were, he did more plainly show in effect. For (as S. john saith) Sciens jesus omnia quae ventura erant, processit, et dixit eyes. jesus knowing all things that should come on him, went forth and said, whom seek ye? They said: jesus of Nazareth. jesus joan. 18. saith to them: I am he. As soon as he said unto them: I am he, they went backward and to the ground. whereby it is manifest both in that, that he came to meet them, and also in that, at his meeting with them, with his only word he threw them on the ground, that he with like power might have escaped Ibid. Zach. 26. their hands, if it had not been his will to have suffered. In further argument whereof also, when Peter drew his sword, and cut of the ear of Malchus, jesus said unto him: Put up thy sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink of the cup which my Father hath given me? And (as S. Matthew testifieth) said further to Peter: Thinkest though that I can not now pray to my Father, and he shall give me by and by more than twelve legions of Angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled? for thus must it be. By all which process, it doth most evidently appear, that willingly he suffered his passion. So did God by his Prophet foresaie that he should do. Oblatus est, quia voluit. He was offered up because he would. judas betrayed him with a kiss: juda, osculo filium hominis tradis? judas be Esay. 53. traiest though the Son of man with a kiss? The prophecy said long before that it should so be. Homo pacis mea in quo sperani, qui edebat panes meos, magnificavit super me supplantationem, My own familiar friend, whom I trusted, which did also eat of my bread, hath laid great wait for me. Psal. 40. That this prophecy was spoken of judas, christ himself is witness, who speaking of judas in the Gospel allegeth this same scripture: Qui manducat mecum panem, levabit contra me caleaneum suum. He that eateth bread with Joan. 13. me, shall lift up his hele against me. To proceed in the story of the passion, when the jews laid hands upon him, and apprehended him, Discipuli omnes relicto co fugerunt. All his disciples Matth. 26 fled and forsook him. Which thing almighty God had spoken by his Prophet Zacharie, that so it should come to pass: Percutiam pastorem, & disper gentur oves gregis. I will smite the sheaperd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered. That this prophecy is thus to be understanded. Christ is witness, Zach. 14. who in the Gospel of saint Mark, applieth it to the same purpose. In the house of Caiphas they entreacted our Saviour very evil. For amongst other things: Expuerunt in faciem eius. They did spit in his face. Of the which the Prophet isaiah spoke, as though it had been done to his own Mat. h. 26 Esay. 50. person: Faciem non averti ab increpantibus & conspuentibus in me. I turned not my face from shame and spitting on me. That in the morning the chief priests and the elders of the people had a council against jesus to put him to death, it was not overpassed without prophecy. For the Prophet David speaketh thus of it in the person Mat. 21. of christ: Circumdederunt me can●s multi, concilium malignantium obsedit me. Many dogs compassed me round about, the council of the wicked laid siege Psal. 21. against me. When judas (as it followeth in the story) seeing christ condemned, brought the moncie again, saying: I have offended betrayeng an innocent Mat. 27 blood, and that the chief priests would not put these silver plates into the treasury, because it was the price of blood, but took counsel, and bought with them a potter's field to bury strangers: the Evangelist himself affirmeth the prophecy thereby to be fulfilled, saying. Then was that fulfilled, which was spoken of by the Prophet Hieremie saying: And they took thirty silver pieces, the price of him that was valued, whom they bought of the children of Israel, and gave them for the potter's field. These words be not found in Hieremie after the translation of the Bible's that now be commonly used: yet this prophecy may well be alleged out of Hieremie. For saint Hierom saith, that he hath red a book of Hieremie in the Hebrew tongue, in the which this sentence is contained word for word. But among the prophets that we have in use now, Zacharie hath it most plainly, where we read it thus: If ye think it good bring hither my price: Zachar. 11 If no, then leave. So they weighed down thirty silver pieces, the value that I was priced at. And the Lord said unto me: Castyt unto the potter, a goodly price for me to be valued at of them. And I took the thirty silver pieces Matt. 27 and cast them unto the potter. Thus moche Zacharie. In whose words ye perceive the price of him that was sold, which was thirty silver plates, for the which sum our saviour was sold. Ye perceive further more what was done with those thirty plates. In the prophecy they were cast to the potter. And the chief priests cast them likewise to the potter, for they bought a porters field with them, to bury strangers in. Thus may ye see how agreeable things done in the Gospel, be with the prophecy, and how lively and well the one answereth the other. Pilate hearing that jesus was a man of Galilee, which belonged to the jurisdiction of Herode, he sent him to Herode, before whom the high priests and Scribes accused him straitly. But Herode with his men of war, when they had despised him, they sent him again clothed in a white garment, unto Pilate, Whereby the prophecy was fulfilled which said. Quare fremuerunt gentes, & populi meditati sunt inania? Astiterunt reges terrae, & principes convenerunt in Psal. 2. unum, adversus Dominum, et adversus Christum eius. Why do the heathen so furiously rage together, and why doth the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stand up, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord, and against his anointed. That this prophecy of David was herefullfilled, the holy Ghost by the holy multitude testifieth in the acts of the Apostles, which in their prayer to God prayed thus: Domine, tu es qui fecisti caelum et terram, etc. Lord thou art God, which hast made heaven and earth, the Sea and all that in them is. Which Act. 4. in the holy Ghost by the mouth of thy servant David our father have said: why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The Kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers came together against the Lord, and against his anointed. And of truth against thy holy child jesus, whom thou havest anointed, both Herode, and also Ponce Pilate with the gentiles and the people of Israel gathered them selfs together in this City, to do what soever thy hands, and thy counsel determined before to be doen. Thus ye see not only the Gospel answereth the prophecy, but also by men full of the holy Ghost, it is so taken, understanded, and applied. To proceed in the story. When christ was before Herode, who questioned with him many words, he answered nothing, as S. Luke testifieth: Luc. 23. Matth. 27. So being before Pilate, when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, as S. Matthew wittnesseth, he answered nothing, And when Pilate also said to him, dost though not hear how many witnesses they lay against thee? And he answered him never one word, insomuch as the deputy marveled greatly. whereby was fulfilled the prophecy which saith. Tanquam ovis Esay. 53. ad occisionem ducetur, et tanquam agnus coram tondente se obmutescet, et non aperiet os suum. He shall be led as a sheep to be slain, yet shall he be as still as a lamb, before the shearer, and not open his mouth. This is the prophecy which the Chamberlain of queen Candace, did read Act. 4. sitting in his chariet, returning from Jerusalem. To whose chariett the Spirit of God commanded Philippe to join himself, who hearing him reading this place, asked him: understandest thou what thou readest? etc. And Philippe went yppe into the chariette, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him jesus. By the which it is manifest that this scripture or prophecy is to be understanded of our saviour christ jesus. When Pilate (as it followeth in the story) sat in judgement, and asked the people, what he should do with jesus, which was called christ, They all Math. 27. said: Let him be crucified. When Pilate said: what hath he done? They cried the more, let him be crucified. When Pilate called for water, and washed his hands, saying: I am innocent, of the blood of this just person, their fierceness, and cruelty was so great, that they cried: His blood be upon us, and on hour children. Which their lionlike cruelty and fierceness was foreseen by God, and spoken by the Prophet in the psalm: Aperuerunt super me os suum sicut leorapiens et rugiens. They have opened their mouth upon me, as it were a ramping, and roaring Lion. When Pilate saw their importunity, he willing to content the people, let Barrabas lose unto them, and when he had scourged jesus, delivered him to be crucified. Accordinlie saith the Prophet: Corpus meum dedi percutientibus, et genas meas Esay. 50. vellentibus. I offered my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to the nippers. Which prophecy doth not only declare the scourgings that christ should sustain in his body, but also the buffets and blows, that he suffered on the face in the house of the high priest, and of other ministers, as the Evangelist doth declare. Then judas seeing that christ was condemned, he hanged himself, fullfilling Matth. 26. Mar. 15. Luc. 22. the prophecy which saith: Fiant dies eius pauci, et episcopatum eius accipiat alter. Let his days be few, and let an other take his office. That this was prophesied of judas saint Peter doth testify, saying: Ye men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfiled, which the holy Ghost through the mouth of David spoke before of judas, which was Acto. 1. guide of them that took jesus, etc. And when he was hanged he burst in sunder, and his bowels gushed out. For it is written in the book of psalms. Fiat Commoratio, etc. After all these persecutions, when christ was delivered to the soldiers to be crucified, they led him into the common haul, where they entreacted him like a most vile man, putting on him a purple rob, and plectinge a Crown of thorns upon his head, and a read in his hand, and they on their knees, saying: Hail king of jews. Wherein was verified the prophecy of isaiah, spoken in the person of the jews: We have recknid him so vile, that we have turned our faces from him: yea Esay. 53. he was despised, and therefore we regarded him not. So that our Saviour might very well say, at that same time, with his own mouth, that the Prophet David spoke before by the spirit of prophecy in the person of christ: Ego sum vermis, et non homo, opprobrium hominum, et abiectio plebis. I am a worm and no Psal. 21. man, a very scorn of men, and the outcast of the people. Those cruel handlinges of him done, yet most cruelly to his unspeakable pain, piercing his most blessed, and sweet hands and feet, they crucified him, in this also fulfilling the scripture prophesying that it should so be, and speaking it in the person of Christ, who suffered it: Foderunt manus meas, Ibid. & pedes meos, & dinumeraverunt omnia ossa mea. They pierced my hands, and my feet. I may tell all my bones. What prophecies could more lively express this part of Christ'S passion, than this doth? But I shall haste me to other speaking as plainly as this. And to follow the order after the narration of saint Luke, they crucified with him two evil doers, one on his right hand, the other on his left, fulfilling the prophecy which saith: Et cum iniquis reputatus est. And he was reputed with the wicked. Esay. 53. Marc. 15. Which prophecy S. Mark applieth to this purpose, saying it here to be fulfiled. When he was thus crucified, they parted his garment, and cast lots for it. The prophecy agreeably saith: Diviserunt sibi vestimenta mea, et super vestem Psal. 21. Math. 27. meam miserunt sortem. They parted my garments among them, and upon my ve stir they cast lots. That this prophecy is fulfilled by this fact, S. Matthew is witness, who saith: They parted his garments, and cast lots, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet, etc. When this was done they passed by, reviling him, and wagging their heads. accordingly was it prophesied and spoken in the person of christ. Omnes videntes me deriserunt me, locuti sunt labijs, et moverunt caput. All that Psal. 21. did see me, laughed me to scorn, they spoke with their lips, and wagged their heads. Likewise the high priests with the Scribes and the elders mocked him, and said: He saved other, himself he can not save. He trusted in God, let Math. 27. him deliver him now if he will have him. Now behold if the prophecy have not almost even the same words: Speravit in Domino, eripiat eum, saluum Psal. 21. faciat eum, quoniam vult eum. He trusted in God that he would deliver him. let him deliver him, if he will have him. All these their wicked mocks, and cruel torments not with standing, hanging upon the cross he prayed for them to his Father, saying: Pater dimit Luc. 23. illis, non enim sciunt quid faciunt. Father forgive them, for they know not what they do. Herein also he fulfiled the prophecy, which said of him, Pro transgressoribus Esay. 53. oravit, He made intercession for misdoers. And when the sixth hour was commed, darkness arose over all the earth until the ningth hour (as saint Mark writeth) jesus cried with a loud voice saying: Eloy Eloy Lamasabathani, which is if one interpret. My God my God, why Mar. 15. havest thou forsaken me? In the which cry, Christ spoke the very words of the prophecy: Deus, Deus meus respice in me, quare me dereliquisti? My God, my God, look upon me, why havest thou forsaken me? When he Psal. 21. Mar. 15. had thus cried, one ran, and filled a sponge with vinegar, and put it upon a Reed, and gave him to drink. Saint Matthew saith, that they gave him vinegar mingled with gall, which fully answereth the prophecy Math. 27. which saith: Dederunt in escam meam fell, & in siti mea potaverunt me aceto. They gave me gall to eat, and when I was thirsty, they gave me vinegar to Psal. 68 drink. Saint johun concluding here the whole story of the passion saith thus. Postea sciens jesus quia omnia consummata etc. After these things jesus knowing, joan. 19 that all things were now performed, that the scripture might be fulfiled he said: I thirst. There stood a vessel by full of vinegar. Therefore they filled a sponge with vinegar, and wound it about with Isope and put it to his mouth. As soon as jesus received the vinegar he said: It is finished: and bowed down his head, and gave up the Ghost: In this word, Consummatum est, it is finished, Christ, who said, that all joan. 19 Luc. 24. must needs be fulfiled, which was written of him in the Law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, perceiving that all those that spoke of his incarnation, conversation, and passion (the end of which passion was instant) were fulfiled in him, and by him, signified to us the end of the same. which end was that all things be done in deed, as these books forespoke by word in figures and prophecies. Now the end of these books being commed, and therefore well finished, as one that had done his work appointed at his own pleasure, he gave himself to rest, and yielded up his most blessed Spirit. THE TWELVETH CHAPTER BRIEFLY TOVcheth a prophecy or two of Christ's Resurrection and Ascension. Now (gentle Reader) if havest heard the goodly story of the passion of our Saviour jesus Christ, not according to the worthiness of such a matter treacted of, and handled, but for the avoiding of tediousness briefly, and as it were in a transcourse overrun. Wherein yet if you well note the conference and application of the story of the Gospel to the prophecies, and weigh well, how the one answereth the other, it will occasion you (as I suppose) to honour God in his provident wisdom, and foreknowledge, and to reverence his holy mysteries in the scriptures also, teaching us the same. Now to perform my promiss, I will bring forth a prophecy or two of his Resurrection, and ascension, and so end this matter. As the story of the Gospel hath sufficiently wittnessed that Christ our Saviour gave up the ghost upon the cross, and there (to declare himself a Prophecy of Christ'S resurrect. and ascension mortal man) died: So doth it testify unto us, that he was buried, and that the third day he rose again, and that (as saint Paul saith) according to the Scriptures. And for asmuch as the Gospel was not perchance then written, or received as of authority to prove that article to unbelieving men: 1. Cor. 15. it is to be supposed, that saint Paul meant the Scriptures of the Prophets, which did prophecy the resurrection of Christ. of the which matter we read thus in the psalm: I have set God allwais before me, for he is Psal. 15. on my right hand. therefore I shall not fall. wherefore my heart was glad, and my tongue reioced, my flesh also shall rest in hope. for why? Thowe shalt not, leave my soul in Hell, neither shalt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption. That this prophecy speaketh of the resurrection of Christ, saint Peter in the first sermon that he made, after he had received the holy Ghost, which was even the same day of Pentecost, doth allege the same scripture by the teaching of the same holy Spirit to prove the resurrection of Christ, where he saith thus: Ye men of Israel hear these words. jesus of Nazareth Acto. 2. a man approved of God among you with miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you (as ye yourselves know) him have ye taken by the hands of unrighteous persons, after he was delivered by the determinate counsel, and foreknowledge of God, and have crucified and slain him, whom God hath raised up, and loosed the sorrows of death, because it was unpossible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh of him before hand: I saw God allwais before me etc. as is before alleged. And proceeding in this matter, noteth the special points of this Prophecy, that do prove the resurrection of Christ and saith: Therefore seeing he was a Prophet (speaking of David) and knew that God had sworn with an oath to him, that Christ (as concerning the flesh) should come of the fruit of his loins, and should sit on his seat, he knowing this before spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul showlde not be left in hell, neither his flesh should see corruption. This jesus hath God raised up whereof all we are witnesses. In the which whole sentence and saying of saint Peter two things are to this purpose to be noted. First, that before the allegation of the prophet David he saith thus, speaking of Christ: whom God hath raised up, and loosed the sorrows of death. If ye ask the holy Apostle, the cause why God hath raised him from death, he answereth: Because it was unpossible that he should be holden of it. If ye proceed to ask him why it was unpossible. he answereth: For David speaketh of him. Wherein he noteth the immutability of God, and the certainty of his word. As who should say, forsomoch as God hath spoken by his Prophet David that he would raise up Christ again, it is unpossible but he must be raised, and therefore he was raised. The second thing to be noted in the Apostle is, that he noteth, as it were with his fingar, the very special words of the prophecy of David, that forespoke the resurrection of Christ, where the Apostle speaking of David, said: He knowing of this before spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul should not be left in Hell, neither his flesh should see corruption. This sentence is it, that plainly proveth the resurrection. Wherefore the Apostle, to confer the fullfilling of the prophecy to the prophecy it self, concludeth the sentence thus: This jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Albeit the learned Fathers allege other places also: yet for so moche as I haste to the matter principally intended, I will stay my hand in this matter, Minding with like expedition to finish the rest that remaineth to be done by my promise, that is only to declare the ascension of Christ by prophecy, as I have done by figure. Of the Ascension of our Saviour Christ the Prophet David also in the Psal. 67. Prophecy of the Ascension. psalm doth Prophecy thus: Ascendisti in altum, cepisti captivitatem, accepisti dona in hominibus. Thou art gone up on high, if havest led captivity captive, and received gists for men. That the Prophet did in this sentence speak and prophecy of the ascension of Christ, saint Paul is witness, who alleging this prophecy proceedeth upon it thus unicuique nostrum data est gratia secundùm mensuram donationis Christi. Propter quod dicit: Ascendens in altum, Ephes. 4. captivam duxit captivitatem, dedit dona hominibus, etc. unto every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the gift of Christ. wherefore he saith: when he went up on high, he led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men. That he ascended, what meeneth it, but that he also descended first into the lowest parts of the earth? He that descended is even the same also that ascended up above all heavens, to fulfil all things. By the which words, that saint Paul taketh the saying of David to be a prophecy of Christ's Ascension, it is more manifest, than it needeth any further probation of me or any other man. But this scruple perchance may move a diligent reader, that the Psalm saith: if art gone up on high, if havest led captivity captive, and received gifts for men, or among men: Accepisti dona in hominibus: And the Apostle saith: Dedit dona hominibus. He hath given gifts to men. betwixt giving and receiving there is a great difference. This doubt doth saint Augustine dissolve, writing in this wise: Sed Aug. l. 15 de Trinit. cum Propheta dixerit, Accepisti dona in hominibus: Apostolus maluit dicere, Dedit dona hominibus, ut ex utroque scilicet verbo, uno Phrophetico, Apostolico altero, (quia in utroque est divini sermonis authorities) sensus plenissimus redderetur. Verunque enim verum est, & quia dedit hominibus, et quia accepit in hominibus. Dedit hominibus, tanquam caput membris suis: accepit in hominibus, idem ipse utique in membris suis, propter quae membra sua clamavit de coelo, Saul, Saul, quid me persequeris? But when the Prophet hath said: if havest received gifts in men, or among men: the Apostle hath chosen to say: Thou havest given gifts to men, that out of both sainges, the one of the Prophet, the other of the Apostle (by cause that in both is the authority of God's word) a most full and perfect sense might be given. For both be true, both that he gave gifts unto men, and also received gifts in men. He gave gifts unto men, as the head to the members, the self same also received gifts in his members, for the which his members he cried from heaven: Saul, Saul, why dost though persecute me? Thus moche saint Augustin. Albeit the Scriptures be copious and plentiful of Prophecies as well of this matter as of other, all teaching us one truth, though they be utterred by diverse organs, or instruments of the holy Ghost, forbicause the holy Ghost the Schoolmaster of all truth is but one: Yet I will not molest the Reader with the rehearsal of any more, well knowing, that the truth is as Holy Ghost schoolmaster of all truth. perfect, as sure, and as substantial in one sentence of the holy Ghost, as in twenti: Nevertheless he that is desirous to read more prophecies of this matter I refer him to the xluj. psalm, to the lxiij. chapter of easy, and to the second of Micheas, as the holy learned fathers have taught me. Thus (praise be to God) I have through his help profourmed that, that I intended: namely, declared that the mysteries of our Redemption were by diverse means, that is to say, by promises, figures, and prophecies revealed unto the Fathers by almighty God, and that in diverse ages, and times, as in the time of the law of Nature, in the time of the law of Moses, All which promises, figures, and prophecies, promised, figured and prophesied such things, as by our Saviour Christ, were fulfiled, accomplished, and ended. which so being they have their end, according as Christ himself said: Etenim quae de me scripta sunt, finem habent. For the things, which are written of me, have an end. Luc. 22. THE thirteen CHAPTER HOW THAT MELCHIsedech was a figure of Christ both in priesthood, and sacrifice. Now to approach to the matter in this first book principally intended: Whereas almighty God, did paint, open, and show the mystery of our Redemption, by promises, figures, and prophecies in the old testament to the great comforth of them, that lived in that testament, which Redemption is already wrought, done and perfected: Even so hath he by figures, and prophecies, shadowed, and spoken before of things that shall be done in the new Testament, as a perpetual memorial of the same redemption, to the great and spiritual comforth of them that live under the new testament. which memorial is now in the Church of Christendom, used and contained. For as by his bloodshedding upon the Cross, he did the very thing in deed, that the legal Sacrifices did prefigurate, & shadow in the old testament: So by the same blood he (as being the thing yt self, and the very light causingge figure to cease, and the shadow to be removed) abolished the old Testament, and established and confirmed a new Testament, not to remain for a season, as the other was appointed to do, when Moses said: Hic sanguis Testamenti, quod mandavit ad vos Deus. This is the blood of the Testament, which God hath made with you: But a new everlasting Testament, according Exod. 24. Hebr. 9 Hebr. 13. Aeternum Testamentum as saint Paul saith. This everlasting Testament hath accordingly an everlasting priest, and an everlasting sacrifice. The everlasting priest is our Saviour Christ, as wittnesseth saint Paul: Nec Christus semetipsum glorificavit, ut pontifex sieret, sed qui dixit ad eum: Filius meus es tu, ego hody genui te. Quemadmodum & in alio loco dicit. Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundùm ordinem Melchisedech. Neither did Christ glorify himself, to be made the high priest, but he that said unto him: Hebr. 5. if art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, As he saith also in an other place: if art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech. The everlasting sacrifice is the very body and blood of the same our Christ's body and blood an everlasting sacrifice. Luc. 22. Saviour jesus Christ. which as he, according to the order of his priesthood, did sacrifice in his last Supper under the forms of bread and wine: So did he give authority and commandment to the Apostles and ministers of his Church to do the same saying: Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. This do ye in the remembrance of me. The continuance of the doing of this thing in the remembrance of him, saint Paul declareth saying: Donec veniat. until he come, understand to the general judgement. whereby it doth appear that this sacrifice, and priesthood, 1. Cor. 11. shall continue unto the worlds end. These be the things, which I said before, that God had showed, by figures, and prophecies. Which figures and prophecies, being done and passed, and meant of these things, must as necessarily be fulfiled, as the other before mentioned figures, and prophecies were fullfiled of the Author, and institutor of them. The figures and prophecies before mentioned were of things, which as touching the fact (not the virtue, efficacy, and merit, which have none end) were ended in Christ. As his incarnation is done and ended, his passion, resurrection, and ascension be done, and ended in fact, not in virtue, efficacy, and merit. But the new Testament, wherein the virtue, efficacy, and merits of these facts be continued, and applied, is begun and confirmed in Christ's A new law a new priesthood Heb. 7. blood. The priesthood also of the same, which he ordained in that new law or Testament. For a new law must needs have a new priesthood, and a new priesthood most have a new law, as saint Paul maketh this argument of necessity, that Translato sacerdotio, necesse est ut legis translatiox fiat. The priesthood being taken away, the law must needs be taken away. A new priesthood a new sacrifice. For law and priesthood go together. And with a new priesthood cometh a new sacrifice. For the diversity of priesthood standeth in the diversity of sacrifice. These three shall endure, and remain, as the figures and prophecies of the same shall manifestly declare, and prove. Of these things there be figures in the law of nature, and in the law of Moses. In the law of nature, albeit that Seth, Noah, and other holy men, did offer sacrifices unto God: yet were they not figures of this Sacrifice, used now in Christ's church, but raither of Christ's Sacrifice offered upon Apoca. 13. the Cross after the manner of Aaron. For the which cause saint john saith, he is Agnus, qui occisus est ab origine mundi. the Lamb that was slain from the beginning of the world, Both for that he was figured in the sacrifices done to God from the beginning of the world, & also that he gave virtue to all such sacrifices. But the first that figureth both the priesthood and sacrifice of the new law, is Melchisedech, of whom we read thus: And Melchisedech, king of Salem brought forth bread and wine (for he was the priest of the most high God) and blessed him saying: Blessed be Abraham unto the high God, possessor of heaven and earth. And blessed be the high God which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hands. And Ahraham gave him tithes of all. Heb. 6. &. 7. Christ and Melchisedech compared togethe To prove this Melchisedech to be the very figure of Christ, we can have no better argument, than the application which S. Paul maketh by the holy Ghost, in the epistle to the hebrews, where in the end of the sixth chapter he saith thus: Where the forerenner is for us entered, even jesus, that is made an high priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedech. And then it followeth in the beginning of the next chapter: This Melchisedech king of Salem, who being priest of the most high God, met Abraham, as he returned again from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave tithes of all things, first is called by interpretation king of righteousness, after king of Salem, that is to say, king of peace, without Father, without mother without kindred, And hath neither beginning of days, neither end of life, but is likened to the Son of God, and continueth a priest for ever. In the which sentence saint Paul first reciteth the story, and after doth interpret the words, and apply the same to Christ, as the figure to the thing figured. First (saith he) is he called the king of righteousness, where in saint Paul doth interpret the name of Melchisedech For as the learned in the tongues say, Melec, doth signify king, and Sedech righteousness, and so saint Paul by the name of Melchisedech calleth him king of righteousness. After, king of Salem. Salem by interpretation is peace. And therefore saint Paul saith king of Salem, that is to say, of peace. Yet there was a City in deed called Salem, of the which Melchisedech (as the hebrews do say) being the eldest Son of Noë, whom the scripture otherwise calleth Sem, was the very king. In the which (as saint Hierom Hierom. in Esay. 41. doth testify) there remain the ruins of his palace, which doth testify what a goodly thing it was. Which Melchisedech notwithstanding that he was a king, he was also a priest. For (as saint Hierom doth also say) the eldest or first born sons in the law of nature were priests. And therefore it doth appear that he was an eldest Son. Saint Paul goeth on, and saith, that he was without father, and with out mother: By the which, saint Paul meeneth not, that he had no father, nor mother, but that the Scripture maketh no mention of his father, nor mother. Likewise is that to be understanded which followeth, where he saith: that Melchisedech was without kin, having neither beginning of days nor yet ending. In deed he had both, but the Scripture maketh no mention of them. But all these things doth saint Paul infer to declare how lively Melchisedech as a figure of Christ, doth express him. As First, where Melchisedech is called king of righteousness, he figureth Christ very well. For Christ is that righteous king, who according to the saying of the Prophet isaiah: Non secundùm visionem oculorum judicabit, neque Esay. 11. secundùm auditum aurium arguet, sed judicabit in justitia pauperes etc. He shall not give sentence after the thing, that shall be brought before his eyes, neither reprove a matter at the first hearing, but with righteousness shall he judge the poor. And again the Prophet saith: He shall sit upon the seat of David, and in his kingdom, to set up the same, and to establish it with Id. 9 equity and righteousness, for the which cause (as the Prophet saith) vocabunt eum, Dominus justus noster. They shall call his name, hour righteous Lord. And wourthilie is he so called. For daily doth he righteously, for that joan. 5. that Pater omne judicium dedit Filio. The Father hath given all judgement to the Son. Before whom, Omnes nos manifestari oportet, ut referat unusquisque 2. Cor. 5. prout gessit in corpore, sive bonum, sive malum. We must all appear, that every man may receive the works of his body, according to that he hath done, be it good or evil. At the which time: Procedent, qui bona fecerunt, in resurrectionem vitae, qui vero mala egerunt, in resurrectionem judicij. They shall come forth joan. 5. that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation. Thus may ye perceive that Melchisedech being called the king of righteousness, figureth well Christ our righteous king. He is called also, Rex Salem, king of peace, wherein he doth wonderons well figure Christ, who of the Prophet is called: Princeps pacis, Esay. 9 çuius regnum multiplicabitur, & pacis non erit finis. The prince of peace, whose kingdom shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace. Wherefore the Angels at his birth sang: Et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis. And in earth peace unto men of a good will. For (as saint Paul Luc. 2. saith) Annunciavit pacem ijs, qui longè erant, & pacem ijs qui propè. He preached peace to those that were a far of, and to them that were nigh. For Ephes. 2. why? Ipse est pax nostra, he is our peace. In this then how well Melchisedech figureth Christ, though no admonition were given, the thing will show it self, and how well Christ answereth Melchisedech. In this also that he saith. Mechisedech to be without father and without mother, he is also a right figure of Christ. For as Melchisedech is not found in the Scriptures to have any natural father in the earth: no more hath Christ in very deed any natural father in the earth. And as Melchisedech Mariechristes' mother by nature and above nature. hath no mother, So Christ properly hath no natural mother, calling a natural mother, a woman that conceiveth by natural course and order. For a woman that conceiveth above nature, and bringeth forth a child above nature, is also a mother above nature. And being a mother above nature, properly is no mother natural. Eor that is natural that is contained within thecompasse of nature. And thus in this respect he had no natural mother. Yet may she be called a natural mother, for that she imparted to him her natural flesh, and her natural blood to the work of his incarnation. Whereby also he in that respect that he had natural flesh, and natural blood of man, was and is a natural man. Melchisedech also (saith saint Paul) was without kindred: wherein he is also likened to christ, who although as touching his flesh, he hath a genealogy, as Matthew and Luke declare, Yet as concerning his Godhead the Prophet Esay. 53. saith: Generationem eius quis enarrabit? Who can declare, or number his generation? As who should say, No man can declare, how God the Father begat God the Son. It is inexplicable. And after this manner christ truly answereth his figure Melchisedech, for that in the Godhead he hath no kin. Melchisedech, hath neither beginning of days, nor end of life: So christ, Apoc. 21. as God, hath neither beginning nor ending. For he saith: Ego sum alpha & omega, primus & novissimus, principium & finis. I am alpha and omega, the first and the last, the beginning an the ending. And saint Paul: jesus Christus heri Heb. 13 et hody, ipse et in secula. jesus christ is yesterday, and to day, and the same continueth for ever. When saint Paul had enombred all these things to declare thereby that Mechisedech was a figure of christ, he saith: Assimulatus est filio Dei. Jbidem. 6. He is likened to the Son of God. Which is as much to say, as he is the figure of christ the Son of God. Of the which matter saint Augustin speaketh upon the same place: Locus diligenti consideratione dignissimus. Cum enim per Melchisedech, in Augu. de Gen. ad literam. quo huius rei futurae figura praecesser●t, discerneret sacerdotium Christi, à sacerdotio Levi, vi dete ergo (inquit) qualis hic est, cui & decimam partem Abraham dedit de primitijs, Patriarcha. A place most worthy diligent consideration. For when by Melchisedech, in whom the figure of the thing to come went before, he would discern the priesthood of christ, from the preisthoode of Levi, See therefore (saith he) what manner of man this is, unto whom Abraham the Patriarch gave the tithes of his first fruits. But forsomuch as here is no controversy, but that Melchisedech is a figure of christ, and of Chrysts priesthood, I will not travail here, nor hinder the reader with allegation of many doctors, until we come to the handling of the Prophecy, which shall answer the figure according to the order, which I have used in other figures heretofore brought forth, for the declaration and setting forth of other mysteries of christ. But I shall go on to bring in an other figure of the law of nature. THE FOURTENE CHAPTER DECLARETH, after the mind of Chrysostom, that job was a figure of christ, for the desire his servants had to eat his flesh. IN job we do read, that the men of his own household should say: Quis det de carnibus eius, ut saturemur? Who shall give us of his flesh, that we may be filled or satisfied? or as the common translation is, Who shall let us have our bellies full of his flesh? As they that were of the household of job, for the great love they bore Job. 31. Desire of the eating of the flesh of Job applied to the desire to eat Christ'S flesh. unto him, would even have eaten of his flesh: So they that be of the houholde of christ, for the love they bear to him, would eat of his flesh. The desire of the eating of the flesh of christ, chrysostom applieth to the desire of those that were of the household of job, which desired to eat the flesh of job, as a thing figuring or signifying the eating of Christ's flesh, thus saith he: autem non solùm per dilectionem, sed reipsa in carnem illam convertamur, per cibum id efficitur, quem nobis largitus est. Cum enim suum in nos amorem Chryso. in 6 joan. omel. 45. indicare vellet, per corpus suum se nobis commiscuit, & in unum nobiscum redegit, ut corpus cum capite uniretur. Hoc enim amantium maximè est. Hoc Iob significabat de servis, à quibus maximè amabatur, qui suum amorem praeseferentes dicebant: Quis daret nobis, ut eius carnibus impleremur? Quod Christus fecit, ut maiori nos charitate astringeret, & ut suum in nos ostenderet desiderium, non se tantùm videri permittens desiderantibus, sed & tangi, et manducari, et dentes carni suae infigi, et desiderio sui omnes impleri. Ab illa igitur mensa tanquam leones ignem spirantes surgamus, Diabolo formidolosi, et caput nostrum intelligamus, et quam in nos prae se tulit charitatem. Parents saepenumerò liberos suos alijs alendos dederunt: ego autem mea carne alo, me ijs exhibeo, omnibus faveo, omnibus optimam de futuris spem praebeo. Qui in hac vitaita se nobis exhibet, multo magis in futura. Vester ego frater esse volui, et communicani carnem propter vos, et sanguinem, et per quae vobis coniunctus sum, ea rursum vobis exhibui. That we should be turned into that flesh (speaking of the flesh of christ) not by love only, but in very deed, it is done by the meat which christ and we joined two manner of ways. he hath granted us. For when he would show his love to us. he mixed himself with us by his body, and made himself one with us, that the head might be united with the body. This did job signify by his servants, of whom he was greatly beloved, which declaring their love, did say: Who will give us of his flesh that we may be filled: The which thing Christ did, that with a more greater charity and love he might bind us to him, and also that he might show his desire that he had to us, he doth not Christ giveth himself to be toched, and eaten in the Sacrament. only suffer himself to be seen of these that desire him, but also to be touched, and eaten, and their teeth to be fastened in his flesh, and them all to be filled with the desire of him. Let us therefore rise from that table as lions breathing out fire, being fearful to the Devil, and let us consider our head, and what charity he hath declared unto us. Parents oftentimes have delivered their children unto other to be fed. But I do feed with my own flesh. Unto these I exhibit and give myself. I love and favour all, I give a good hope to all of things to come. He that thus exhibiteth and giveth himself to us in this life, moche more he will give himself to us in the life to come. I would be your brother, And I took flesh and blood with you, for your sakes. And by what things I was joined to you, the same again I give to you. Thus moche chrysostom. In the which sentence, that things worthy of note be not with to much negligence overpassed, it is to be observed, that this learned Father (beside the declaration of the ardent love of Christ toward us, for the which he did vouchsaif to give us his very flesh to eat, to the intent we should be turned into it, as the servants of job, who for their great love unto him, desired to eat his flesh, that they might be all one with him, which very well signified the mutual love of christ and his servants, He for love giving his flesh to be eaten, and they desiring through love to eat the same) in the beginning of the sentence also saith, that to the intent we should be joined to christ, not only by love, but by the thing it self in very deed, that is hrought to pass by the meat which he hath we be joined to Christ. two ways. granted us. In the which words it is very evident that we are joined to christ two manner of ways, that is by love, and by the thing it self. Which in other Our flesh is turned into the flesh of Christ by receipt of the Sacrament. terms is called spiritually, and really. Spiritually we are joined to christ by charity and faith, and thereby incorporated to his mystical body: really or substantially we are joined to him, when by eating his very substantial flesh in the Sacrament, the substance of our flesh is turned into the substance of his flesh, and thereby so joined to him, as we are made one flesh with him, of the which we will speak more at large, when we shall come to the sentence of S. Hilary. Here by the way note that Christ'S flesh is not digested in our bodies after the manner of natural digestion of otheir meats, and so passeth Christ's flesh is not digested in us as other meats. through the body accordingly, as the Stercoranites of our time have blasphemed. But as the meat is celestial, and yet substantial, and not now properly terrestrial, being a glorified body and flesh: So it draweth us uppewarde to it, converting and turning us into it, according to the nature of a celestial thing, and not terrestriallie depressing us to the Stercoranites of our time. earthward. But principally to the chief intent and purpose of the thing that this part of the sentence moveth us to note, Mark that, where the Sacramentaries of our time would have none other receiving of Ghrystes body, but only a spiritual receiving: this holy Father teacheth us, the faith of Christ'S Church in his time, which was before any controversy or heresy was risen about the Sacrament, that we be joined to christ not only spiritually by love (which may be and is done without the receipt of meat) But we are also joined to christ, reipsa, that is, by the thing it self, or in very deed, by the receipt of a certain meat. And therefore he saith: Id efficitur per cibum, quem nobis largitus est, This joining of us to christ in very deed, is brought to pass by the meat, which he hath granted us. What the meat is he openeth mediately when he saith: that he might declare his love toward us. Per corpus suum se nobis commiscuit. He hath mingled Christ is joined to us corporally by our receipt of his body in the Sacrament himself to, or with us by his body. So his body then is the meat, whereby, when we receive it, we are in very deed joined to christ. That this was his mind he lively declareth, applying the story of job, as a thing signifying this matter, in the which the servants of job desired in very deed, to eat his very flesh, really, and substantially, and not spiritually only. Which thing yet more manifestly he openeth in the end of the sentence, speaking in the person of christ and saying: I would be your brother, Christ giveth us the same flesh by which he was joined to us. and for your sakes, I did take flesh and blood with you, And the same things (that is to say flesh and blood) by the which I was joined to you, I gave to you again. Note that christ giveth us those things in the sacrament by the which he was joined to us. He was joined to us by very substantial flesh and blood, wherefore he giveth us very substantial flesh and blood. If he should give himself to us only spiritually, than he should not give us those things, by the which he was joined to us. For Christ's flesh and blood spiritually, and his flesh and blood substantially or really, be as far different as flesh and spirit. Albeit this Author hath declared that, that was spoken by me as concerning the eating of the flesh of christ figured by job, and thereto added other sentences most evidently declaring the verity of Christ'S body and blood in the Sacrament: Yet, that ye may perceive in him both constancy, and consonancy, in uttering the substantial points of our faith, I shall bring in one other place of the same, where he handleth the same place of job to the purpose before mentioned. Medio draconis ventre rupto atque discerpto, ex adytis clarissimus evasit, & radios non ad hoc usque coelum, sed ad ipsum supernum thronum Chrys. in 101. Cor. omel. 24. dimisit. Illuc namque ipsum extulit, quod nobis etiam exhibuit, & ut teneremus, et man ducaremus, quod maximum dilectionis signum est. Quos enim amamus, nonnunquàm etiam morsu petimus. Quare job, ut servorum in se amorem ostenderet, dicebat illos nimio in se amore dixisse: Quis det de carnibus eius ut saturemur? Ita & Christus suam carnem dedit nobis, ut ea saturemur. Quo nos in plurimum sui amorem allexit. The beallie of the dragon being braced, and torn in the middle, from the dark place he came forth most bright and clear, and sent out his beams, not unto this heaven, but unto the very high Throne. Thither hath he carried up that, which also he hath given unto us, that we should hold and eat it, which is the greatest token of love. For whom we love, oftentimes we desire to bite. Therefore job, that he might declare the love of his servants towards him, said, that they for the exceeding love, that they bore towards him, have oftentimes said: Who will give us of his flesh, that we may be filled? Even so Christ hath given us his flesh, that we might be filled withal, whereby he hath alured us unto his great love. In the which sentence (gentle Reader) thou seist and perceivest first, how chrysostom rehearseth the story of job, and secondly, how he applieth it unto christ, saying: Even so Christ hath given us his flesh to hold, and to eat. The which his application doth verify my saying, that job was in this behalf a figure that Christ's flesh should be eaten, and that not spiritually only, but really and substantially, which chrysostom signifieth by this word (Ita, even so) as who should say: As the very substantial flesh of job was desired to be eaten: Even so christ hath given us his very substantial flesh to be eaten. Thus am I not only moved to understand Chrysostom for the cause now mentioned: But I am thereunto compelled by that, that in him immediately followeth: Ad eum igitur cum feruore accedamus, & dilectione quàm vehementissima, ne gravius subeamus supplicium. Quanto enim maius beneficium accepimus, tanto magis puniemur, quando eo indigni apparebimus. Let us therefore come unto him with fervent Chrys. ibi. desire, and most vehement love, lest we suffer more grievous punishment. For the more great benefet we have received, the more shall we be punished, if we be found unworthy of it. And he addeth: Hoc corpus in praesepi reveriti sunt Magi, etc. This body did the wise men reverence or honour in the manger. Whereby he declareth what body of christ he moveth us to come unto, here in this his conclusion. whereby also we may understand, what flesh of christ he meant in the former sentence, by the application of the figure to the thing figured. But this may suffice for the sigures in the law of nature. THE FIFTEEN CHAPTER DECLARETH BY scriptures, that the eating of the paschal lamb was a figure of the eating of christ our paschal Lamb. Now that I have spoken of such scriptures, as declare such things to have been done in the law of nature, which by other scriptures, and holy Fathers, are applied and taken, as figures of Christ'S priesthood and mystery: I will go forward to the figures Four figures of the Sacrament to be treacted of. in the time of the law of Moses, of the which I will speak and treact of four, which be figures of this mystery. Which be: The paschal Lamb, Manna, The showbread, and the Stone flowing out water. Of the first, that is of the paschal Lamb we read thus: In the tenth day of Exod. 12. this month every man shall take unto him a lamb, according to their houses and families, etc. And let the lamb of yours be without blemish, a male of a year old, which ye shall take out from among the Sheep, and ye shall keep him until the xiv. day of the same month. And every man of the multitude of the children of Israel shall kill him at even. And they shall take the blood, and strike it on the two side posts, and on the upper doer post, even in the houses where they shall eat him. And they shall eat the flesh that same night roasted with fire, and with unleavened bread, and with sour herbs they shall eat it. See that ye eat not thereof raw, nor sodden in water, but roasted with fire, the head, feet and appurtenance thereof. In this declaration of the manner, of eating the paschal Lamb, there be Two notable things in the old paschal lan be. two principal parts. The one is of the killing of it: The other of the eating of it. The condition and manner of the lamb, and the kill of the same, figureth the condition of christ, and the crucifyeng of him. And albeit that other beasts being taken to be sacrificed, as ox, cow, calf, and killed, did figure the passion of christ: Yet none of these doth so lively, and expressedly figure christ and his death, as the lamb doth. For the lamb was but young: christ was but young. The lamb was without Christ and the paschal lamb compared together. blemish: christ was without sin. The lamb was taken from among the sheep: christ from among his Apostles. By the offering of that lamb, the people of Israel were delivered from the servitute of Egypt: By the offering of christ the people are delivered from the servitude of the devil and sin. Their daile sacrifice was a lamb: Hour daile sacrifice is christ. And for this consideration christ is more oftentimes Christ more often called a Lamb then by name of any other beast called a lamb in the scripture, then by the name of other beasts, which were sacrificed, and figured christ the everlasting sacrifice. Wherefore saint John the Baptist applying the figure of the lamb, as a thing most specially and fully figuring christ, pointed him, with his finger, saying. Ecce Agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccata mundi. Behold the Lamb of God, behold him that taketh away the sins of the Joan. 1. world. The Prophet also calleth him a lamb: Tanquam ovis ad occisionem ducetur, & tanquam agnus coram tondente se obmutescit. He shall be led away isaiah. 53. like a sheep to be slain, and as a lamb before the shearer shall he hold his peace? For like consideration saint John being instructed by the revelation of the holy Ghost, doth so call him after he had fulfilled the figure by suffering of his passion. I beheld (saith he) and lo, a great multitude, which no man could number of all nations, people, and tongues stood Apoca. 7. before the seat, and before the Lamb, clothed in long white garments, and palms in their hands. And they cried with a Loud voice, saying: Salvation be ascribe unto him, that sitteth on the Seat of our lord God, and unto the lamb which Lamb is christ. Of whom again he saith by plain words: I beheld and lo, in the midst of the seat, and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders Apocal 5. stood a lamb, as though he had been killed. And when he had taken the book, the four beasts, and the xxiv. elders fell down before the lamb, and with instruments sang a new song, saying: Thou art worthy to take the book, and open the seals thereof. For thou was killed and havest redeemed us with thy blood. But uless as this part of the figure, namely the passion of Christ, is already treacted of, and of this there is no controversy: I shall divert me to speak of the other part of the figure, which is of the eating of the lamb. Which figureth the eating of our paschal lamb, in the institution of the new passouer. And of it also, now so frequented and used in the church of the same Lamb our Saviour Christ, and that by his commandment, whereupon standeth now the controversy. In this matter to make a comparison: As the lamb killed, was a figure of Christ verily killed: So the same lamb being verily eaten, is a figure of Christ verily eaten. As the Lamb was eaten really and substantially. So is Christ eaten really and substantially. That the eating of this lamb was a figure of the eating of Christ our lamb in his last Supper, Christ himself doth witness, who speaking of the very paschal Lamb said: Desiderio desideravi hoc Pascha manducare vobiscum antequam patiar I have inwardly desiderd to eat this Pasover with you Luc. 22. before that I suffer. This was not spoken of the old passover, which he had eaten with them before, but of the new, which was figured by it, which he entered immediately to institute, to answer the figure and to fulfil the Scriptures. Therefore saint Paul considering both the principal parts of the figure the lamb, that he must be both offered in sacrifice, and also eaten, applieth them both unto Christ, and joineth them together, saying: Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus, itaque epulemur. Christ our passover is offered up for us (behold here the sacrifice) Therefore let us eat (note here the eating of Christ) For as the lamb that was offered for the passouer, was also eaten: So Christ (as saint Paul saith) was also offered up for our passouer, therefore let us eat. The same lamb that was offered for the figure was eaten: The same Christ that was offered to answer the figure, was and is eaten. And for further probation of his matter, note that in good things, the thing figured is better, than the thing, that is the figure. And contrary wise August in Psal 77. Figures in good things not so god, as the things figured: Figures in evil things not so evil. the figure in evil things is better, than the thing figured. Or more properly and truly to say: In evil things the thing figured is worse than the thing, which is the figure. As for example first of this latter, that we may with the other procead. King Pharaoh tirannouslie reigning over the children of Israel. is a figure of the Devil tirannouslie reigning over sinful men, and with holding them from the due service of God. The servitude, that the children of Israel were in, is a figure of the servitude of sin that man was in. The brethren of joseph conspiring the sale of him, were a figure of judas, and the jews conspiring the like matter against Christ. In the which, as in other of like sort, ye may note and perceive, that Pharo being the figure of the devil, and the servitude of Egipte, being the figure of the feruitude of sin, And the brethren of joseph being the figure of judas and the jews, the things figured are worse, than the figures. For the Devil the thing figured, is worse, than Pharaoh the figure. The servitude of sin being the thing figured, is worse than the servitude of Egipte being the figure. judas and the jews conspiring against our Saviour Christ being the things figured, are worse, than the brethren of joseph being the figure. So shall ye find in all other figures of the old law of things that be not good, that the thing figured is always worse, than the thing that is the figure. But as for goodthinges, the thing figured is better, than the thing that is the figure. As for example: Abraham is a figure of God the Father, Isaac a figure of Christ God's son: God the Father and Christ his son, the things figured, are without comparison better, than the things that be the figures. The rod of Aaron, and the blossomme of the same, are figures of the virgin Marie, and Christ the blossom of the same. The Brazen Serpent upon the pole is a figure of Christ upon the cross. jonas in the beallie of the whale, a figure of Christ in the heart of the earth: In every of these, the things figured be better, than the thing that is the figure, as by comparison Passover of the Christians more excellent than the Passover of the Jews. ye may perceive. Now then to the purpose: As the paschal Lamb beind offered was a figure of Christ offered: So the lamb eaten, is a figure of Christ by is eaten. Wherefore as Christ offered being the thing figured, is better than the lamb offered being the figure: So of consequence must the passover figured being eaten, be better than the passouer, the figure which was eaten. If the passover, which is now eaten, be but a piece of bread, a bare sign, or figure (as the Sacramentaries do affirm) then the paschal lamb is the figure of a piece of bread, which bread in special things hath no similitude, to answer the figure, as all things figured do. And so also shall not the thing figured in the new Testament, be better, than the figure, which is in the old testament, which may not be. But that the Reader, that hath been seduced and drawn from the catholic faith, conceive no sinister opinion of me, and think that I go about to deceive him with rules of mine own invention, as things feigned besides the Scriptures: Let the same understand, that this rule: that things figured be better, than the figures, as is above declared, is not the dream Argument of S: Paul's epistle to the Hebr. of mine own head, but a substantial truth ground upon the sure foundation of God's word. I mien upon the chief argument of Saint Paul's epistle to the hebrews. For what doth saint Paul in that epistle travail to prove more, than that Christ, and the new Testament, and all things therein contained, do far excel Melchisedech, Moses, and the old Testament, and all the ceremonies and sacrifices of the same. As first, in the first chapter he declareth the excellency of the new Testament above the old, for that it was given by Christ the Son Heb. 1. of God, by whom God spoke to us, who excelleth Angels, Fathers, and Prophets, by the which God spoke in the old Testament as there he proveth. Then after he declareth Christ to be a priest, after the order of Melchisedech. But he proveth him to be far more excellent, then Melchisedech. Jbid. 7. This done he descendeth to the priest of the old law, and comparing Jbid. 8. the officie of Christ to the office of the priest of the law, and teaching it to be unperfect, proveth the office of Christ by all means to be preferred. Then he maketh mention in a brief rehearsal of the religion, and high Ibid. 9 service of Ghost among the jews, teaching, that they had afore Tabernacle, and what things there were within contained. And also a second Tabernacle, which was called. Sanctum sanctorum, and what was therein contained, with their Ceremonies, services, and Sacrifices done in each of those. Which done, he compareth the high priest to the high priest, Tabernacle to tabernacle, Sacrifice to Sacrifice, blood to blood, effect of blood to effect of blood, cleansing and purifying, to cleansing, and purifying holy place, to holy place, and always according to his principal intent, and argument, proveth all the figured things of the new Testament, to be far better than their figures in the old Testament. And finally, to conclude and knit up all the whole disputation of the old Testament with one word, he saith: Vmbram Heb. 10. The old law had but the shadows: the new law hath the very: things habens Lexfuturorum bonorum, non ipsam imaginem rerum etc. The Law hath but a shadow of good things to come, and not the very fashion of the things themselves. In the which words, as it were in a brief, he describeth the condition and state of both laws, which is, that the old law hath the figures of good things, and the new law hath the good things themselves. By the which process it is not only evident, and proved, that the things figured be better, than the figure: But also by this last conclusion of saint Paul it is improved, that the things of the new Testament should be but bare figures. But they are in deed the good things (as he doth term them) and the very things of the figures and shadows, which have gone before in the old Testament, whereby also I may conclude that the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood (being according to Christ's institution consecrated to be offered and received in the memorial of Christ's passion and death: being also as Dionysius Dionys. Eccle. Hierarch. part. 3. Areopagita in his ecclesia sticall Hierarchy saith, Omnium sacramentorum consummatissimum & augustissimum, of all Sacraments most perfect, and noblest, without the which no ministration almost should be do, but that this divine Sacrament should end it) is not a bare figure, as the paschal lamb, being the figure of this, was: but is the very good thing in deed, that is, the very body and blood of hour immaculate paschal Lamb of the new Testament figured by that paschal Lamb of the old Testament. For else the figure should not be a figure of a good thing (as saint Paul saith) but the figure should be the figure of a bare figure, which is inconvenient, and against saint Paul, and against the worthiness of the new Testament, and the excellency of the same, which in a great part consisteth in the Sacraments, which have the very things, and truth of the figures and Shadows of the old Testament. And albeit, I have (as it seemeth to me, and so, I trust, it appeareth to any right christian reader) sufficiently proved by the Scriptures, that the paschal Lamb eaten, was a figure of hour paschal Lamb Christ eaten in the Sacrament: yet lest any man malicioustie may cavil, saying that I have used the Scriptures at my own pleasure, and wrested them to my own fantasy, and perchance that some weak man may be better satisfied, I will resort to the Parliament house of Christ's Church, and learn of them which is the very truth determined and enacted, approved, and received ther. THE SIXTEEN CHAPTER TEACHETH THIS matter by Tertullian and Isychius. ANd first for the application of the figure of the Pafchall Lamb to the thing figured: I will confer with Tertullian a man of great learning. Who also is so ancient, that he is of some accounted the eldest writer of the latin church. He was very near to the time of the Apostles, about the 166. year after Christ. Whom saint Cyprian so highly esteemed, that no day passed, in the which Tertullian was not in his hand, and some part of him red. This man being a noble man of Christ's Parliament house, can certify us, what was enacted and received as a truth through out all the house of Christ in his tyme. Therefore we will hear what he saith in this matter. Tertu. li. 4 cont. Martion. He did write against one Martion an heretic, and in that book he saith thus: Professus itaque se concupiscentia concupiscere edere Pascha ut suum (indignum enim ut quid alienum concupisceret Deus) acceptum panem, & distributum discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit. Therefore when he had openly said, that with desire he had desired to eat the passouer as his own passouer (for it was unmeet that God should desire any strange thing) he made that bread, that he did take and distribute to his disciples, his body. Remember (gentle Reader) what is before said, that the paschal Lamb of the old law, as touching that, that he was offered, was a figure of the oblation of our Lamb Christ, which is without all controversy: But whether the eating of the lamb really, and substantially did figure, that Christ our paschal Lamb should be eaten really, and substantially in the Sacrament, is the very controversy. Wherein what this ancient man of Christ's Parliament house hath said, you have heard. In the which his saying if you have noted, you may preceave, that he maketh mention of two passovers: One that was not properly his, which he did not so earnestly desire to eat: An other that was properly his own, which he did earnestly desire to eat. wherebily he toucheth the the figurative Passover, and the true passouer. What the true Passover is, he plainly declareth when he saith: The bread that he did take, and distribute to his disciples, he made his body. I can not contain but to break, out to declare, that I do not a little wonder to see the obstinate blindness of the enemies of God's truth, that Heretics bark against the truth as dogs do against the Moon. hearing and seeing so manifest, so plain, and so clear a sentence, spoken and uttered without any confuse, or obscure terms, briefly knit, and compact, without any long am bages, hearing will not hear, and seeing will not see, but wilfully will be blind, and not understand, and yet malicioustie bark against the clear light, which they can not extinguish, As the dogs do against the Moon, which they can not vanquish. But let them brak as long as they list, Veritas Domini manet in aeternum. The truth of our Lord abideth for ever. To the which God give them grace to turn. But let the true Christian hear and mark what enacted and received Psalm 116 truth was in the parliament house of Christ's Church, now opened and testified by the Ancient elder of the same, which is that Christ made the bread, which he did take, and distribute to his disciples, his body. Heretics build tehir faith upon reason and senses. which was, and is the true Paschal Lamb, figured by the old paschal lamb. And by this let him comfort himself, in the true faith that the hath received, and confirm himself to be mighty against all the assauts of heresy, how moche so ever their sainges shall delight, or please reason, or the know ledge of our senses, wherpon they do so build their faith, that they would have no point ne part thereof directly repugnant to reason, or judgement of sense, as Cranmer, or the Author of that book, which is set forth in his name, with moche boldness affirmeth, Whose very words for the trial, I will ascribe. Thus shall ye there Cranmers' sensual sentence Li. 2. read: But to conclude in few words, the Papists shall never be able to show one article of our faith, so directly contrary to our senses, that all our senses by daile experience shall affirm a thing to be, And yet our faith shall teach us the contrary thereunto. Thus he. In which saying (gentle Reader) you may perceive that these sensual men were so much captive to sensual knowledge, that not content to have faith a knowledge above, or at lest equal with reason, which in deed surmounteth, Faith surmounteth reason, or senses. and passeth all reason, would abase her to be an hand maiden to the knowledge of our senses, as one that should teach no article contrary to them, which yet teacheth all above the knowledge of senses, and much directly contrary. As for example. Hour senses by daily experience teach us that men do die. And that some of their bodies being burned, there is nothing left but Ashes blown abroad Faith teacheth many things contrary to the senses. with the wind. And some consumed of the fowls of the air: Some of the fishes of the sea: Some utterly do putrefy in the earth, as things that should never be the same flesh, the same substance, the same man again. And yet faith teacheth us directly contrary. that is, that the thing which the senses judge to be dead, which is so divided and separated from life, that it shall never live, the same thing in number again, that in deed it is not dead, but sleepeth, and shall be the same in person again that it was before. The senses taught none other but that the wounds which Christ had in his body after the resurrection, and specially the wound of his side, into the which he willed Thomas to pute his hand, were very sore and painful: and yet faith saith directly contrary. For a glorified body it not passable. Thus these men building their faith upon their senses, when their senses perished, their sensual faith preished with all, Wherefore cleave not to such a faith which needeth to be maintained with untruth, and false sensual knowledge. But embrace that faith, which is ground upon Christ, and lined out, and tried by the sure and straight pillar of truth the Catholic Church. But perchance the Adversary will say, that although the sentence of Objection out of Tertull. Tertullian for so moche as I have brought in, soundeth plainly to my purpose: yet if I had brought in the whole sentence, it would have overthrown the same. Wherefore I deal not sincerely, but use craft. To this I say, that this, that is alleged out of Tertullian, is his very saying, and needeth no dependence to make it perfect, but is of it self a perfect proposition, and therefore hath in it self a truth, or falsehood, and may then well be alleged to confirm my purpose. And yet I have not so omitted it, as though I would not see it, but I have reserved it to be handled, where we shall seek the exposition of his text: Hoc est corpus meum. But that we may perceive in the meam while, that Tertullian in his place minded no other wise, than these his words alleged pourporte (I mien that Christ's body is made present in the Sacrament, and in the same given, and dipensed) I shall bring himself to witness in an other place, where he testifieth, that the flesh, that is to say, the natural man eateth the body of Christ: Caro (inquit) abluitur, ut anima emaculetur. Caro ungitur, ut anima consecretur. Caro signatur, Note that the flesh eateth the body and blood of Chryst. ut anima muniatur. Caro corpore & sanguine vescitur, ut anima de Deo saginetur. The flesh (saith Tertullian) is washed, that the Soul may be purged. The flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated. The flesh is signed, that the soul may be defended: The flesh eateth the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be made fat, or lusty in God. Thus Tertullian. In the which words he teacheth, that as verilic, as we be washed with very water, and anointed with very oil, and signed with the very sign of the cross, and not with the figures of these: So be we fed with the very body and blood of our Saviour Christ, and not with the figures of them. Teflesh (saith he) eateth the body, and blood of Christ, and not the spirit only. Now than that you have heard one of the one side of the parliament house, you shall hear one of the other side. jyschius an ancient author, Disciple to the great learned father Gregory Naziancen. saith thus: Non oportet eos, qui Pascha evangelicum celebrant, quod nobis tradidit Ecclesia, legal Pascha peragere, quod bovem, & ovem, legislator dicens, significavit, Jsychius in Le. lib. 6. cap. 22. quia haec praecepit Moses in die Paschae, quod traditum est judaeis immolare. They, that do celebrate the evangelical Passover, which the Church hath delivered us, may not celebrate the legal Passour, which the lawgiver commanding, hath declared to be an ox and a sheep. For Moses hath commanded to offer these things in the day of the passover, that is appointed to the jews. And a little after followeth: Non ergo oportere nos, habentes in manibus, & consummantes verum mysterium, sequi figuras, quae praedicta sunt, demonstrant. Neque enim est eiusdem temporis, Sed aliud quidem pertinere ad figuram, aliud autem ad veritatem, qui utraque sancivit, praecepit. Propter quod & Christus primùm celebravit figuratum Pascha. Pòst caenam autem intelligibilem tradit, & angustante eam tempore, pro die horan immutavit, vel magis etiam diem. Sic enim ad vesperam quartae decimae diei caenae judaicae Paschalis festivitatis celebratur. Post hoc autem Christus propriam tradidit caenam. The things therefore, which are afore said, do declare, that we, having present, and doing the true mystery, may not follow figures. Neither is it appertaining to the same time. But he that ordained both, commanded one time to appertain to the figure, an other time to the verity. Wherefore Crist also did first celebrate the figurative passover, but after supper he delivered the intelligible Supper, and the time straicting the same, he changed an hour for a day, or raither also the day. For so in the evening of the fourteenth day, the Supper of the jewish paschal solemnity is celebrated. And after this Christ delivered his own Supper. Thus far Isychius. In whose words it may be perceived: first, what was the jewish paschal offering, which was an ox or àshepe, which were a figure of Christ our paschal oblation. secondly, he teacheth, that we now having the true mystery, may not follow figures. In which words note (gentle Reader) that he saith that we now have the true mystery, whereby we are taught, that we have in our paschal solemnity, the very or true presence of Christ. For he putteh here this term (true mystery) to answer the figurative presence in the figure. Paschal lamb and christ compared. The figure hath but the shadow of the thing, but that, that is figured, hath the thing it self. The paschal Lamb of the jews eaten in their Passover, was a figure of Christ our paschal lamb eaten in our Passover. Where for, as the jews had a very earthly lamb, the figure, in their supper: So we have the very heavenly Lamb Christ, the truth of that figure in our Supper. Which thing this Author in the words following doth plainly declre. For (saith he) one time serveth not for the figure, and the thing figured: Very Christ in our Passover. but there is one time for the figure, an other time for the verity. Note then again that he calleth the thing figured the verity. what is the verity, but the very thing in deed, that the figure did perfigurate? The lamb the figure did perfigurate Christ: Wherefore very Christ is in our passouer. This is not fallen from this Author as a thing unwittingly spoken, but proceeding advisedly in the matter, and applying the thing figurated, and declaring the accomplishing of the thing by Christ, he saith: Wherefore Christ also did first celebrate the figurative Passover. But after supper he delivered the intelligible Supper. What is meant by the intelligible Supper, ye shall better perceive by other places of this Author, where he useth this word, which he doth almost in every leaf. As in his same chapter, showing whereof Egypt is a figure, he saith: Etenim AEgyptus intelligiblis, praesens mundus, quia AEgyptus contenebratio inter Isych. Ibid. pretatur. The intelligible Egypt is this present world, For Egypt, by interpretation, is called a darkening. Likewise upon this text of Leviticus, where almighty God said to the children of Israel by Moses: When ye shall come into the land, which I will give unto you, and reap down the harvest thereof, ye jebitic. 23. shall bring a sheife of the first fructs of your harvest unto the priest, who shall wave the sheife before the Lord, to be accepted for you. First teaching who were figured by the sheives he saith: Illi enim sunt & Jsic. li. 6. ca 23. Matth. 9 messores, et intelligibiles segetes, ad quos Dominus dicebat: Messis quidem multa, operarij autem pauci, etc. They be both the reapers, and the intelligible sheives, to whom our lord said: The harvest truly is great, but the woorkmen, or reapers are few. And likewise opening, who was figured by the priest, that should make their oblation accepted of God for them, he saith: Manipulum autem primitiarum intelligibilis sacerdos Christus, corpus proprium offerebat. The intelligible priest christ did offer his own body a sheif of first fruits. Again in the same chapter upon this text: And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheife an he lamb without blemish, of a year old, for a offering unto the Lord, he saith: Volens nos in die, qua celebramus Domini resurrectionem, et manipuli intelligibilem oblationem celebramus, non oblivisci dominici sacrificij, ex quo nobis est oblatio manipuli: sed caedere agnum immaculatum, anniculum, in holocaustum Domino, intelligibilem agnum, Domini traditionem immolantes mysticè, et offerentes, ipsius autem, ut sacrificium caedentes, memoriamfecit. Hour Lord willing us, in the day, wherein we do celebrate the resurrection of him, and do celebrate the intelligible oblation of the sheif, not to forget our lords sacrifice, of the which we have the oblation of the sheif, but to offer up a lamb without spot of one year old, for a sacrifice to our Lord, mystically sacrificing, and offering the intelligible lamb, being the tradition of our Lord, in the doing of this sacrifice, he hath made his memorial. In an other place also, where almighty God said: A man that hath sinned Isich. li. 7. ca 5. through ignorance, and hath done against thee, law, and knoweth himself guilty, shall offer an unspotted Ram unto the priest: Rectè intelligibilis aries Christus, huius peccatum, in sacrificio pro eo oblatus, diluit. Even very well christ the intelligible ram, being offered for him in sacrifice, wipeth away the sin of this man. In all these places, these words, the intelligible egypt, the intelligible sheives, the intelligible priest, the intelligible oblation, the intelligible lamb, the intelligible Ram, what do these else signify, but the very things shadowed, and signified by the figures? Whereby we may conclude by this author, that the legal Supper, and the lamb therein eaten, were the figures of Christ'S Supper, and the lamb therein eaten being the very things in deed, that is Christ'S own Supper, and his own blessed body, which is the intelligible lamb, that was and is therein eaten. And that this shall be so plain, that the Adversary shall not against say levit. 24. it, hear this Author clearly opening the matter. expounding how Aaron, and his children, were touched with the blood of the Ram, Isich in Leuit. li. 2. ca 8. that was sacrificed for them, and applying it to that, that it was a figure of, he saith: Sed tamen primus sacerdos sanguine, & post eum filii eius secundùm legem ungebantur: quia ipse Dominus primus in coena mystica intelligibilem accepit sanguinem, atque deinde calicem Apostolis dedit. Sed ecce legislator hic post unctionem Aaron & filiorum subdidit: De sanguine reliquum fudit super altari per circuitum. Quod et Christum fecisse invenimus. Bibens enim ipse, et Apostolis bibere dans, tunc intelligibilem sanguinem super altar, videlicet suum corpus effudit. Corpus autem Christi, Ecclesia est, et omnis plebs eius. Quod specialiter dicentem Marcum invenimus: Et sumens, gratias agens, dediteis, et biberunt ex eo omnes, et dixit eyes: Hic est sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro multis effusus est. But first the priest, and after him his Sons were according to the law anoincted with blood. For our Lord himself also first in the mystical Supper, did take the intelligible blood, and then gave the cup to his Apostles. But yet lo, this lawgiver after the enoincting of Aaron, and his sons, saith: The rest of the blood he powered round about upon the Altar. Which thing also we find christ to have doen. For he drinking and giving his Apostles to drink, than he powered the intelligible blood upon the altar, that is to say, upon his body. The body of christ is the Church, and all his people. Which thing we find christ drank his own blood, and gave it to his Apostles. Mark specially saying. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank of it, and he said unto them: This is my blood of the new Testament, which is shed for many. Thus moche Isychius. I shall not need to note any thing in this place of this Author, where every part of his saying is so plain. It is very manifest, that he saith, that Why Christ first drank his own blood. Christ gave unto the Apostles his blood, which he calleth, as before is declared, the intelligible blood. Which is as much to say, as the blood of christ figured by the blood of the lamb, and also of the Ram offered for Aaron ad his Sons. Which blood (as Chrysostom also together with this Author witness) christ himself, because his Apostles believing it verily, according to the word of their master, to be blood, should not therefore loath to drink of it, drank first unto them, and then drank all they. If christ drank his own blood, he drank it either spiritually or corporally. Spiritually he could not, wherefore he drank it corporally. As touching this witness of chrysostom, more shall be said in the second book. And although this place convinceth the Proclaimer, who saith, Li. 2. ca 55 that we can not bring any one old catholic Doctor or Father: Yet in the third book (shall be brought out of this father diverse and many places, more plainly teaching God's truth, than this doth. Wherefore leaving him with his joint fellow, who have plainly testified Christ'S very presence in the Sacrament, for that the figure must be answered by the very thing, and truth, whereof it is the figure: I shall call two other more witnesses to testify the same. THE SEVENTENE CHAPTER proceedeth in the same matter by saint Cyprian, and Euthymius. Saint Cyprian martyr, Bishop of Carthage, a man in learning, and virtuous conversation most excellent, and in propinquity of time to christ, right ancient, as Eusebius doth testify, whom saint S. Cyprian his commendation. Lab. 7. eccl. li. Hist. c. 2 Cyprian. de coena. Augustine in his works doth much reverence, who lived about 256. years after christ, whom I make to follow among the latins, Tertullian, for that he so much esteemed and loved him, as is before said, In this matter he speaketh after this sort. Coena itaque disposita inter sacramentales epulas, obuiarunt sibi instituta nova, & antiqua, & consumpto agno, quem antiqua traditio proponebat, inconsumptibilem cibum magister apponit discipulis. Nec iam ad elaborata impensis, et arte convivia populi invitantur, sed immortalitatis alimonia datur, à communibus cibis differens, corporalis substantiae retinens speciem, sed virtutis Divinae invisibili efficientia probans adesse praesentiam. The Supper therefore being ordered, among the sacramental meats, their met together the old ordinances and the new. And when the lamb was consumed or eaten, which the old tradition did set forth, the master did put before his disciples, the inconsumptible meat. Neither now be the people bidden to feasts prepared with cunning, and charges, but here is given the food of immortality, differing from common meats, retaining the form of corporal substance, but proving by the invisible efficiency, the presence of God's power to be therein. Thus saint Cyprian. Christ gave his disciples inconsumptible meat: Sacramentaries give their disciples ccnsumptile meat. In the which words of this holy Father, ye perceive, first, the comparison of the two passovers. Which he calleth the old ordinance, and the new, that met together among the sacramental meats. secondarily, ye may perceive the difference of them both. For the old Passover was a lamb, which was consumed. Which he teacheth when he saith. Et consumpto agno, and when the lamb was consumed, which the old tradition did set forth. The other is a meat, which never is able to be consumed, which he plainly uttereth thus. The master (meaning christ) did put before his disciples inconsumptible meat. Now note how different the Sacramentaries be from this holy elder Sacramentaries gloze upon S. Cyprian overthrown. of Christ'S church. They say there is put, or set before us but bread, which is consumptible, as the paschal lamb was: but this Father saith: The master put before his disciples inconsumptible meat. Neither may they here use their feigned glozing, saying that we do receive inconsumptible meat in the Supper of the Lord, for we receive christ spiritually, that is, the merit and grace of his passion. For neither these Meat of Christ's supper differeth from common meats. words will bear that gloze, neither the words that follow. For these words say, that the master did put before them inconsumptible meat. He did not put the merit of his passion before them. For it is not a thing of that nature, that it may be taken by hand, and laid before men in seight, but it is taken by the inward man only. But this meat was put before them. H. 3. Bread of the heretical communion differeth not from common bread. Christ's meat retaining the form of corporal substance cannot be the spiritual meat of the Sacramentaries. And the words that do follow, do yet more clearly show the matter, and wipe away their gloze, for it followeth that this meat, which christ put before his disciples, did differ from common meats, and yet it retained the form of natural substance. If it did differ from common meats, than it can not be taken for the bread used in the Sacrament. For that bread (as Cranmer, or the Author of that book saith) differeth not from other meats. For it is yerie pure material bread, having no more holiness, than other creatures have, for that, that doom creatures are no partakers of holiness. And further this meat (as Cyprian saith) differing from other meats, retaineth the form of corporal substance. If this meat also doth retain the form of corporal substance, then is it not that spiritual meat, which they call the merit of Christ's passion, or the belief that christ hath suffered for us, for that meat retaineth not the form of corporal substance. So that this new ordinance that was instituted by our Saviour Christ, to meet, and to answer the old ordinance of the paschal Lamb, was no bare bread, for that neither differeth from other meats, neither it is meat inconsumptible, neither is it the spiritual meat of the merit of Christ's passion. For that retaineth not the form of corporal substance. Wherefore I may be bold to affirm, that it is the very real and substantial body of our Saviour jesus Christ, which is the inconsumptible meat as the Church in the praise of God, for his wonderful work in this Sacrament, D. Tho. Aquin. singeth: Sumit unus, sumunt mill, tantum isti, quantum ille, nec sumptus absumitur. One doth eat, and a thousand do eat, as moche do these eat as he, and yet received, he is not absumed. This also is that food of immortality that Cyprian speaketh of, which cannot be bare material bread, but it is the bread of life, even the flesh of christ, which is the medicine of immortality, as saith holy Ignatius, disciple of saint John the Evangelist, who exhorting the Ephesians, whom he wrote unto, speaketh very aptly to the matter here now entreated. Be ye Ignatius in epistola ad Ephes. taught (saith he) of the comforter, obedience to the bishop, and the priest with unswaruing, or stable mind, breaking the bread, which is the medicine of immortality, the perseruative of not dying, but of living by jesus christ. Thus Ignatius. Note now that he calleth the bread that is broken in the Sacrament, The bread broken in the blessed Sacrament is the medicine of immortality. the medicine of immortality, the preservative from death. Which effects can not be attributed to the sacramental bread of the Sacramentaries, but to the heavenly bread of the Catholics, which is the body of Christ. This inconsumptible meat, this food of immortality, retaineth the form of corporal substance. For the body of christ in the Sacrament retaineth and is covered with the forms of the corporal substances of bread and wine. Which meat is not so prepared to us, and for us (saith Cyprian) by the cunning of man, but by the invisible working of God, whereby being made a meat of such excellency, and singular prerogative, it proveth the presence of God's power to be there, which presence is not, that his general presence, whereby he is every where, but it is aspeciall manner of presence, as it was Luc. 1. with the virgin, when the Angel said: Et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi. And the power of the highest shall overshadow thee. Wheigh now with me (christian Reader) what manner of thing this new Honourable and worthy titles of the Sacrament meat is, which christ hath set in the place of the old meat, I mien, of the paschal lamb: It is an inconsumptible meat it is a food of immortality, it is wrought by the invisible working of God, it hath a special presence of god's power. All which declare it a thing much more honourable, moche more excellent, than the paschal lamb, which excellent terms can be verified in no one thing of this Sacrament, but in him only that said: Caro mea verè est cibus. My flesh is verily meat. Wherefore this excellent meat is his very flesh, which Joan. 6. is our very paschal Lamb of the new Testament, not only verily offered, but also verily eaten to answer the figure, which was both offered, and eaten. And that the Adversary shall not say, that I feign and make such an exposition of S. Cyprians words, as liketh me, or make him to mien as pleaseth Cyprian. eodem. serm. de Cana. me, he shall perceive the same Cyprian himself, with one short sentence of the same sermon, in the which the former sentence is contained, to expownde it, as I have done, which is this: Panis iste, quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat, non effigy, sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro. Et sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur, & latebat divinitas: ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter se divina infudit essentia. This bread, which our Lord gave to his disciples, changed, not in outward shape, but in nature, by the almightiness of the word is made flesh And as in the person of christ the humanity was seen, and the Godhead lay hidden: Even so the divine nature inspeakeablie poureth, The bread in the blessed Sacrament by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh. and putteth it self in the visible Sacrament. Thus moche Saint Cyprian. In the former sentence he speaketh of a meat, given to the disciples in the last Supper: Here he speaketh of the same meat, given at that same time to the disciples. There he said, that that meat is an inconsumptible meat, meat of immortality, differing from other meats, but yet retaining the form of corporal substance: Here he saith, that being changed in nature, but not in outward form, by the omnipotency of the word it is made flesh. There he said, that thepresence of the divine power was proved to be present: Here he saith, that the divine nature unspeakably putteth it selfin the visible Sacrament, So that, that he called before indeterminatelie inconsumptible meat: Here he calleth it determinately flesh, into the which the nature of bread is turned. Before indeterminatelie he said, that the meat retaineth the form of corporal substance: Here he determinately saith, that the bread which is made flesh, now being flesh, retaineth the outward form still. In the other sentence he said, that the feast is not prepared with art and charges of man: In this he saith determinately, by what mean it is prepared, By the omnipontencie of the word (saith he) it is made flesh. Note further what Similitude he useth for the declaration of Christ's in visible being in the Sacrament: As in the person of christ, the humanity S. Cyprian his similitude to declare Christ'S presence in the Sacrament. was seen, and the Godhead was hidden: Even so the divine nature (which is christ very God) unspeakably putteth it self in the visible Sacrament. Where by he teacheth, that as the godhead was hidden under the humanity: So christ is hidden under the visible Sacrament, that is, under the forms of bread and wine, which are seen. And where the adversaries being sore pressed with this manifest, and most plain sentence, have gone about to elude it with a gloze upon this word, Sacramentaries gloze upon S. Cyprian overthrown. nature, saying that nature is here taken for the property of nature, and not for the substance of nature: that gloze is overthrown by these words there immediately following: Factus est caro, was made flesh. Now ye have heard holy Cyprians faith in this matter, so plainly uttered, that his testimony alone were sufficient to make the adversary to rub his forehead for shame, if any shame be in him, and to call in his proclamation, for asmuch as he heareth the matter so clearly, and so manifestly spoken, and uttered, as neither he, ne any of his likes can well fasten any dark, or blind gloze to take away the clearness of this sentence. But trusting that the thing it self confowndeth sufficiently the arrogancy of the Adversaries: I will proceed and bring forth one of the other side of Christ'S Parliament house, who shall be Euthymius, a man so ancient, and so famed among learned men, that I need not here to stand moche in his commendation. As touching this matter he saith thus, speaking of our Saviour Christ'S doing in his last Supper. Egit gratias, & nunc ante panem, & postmodum ante poculum, Euthym in Matth. 26 docens quòd gratias agere oportet ante huiusmodi mysterium, quod perfectum est ad praestandum naturae nostrae beneficium. Si enim agni figurativi immolatio ab interfectione liberationem, & à servitute libertatem judaeis praestitit, quanto maiora praestabit Christianis veri agni immolatio? Simul etiam ostendens, quòd ultroneus ad passionem veniret, & praeterea docens nos gratias agere in omnibus quae patimur. Sicut autem pictores in una tabula, & lineas supponunt, & picturas adumbrant, et colores superinducunt, ac formant: ita quoque Christus in eadem mensa et figuratiwm ac vmbratile Pascha subscripsit, et verum, ac perfectum apposuit. He gave thanks, both now before the bread, and afterward before the cup, teaching that we must give thanks before such a mystery, as was done to give a benefet to hour nature. For if the sacrificing of the figurative lamb gave unto the jews deliverance from being slain, and liberty from servitude: How moche greater benefettes shall the sacrificing of the true lamb give unto the Christians? Showing also withal, that he came willingly to his passion, and besides that, teaching that we should give thanks in all things, that we suffer. As painters in one table first draw their lines, and shadow their paintings, and then lay on their colours, and set it out in form or fashion: Even so also christ in that one table set out the figurative and shadolike passouer, an then put unto them the true, and perfect passover. Hitherto Euthymius. In whose sentence ye may first perceive, that he teacheth that the lamb eaten of the jews, was the figure and shadow of the true paschal lamb, that christ gave to his Apostles. secondarily, that it is to be considered, that he calleth Christ'S Passover, in respect of the jews passouer, a perfect and true Passover. Now the Adversaries teach, that the good jews eating their paschal Sacramentaries opinions. Lamb received christ Spiritually: And they say likewise, that the good christians, eating the sacramental bread (as they term it) receive christ also but Spiritually, They say also that the jews received christ in a sign, or figure: They say that the Christians likewise, receive christ but in sign, or figure. How then riseth this difference, that their paschal feast is called but a shadow, or figure, and hour is called the true, and perfect paschal feast? And yet, according to the adversaries doctrine, there is no more in the one, then in other, but both be figures, both be signs, and christ but spiritually received in both. Where is then the truth, that maketh our paschal feast, a true feast? And where is the perfection, that maketh it perfect, as this author tearmenth it? It can not be, but that in Christ's Supper there must be the trneth, and very thing of that, that was figured in the judaical Supper. And that perfect Christ in the judaical feast imperfectly in our feast perfectie. thing, in perfect manner, which in the jews Supper was unperfectly, as ye have heard, that that lamb, and Supper was a figure of christ our lamb, and our Supper. Wherefore then it must needs follow, that as christ was in that Supper but in a figure, and therefore unperfectly: So must he be present in our Supper, more than in a figure, even by very true, and real presence, and so perfectly. And that this Author (as I have declared) meant of such a perfectereall presence of christ in the sacrament, not only his own words already rehearsed do well prove, but this his saying also in the same chapter: Sicut vetus Testamentum hostias et sanguinem habebat: Ita sanè et nowm, corpus videlicet, et sanguinem Domini. Even as the old Testament had sacrifices and blood: So truly hath the new also, that is to wit, the body and blood of our lord, Thus Euthymius. Is not this saying plain enough? can the Proclaimer find any tropes, or A plain place for master dark figures, to say that this is not a plain sentence, declaring the very real presence of Christ's blessed body, and blood in the Sacrament, forasmuch as he saith not only that the new Testament hath the body and blood of christ: But it hath them as the proper sacrifice of the same. Neither may the Proclaimer draw this saying & pinch it to mien the sacrifice of the cross. For this author proceedeth immediately in the proif of Christ's real presence in the Sacrament, by Christ's own words: This is my body, And teacheth, that not only signs of Christ's body and blood be there, But his very body and blood, as in the second book, where we shall have a more apt, and convenient place to speak of these words, more at large out of this Author It shall be declared. And for this place, supposing enough to be said as concerning the mind of these two Authors, for the application of the figure of the paschal Lamb to Christ our paschal Lamb, and how the one is but the figure, the other the verity, And that therefore the thing in deed, that was figured, which is Christ's very body is otherwise present, then in a figure: I will leave these, and call other two of Christ's Parliament house, to hear their testimony also, what the enacted truth of this matter is. THE eighteen CHAPTER treateth OF the same matters by saint Hierom, and chrysostom. Among the elders of the latin church, which remain I will first hear saint Hierom, a man in fame so excellent, in learning so deep, and profownde, in living so holy, in time so ancient, as being born the year of our Lord 331. of diverse holy men so highly commended, of all true christians so well accepted, and received, that his testimony in this matter can not be refused. Thus saith he: Postquam typicum Pascha fuerat impletum, & agni carnes cum Apostolis comedisset, assumit panem, qui confortat cor hominis, & ad verum Paschae transgreditur Hieron. in 26. Matth. sacramentum, ut quomodò in praefiguratione illius Melchisedech, summi Dei sacerdos, panem & vinum offerens, fecerat, ipse quoque veritatem sui corporis, & sanguinis repraesentaret. After that the figurative Passover was fulfilled, and he had eaten the flesh of the lamb with his Apostles, he taketh bread, which comforteth the heart of man, and goeth to the true Sacrament of the Passover, that as Melchisedech the priest of the high God, in offering bread and wine, did in the prefiguration of the same, he also might represent the verity of his body and blood. Thus moche saint Hierom. I need not here to note the application of the old paschal Lamb to the new, as of the figure to the thing figured. For this Author speaketh it so plainly, that it need not be noted to him, that will see, perceive, and understand. But forasmoch as the weightiest part of the controversy consisteth in the thing figured, what it should be, whether it be bread, the figure of Christ's body, or Christ's very body and blood in deed, and truth, verily present, and really, in the Sacrament: therefore I will weigh the saying of this Author, where he speaketh of it. He saith, that as Melchisedech did offer bread and wine, Christ also would represent the truth of his body and blood. The adversaries perchance Objection of the Adversaries out of S. Hierom. will triumph, and say, that Saint Hieron is here on their side, for that he saith not plainly, that Christ did give his very body, but that he did represent his very body. And representing (say they) is a showing of a thing by sign, or figure, and not by the thing it self. Wherefore Christ by the bread as by a figure, did represent his body, but not verily, and realie give it to the Disciples. To answer this objection, I would learn of them, if among learned men this verb be so striected, as only to signify, to show a thing by figure or sign. And whether this be the proper signification of the word or no. And if they be ignorant thereof, let them worthily take the taunt, that Luther the fownder of Sects in our time, unworthily gave to King Henry the eight, that is, let them go look the Vocabularies. But because their travail shall be eased, I will show them, how they shall find it in two sundry editions of Calepine. In the first thus: Repraesento Represent what it signifieth. praesentem sisto. that is, I represent, I set, or make present. In the which signification Collumella also useth this verb Repraesento, as by his saying there alleged, it is manifest. For thus he saith: Itaque villicus curabit ut justa reddantur. Istaue non aegrè consequetur, si semper se repraesentaverit. Therefore shall the bailif see, that duties be paid. And these shall he easily atteign, if he always represent himself. Thus he. Where it is evident, that Repraesentarit in the latin, or represent in the english, signifieth not a figurative representing, but a very real and personal representing of the bailiff in his own very person. And in moche like signification, the same Calepine in an other place hath it thus: Repraesento, id est praesens assero. I presently bring. Which signification is often used in the laws, as when they say: Repraesentare rei precium, and repraesentare mercedem. In the english Dictionary Repraesento is to represent, to render, to bring in presence, to present a thing, to lay before one, to show or declare. By all these places it is manifest, that Repraesento signifieth not only to show a thing by figure sign, or token, but by the very thing it self present. And thus by their Grammar, their argument of representation is not only answered, and they of ignorance reprehended, that would frame it to confirm their wicked assertion: but also the true meening of the word, Repraesento, moche opened to the better understanding of this Author here alleged. Wherefore, gentle Reader, understand, that when saint Hierom had declared, that the figurative paschal Lamb was afigure of the true paschal christ, in in the law presented in figure: in the Gospel-in verity. Lamb Christ, who in the same was presented, as in a sign: And likewise had said of the bread, which Melchisedech offered in the prefiguration of Christ, whereby also Christ was once presented, as in his figure: Now he saith, Christ would in verity present himself again, in which verity is understanded his very body, and very blood. As by plain, and brief words he might say: Melchisedech in bread, and wine did figuratively present the body and blood of Christ, but Christ hath presented again verily, and truly his body, and blood. To this understanding, the word, verity in saint Hierom enforceth us. For if he had meant, that Christ had set or laid before his Apostles, but a sign, he might have said: Ipse quoque corpus, & sanguinem suum repraesentaret. He also might represent his body and blood. But when he saith: Ipse quoque veritatem coporis, & sanguinis sui repraesentaret. He would represent the verity of his body and blood, this word, verity, bannisheth signs and figures, and giveth us to understand a very and real presence which Christ, according to the signification of the word, would show or declare to this Apostles. And for the further declaration that this is the meening of saint Hierom: Note that when he first spoke of the lamb, he calleth it Typicum Pascha the figurative passouer. When he speaketh of the figured passover, he calleth it, verum Pascha. the true Passover. So likewise when he did speak of bread and wine, which Melchisedech offered, he saith, he did it in praefiguratione, in the prefiguration. When he speaketh of Christ's doing, he saith, he did give the verity. So that Christ was presented twice: once in figure and again in verity. Wherefore saint Hierom said very well, that he would represent, that is, he would present himself again. This may appear also by the Scripture which saint Hierom there allegeth, saying: Assumit panem, qui confortat cor hominis. He taketh the bread, that comforteth the heart of man. To what purpose? To celebrate the Sacrament of the true Passover. What is the true passouer? The body and blood of Christ. Which is the very right bread, that comforteth the heart of man in very deed, with that spiritual and heavenly comfort, that is permanent, which is the right and true comfort. forasmuch as it is most manifest, that this sentence of the Psalm is to be understanded of Christ, that excellent bread of life, for that the Prophet David in that Psalm doth speak of the great providence of God, in ordering, and disposing all things in heaven, in earth, and in the Seas, signifying thereby in the spirit of prophecy, the goodly disposition of things in the Church of Christ, beautified, adorned, and confirmed with Sacraments, in most goodly wise, of the which Christ, and his church, is the whole prophecy of that book, as here after more at large shall be declared, among the which sacraments, speaking of the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood the prophet said. educas panem de terra, & vinum laetificet cor hominis, & panis cor hominis confirmet. That thou mayst bring forth food Psalm. 103 out of the earth, and wine, that maketh glad the heart of man, and bread to strengthen màns heart: it shall suffice for this present to declare the same by the words alleged of saint Hierom. For he, there declaring the ceasing of the old paschal lamb, and the beginning of the new, which he calleth the true Passover, in the beginning of the same, saith thus: Assumit panem, qui confortat cor hominis, He taketh bread, which comforteh the heart of man. It was most certain (as saint Cyprian saith) that Manducaverunt de eodem pane secundùm formam visibilem. They had eaten of the same bread after a visible manner. But to that bread so eaten, saint Jerome would not apply the saying of the Prophet, but where he beginneth to show how Christ cometh to the institution of this blessed Sacrament, in the which they should eat the true paschal Lamb, the body of Christ, the very bread of life, and comforth, There he applieth the propheicie, of the Prophet, to the very thing that it prophesied of, and saith: He taketh the bread, that comforteth the heart of man. Thus the placing, and applicacon of that Scripture well considered, and weighed of the reader, shall cause him well to perceive, how the same is to be understanded, as is by me before said. And now, altough saint Hierom hath sufficiently declared his faith in this matter of the verity enacted, and received throughout all the house of Christ in his time: Yet for the satisfying of them, that thirst for the truth, I will bring in saint Hierom in an other place, speaking so plain words, Hieron. ad Heliodorum cpistola. 1. Christ's body is consecrated of the priest. as neither the enemy can withstand so evident a truth, nor other men take occasion of doubt. Absit (saith he) ut de ijs quicquam sinistrum loquar, qui apostolico gradui succedentes, Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt. God forbid, that I should speak any evil of them, which succeading the Apostolic degree, with their holy mouth do consecrate the body of Christ. In the which saying ye may perceive that saint Hieroms' faith was (being so taught of the church wherein he lived) that he priest doth consecrate the body of Christ. whereby also then it is most manifest, that Christ's very body is in the Sacrament. And this also is not to be overpassed, that the he saith, the priests do Amb. de saor. lib. 4. case. Euseb. Emise hom. pasch. Chry. de prod. Hom. 30. with their holy mouth consecrate the same body of Christ: For hereby is rejected that foolish heresy, void aswell of reason, as of authority, which taught that the faith of the receiver made the presence of Christ in the Sacrament. for it is as S. Ambrose, Eusebius, and Chrysostom say, the holy word of Christ spoken, as sancte Hierom here saith, by the mouth of the priest, that consecrateth the body of Christ. And thus also, if by the mouth of the priest the body of Christ be consecrated, then is that body verily present. And further it may be learned of this great learned, and holy father, that the order of preisthoode is not to be contemned, but reverenced, who priests aught to be reverenced. for their order and office. with a manner of speech of vehemency, saith: God forbid, that I should speak any evil of them etc. By which manner of speech he noteth it to be a great crime to speak evil of them. The causes why he would not speak evil of them be: that they succeade the Apostles in office, which is an high degree, and that the work of their ministration is great, and that they do consecrate the body of Christ. And now that this noble man hath so plainly opened the truth enacted Chrysostom his worthiness of learning, holiness, constancy, and ancienty. and received of the one side of Christ's Parliament house: we will also hear what one of the other side will say. Which shall be golden mouthed chrysostom, who is worthy so to be called for the golden sentences that proceed out of his mouth. Who also is woorhie to be believed, not only for his holiness, and great learning: But also for his constancy of faith, and ancienty in time. Who being in the time of the heresy of the Arrians, about the year of Christ 350 and therefore about 1200 years a gone, gave no place to it, neither for Princes, neither for the loss of his Bishopperick, neither for banishment, neither for any persecution, that did come to him for his constancy in faith, but stood immovable, inflexible, and straight upright by the right pillar of truth Wherefore we may conceive a good opinion of him that he will do and hath done the like in teaching us the matter, that we now seek. Let us therefore hear. Thus he saith: Sed per hoc etiam aliud maius beneficium monstrabatur, quòd ille agnus futuri agni fuit typus, & ille sanguis dominici sanguinis monstrabat adventum, & ovis illa spiritalis ovis Omel. de prodi. Juda. fuit exemplum. Ille agnus umbra fuit: Hic veritas. Sed postquam sol justicia radiavit, umbra soluitur luce. & ideò in ipsa mensa utrumque Pascha, & typi, & veritatis celebratu est. Nam sicut pictores pingendam tabulam vestigijs quibusdam adumbrare solent, et sic colorum varietate perficere: ita & Christus fecit in mensa, & typum Paschae descripsit, et Pascha veritatis ostendit. Vbi vis paremus tibi comedere Pascha? judaicum Pascha erat, sed umbralumini cedat, advectata imago veritate superetur. But by that also an other great benefit was showed, that that lamb was a figure of the lamb to come, and that blood declared the coming of our lords blood, and that sheep was an example of the spiritual sheep. That lamb was a shadow: This lamb the truth. But after that the sun of righteousness showed forth his beams, the The old Paschal lamb a shadow, our lamb the truth. shadow is put away with the light. And therefore in that tablebothe the passovers, both of the figure, and of the truth, were celebrated. For as the painters are wont to shadow the table, that is to be painted, with certain signs and lineaments, and so with variety of colours to make it perfect: Even so Christ did in the table. He did both describe the figure of the passouer, and also showed the possover of the truth. Where wilt though that we make ready for thee to eat the passouer? That was the judaical Passover. But let the shadow give place to the light. And the image be overcomed of the truth. Thus Chrisostom. What needeth me here to travail to open the Authors meaning, where he himself useth so plain speech, that he needeth no interpreter? He hath not only made a just comparison between the old paschal lamb and our paschal lamb, but also by terms applied to them, he hath declared the contents of them, and what they be. That lamb (saith he) was, a shadow: This lamb the truth. That lamb a figurative passouer, this the true Passover. I would to God all that have roamed astray in the matter of this blessed Sacrament, would open their eyes and clearly behold, how by these words (true, and truth) which Chrisostom in this sentence so often hath used, the true faith, and the truth of the faith of the Church, the pillar of truth, is taught, maintained, and advanced, and the falsed of the false prophets, and preachers weakened, and convinced. These preachers teach that the Sacrament is but a figure, a sign or token of Christ's body: Chrisostom saith that the old paschal lamb was but a figure, but our paschal lamb caten in the Sacrament is the truth. That the shadow: This the light. If than the old paschal lamb were the figure and the shadow, and our new paschal lamb the truth and the light, them are they much more than bare figures and signs, for they are the very things. But to make an evasion from this argument, they will say that Christ is our true paschal lamb, and is truly eaten in the receit of the Sacrament. Heretics evasion from Chrysostom. And therefore we say with Chrisostom, we have the truth, and the very true paschal lamb is received of the faithful, even the very body of Christ. But if you proceed to demand of them, if the very body of Christ be consecrated on the Altar, and delivered by the priest to the hand or mouth of the faithful, and so received: here they start back, and can not abide this voice, that it should be on the Altar, but only in the heart of the godly receiver. But chrysostom saith, that his true passover (whereby he meaneth the body of Christ) was on the table, where the old passover was. In that table (saith he) both the passover, of the figure and of the truth were celebrated. And that none occasion of misunderstanding or wresting of his words Figurative passouer and true Passover both in one table. should be taken, he speaketh the same sentence after ward in more plain words saying: Christ in the table did both describe the figure of the passover, and showed also the true passover. Note then, both that Christ did show the true passover, And that he did show it in the table. which both do import a real presence, For to show the true thing is to show the very thing it self: to show the very thing it self, is to show the real presence of the thing. To show it in or upon the table importeth a substantial manner of being far different from their spiritual manner of being, which is only in the heart. For it is outwardly upon the table, and therefore needeth a presence real. And here somewhat more to press the Proclaimer, it would be learned of him, why S. Hierom, and S. Chrisostom call not the judaical Passover the light, the truth, and the verity, as they do our paschal lamb, seeing (as he and his likes do say) they received Christ as well as we, and we in our Sacrament no more them they. for they spiritually, and we spiritually, and our Sacrament no better than theirs. But understand (Reader) that they so saying speak lies, and deceive thee. The holy Fathers calling the old sacraments figures and shadows, and ours the light, the truth, and the things in deed, teach that those sacraments had not the very presence of Christ, and that our Sacrament hath. And that ye may the better perceive that Chrisostom meaneth, as here is declared: ye shall hear him in an other place uttering his mind and faith, yea the faith of the Church in his time, in more plain and express words. Thus he writeth: Ipsa namque mensa animae nostrae vis est, nerui mentis, fiduciae vinculum, fundamentum, spes, salus, lux, vita nostra. Si hinc hocsacrificio muniti migrabimus, Homeli. in 10. 1. Corin. maxima cum fiducia sanctum ascendemus vestibulum, tanquam aureis quibusdam vestibus contecti. Et quid futura commemoro? Nam dum in hac vita sumus, ut terra nobis coelum sit, facit hoc mysterium ascend ad coeli portas, & diligenter attend, imò non coeli, sed coeli coelorum, & tunc quod dicimus intueberis. Etenim quod summo honore dignum est, id tibi in terra ostendam. Nam quemadmodum in regijs, non parietes, non tectum aureum, sed regium corpus in throno sedens omnium est praestantissimum: ita quoque in coelis regium corpus, quod nunc in terra videndum tibi proponitur. Neque Angelos, neque Archangelos, non coelos, non coelos coelorum, sed ipsum horum tibi omnium Dominum ostendo. Animaduertis quónam pacto quod omnium maximum est, atque praecipuum, in terra non conspicaris tantum, sed tangis: neque tangis solùm, sed comedis, & co accepto domum redis. Absterge igitur ab omni sorde animam tuam, praepara mentem tuam ad horum mysteriorum susceptionem. Etenim si puerreguis purpura, & diademate ornatus tibi ferendus traderetur, nónne omnibus humi abiectis cum susciperes? Verùm nunc, cum non hominis regium puerum, sed unigenitum Dei filium accipias, dic quaeso, non horrescis, & omnium secularium rerunamorem abiicis? That table is the strength of our soul, the Sinews of the mind, the band of trust, the foundation, hope, health, light, and our life. If we being defended with this sacrifice shall depart hence, with most great trust we shall, as covered with certain golden garments, ascend to the holy place. But what do I rehearse things that be to come? For while we be in this life, this mystery causeth that the earth is an heaven unto us. Go up therefore unto the gates of heaven, but not of heaven, but of the heaven of heavens, and diligently mark, And then thou shalt behold what we say. For The thing worthy of most honour is in the Sacrament truly that, that is worthy of most highest honour, that shall I show thee in earth. For as in kings houses, not the walls, not the golden Roof, but the kings body sitting in Throne is most chief and worthiest of all: Even so also do I show thee, neither Angels, nor archangels, not heavens, nor the heaven of heavens, but the kings body which is in heaven, which now is setforth before thee in earth to be seen, the lord of all these do I show thee. Dost though mark how thou dost not only behold in earth that, that is greatest and chiefest of all things, But thou dost touch The very body of Christ is. set forth before us in earth. it, neither dost though only touch it, but thou dost eat it, And that received thou goest home? Wipe therefore and make clean thy soul from all filthiness, prepare thy mind to the receipt of these mysteries. For if the kings child, being decked in purple, and diadem, were delivered to thee to be carried, wouldest though not cast all down upon the ground, and take him? But now when thou takest, not the child of a king being a man, but the only begotten Son of God, Say (I beseech thee) art though not The only begotten Son of God received in the Sacrament. afraid? And dost though not cast away the love of all worldly things? Thus much Chrisost. Among so many goodly notes, as this sentence doth contain, let me (gentle Reader) with thy patience note two or three, which be verilic worthy of note and consideration. The first shall be, that we observe the notable titles that he giveth to the table: This note hath two parts. For first he calleth ytlife etc. after in the sentence next adjoined he calleth it a sacrifice. Wherefore we shall first speak of the titles in the first sentence, and then of the title in the next sentence. In the first sentence he calleth it the strength of our soul, our foundation, hope, Honourable and worthy titles of the Sacrament. health, light, and life. Which things for that they can not be attributed to the material table, it is easy for every man to perceive that the Author meaneth them of the thing, that is, of the meat or food upon the table, after the manner of our common speech, which saith: Soche a man keepeth a good table, whereby is meant the good fare on the table. Now than if the thing on the table be a thing of such worthiness, that it may be called our strength, health, hope, light, and life: it can not be a piece of bread, but he that is so in very deed, jesus christ our Saviour God and man. It is he that is our strength, according to the Psalmist. Dominus fortitudo plebis suae. Hour Lord is the strength of his people. He is our health and Psalm. 27. Matth. 1. Joan. 1. salvation. for Ipse saluum faciet populum suum à peccatis eorum. He shall save his people from their sins. He is our light. For he is Lux vera, quae illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum. The very light that lighteneth every Jbid. 14. man coming into this world. He is ourlife, For he is Via, veritas, & vita the way, the truth, and the life. Wherefore seeing that these titles appropriated only to Christ, are by this christ it verily upon the Altar. ancient father declared to be applied to the thing upon the Altar or table, it must of necessity be concluded, that the thing upon the Altar or table is verily christ. The further proof whereof appeareth in the sentence immediately following, which is the second of the notes before mentioned, where he saith thus If we shall depart hence being defended with this sacrifice, we shall with most great trust go up to the holy place. In the which saying, what he before called the table, he calleth it now the sacrifice. whereby is declared the first part of the note that he meant not the material table, but the thing upon the table. secondarily calling it a sacrifice by the which with great trust we go up to the holy place, he plainly teacheth Heb. 9 that the thing upon the table is christ, who is our very and most worthy sacrifice, who by his oblation found eternal redemption, of the which more hereafter. The second note is, that he saith: Truly that, that is worthy of most high honour, that will I she we thee in earth. What thing is that, that is worthy of most high, honour, but that, that saint Paul speaketh of when he saith: Regi seculorum 1 Tim. 1. Honour due to God alone called Latria, wherein it consisteth. immortali, invisibili, soli Deo honour & gloria, Unto God king everlasting, immortal, invisible, be only honour and praise for ever? What is the most high honour, but that honour which the learned call Latriam, the honour due to God alone? which honour consisteth in faith, believing that he is the creator, and conservator of all things: in hoop, trusting by him to be saved: in Charity, loving him above all things created, yea even above our own selves, through the which love we are ready lovingly to obey his most holy commandments: in Sacrifice, as wherebily we exhibitte and testify outwardly our service to our only Lord God, to be given, used, and frequented, which sacrifice, whether it be of praise or thanks giving, or of the offering up of our own bodies, Rom. 12. or any other thing appointed of God, is (as saint Paul testifieth) called our reasonable serving of God. If then that, that is showed in earth, be worthy of this most high honour, The thing worthy most high honour is in the Sacrament. and the showing thereof is in the table, of the which Chrysostom spoke in the beginning of the this fentence, what else doth he mien, or what else can it be, but christ God and man verily present in the Sacrament, who is worthy of this honour. But what needeth me to travail to expownde Chryfostome, and to declare what the thing is, that he would show in earth, seeing that he himself so clearly expoundeth himself in his own words that do follow? For as in kings houses (saith he) not the walls, not the golden Roof, but the kings body sitting in the Throne is the chiefest and woorthist of all: Even so also the kings body which is in heaven, which is now set forth before thee to be seen in earth, not Angels, nor archangels, not heavens, nor the heavens of heavens, but the very Lord of all these do I show thee. In which words ye may clearly perceive, that the thing, which he saith is to be showed in earth, is the kings body, which is in heaven, the very lord of Angels, and archangels, the Lord of heavens, and of the heaven of heavens. Which is not present in figure, and absent in deed: but is verily present in so true a manner, very christ, very God, and very man, that he so being with us in mystery here in earth, maketh the same earth (saith Chrysostom) to be an heaven unto us, which could not so be, but by the presence of him, who is Lord of heavens, whose gracious presence maketh heaven where it pleaseth the same graciously to be. If this place of chrysostom, with the notes of the same, be diligently weighed, it shall easily appear to the reader, how vain the gloze of Cantorburie Crammer his gloze upon chrysostom. Li. 4. ca 8. upon this and all the like sayings of Chrysostom, is, wherein of his absolute authority without proof, he saith, that where chrysostom saith, that we see christ with our eyes, we touch him with our hands, we receive him with our mouths, be not to be understanded of the very flesh and blood of christ, but of the bread and wine, which be the signs of them. But for that this gloze confowndeth the text it is to be rejected for the words of Chrysostom can not bear it. For he saith not that thou seist bread and wine, but the kings body which is in heaven, which is now set forth before thee in earth to be seen. If we should ask of chrysostom, what we do see in the Sacrament here upon earth, he answereth, the kings body. If ye ask again which kings What is seen in the Sacrament body? He answereth the kings body which is in heaven. If ye proceed ask, where do we see it? he answereth, before thee. So that he maketh no mention of bread or wine. Wherefore I would know, what warrant this Crammer gloseth without warrant. man had, to give such a gloze to chrysostom. If chrysostom meant as this man gloseth, strange it is, that he would speak so plain contrary to his meaning, as to say, it is the kings body and meant it was not. If the Adversary say, the body of christ cannot be seen: No more (say I) can the substance of man be seen. And yet wesaie we see such a man, when we see but the outward accidents of man, we say we see the king. when we see no Objection. Answer. part of him, but the garment that he hath upon him, and so of other thinks, when we see there outward forms, and consider their substance, we say, Cap. 62. Anignorant objection of the Adversaries. and that truly, we see the thing. But I will speak of this, more in the second book. But here the Adversary will further object and say: If that thing be in the Sacrament, that is worthy of most high honour (as Chrysostom saith, and one part of that high honour is to be sacrificed unto, Then christ is not in the Sacrament. For (as yourselves say) christ is your sacrifice. Who being in the Sacrament, ye offer unto that thing that is in the Sacrament. And so followeth this absurdity, that the Sacrifice, and he to whom the Sacrifice is offered, is all one. This objection convinceth the obiectour of ignorance of the faith of the church, or else of malice against the received faith of the same. For if he had The answer. either red what S. Augustine writeth in this matter, or if he have red it, he would not arrogantly and maliciously contemn the same, he would either not thus object, or soon be by saint Augustine satisfied. To answer this thus saith he: Christus unus manet cum illo, cui offered, & unum se facit cum illis, pro Li. 4. de trini ca 14 quibus ipse se offered, & unus est cum illis, qui offerunt, & unum cum illo, quod offertur. christ (saith he) abideth one with him to whom he offereth, and he maketh himself one with them, for whom he doth offer, and he is one with them which do offer, and one with that, that is offered. Thus S. Augustine. Weigh with me) gentle Reader) each part of this sentence. First he saith, Christ doth both offer and is offered unto. that christ abideth one with him, to whom he offereth. In which saying note that christ doth both offer, and is also he to whom he offereth. For Cbryste, as man, offereth his own body in sacrifice to himself as God. Et tamen Deus & homo unus est Christus (as saith Athanasius) And yet God and man is one christ. Whereby is answered in few words the objection of the Adversary. In Simbolo For christ is both he to whom the sacrifice is made, And he himself also is the Sacrifice it self, that is made, as the latter part of saint Augustine's saying doth show. Et unum est cum illo, quod offertur. He is one withyt, that is offered. In the which saying you may perceive, that christ is the priest that offereth, he is the Sacrifice that is offered, and he is he, to whom the sacrifice is offered. Objection. Perchance the Adversary, who seeketh by all means to impugn, And thereby to flee from the truth and his salvation, will say: that saint Augustin speaketh this of the Sacrifice offered upon the Cross, and not of the Sacrifice offered in the Mass. Answer. In case it so were, yet the former malicious objection of him is not only perceived, but also soluted. For in deed christ making his sacrifice upon the cross, was both the priest, the sacrifice, and also he to whom the sacrifice was made. And therefore falleth that argument, that should prove that christ is not in the Sacrament, because he was the sacrifice that was offered to himself in the Sacrament, who (as chrysostom said) is most worthy of the highest honour. But that this was spoken of the Sacrifice offered in the Mass, the self same sentence of saint Augustin, shall declare and prove. For first, it is manifest that no man did offer christ upon the Cross in consideration of a sacrifice, but he himself. But here saint Augustine speaketh not only of the sacrifice of christ by himself, but by other also, as it is evident when he saith. Et unus est cum illis qui offerunt. And he is one with them that do offer. Now joining the whole sentence together, and not taking it truncatelie, or by piece meal, as heretics do, to maintain there heresies, and to deceive the simple, where is there any sacrifice the which is offered of many, with the which, and them that offer, and with the Sacrifice offered, and with him to whom it is offered, christ is one, but in the Sacrifice of the Mass, in the which the Church being they that do offer, which Church is the body of christ, and christ being the head of the same body, be one with it? And therefore Christ is offered of his Church and the Church of Christ. when the Church doth offer that sacrifice, christ as one with it offereth also. And so by this wonderful connexion of the head and the body it cometh to pass, that both the Church is offered by christ, and christ by the Church, as saint Augustin doth say, Sacerdos ipse est, ipse offerens, ipse oblatio. Cuius rei sacramentum, quotidianum voluit esse Ecclesiae sacrificium, cum ipsius corporis ipse sit caput, & ipsius capitis ipsa sit corpus, tam ipsa per ipsum, quàm ipse per ipsam consuetus De civit. Dei. li. 10. cap. 20. offerri. He is the priest, he is the offerer, and the oblation. The sacrament of the which thing, he willed the daily Sacrifice of the Church to be, forasmuch as of that body he is the head, and of that head, she is the body, being used or accustomed, aswell she by him, as he by her to be offered. Thus saint Augustine. Christ's body the daily Sacrifice of the Church Now you see, not only their invented objections soluted, but also the truth taught, and confirmed by ancient Authority, that is, that Christ'S body, which is in heaven, is also in earth in the Sacrament, as Chrysostom teacheth) which body is so verily present, that is is the daily Sacrifice of the Church, not a sacrifice of man's invention, invented to the derogation of Christ's blessed sacrifice upon the Cross (as the adversaries blaspheme) but a Sacrifice that Christ himself would have daily frequented in the Church, as saint Augustin teacheth as a sacrament of that blessed Sacrifice past and doen. Although, christian Reader, the plentifullnesse of this matter, and the delectation of the same, and the earnest desire that I have, that all men would be obedient to God's truth, and bring their imaginations into captivity, to the obedience of christ, and specially my brethren, and countrymen after the flesh, for whom I would wish myself accursed that they 2. Cor. 10. might be saved, doth carry me away, making me to forget myself in long Roin. 9 tarrying upon this one Author yet now I will stay myself, and briefly note the third note of Chrysostom, and then proceed to other. The third note is the similitude which chrysostom useth in exhortation to move us to the worthy receiving of so glorious a thing. If the kings son (saith he) decked with purple and diadem, were delivered to thee to be born, wouldest though not cast all things down on the ground and receive him? But now when thou takest not the son of a king being a man, but the only begotten Son of God, say, I pray thee, art though not afraid. Note then that ye receive not in the Sacrament a bare piece of bread, but ye receive the only begotten son of God, jesus christ, God and man. At whose What we receive in the Sacrament. presence we aught to tremble and fear, lest any filthiness should remain in our consciences, wherewith the eyes of his majesty should be offended. In the receipt of a piece of bread we need not to tremble, or quake, neither in the receipt of the merit of Christ'S passion, which is the spiritual receiving of christ. For in receiving of that, we receive great comforth with all, Trembling at the receipt of the Sacr. proveth the presence of Christ. and no fear, but raither we should fear if we receive it not. For then are we destitute of our salvation which cometh to us by the passion of christ. But chrysostom asketh if we tremble not, when we receive the only begotten Son of God, which must needs be at the presence of so high a majesty for consideration above said, as Peter did upon the contemplation of the power of christ, in wourking the miracle of the taking of the great number Luc. 5. of fishes, who fell down at his feet and said: Exi à me Domine, quia homo peccator sum. Lord go from me, for I am a sinful man. And Centurio likewise: Matth. 8. Domine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum. I am not worthy o Lord, that thou shouldest enter into my house. Marry Magdalen, though in the presence of Christ she humbled herself, Luc. 7. having (no doubt) both fear and sorrow for her sins committed: Yet, I dare say, she trembled never a whit at this joyful voice: Remittuntur tibi peccata tua. Thy sins be forgiven thee, but she rejoiced, and was glad in God. So undoubtedly a man being certified by the Spirit of God, that he is a partaker of the merits of Christ'S passion, and thereby through the receiving of the Sacraments is made a lively member of christ, can not at the receipt of so high a benefit tremble and quake, but joy, and be glad, and praise God with many other that received benefits at Christ'S hand, of whom the Gospel maketh mention. Wherefore it is evident, that it is the the very real presence of Christ'S body, that we aught to tremble at, and fear when we receive it, lest peradventure any sin should be in us, which should offend his blessed Majesty, whereby we might receive him to our damnation: And not at the receipt of the christ spiritually. THE NINGTENE CHAPTER CONTINVETH the proof of the same matter by S. Augustin, and S. cyril. IN the chapter before ye heard two famous Fathers, not dissenting, but consenting, but consenting, not infirming but confirming the sainges of the other ancient elders before brought forth: Now will we likewise hear other two, which will plainly declare, what was enacted and received in the house of God, for the very truth of this matter. The first shall be saint Augustine, a miracle of christendom, passing S. Augustine commendded by this Author. without controversy all writers, that have written, both Greeks, and Latins in profownde learning, and in number of books, a man so famous, that every child almost in christendom hath saint Augustin in his mouth. A man of such gravity and authority, that all christian men do reverence him, and stay upon the saying of him: A man of such zeal to the truth of Christ'S faith, that by his learned travail he purged Africa of the heresies of the manichees, the Donatists, and the Pelagians. And with all he is so ancient, being born about the year of our lord 354. that he is without suspicion of corruption in this matter, of our controversy. To declare what the truth of this matter is, he saith thus: Aliudest Paschal, Cont. literas Petiliani quod adhuc judaei celebrant de ove: Aliud autem, quod nos in corpore & sanguine Domini celebramus It is an other Passover, that the jews do yet celebrate with a sheep: an other that we do celebrate in the body and blood of Christ. In the which saying, ye do first perceive, that he doth first declare a difference of the judaical passover, and the Christian passover, yet comparing them together, as the figure to the thing figured, and by express words showeth what they be. The judaical passover was a sheep: our passover is the body and blood of christ. What more plain words would the Proclaimer wish to be spoken for the An objection. determination of this controversy? And yet it may be that the enemy will here delude the simple, and hold in the arrogant with one of his common An objection. answers, that christ spiritually is our spiritual paschal Lamb, but not christ really present in the Sacrament. For there is no such, neither doth saint Augustine say any such thing here. But to answer this, although the place it self doth sufficiently The answer. teach the very real presence of Christ'S body and blood in the Sacrament: Yet by opening of the difference of the old passover, and our new passover, and by comparison, of them each to other, it shall be more plain and easy to perceive the same. For as christ verily and corporally dienge, did answer the dying of the lamb: So he being verily and corporally eaten, as our true paschal Lamb, doth answer the eating of the jewesh passover, which was both for the dying, and eating, the very figure of christ. But to join nearer with the Adversary, if christ spiritually received If wereceive Christ but spiritually, as the jews did our Passovers be all one. only, is our paschal Lamb, And the jews also (as before is said) did even so receive christ spiritually in their paschal feast, How standeth that difference which saint Augustine here maketh between our paschal Lamb and theirs, if it be all one, that is received in both? If saint Augustine had said it is an other passover that the jews do keep with a sheep, and an other that we do keep with a piece of bread, and wine, though we had both received christ spiritually: Yet the difference might have stand in the outward signs. But saying as he doth, it must needs be, that as the jews passover was a very sheep in deed, So is our passover the very body of Christ in deed. Christ's real body our passover. And although this might suffice for answer to the Adversary: Yet it shall be by an other sentence of the same S. Augustin made so plain, that he shall not be able to deny, but that S. Augustin taught a real presence in the Sacrament. His sentence is this. Hebraei autem in victimis pecorum, quas offerebant Deo multis et varijs modis, sicut re tanta dignum erat, prophetiam celebrabant futurae victimae, Cot. Faust. man.. Li. 20. ca 18. quam Christus obtulit. unde iam Christiani, peracti eiusdem sacrificij memoriam celebrant sacrosancta oblatione, et participatione corporis et sanguinis Christi. The hebrews in the sacrifices of beasts, which they did offer unto God many Sacrifice the Christians in oblacio and participation. and diverse ways, as for so great a thing it was meet, did openly declare a prophecy of the sacrifice to come, which christ did offer. Wherefore now the Christians do celebrate the memory of the same Sacrifice past, by the holy oblation, and participation of the body and blood of christ: Thus moche saint Augustine. If this word participation had been alone in this sencence, he should have had (spiritually) on the back of him immediately, and so by violence have been wrested to sound to the evil tuned notes of the Adversaries. But praised be the holy Spirit of God, the Spirit of consent, and agreement, who so kaied this word, participation, with the word, oblation, that it can not be wrested to sound any other sound, than the real presence of Christ'S blessed body in the Sacrament. Which body the christians (saith S. Augustin) do offer in sacrifice in the remembrance of the Sacrifice of christ done upon the Cross. By which manner of saying of saint Augustin, all the objections of the adversaries, which are made against the Sacrifice of the Mass, are clean wiped away, as more at large in the third book, by the help of Gods grace, it shall be declared. It is well known to all men both true christians, and Pseudochrystians, that if Christ'S body be offered of us in sacrifice or oblation (as saint Augustine doth here affime) there must needs be a real presence of the same body so offered, or else it must needs be a mathematical sacrifice. Ye have now heard saint Augustine reporting such truth, as was enacted and received in Christ'S Parliament house. Now will we hear an other of the other side of the same house report the same truth, which Cyrillus commended of the Author. shall be the holy Father cyril, a man profowdlie seen in the statutes of the house of christ. Who for his excellent wourthinesse in holiness, gravity, and learning, was precedent in the great Council Ephesine, which was one of the four principal councils of the which saint Gregory speaketh so much praise, wherein the heresy of Nestorius was confounded, and condemned. Which cyril also through constancy in faith wrote against the Arrians both learnedly and godly, as his works do testify, he lived about the year of our lord 420. And therefore for his ancienty worthy to be believed, being after this supputation 1136. years agone. This man saith after this sort: Nec putet ex tarditate mentis suae judaeus, inaudita nobis li. 4. in. 6. Joan. cap. 14. ex cogitata esse mysteria. Videbit enim, si attentius quaerat, hoc ipsum à Moisis temporibus factitatum fuisse. Quid enim maiores eorum à morte, & pernitie Aegyptiaca liberavit, quando mors in primogenita Aegypti desaeviebat? Nónne omnibus palam est, quia divina institutione perdocti, agni carnes manducaverunt, ac posts, et superliminaria agni sanguine perunxerunt, propterea mortem ab eis divertisse? Pernities' namue, id est, mors huius carnis, adversus humanum genus, propter primi hominis transgressionem furebat. Terra enim es, & in terram reverteris, propter peccatum audivimus. Verùm quoniam per carnem suam Christus atrocem hunc eversurus erat Tyrannum, proptereà id mysterio apud priscos obumbratur, & ovinis carnibus, & sanguine sancti ficati, Deo ita volente, pernitiem effugiebant. Quid igitur, judaee, turbaris, praefiguratam iam diu veritatem videns? Cur, inquam, turbaris, si Christus dicit: Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis & biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis, quum oporteret te Mosaicis legibus institutum, & priscis umbris ad credendum perdoctum, ad intelligenda haec mysteria paratissimum esse? Vmbram, & figuram nosti, disce ergo ipsam rei veritatem. Caro (inquit) mea verè est cibus, & sanguis meus verè est potus. Let not the jew, by slackness of mind think, that we have invented mysteries never heard of before. He shall see (if he will with better heed seek) even the same often done from the time of Moses. For what did deliver their elders from death and destruction of Egypt, when death raiged very sore upon the first born of Egypt? is it not known to all men that they being taught by the commaundemet of God, did eat the flesh of the lamb, and with the blood of the lamb did anoincte the posts, and the upper door posts, and therefore death diverted from them? Destruction, that is tosaie, the death of this flesh, for the transgression of the first man, raiged sore against mankind. For sin we heard: if art earth, and into earth thou shalt return. But for asmuch as christ would overthrow by his flesh this cruel Tyrant, therefore that was shadowed among the old Fathers in a mystery, and they being sanctified with the flesh and blood of a sheep (God so willing) did escape the plague and destruction. Where for then, thou jew art thou troubled, seeing now the truth long before prefigurated? why, I say, art though troubled, if christ do say: Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you: seeing it behoveth thee being instructed in Moses laws, and taught, by the old shadows to believe, to be most ready to understand these mysteries. Thowe haste known the shadow and the figure: Learn therefore the verity of the thing. My flesh (saith he) is verily meat, and my blood is verily drink. Thus far cyril. Whom ye have heard at length declaring the figurative paschal lamb, and the benefit that the jews had by the same. Likewise ye have heard him declaring the true paschal Lamb, and the benefit that cometh to us thereby. And when he hath applied the figure to the thing figured, which is the truth of the figure as a matter sufficiently taught there, to be believed of the jews: He falleth into a wonder at the incredulity of them, and reproving them all in the person of one, saith: Why art though (o jew) troubled, seeing now the very verity long before this prefigurated? It behoved thee being instructed by Moses Laws, and very well taught by the old shadows to believe, to be most ready to understand these mysteries. If cyril did so earnestly reprove the jews for their incredulity, being taught but by Moses, and the figures, how would he reprove our men who well instructed, not by Moses, but by christ: not by shadows, and figures, but by the gospel of truth and verity not moved (as the jews seemed to be) to believe a strange novelty, but an ancient faith receared of antiquity. If the jews (I say) be worthy of reproach who know not the true faith, which they never yet had by plain knowledge received: False Christians worthily reproved for saking their faith. how moche more be our false Christians to be reproved, which, the faith that they were brought up in, that they once embraced and received that they earnestly believed: now have maliciously not only contemned, but also Reviled, detested and abjected? God that is the very light, lighten their hearts, that they may see into how deep damnation they have dejected and cast themselves, by their forsaking of the catholic faith, being now bare, and void of all excuse, forsomoche as they did once know the truth, which now develishlie they blaspheme. Si non venissem, & locutus eye fuissem, peccatum non haberent, nunc autem excusationem non habent de peccato suo. If I had not commed (said christ) Joan 15. and spoken to them, they should not have had sin: but now they have none excuse of their sin. God, I say, therefore have mercy upon them, whilst time of mercy for them endureth, and give them grace daily with the Prophett David to cry and say: Respice, & exaudi me Domine Deus meus. Illumina oculos meos ne unquam obdormiam in morte, ne quando dicat inimicus meus, praevalui adversus eum. Consider Psal. 12. and hear me, o Lord, my God lighten mine eyes that I shape not in death, lest mine enemis say, I have prevailed against him. What a prey and Spoill is it to our ghostly enemy, and how moche doth he rejoice, when he deceiveth one that hath been in the true faith, and believeth him of the same, and so driveth him from God? No doubt he counteth it a great Spoill, and rejoiceth much at it, as the verse of the same psalm immediately following doth say: Qui tribulant me exultabunt, si motus fuero. They that trouble me, will rejoice at it, if I becast down. Return therefore in time, and cleave hard to the straight and strong pillar of truth. For if ye be cast down ye shall fall very low, and sink deep. christ sending his Apostles to preach, taught them thus: Into what city soever ye shall come, inquire who is worthy in it, and there abide Math. 10. till ye go thence, and whosoever shall not receive you, nor will hear you preaching, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake of the dust of you feet. Verily I say unto you, it shall be easier for the land of Sodom, and Gomorre, in the day of judgement, then for that city. Consider therefore and heavy hand of God upon Sodom, and gomorre, which in such terrible sort being sunk, and destroyed, with fire and Brimstone from heaven, argueth a more terrible damnation to ensue, and follow, and yet it shall be more easy to them in the day of judgement, then to such as will not receive faith: How moche more grievous than shall it be to them which forsake that faith, that not only they themselves have received, but the whole Church of christ throughout all Christendom, which faith, although it hath diverse times been impugned (as now in these days it is) Yet, God be praised, it was never overthrown, nor never shall be, and will cleave to an heresy, which hath been not only sundry and diverse times ympugned, but overthrown, condemned, cursed, and extincted? Surely as their reproach is moche in this world, for their so doing: So shall it be moche more before the face of God and his elect, in the day of his terrible judgement. But I will return from whence I have digressed, and touch one note more of cyril and so pass to other. After he had thus rebuked the jews, for their hardness of believe, he said: Vmbram & figuram nosti, disce ergo ipsam rei veritatem. Thou havest known the Shadow and the figure, learn therefore the very thing. Note here again, as before in Chrysostom is noted, that the old paschal lamb was a figure, and hour paschal Lamb the very thing. Then it is not a piece of bread, a bare sign or figure of christ, for then these sainges of the learned Fathers were not true, which say plainly, that it is the very thing. And this Father, when he had willed the jews to learn the very thing, he declared forthwith what the very thing is: Caro mea verè est cibus, & sanguis meus verè est potus. My flesh (saith christ) is verily meat, and my blood is verily drink. This (saith cyril) is the very thing of the figure the very flesh and blood of Christ which be verily meat and verily drink. How this text, and other appertaining to the same matter in the sixth of S. john, have been wrested and wried, and violentliie drawn by the enemies of gods truth from their native and true sense, it shall be showed more at large in the second book. But now that the Adversary is pressed so sore, he is driven to his common refuge, of the word, Spiritually, and will peradventure, say that the bread in the Sacrament is not the very thing that answereth the figure of the paschal lamb, but the flesh and blood of christ (as cyril here allegeth) Spiritually received. But how far this their common gloze dissenteth from the truth, it shall by God's help straight way evidently appear. First, this is most certain, that the faithful people of the old Testament, 1. Cor. 10. which through faith in christ to come, were the children of faithful Abraham, did eat the flesh and drink the blood of christ spiritually, as saint Paul wittnesseth: Omnes candem escam spiritualem manducaverunt, & omnes eundem potum spiritualem biberunt, bibebant autem de spirituali consequent eos petra. Petra autem erat Christus. All our Fathers did eat of one spiritual meat, and and did all drink of one manner of spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, which Rock was christ. If christ was then spiritually eaten and drunken of the fathers, the Spiritual receiving of Christ was not sigured by the Pasechall lamb. spiritual eating and drinknige of christ, or christ spiritually eaten and drunken was not figured by the paschal lamb, neither can the Paschal Lamb be applied to christ spiritually eaten as the proper figure to the thing figured. And this shall be proved: For all the Sacraments and Ceremonies of the old Law were figures of things to come, and to be done, and fulfiled in the new law. And if christ were received spiritually of the Fathers in the old law, than was the paschal lamb no figure of christ to be spiritually received in the new law. That the Sacrifices and Ceremonies of the law were figures of things to come, S. Paul testifieth: Vmbram habens lex futurorum bonorum etc. The law having the shadow of good things to come, and not the very fashion Hebr. 10. of the things themselves etc. And saint Augustine also (as before is alleged) saith that the sacrifices of the hebrews were prophecies of the sacrifices to come, which Christ did offer. Whereunto christ himself, who came to fulfil the law, having regard, said: jota unum, aut unus apex non praeteribit à lege, donec omnia fiant. One jot Math. 5. or one title of the law shall not scape, till all be fulfiled. Which manner of speech should not need: if the things that were figured, were done already. Wherefore seeing the spiritual receiving of christ was not a thing to come, but was in use even with the figuts in the time of the law: And also forsomuch as the Sacramental bread (as they do term it) which is but a sign or a figure of christ, is not the thing that is figured, For the thing that is figured must needs be christ, and as it is now proved it can not be christ spiritually: therefore of necessity it must be very christ really. And therefore to conclude, when ciril said in the end of his sentence: if havest known the figure, learn therefore the very thing: And allegeth this Scripture: My flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drink Both he and the Scripture mien the very thing, which is the real and substantial flesh of Christ and his very blood, and not the spiritual flesh and blood only. joan. 6. THE twentieth CHAPTER JOINETH saint Gregory, and Damascen to confirm the same matter. YE have all ready heard certain couples of the two sides of the higher house of Parliament, which how they agree within themselves, and how justly and truly they report the enacted verity of the same, and therewith how mightily they overthrow the pestilent sects of the wicked, I trust the gentle Reader doth well perceive. Now though this great master of heresy will not accept the Authors that have written within the compass of these nime hundreth years, which therefore I divide from the other that did write within six hundreth years after christ calling them of the lower house, and these of the higher house: yet for asmuch as I writ as well for the comforth of the true believing Christian, as for the confutacon of the false Christian: I will consult with an other couple, of the which the one is last of the higher house, and the other one of the first or chiefest of the lower house, and after with other of the lower house, that the truth reported of many, may the more joyfully be embraced, and they that refuse them, and their authority, wourthilie defaced. For if these of the lower house, do agree with them of the higher house, and have all one tune and sound with them in the truth then both their proud arrogancy, which have so contemptuously rejected so many vertevouse and learned men's authorities, is condignly to be rebuked, and also their false imposture, teaching that the Church hath swerved from the truth and lien in erronr so many years, to th'intent that they getting estimacon as the inventors of truth, might sell their lies under the colour of truth, may the better be perceived. This Author whom I called the last of the higher house is saint Gregory, Saint Gregory his commendation. who sometime was chief head under christ of the house, a man both learned, and virtuous, as appeareth not onclie by him that setteth out his life in story, but also by his own works, savouring as well of virtue and holiness, as of learning and faithful truth. This holy learned Father in a paschal homely, comparing the old paschal Lamb to the new saith thus: Quae videlices cuncta magnam nobis aedisicationem Omil. 22. Pascha. pariunt, si fuerint mystica interpretatione discussa. Quid namue sit sanguis agni, non iam audiendo, sed bibendo didicistis. Qui sanguis super utrunque postem ponitur, quando non solùm ore corporis, sed etiam ore cordis hauritur. Nam qui sic redemptoris sui sangumem sumit, ut imitari passionem eius necdum velit, in uno post sanguinem posuit. All which things do bring forth to us great edification, if they shall be with a mystical interpretation discussed. What the blood of the lamb is, ye have not only by hearing, but by drinking learned. Which blood is put upon both the posts, when not only with the mouth of the body, but also with the mouth of the heart it is received. For he that doth so receive the blood of his redeemer, that he would not yet follow his passion, he hath put the blood but upon one post. Thus moche saint Gregory. As in this saying he hath made mention of the blood of christ, So proceeding upon the same matter in the same homely, he speaketh of the Christ'S body and blood received with mouth of body and soul both. eating of the old paschal Lamb, and of the eating of Christ'S body our true paschal lamb. In nocte quip (inquit) agnum comedimus, quia in sacramento modò Dominicum corpus accipimus, quando adhucinuicem nostras conscientias non videmus. In the night (saith he) do we eat the lamb, forsomoche as we do now receive our lords body in the Sacrament, when as yet we do not see one an others conscience: In this his saying, is not only perceived the application of the figurative paschal Lamb, to the very true paschal Lamb, but to the full agreement with other holy Fathers before alleged, he doth most plainly testify the real presence, both by his words, terming it the blood of our Redeemer and the body of our lord, and also by the manner of the receiving of it. In the which note that he teacheth that the body and blood of christ is received by two distincted and diverse manners of receiving. One manner is with the mouth of the body, which argueth the real presence: The other manner is with the mouth of the heart, and that is the spiritual manner of receiving. So that the learned men in Christ'S faith, do teach the good Christian man to receive Christ'S body both corporally, and spiritually. But the malicious learned man against Christ'S faith, teacheth that the good Christian man receiveth christ but only spiritually, and so robbeth him of the other, the contrary of the which Doctrine ye see here avouched by saint Gregory as it was also by other before alleged, with whom he well agreeth, To this saint Gregory shall be yoined Damascen one of the other side of the Parliament house of christ, that is, of the greek church, and of the low house, but one of the first and chief in that place, as is before said, a man so excellently will seen in the statutes of Christ'S Parliament house, that is to say in the knowledge of the received truth of Christ'S faith, that he did write four books of the same both learnedly and godly, and in the fourth book of his works, among other explications of matters of faith, he declareth also the faith of the Church in this matter of the Sacrament at large, where as touching the same matter he saith thus: Nativitas nobis per spiritum donata est, per sanctum dico baptismum. Cibus verò ipse Li. 4. de orthod. sid. c. 14. panis vitae Dominus noster jesus Christus, qui de coelo descendit. Nam suscepturus voluntariam pro nobis mortem, in nocte qua seipsum obtulit, testamentum nowm disposuit sanctis Discipulis & Apostolis, & per ipsos omnibus alijs in ipsum credentibus. In coenaculo sanctae & gloriosae Sion antiquum Pascha cum Discipulis manducans, et implens instrumentum antiquum, lavit pedes Discipulorum, signum sancti baptismatis praebens. Deinde frangens panem dedit illis dicens: Accipite, & comedite, Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur in remissionem peccatorum. Similiter accipiens calicem ex vino & aqua, tradidit illis dicens: Bibite ex eo omnes, hic est sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro vobis effunditur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Quotiescunque enim manducabitis panem hunc, & calicem bibetis, mortem filii hominis annunciatis, & resurrectionem eius confitemini donec veniat. Si igitur verbum dei vivens est & efficax, & omnia quaecunque voluit Deus, fecit: Si dixit, Fiat lux, & facta est lux: Fiat firmamentum, & factum est: Si verbo Dei coeli firmati sunt, & spiritu oris eius omnis virtus eorum: Si coelum, terra, aqua, ignis, & aer, & omnis ornatus eorum verbo Dei perfecta sunt, & homo ipse ubique diwlgatum animal: Si volens ipse Deus Verbum, factus est homo, etc. Non potest panem suum ipsius corpus facere, & vinum cum aqua sanguinem? Dixit in principio Deus: Producat terra herbam virentem, & usque nunc plwia facta producit germina, divino coädiuta & vigorata praecepto. Dixit Deus: Hoc est corpus meum, & hic est sanguis meus, & hoc facite in meam commemorationem, & omnipotentieius praecepto donec veniat, efficitur. A new birth is given to us, by the Spirit and the water, I say, by holy Baptism, but the meat is the very bread of life our lord jesus Christ, who descended from heaven. For willing to take for us a willing death, in the night, in the which he offered up himself, he disposed a new testament to his holy Disciples and Apostles, and by them to all other believing in him. In the parlour Christ'S cup contained wine and Water. therefore of holy glorious Zion, eating the old passover with his disciples, and fulfilling the old law, he washed the feet of his disciples, giving a sign of holy Baptism. afterward breaking bread he gave it to them saying: Take eat, This is my body, which shall be delivered for you in the remission of sins. Likewise taking the cup of wine and water, he delivered it unto them saying: Drink ye all of this. This is my blood of the new Testament, which shall be shed for you in the remission of Sins, This do ye in my remembrance. For as often times as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye show forth the death of the Son of man, and acknowledge his resurrection until he come. If than the word of God be living, and mighty in operation, and all things, whatsoever he hath willed he hath done, If he said, The light be made, and the light was made: The firmament be made, and it was made: If by the word of God the heavens were made, and all the power of them, with the breath of his mouth: If heaven, earth, water, fire and the Air, and all the furniture of them, by the word of God were made perfect, and man himself, being every where a known living creature: If God the Son himself being willing was made man, etc. Can not he make bread his own body? and wine and water his blood? God said at the beginning: Let the earth bring forth green herb, And until this day, being helped and made strong with God's commandment, the rain coming, Effect of Christ'S words of consecration it bringeth forth fruits. God said: This is my body, and this is my blood and this do ye in the remembrance of me: And by his almighty commandment it is so made and brought to effect until he come. Thus far Damascen. Whose saying is long, but as pithy and weighty as it is long. In the which he hath not only declared his faith, but the faith of christ received in his Church, which is the whole matter, and only argument of his work, as the title of the same doth purport. And to the matter, which we have in hand, he giveth worthy testimony, declaring the accomplishment of the old law, in eating the old paschal Lamb, and the beginning of the new testament, with the new paschal Lamb. Which paschal Lamb, how it was, and what it was, and how it is wrought and made, he leaveth it not undeclared. He took bread (saith he, meaning christ) and broke it, and gave it to his disciples saying: Take, eat, This is my body. And that he might leave no place to the enemies to misconstrue him, and to wrest him to their purpose, he addeth the probation of it by the power of God in other of his works, which is also a most plain declaration of his faith, That as God by his word made heaven, and earth and all things in christ turned the bread into his body, and the wine and water into his blood. them contained: So by his word saying: This is my body, it is even so made in deed, as it is said. For can not he (saith Damascen) make the bread his body? and the wine and water his blood? Which words being so plain need no in terpretation. For he affirmeth that God by his word, and almighty power doth make the bread his body, and the wine and water his blood. And where the Adversary hath against this, said: that he doubteth not of the power of God, but that he is able to do it, if he will, or if it be his pleasure: but we find not (saith he) in the scripture that his pleasure is, that the priest pronouncing the words, should by god's power consecrate the body of christ. This is their ignorant scruple. But if they had, leving all arrogancy, meek consulted with this Damascen, they should have found it in the scripture, that God's pleasure is, that the body of christ should be consecrated by the poower of God, and by the priest as his minister. For God) saith Damascen) christ commanded his body to be consecrated. said at the beginning: Let the earth bring forth green herb, and until this time the earth being helped with Gods commandment doth bring forth fruit. God said: This is my body, this is my blood, this do ye in remembrance of me, And by his almighty commandment, it is so made. Note then, that when christ by his power had of bread made his body, for he said it was his body, and his saying is making, Then he gave commandment to his ministers saying: Hoc facite. This do ye, by the which almighty commandment (saith Damascen) it is doen. But now when the scripture is produced and laid before their face, having no good will to accept the truth, they proceed to questioning, and ask: how How the question of the faithless answered prove ye that christ by these words, commanded the consecration. THE ONE AND twentieth CHAPTER CONcludeth this matter of the figure of the paschal lamb by Haymo and Cabasila. THe number is great, that might be called out of this lower house, which for that it would make this rude work to grow into to great a volume, I will content myself and stay, after I have brought forth one couple more, and so leave this figure. The first of these shall be Haymo, for that he is the elder, being about the year of christ 734. and so above eight hundredth years agone, before the time of Berengarius, who was the first open and notable Aduersaire of this Sacrament, that laboured to take away the real presence of christ. Therefore this learned Father may well be consulted with all, who being before this controversy was moved, is to be thought to speak upprightlie, and not parciallie. In his exposition therefore upon S. Matthew, he saith thus: Coenantibus Haymo in 26. Matt. autem eyes, accepit jesus panem, etc. Expletis solemnijs veteris Paschae, transit Dominus ad sacramenta novi Paschae demonstranda. Postquam coenavit, dedit eis panem et vinum, in mysterio videlicet corporis et sanguinis sui. Quia enim panis cor hominis confirmat, vinum auget sanguinem in homine, meritò idem panis in carnem Domini mutatur, et idem vinum in sanguinem Domini transfertur, non per figuram, neque per umbram, sed per veritatem. Credimus enim quia in veritate caro est Christi, similiter et sanguis. As they were eating at Supper, jesus took bread, etc. When the Solemnities of the old Passover Bread and wine changed into the body and blood of christ, not in figure, but in truth. were fulfiled, our Lord goeth to show forth the Sacrament of the new Passover. After he had Supped he gave them bread and wine, in mystery of his body and blood. For because bread doth strengthen the heart of man, and wine increaseth the blood in man, the same bread is worthily changed into the flesh of our Lord, and that same wine transferred into the blood of our Lord, not by figure, nor by shadow, but by the very truth. For we believe that in truth it is the flesh of Cbryst, and likewise his blood. Thus far Haymo. The two principal points here inquired, this holy Father hath agreeably both to the elders of the higher house, and also to them of the lower house, declared. First, his comparing of the old passover to the new is easy to be perceived. And then, what the new passover is, he doth most plainly manifest. If he had left the matter of the new passover, when he had said: He delivered bread and wine in mystery of his body and blood, than the Adversaries would have used their accustomed violence to have drawn him by force to be a witness of their side. I say by force, because this Author not meaning as they do, as after it shall appear, yet they would with great boast have said that he had mened as they do. Heretics how they allege the Fathers. Which manner of doing (Reader) is their common practice. For where they in their works allege the holy Fathers, they allege them in doubtful places, where they use the common terms of Sacrament, mystery, and such other, which, when controversy and contention is raised by wicked men, may Sacramentaries can not bring one Father teaching the Sacrament to be only a figure. be drawn to either part, Albeit the Authors intended and meant, but the only one true way, of Christ'S truth and faith, as this Author now alleged did. But, gentle reader, if thou perusest their books, and findest that they bring any allowed Author saying by express words, and plain sentence, that the Sacrament is but a figure or a sign, or by plain denial shall say that Christ'S body is not in the Sacrament really or in very deed, we shall yield and give them the victory, for certain I am that they can not. But on our side, that is on the part of the catholic faith of Christ'S Church, ye shall hear a number that by express words shall affirm the very presence of Christ'S body, of which number ye have already heardsome, And by like express words shall deny that it is but a figure, as this Author doth. The contrary where of this Proclaimer, and other Sacramentaries are not ashamed to teach, although they be (if there were any shame in them) overcharged with number of witnesses, so that they may be ashamed of their heresy. This Author (God be praised) when he had said, that christ gave his Apostles bread and wine in mystery of his body and blood: least this mystery should be made a mystery of nothing (as the Sacramentaries make it) he declareth it to be a mystery of somewhat. And saith that the bread and wine be changed into the body and blood of our lord. And yet that none of the common heretical gloss should take place, he saith Bread and wine changed not in figure but in truth. further by plain exclusion, that they be changed in to Christ's flesh and blood neither by figure, ner by shadow but by very truth. Would to God that they that be yet detained in this naughty heresy, would well note, weigh, and remember this saying, and look whether they have any such plain, manifest, and express sentence, of any Author Authentical to maintain their heresy, as this is for the truth. And yet to knit up the matter that this is no singular opinion, or whispered invention, but a sure and undoubted faith commonly, and generally received, he concludeth, not in his own person, but in the person of the believing Church, and saith: Credimus, etc. We believe that it is in truth and in very deed the flesh of christ, and likewise his blood. As this Author hath testified not only his own faith but the faith of the Church: So would I that the Adversary should regard not his Heretics have no faith but opinions. private opinion (which he calleth a faith, and is none in deed) But the faith of the Church, which is a sure faith in deed, builded upon a sure rock. Now to make up the couple we purposed here to induce, we will hear this Authors iocke fellow in faith, Cabasila, one of the same lower house of Parliament, but of the other side thereof, that is, of the greek church, a man of singular learning. Who expowndinge the Mass of the Greeks used in their churches, declareth why christ willed his memory to be had, and the Mass to be done in remembrance of him. Thus he saith: Huius autem conseruundae memoriae homines multas rationes excogitarunt, sepulchra, Nicolaus. Cabasila. ca 9 statuas, columnas, diesfestos & celebres, certamina, quorum omnium unum est institutum, non sinere ut viri praeclari & praestanti virtute oblivioni mandentur. Tale est etiam quod dicit Seruator: Alij quidem alia oblivionis quaerunt remedia, ut recordentur eorum, qui ipsos beneficio affecerunt, vos autem in meam recordationem hoc facite. Et quemadmodum civitates, fortium virorum, per quos victoriam assecuti sunt, vel qui eis salutem attulerunt, aut res eorum rectè gesserunt, columnis inscribunt: ita etiam in ijs donis nos mortem Domini asscribimus, in qua universa sita fuit adversus malignum victoria Et per statuas quidem civitates solùm habent figuram corporis benefactorum: Nos autem ab hac oblatione non habenius figuram corporis, sed ipsum corpus eius, qui se gessit fortissimè. Hoc ipsum etiam antiquis constituit, ut in figura facerent id, quod nunc est in rerum veritate. Id enim erat Bascha, & agni occisio, quae memoriam revocat caedis illius ovis & sanguinis, qui seruavit Hebraeis in Aegypto primogenita. To conserve this memory, men have devised many ways or means, as tombs, images, pillars, feastful and Solemn days, exercises, of all which there is one purpose, not to suffer, that noble men of excellent virtue should be forgotten. Soche manner of thing it is, that our saviour saith: Some seek other remedies against oblivion, that they may remember them, that have done them good: But in the remembrance of me, this do ye. And as cities do write in pillars the noble acts of mighty men, by whom they have gotten victory, or that have saved them, or have done their affairs or business well: Even so also do we in these gifts imprint the death of our Lord, in the which was all the victory against the wicked one had or gotten. Now the cities have by their images but the only figure of the body of their benefactors: but we in this oblation have not the figure of the body, but the body it self of We have the very body in the Sacrament, not the figure. him, even that same that is now in verity of thing. For that was the passover, and the kill of the lamb which doth call again the memory of that sheep and blood, which saved the first born of the hebrews. Hither to Cabasila. Of whom as we have learned the faith of the greek church, as it was in the time of the ancient Fathers, Chrysostom, cyril, Isychius, Damascen, Euthymius, and such other, as touching the presence of Christ'S blessed body in the Sacrament: Even so do we learn of him the same faith, and none other newly invented, but even the same continued, ever approved unto his time in all the greek church. This author although minding to set forth a cause why the memorial Monuments and memories of holy, and worthy men defaced. of Christ'S death should be retained and kept among us, by the bringing in examples of our elders, which by diverse means continued the memory of noble, virtuous, or other worthy men, he doth therein give good occasion to rebuke the insolency of many of this our time, which defacing houses, spoiling churches, overthrowing monuments, disparsing the bones and relics of holy saints, and such other a great sort like, do most earnestly labour to extinguish and clean put out of all memory the noble acts, the holy deeds, the godly lives of many virtuous, and worthy men, which to God's honour, to their praise, and to hour example of virtue, should and ought to have remained: Yet minding not to take every such occasion, I will leave it, and follow my matter here principally intended. As heretofore I have done: So also will I now both declare that the paschal Lamb was a figure of christ, and also that the verity or very thing by that lamb figured, is the body of christ really and substantially in the Sacrament. As for the first, this Author saith, that God appointed with the old Old law had the figure: the new law hath the thing in truth. fathers, that they should have a figure of christ. And that (saith he) was the passover, and the kill of the lamb. In which his saying he nothing dissenteth, but moche and wholly agreeth as well with the greeks, as the latins before alleged, and declared. As for the second part, that it is a figure of christ really in the Sacrament, this Author also very plainly teacheth. Mark therefore well his words, thus he saith: Hoc ipsum & antiquis constituit ut in figura facerent id, quod nunc est in rerum veritate. The same thing God appointed the old Fathers to do in a figure, which thing is now in truth or very deed. Note I pray you that he appointeth the figure of christ to the Fathers of the law of Moses, to us that be now in the law of christ, he appointeth not the figure, but the thing it self, even very Christ'S body. But the serpent is a wily beast, and seeking some little holle or cranny to slip through, and to slide away from this sentence, that presseth him so sore, will, to delude the Simple, grant that we, which be in the law of christ, have verily christ, even that same that was born of the virgin Mary, that was curcified, that rose from death to life, that ascended into heaven. These be gay glorious words. But take head, reader, there is a snake Crammer his glorious words, to cloak evil meening. lib. 4. john frith his heresy. under these fair flowers. Look diligently upon them, and ask him how we have him, that was born of the virgin etc. And thou shalt see him by and by betray himself, and run to his old and common shift, and say that he is there sacramentally. Which manner of being or presence (as john Frith our country man, and many other masters of that heresy do teach) is as much as is the presence of the wine in the ivy garland at the tavern door, or the love of the husband in the ring, which he giveth to his wife: Which manner of presence is next door to nothing, for all their glorious words. If ye porcead, and urge him, saying, that after this sort he was in all the figures of the law, that were figures of him: But this Author appointing that manner of presence to the law: saith, that his presence with us is in very deed. which is a manner of presence other, and more than they under the law had. Now he must to his chiefest refuge, and say that we have him spiritually. heretiquet refuges in reasoning. Here to meet with him again, ye may say, and that truly as before is said, and proved in the nineteen chapter of this book, that so the jews in the law received him and had him spiritually in their paschal lamb, so that by this manner of presence, there is no perrogative, nor difference, of our Sacrament and the presence of christ there in above theirs, nor from theirs. The contrary whereof all chatholique Father's dooteache. Now is he commed to his last refuge, that is that the jews received him spiritually, as yet to come, but we receive him spiritually as already comed. If this be all, what needeth this difference of speech, that this Author useth, saying: God appointed the Fathers of the law to do that thing in a figure, that we do now in very deed? Is to do a thing in figure, and to do a thing in deed all one manner of doing? A very babe will not grant that. Thus I suppose, it is easy to be perceived, that the adversaries faith is such, that when he hath spoken the best of it, it will not, nor can join with the faith of the learned men of Christ'S Parliament house: But is as far distant from them and their faith, as falsehood from truth. Whereof ye shall have yet better experience, and further prooff by an other part of this Authors sentence, when it is noted to you, and the adversaries doctrine conferred with it. That other part is this: Cities (saith he) by the images of such as have done them good, have only but their figures: we have by this oblation, not the figure of Christ's body, but the body it self, which most stoutly handled it self. Note well this conference: The cities had but the figures of such worthy men, as had nobly done for them: We have, not the figure of Christ but the body it self which wrought us the great benefit of our Redemption. Remember, I pray you, what the latin Author before alleged said, that this man being of the greek church, and conferred with him, it may Not the figure, but very body of Christ is in the Sacrament. appear what agreement in doctrine and faith in this matter, there is in both the churches. The latin Author said thus: The bread is changed into the flesh of our Lord, and the wine into his blood not by a figure, or in a shadow, but in very deed: This greek Author saith, that we have not the figure of Christ, but his very body, even that which so mightily fought for us. See ye not a consonant agreement between these two? do thiey not both teach the very presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament? and there by a plain negative deny the figure? May not our Proclaimer, our new Goliath well see, and truly say, that here be two plain sentences against him? Let them be conferred, and it will planlie appear. These Authors say that the Sacrament containeth not a figure only: Doctrine of the Sacramentaries conferred with the Fathers. The Adversary saith, that it hath no more but a figure. These say that the Sacrament containeth the very body of Christ: The Adversary saith that it is jewesh so to think and that they be gross Capharnaites, that say that the body of Christ is substantially in the Sacrament. In this conference ye may see the stout repugnance of the Adversary against catholic writers. In the same ye see the said writers by express words deny the doctrine of the Adversary, that where he saith, it is a figure, they say, it is not a figure. And here will I yoin an issue with the Proclaimer that if he can bring any Issue joined with the Proclaimer touching the presence. Scripture, any catholic Council, or any one approved doctor, that by express and plain words doth deny the real presence of christ in the Sacrament, as these writers do deny his figure, or figurative presence, then will I give over, and subscribe to him. But where he untruely hath said, that he was sure that we could bring forth no one approved Author to testify the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament: I will say truly, that I am sure that neither he, nor all the Adversaries can bring any one, teaching by express words the contrary. Objection. If percase any man will object here to me, that though these men deny the figure, and teach that Christ'S very body is present in the Sacrament: yet they say not so much as your Adversary requireth, that his body is substantially and really present. Answer. The answer to this is easy, which the Adversary will grant, that if the body of christ be in the Sacrament, not by a figure, but in very deed, than it must needs be there really and substantially. For the Adversary hath Sacramentaries make two manner of presences of Chryst. two manner of beings of christ, the one is in the Sacrament, where he saith christ is as in a sign, token, or figure, but not in verity. The other manner of being is not in the Sacrament, but in the receiver of it, in whom he saith christ is spiritually. As for this second manner of being every good Christian will grant, that every worthy receiver of the Sacrament, receiveth christ spiritually, but not only spiritually, as the Adversary teacheth, but he also receiveth Christ'S very real and substantial body. So that in this second manner, he dissenteth in part from the catholic faith: But in the first manner of being he dissenteth wholly. for there he denieth Christ'S body to be verily in the Sacrament, which the catholic faith doth affirm and teach. Now (gentle reader) if havest heard, this figure of the paschal Lamb, both by great ancient Authors that were above a thousand yeyears agone, or within the compass of six hundredth years after christ, and also by Authors that were within the compass of these nine hundredth years, applied to the thing figured. Which thing figured, by one consent, and by one mouth, as it were, and by consonant and uniform testimony, they have testified and taught, not only to be Christ'S body upon the cross, for that in that part it answereth the death and blood shedding of the lamb: but also the body of christ being in the Sacrament, not as in a shadow, sign, or token, but verily, substantially and really, and so not spiritually only eaten and received, But of all good christians, both spiritually with the mouth of the soul, and also really with the mouth of the body, taken, eaten, and reccaved, herein also answering the figure, that as the lamb was eaten in the remembrance of the saving of the first born, and of their deliverance from the tyranny of Pharaoh, and of their passing out of Egypt by the mighty hand of God: So the true faithful of christ should eat the very paschal lamb of the new Testament, which is the very body of that immaculate Lamb our Saviour jesus christ really and substantially in the Sacrament, and so receive it in the remembrance of our deliverance from our cruel Pharaoh the Devil, and from the miserable servitude of Egypt, which is sin. Which benefits as they have happened to us by the death of that blessed Lamb, aught by the eating of him in the Sacrament to be remembered. And thus moche for the figure of the paschal Lamb. THE TWO AND twentieth CHAPTER BEginneth the application of the show bread to the Sacrament, as of the figure to the verity by saint Hierom, and Damascen. Now there remaineth three other figures to be treacted of, which be Manna, the water flowing out of the Rock, and the show bread. But for so much as saint Paul maketh mention of two of them, that is of Manna, and of the water, and I would not gladly grieve the reader with reading of one matter twice, I shall disfer these two, until we come to treacte of the sainges of saint Paul, which shall be in the third book. Wherefore now I will pass them over, and treacte here of the figure of the show bread. Of this show bread we first read thus: Thowe shalt set upon the table show bread before me always. These words almighty God spoke unto Moses, after he had told him the manner and Exod. 25. fashion of the table, how it should be made and granished, upon the which table this show breads should alway be set. But of the making of the breads, and the order of them we read in levit. 24. Leviticus thus: And thou shalt take fine flower, and bake twelve wassells thereof, two tenth deals shall be in one wassail. And thou shalt set them in two rows, that they may be bread of remembrance, and an offering unto thy Lord God every Sabbath. He shall put them in rows before thy Load God evermore. Of the children of Israel shall they be offered for an everlasting covenant. And they shall be Aaron's and his Sons, which shall eat them in the holy place. For they are most holy unto him, of the offerings of the Lord by a perpetual statute. In the which saying of God, ye first perceive the place of these breads, which is upon the table in the tabernacle. Ye understand also the continuance of them, which is that they must be before the Lord always. Further, this bread was made of fine flower, and it was the bread of remembrance, and an offering unto the Lord. It was no common bread, but an holy bread, whereof the priests only might eat, and no defiled person. Wherefore when David and his men were very hungry, and came to Abimelech the priest, and desired him to give them some bread, he 2. Reg. 21. answered him, that he had no common bread under his hand, but hallowed bread, nevertheless he considering their necessity, asked David if the men had kept themselves from unclaen things especially from women: And when David had answered that they weary clean from women about three days, the priest gave them of the bread. Now all the ceremonials of the law of Moses, were figures of christ, and his Church, as by saint Augustine before is declared. And for so moche as the Show bread was a solemn offering in the old law: It must needs be a figure of some thing in the new law. For no jot nor title of the old law shall escape (saith christ) until it be fulfiled in the new law There is therefore something in the new law, that answereth and fulfilleth this figure of the old law. And that is undoubtedly, that most blessed Show bread a figure of the Sacrament. and heavenly bread of life, the very body of our Saviour Christ in the Sacrament, under the form of bread. Which blessed bread answereth the figure the Show bread very aptly and iustilie, as by comparison in discourse and application of them we shall perceive. The Show bread was placed upon the table in the tabernacle: This bread is placed on the Altar in the Church. That bread never failed, Show bread applied to the Sacrament. but was always reserved: This bread always remaineth and is reserved. That bread was a bread of remembrance: This bread is a bread of remembrance, both of Christ'S death, and of the great benefett purchased by the same death. That bread was an offering to God: This bread is a most holy oblation and sacrifice to God. That bread might no defiled person eat: This bread may no defiled sinner eat. For Quicunque manducaverit panem Domini, & biberit calicem indignè, reus erit corporis, & sanguinis Domini, etc. he that eateth the bread of our Lord, and drinketh of his cup unwourthilie, shallbe guilty of the body of our Lord. 1. Cor. 11. Therefore let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup saith saint Paul. Thus ye see how well the thing figured answereth the figure. And albeit that no man can bring any other thing in the new testament, that is figured by the Show bread, but our heavenly bread before said: Yet, for that I will not challenge to me any such credit or Authority, that by cause I say it is so, therefore it is so (as many of our Pheudochrystians do) I shall repair to the holy elders of Christ'S parliament house, and teach by them what was the enacted and received truth in his matter. And first, I will hear what saint Hierom saith: Siautem Laicis imperatur, ut propter orationem abstineant se ab uxorum coitu, quid de Episcopo sentiendum Hieron. ca ●. ad Titum. est, qui quotidie pro suis populiue peccatis, illibatas oblaturus est victimas? Relegamus Regum libros, & inveniemus sacerdotem Abimelech de panibus propositionis noluisse dare David, & pueris suis, nisi interrogaret utrum mundi essent pueri à muliere, non utique aliena, sed coniuge. Et nisi audisset eos ab heri & nudiustertiùs vacasse ab opere coniugali, nequaquam panes, quos prius negaverat concessisset. Tantum interest inter propositionis panes, & corpus Christi, quantum inter, umbram & corpora, inter imaginem, & veritatem, inter exemplaria futurorum, & ea ipsa, quae per exemplaria praefigurabantur. Quomodò itaque mansuetudo, patientia, sobrietas, moderatio, abstinentia lucri, hospitalitas quoque & benignitas praecipuè esse debent in Episcopo, & inter cunctos laicos eminentia: sic & castitas propria, & (ut ita dicam) pudicitia sacerdotalis, ut non solùm se ab immundo opere abstineat, sed etiam à iactu oculi, & cogitationis errore mens Christi corpus confectura sit libera. If the lay men (saith saint Hierom be commanded that for prayer they Lay men commanded for prayer times to abstain from their wifes. abstain from the companieng with their wives, what is to be thought of the Bishop, which daily for his own sins, and the peoples, shall offer unto God undefiled sacrifices? Let us read the books of the kings and we shall find that Abimelech the priest would not give to David and his servants the show bread, besore he asked, weather the servants were clean, not from a strange woman, but from their vives. And except he had heard, that from yesteraie, and the day before they had abstained from the work of matrimony, he had not granted them the bread, which before he had denied. There is as great Difference betwixt the Show bread and the body of christ. difference between the Show bread, and the body of Christ, as is between the Shadow and the bodies, between the image and the truth: between the exemplars of the things to come, and the things themselves, that were perfigurated by the exemplars. Therefore as meekness, patience, sobriety, moderation, abstinence from lucre, hospitality also and benignity should be chiefly in a Bishop, and among all lay men a surmounting eminency: So also a proper or peculiar chastity, Chastity required in a priest. and (as I might say) a priestly shamefestnes, that not only he should hold himself from the unclean work, but also that the mind which shall consecrate the body of Christ may from the casting of the eye, and from wandering of thought be free. Hither to saint Hierom. In which words concerning the thing which is now principally sought, where as he saith, there is as great difference between the Show bread and the body of Christ, as between the shadow and the bodies, between the image and the truth, What else doth he give us to understand, but that the Show bread is the figure, and the body of christ in the Sacrament the thing figured. Which thing figured (if it were also but a figure, as of late the people be taught) how could there be so great difference between a figure, and a figure, as between the shadow and the body? between the image and the truth? Wherefore contrary wise let every man perceive, that (as this holy learned man in the statutes of Christ'S enacted faith, doth teach) as the Show bread was the shadow, So is the body of christ in the Sacrament a very body, and as the Show bread was the image: So is the thing represented the very tueth. Objection But peradventure some captious false Chrystan will say: I add more than my Author speaketh of, and wrest him to my purpose. For where this Author saith, that there is as much difference between the show bread, and the body of christ, I add and say: the body of christ in the Sacrament Which saint Hierom speaketh not. Answer. I add nothing to the Authors meaning. For although he saith the body of christ absolutely without any addition of the manner of the body here or there, in plain vision or in mystery (which manner whatsoever it be, the substance is all one) yet he meaneth of the body of christ in mystery, or in Sacrament. For by the example of the puripuritie of life, that was required to the eating of the Show bread in the old law, he moveth the bishops of the new law to such purity and cleanness of life, as to that law is meet to be had. And forsomuch as the office of a Bishop about the Sacrament, priests must consecrate, offer, and receive standeth in three points, that is, in consecration, oblation, and reaving, he frameth an exhortation to this purpose thus, that seeing they in the old law which should eat of the Show bread, must have such purity, that they might not for a time know their one, vieves, much more they that consecrated, offer, and receive the body of christ, which as far excelleth the Show bread, as the body doth he shadow, must excel them of the old law in purity and cleanness of life. Now then, when saint Hierom speaketh of the body of christ that is consecrated by the Bishop, and so offered in sacrifice and received, doth he not mien of the body of christ in the Sacrament? And when he speaketh of the body consecrated, doth he not mien the very body of christ, really in the Sacrament, as the holy Church doth teach and believe? In this sentence also saint Hierom doth not only impugn the heresy of the Sacramentaries, in that he teacheth the verity of Christ'S body in the Wanton lusts of Bishops and priests reproved. Sacrament: but he also reproveth the fleshly wanttonnesse of our Bishops and priests in these days, who against all law and order being priests take wifes (as they term them) and under the countenance of pretenced matrimony continue their unchaist, and vicious life, who should excel all the people in purity and cleanness of life, to th'intent they might consecrated the body of christ, and daily offer pure sacrifice to God for themselves and for Consecration and sacrifice put away for to keep women. the people, as saint Hieron saith they should. But because these high functions, and the keeping of women can notjoin together, raither than they will put away their women, they have devised to put away the consecration of the body of christ, and the sacrifice also which they should offer. Of which matter, for that it is impertinente to my purpose, I will not speak, but overpass it, and not meddle withal. Now have ye here heard one witness of the one side of the higher house of Parliament, reporting the truth of this matter: We will hear one of the other side and of the lower house to report the same truth, who shall be Damascen. Thus he saith: Hunc panem, panes figurabant propositionis. This Li. 4. c. 14. de orthodox. sid.. bread (meaning the body of christ in the Sacrament) did the Show bread figure. That he speak of the body of christ, the learned reader shall soon perceive, if he will peruse this place in Damascen, where he shall find, that after he most plainly had affirmed the very real presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, by the words of our Saviour christ in the vj. of john, and in the other Evangelists: he cometh to exhortation for the worthy receiving of the same, saying thus: Proinde cum omni timore, & conscientia pura, & indubitabili fide accedamus, & veneremur ipsum omni puritate animi & corporis. Accedamus ei desiderio ardenti, manus in modum crucis formantes, crucifixi corpus suscipiamus? Therefore let us come to it with all fear, Dam. ibi. and pure conscience, and with a sure faith, and let us worship him all purity of mind and body. Let us go to him burning desire, fashioning our hands in manner of a cross, let us receive the body of him that was crucified. And after a few scriptures alleged, he speaketh the words which I before recited, that the Show bread did figure this bread. Whereby it is evident, that he meaneth that he Show bread was a figure, not of a figure, but of christ himself, who promised that the bread, that he would give, should be his flesh, which flesh he would give for the life of the world. joan. 6. THE THREE AND TWENTHETH CHAPIT. ceadeth in the proof of the same by S. Augustine and Isychius. ALthough the Authors alleged might suffice for the declaration and proof of this matter now entreacted of: yet for the full contentation of the reader, some more shall be brought to make the thing more plain, and the truth more certain. The first of these shall be saint Augustin, who said thus: Dicit cessisse pani pecus, tanquam nesciens, & tunc in Domini mensa panes Propositionis poni solere, et nunc Ad Casulanum epist. ●6. sede agni immaculati corpore partem accipere. Dicit cessisse poculo sanguine non cogitans et nuncse accipere in poculo sanguinem. Quanto ergo melius et congruentius vetera transisse, et nova in Christo facta esse sic diceret, ut cederet altare altari, gladius gladio, ignis igni, panis pani, pecus pecori, sanguis sanguini? Videmus in ijs omnibus carnalem vetustatem spiritali cedere novitati. He saith that the beast hath given place to the bread, as though he knew not that even than the Show breades were wounte to be put upon the table of our lord, and that now he doth take part of the body of that undefiled lamb. He said that blood hath given place to the cup, not remembering that he also now doth receive blood in the cup. How moche better therefore, and more agreeably should he say, that the old are gone, and new be made in christ, so as the Altar gave place to the Altar, the sword to the sword, fire to fire, bread to bread, beast to beast, blood to blood? We do see in all these, the carnal oldness to give place, to the spiritual newness. Thus far S. Augustin. In these words S. Augustin correcting the evil saying of one that said, that in the coming of the new Testament, the Sacrifices of the old law, which were done in beasts, as sheep, lambs, kids, heckfers, oxen, and such other did give place to bread (meaning the Sacrament) doth declare, that these properly did not give place to it. As though he should say, that these beasts were not figures of the Sacrament, but of the bloody Sacrifice of christ offered upon the cross, after the manner of Aaron. But he saith the show breads gave place to our bread. And therefore he saith that the Adversary saying, that the beasts gave place to bread, he spoke it as though he knew not, that the Show breades, were wont to be put upon the table of our Lord, meaning that the Show breades were a figure of the Sacrament. And therefore when the truth came, those breads, as the figure, must needs give place to the true bread, which is christ in the blessed Sacrament. And therefore S. Augustin teaching this man, to make due application of each figure to the thing figured, saith: that he should better have said, that the Altar gave place to the Altar, signifying that the Altar of the jews, was a figure of the Altar of the christians: and that bread gave place to bread, signifying that the Show bread was a figure of our blessed bread. Objection out of S. Augustin. But here perchance the Adversary will say, that saint Augustin calleth the Sacrament but bread, meaning that the Show bread was a figure of the Sacramental bread. I would to God the Adversary (who being adversary to God's truth, is most adversary to his own souls health) would in such sentences of holy Fathers, as narrowly look, and espy the truth which they do teach, as he doth for some one word to make some apparent show to maintain his heresy, and false doctrine. Answer. Truth it is that S. Augustin doth call it bread, to show the just application of the figure to the thing figured. That bread was the figure of bread, for outwardly it appeareth bread, and inwardly it is the true bread, that is, the bread of life. But mark saint Augustin well, and ye shall have need of no expositor to know his faith, and meaning in this saying. For in the beginning: he saith that the beast hath given place to the bread, as though he knew not, that the show breades were wont to be set upon the table of our Lord, and that now he doth take part of the body of the undefiled lamb to which body and not to sacramental bread, the Show bread gave place. Note well saint Augustin therefore here, that speaking what thing he doth receive, doth say, not sacramental bread, but the body of the undefiled lamb, which is the lamb that took away the sins of the world. So that which he first called bread, now he calleth it the body of the unde filled lamb, who is the bread of life. And that the Adversary should not have any place to put in his glozing word (spiritually) and to say that he receiveth the body of the undefiled lamb spiritually: S. Augustin maketh a stop in the words that follow, saying: he doth say (meaning vibicus) that blood hath given place to the cup, not remembering that he also now doth receive blood in the cup. Which saying of saint Augustin openeth the true faith of the catholic Church, and wipeth out the false faith of the malignant Church. For they well understand, that to receive the blood of christ in the cup teacheth a real presence of the same. And as it is manifest by S. Augustin, that the blood is received really: So is the flesh of the body of the immaculate lamb received really. For as the one is received, so is the other. Thus ye have heard saint Augustine his witness of the truth of this matter: Now shall be joined to him Isychius, who beareth full testimony of the same truth. This man (as the learned know) applying the levitical Sacrifices, and Ceremonies, to the things, which they figured in the evangelical law, doth at large expound this place, and figure of the Show breads. Whose exposition though it be long, yet forasmuch as it is fructfull, my trust is, that it shall not be tedious, but even as I, for the reader's commodity, did with good will transcribe it. So I trust that he will, with like good will read it. And that the whole matter may be known to the Reader, I will allege and bring the whole text of the scripture, as this Author hath it, and then putto his exposition, whereby it shall be seen how every part of the text is applied. Thus allegeth he the text: Accipies quoque similam, & coques ex ea duodecim panes, qui singuli habebunt duas Decimas, quorum senos altrinsecus super mensam purissimam coram Domino statues, & pones super eos thus lucidissimum, ut sit Isychius li. 7. ca 24. panis in monimentum oblationis Domini. Per singula Sabbata mutabuntur coram Domino, suscepti à filijs israel foedere sempiterno. Eruntque Aaron et filiorum eius, ut comedant eos in loco sancto, quia Sanctum Sanctorum est de sacrificio Domini iure perpetuo. And thou shalt take fine flower and bake twelve loaves thereof, two tenth deals shall be in one loaff. And thou shalt set them in two rows, six on a row upon the pure table of thy Lord. And put pure frankincense upon the rows, that they may be breads of remembrance, and an offering to thy Lord. Every Sabbath shall he put them in rows before thy Lord for evermore. Of the children of Israel shall they be offered, for an everlasting covenant. And they be Aaron's and his sons, which shall eat them in the holy place. For they are most holy to him of the offerings of thy Lord, by a perpetual statute. Upon this text thus writeth Isychius: Vocat ad contemplationem mandati nos ipse panum numeras, sed & propositio, & quia non & ipsos, quemadmodum ea quae su●t de sartagine, & craticula, & clibano, holocaustum fieri praecipit, sed poni quidem in mensa altrinsecus, & solis eos licere sacerdotibus, non & Levitis edere, ut tamen & ab ipsis in loco sancto comedantur. Sed & quia Sanctum sanctorum appellati sunt (intellige quae dicuntur, dabit enim tibi Dominus intellectum) memento mysticae mensae, de qua nulli praesumere praeceptum est, excepto intelligibili Aaron, id est, Christo (Ipse enim eam primus initiavit) said & filijs eius, qui ab eo facti sunt Christi, & induti sunt eo, quam tamen comedere in loco sancto iussi sunt. Est verò et Sanctum sanctorum, ut sanctificationem habeant praecipuam et indespicabilem. Illi panes ex duabus decimis (Dei enim et hominis sunt, eiusdem in utroque perfecti) ponuntur seni altrinsecus. Mystica mensa ponitur quidem hic, ponitur etiam in futuro scculo. Sex autem panes propositio una, quiae perfectus numerus, sicut & mysterium ipsum perfectum est, & perfectos facit eos, qui hoc fruuntur. In sex autem diebus haec visibilis facta est creatura: sextaue die homo productus est, propter quem Christus mysticam praeparavit mensam. Veruntamen & omnes simul rectè duodecim panes sunt, quia primi dominicam coenaverunt Apostoli, qui erant duodecim numero. The very number of the loaves doth call us to the contemplation or deligent beholding of the commandment. So doth also the setting forth of them, and that he doth not command them to be made a sacrifice, as those things which be of the frieng pan, of the gridiron, and furnace, but that they shall be put upon the table on the one part, and to be lawful to the priests alone, and not to the Levites to eat them, and yet they may not be eaten of them, but in the holy place. But also because they be called most holy, understand these things that be said, Hour Lord shall give thee understanding. Remember the mystical table of which it is commanded no man to eat, except the intelligible Aaron, that is to say christ, he first began this table, except also his children, which of him were made Christ'S, and were clothed with him, which table yet they were commanded to eat in the holy place. It is also most holy, that they should have a principal and reverent holiness. Those loaves are of two tenth deals, that is of God and man, perfect in both. Six loaves are set on a row. For the mystical table is set here, and is set also in the world to come. Six loaves is one row, for it is a perfect number, as the mystery is also perfect, and maketh them perfect, that do use it. In six days the visible creature was made, the sixth day also man was created, for whom christ prepared the mystical table. And yet for all that, all the loaves together are very well twelve. For the Apostles, that first supped at the Supper of our Lord, were in number twelve Thus moche Isychius. Of whom we learn a full application of the figure to the thing: of the Show bread to christ. For beginning to open the figure, and to set forth showbread applied to the Sacrament. the thing figured by the Show bread, he saith: Memento mysticae mensae Remember the mystical table. wherebily he meeneth the blessed bread of the table of Christ which after he openeth with very plain words, when he saith: The Show breads were made of two tenths deals: christ the very bread is made of the Godhead and the manhood, in both perfect, perfect God and perfect man. If this application were not plain enough I would tarry longer upon it. But it is easy to perceive that by the Show bread is figured that bread that is made of two tenth deals, as that was, by which tenth deals he understandeth the Godhead and manhood of christ. For (as Athanasius saith) Sicut In Symbolo anima rationalis & caro unus est homo: ita Deus & homo unus est Christus. As the reasonable Soul, and the flesh is one man: Even so God and man is one christ. Now this loaf made of these two tenth deals, of the Godhead, and of the manhood, where is it, but in mystica mensa, in the mystical table? So that here is taught, more plainly than can be denied, that which the rude heretic with wonder sometime asketh, saying: What? is christ God and man in the Sacrament, under the forms of so little a piece of bread? Which rude man if he would leave reasoning and questioning (which make him doutfullie to wonder at the works of God) and would subdue his understanding to the faith of christ and hearken to this Father and such other of the Parliament house of christ as teach his enacted and received faith, he should soon by the help of God's grace cease with incredulity to wonder, and with reverence to embrace this mystery. And that ye may the sooner so do, note yet more, how this ancient Father expoundeth this figure: The loaves made of two tenth deals were set in two sundry rows: The blessed loaf christ, that is of two tenth deals of his Godhead and of his manhood is set in two sundry rows, as this Author applieth it: Seni ponuntur altrinsecus: Mystica mensa ponitur quidem hic, ponitur & in futuro seculo. The breads are put six in a row. The mystical table is set here, and is set in the woorld to come. In which Application note that as the Show bread was set in sundry rows: So christ figured by the same bread, is set both here and in heaven. And that the Adversary shall not delude thee by his common gloze, saying: that christ by his godhead is here in the world, but not by Godhead and manhood in Gloze of the Sacramentaries for Christ'S presence. the Sacrament Remember the whole application of the figure, that it is for the presence of christ in the Sacrament, as it doth well appear by that that followeth immediately. In six days (saith he) this visible creature was made, and in the sixth day man was created, for whom christ prepared this mystical table. And yet all these breads together are very well twelve. For the Apostles which first supped at our lords Supper were twelve. So that this figure is continually applied to the Sacrament. Wherein to prove the presence of christ, if ye desire more plain and evident The table of christ purgeth, etc. testimony, note this that he saith immediately: Haec munda est primùm quidem sicut mundans: deinde sicut nihil mendacij, nec infectionis, qualia sunt in mysterijs Paganorum, habens. This table is clean, Firist, as cleansing or making clean: secondly as having no lie or untruth nor infection, as the mysteries of the Pagans have. In which saying note well, that he saith, that this table is a table, that purgeth cleanseth, or maketh clean. What doth it make clean but the soul? What is it to make the soul clean, but to remit and wipe away sins, which be the uncleanness, and filthiness of the soul? Who remitteth and taketh away sin, but God, our Saviour and Redeemer christ jesus? For (as the jews said) Quis potest peccata remittere nisi solus Deus? who can remit sin but God alone? Luc. 5. Seeing then in this table is that, that cleanseth us, and taketh away our sins, we may boldly point with our fingar to this blessed table, where christ is present in mystery, and yet verily, as john the Baptist did point to him being in visible form, and say: Ecce agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccata mundi. Behold the Lamb of God, behold him, that taketh away the sins of Joan. 1. the world. And humbling ourselves before him there present, with meek supplication of the catholic Church, pray God, and say. O Lamb of God that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us. This may we boldly do, for (as it followeth in this Author) in this table is no lie or untruth, as in the mysteries of the Pagans, but here is in very deed christ, God and man, verily and truly, as is before by this Author testified. In my judgement this verity of the blessed Sacrament is by this Author already both pithily and plainly testified: and the figure well and iustilie applied. But will ye yet see in the end of the application, a more plain sentence? Thus he saith: Insuper elevans eius gloriam, & mysterij dignitatem efferens in sublime, addit: Sanctum sanctorum est de sacrificio Domini iure perpetuo. Ergo sancta est oratio, sancta scripturae divinae lectio, & interpretationis auditio, sancta sunt (ut breviter dicam) omnia quae in ecclesiis Deisecundùm legem eius dicuntur, & aguntur. Sancta autem sanctorum de sacrificio Domini, de omnibus videlicet quae offeruntur, & aguntur ad eius gloriam, mensa est, quam de sacrificio suo Christus proponit. Moreover exalting the glory of it, and extolling the dignity of the mystery unto the Table of the Sacrifice most holy thing in the church height he addeth: It is the most holy of the Sacrifice of the Lord, by a perpetual statute. Now prayer is holy, the reading of God's scripture is holy, and the hearing of the interpretation of the scripture is holy, and (briefly to say) All things that according to his law, are either said, or done in the churches of God are holy. But of all things, which be either offered or done to his glory, the most holy of all is the table, which christ hath set forth of his sacrifice. Hitherto Isychius. Do ye not here see, which is the holiest thing in all the church of God, above prayer, above the reading of the scriptures, above the hearing of the interpretation of the scriptures, yea generally above all things that be done or offered to the glory of God? The blessed Show bread, the body of christ, which is the bread of life is the holiest of all. Thus, Reader, thou mayst see, how it hath pleased God by the figure, to extol and magnify the thing figured, that is the blessed body of christ in the Sacrament, with these great words, caling it, the most holy of the offerings of God. A greablie whereunto ye see this Author so much esteem and repute the worthiness and holiness of the Sacrament, that he declareth it to Sourmounte and excel all the holy things, what soever they be, that be done to the glory of God in his Church. judge then what else can attain to such holiness in the Sacrament, but the body of christ. For the bread and wine (as the adversaries say) being dumb creatures are not able to take holiness. Conclude then with this Author, that the Show bread was a figure of the blessed Sacrament, which for that it is holiest of all other, it proveth it well to be the very body of christ. This Author by plain words convinceth the wicked opinion of Oecolampadius, Oecolampad convinced by th'authority of Isychius. who in his book of the Supper of our lord saith, that the Sacrament is no holier, nor otherwise sanctifieth then prayers do. These be his words: Haec verò creatura panis ita sanctissimo usui seruiens, ut & corpus Christi, quod repraesentat, appelletur, utentesue sanctificat non suae quidem natura, sed utentium sanctimonia, hoc est, fide, & affectu sancto. Non minùs enim verè hoc quis de Eucharistia affirmat, quàm de precibus, quae usu suo hominem sanctificant. This creature of bread is so sanctified, serving to a most holy use, that it may also be called the body of christ, which it doth represent. And it doth sanctify them that use it, not of the own nature: But by the sanctimony of the users, that is, by faith, and holy affection. Thus he. In whose words is plain contradiction. For first he saith that the bread is sanctified, And yet he saith again, it hath no holiness in it. Again he saith, Oecolamp. his contradiction. it sanctifieth the receivers: And after he saith, it doth not, but their own sanctimony sanctifieth them. thirdly he saith, it sanctifieth as prayers do: and prayers, if they be devout, pourchase sanctification but sanctify not of them selves: but the body of christ sanctifieth of it self. Now if he mien this of the bread as it is handled now a days of men of this sect, I think he saith truth. For neither is that holy of it self, neither communion bread of the Sacramentaries sanctifieth not doth it sanctify the receivers. For they by their corrupted faith, are rather defiled. But if he speak of the Sacrament, as it is used among the catholic people, than he foully erreth. For that bread sanctifieth, and maketh us clean, as this Author before hath said. And it is of it self most holy, as this same Author in his last sentence taught. And so against this wicked Oecolampadius, it is holier than prayer, or any other thing in the church of God. Now when we see this man, and Cantorburie and such other so plainly repugnant to the old ancient Fathers, what should we else do but reject them, and utterly detest them as men framing themselves a faith upon their heretical election, and not upon the faith of christ declared by the Ancient Fathers of the catholic Church. Although Isychius be right plain in this place alleged: yet shall you hear him hereafter speak more plainly. THE FOUR AND twentieth CHAPTER applying the continual reserving of the Show bread to the reservation of the Sacrament, proveth the same reservation by the old Fathers, and by the perpetual practice of the Church. IT is out of all doubt by the testimony of the Fathers before alleged, that the Show bread was a figure of the holy Sacrament: Plain it is that the same Show bread was set forth because it should be continually reserved in the temple, and to no use more was it appointed, then to be reserved. Wherefore God commanded that every Sabbath, day hot bread should be set forth upon the table, and that Aaron and his Sons the priests should eat the stolen bread. Show bread appointed for three things. Now the figure must be answered by the thing figured, specially in that part, that is the chief and principal part of the figure. The principal part of the Show bread and the chief cause of the appointment of it was for three things. The first (as the text alleged declareth) that it should be always remaining in the temple upon the table: The second, ut sit panis in monimentum oblationis Domini, that it should be abread of remembrance of the offering of the Lord: The third, that it should be eaten only of Aaron, and his Sons. Seeing then the Sacrament is the thing figured it must answer the figure in these points, which be the principal part of the figure. So then as the Show bread was reserved, So likewise may the Sacrament be reserved: As the Show bread was a bread of remembrance of Show bread applied to the Sacrament. the oblation or offering of the Lord: So is the Sacrament the bread of remembrance of the offering of christ our lord. As the Shwe bread was to be eaten only of Aron and his Sons: So is the Sacrament of none to be received but of our spiritual Aron and his Sons, which follow their father in holy faith, and like conversation. This goodly agreement, and just answering of the thing figured to the figure thereof, doth very well prove the thing so to be. The Adversary can not deny, but that the Show bread was a figure of the Sacrament. For that is testified by the holy Fahers. And the reservation of the Show bread being a figure of some thing in the new Testament (For all the levitical sacrifices, and Ceremonies, were figures of things of the new Testament) whereof can it be a figure, but of the reservation of the Sacrament, as the bread it self was a figure of the Sacrament it self? Let the adversary bring forth the thing figured by the reservation of the Show bread if he can, if he can not (as certain it is that he can not) for so much God appointed no vain figure. Math. 5. as God appointed no vain figure, void of all signification, and he hath ordained also, that iota unum, aut unus apex non praeteribit a lege, donec omnia fiant. one jot or one title shall not scape till all be fulfiled: maugre of the adversaries heart, this part of the figure is answered by the reservation of this blessed Sacrament, for the memorial of the offering of Christ upon the cross, and to be eaten of his good faithful children. Now where one of the members of the proclamation of this Adversary is against the reservation of the blessed Sacrament: ye may see that was made, One member of master Juells proclamation against Reservation in● proved. more by self will then by law, for the law is against him, as by that, that is said, it doth well appear. But to this further confusion, I shall declare and prove that this matter hath been put in execution in sundry and diverse ages, from the beginning of Christ'S Church. And for that this Adversary allegeth the epistle of saint Clement, written to saint james called the brother of christ: therefore shall I also allege the same epistle, and beginning with it, descend to our days. Saint Clement the disciple of saint Peter the Apostle, and an holy martyr Phill. 4. Clemens Epist. 2. of christ, of whom saint Paul maketh mention, declaring the order about the blessed Sacrament used in his time, saith thus: Tribus gradibus commissa sunt sacramenta divinorum secretorum: presbytero, Diacono, & ministro. Qui cum timore, & tremore reliquias corporis Domini debent custodire fragmentorum, ne qua putredo in sacrario inveniatur, ne cùm negligenter agitur, portioni corporis Domini gravis inferatur iniuria. The Sacraments of the divine secrettes are committed to three degrees: to the Priest, to the Deacon, and to the minister. which aught with fear and trembling to keep the leavings of the pieces of the body of our Lord, least any corruption be found in the holy place, least when any thing is necligentlie done, great wrong be done to the portion of our lords body. Thus saint Clement. In which saying we have not only to consider, that this is the bare saying of saint Clement but that it is such learning as he had learned of his master, and of the Apostles, and was both in their times, and after, and is yet taught, and practised in the catholic Church. And secondarily, we have to note, that he calleth the Sacrament that is left, the protion of hour Lords body. thirdly, he doth not only by so calling it, teach us that it is the body of christ, but also by the fact, that is, by the commandment of the reverent keeping of it, which is that they to whom these mysteries are committed, should keep them with fear and trembling, which fear and trembling importeth the presence of an other manner of thing then of a piece of bread. Fourtlie, ye perceive, that the Sacrament was appointed to be kept, and that not for an hour or a day, but for a longer time, or else they should Reservation of the Sacrament in the Apostles tyme. not be advertised to be circumspect, that no corruption should be found in the holy place, or any wrong through negligence, should be done to the portion of Christ's body. So that by this it is manifestly taught, that the Sacrament is not only the body of christ: but also that in the time of the Apostles it was reserved and kept with great reverence, diligence, and circumspection But here perchance the adversary will object, and say that saint Clement immediately maketh against me. For he saith: Tanta in altario holocausta Objection out of. S. Clement. offerantur, quanta populo sufficere debent. Quòd si remanserint, in crastmun non reseruentur, sed cum timore & tremore clericorum diligentia consumantur. Let there be so many hosts offered on the Altar, as may fussice the people: And if any of them remain let them not be reserved till the morrow, but by the diligence of the clerks, with fear and trembling spent. I grant that this is in the epistle of saint Clement, and that within a few lines after the former saying by me alleged. But the adversary can not reprove me of false allegation. For certain I am, that it is even in that epistle, as I have alleged. But to answer the Adversary, thinketh he that saint Clement was a fool, or so forgettfull, that within six lines he would against say that he had Answer before said? It can not be dinied, but that in the beginning of the Epistle he giveth an order for the reverent keeping of the Sacrament. It may not then be thought that he would give a contrary order within so few lines, as is said. But giving first an order for the reverend keeping of that, that is reserved: in the second sentence he giveth order, that S. Clement his saying opened. in the daily Sacrifice reservation should not be made. For so there should be more than needed to be reserved, which were not meet. As ever in the catholic Church, where sufficient is appointed for reservation, the ministers in their quotidian ministration do not put more to that, that is reserved, but daily as they consecrated, daily receive. And (as by order they be appointed) The church at this day hath in use that which S Clement commanded. when time requireth, they receive that, that was reserved, and put other in place So that it appeareth to me that the catholic church at this day hath that in use, that saint Clement in his epistle commanded, both for the reservation, and order of daily Sacrifice without reservation. That saint Clement did not absolutely forbid reservation, but raither willed it to be in use, the practice of the primitive church doth very welprove. For where there was a variety of observation of Easter, and fast, betwixt Victor excommunicated the churches os Asia. the latin church and the greek church, neither would the greeks conform themselves to the manner received in the latin church: Victor then Pope being the xiii. after Peter, not bearing the contumacy of them, being so often and long called on, to come to conformity, and ever resisting, did excommunicate the churches of Asia. Which thing as it was misliked of many bishops: So was it for fear Ecclesiast. hist. li. 5. c. 14. of the loss of so many churches misliked of Irenaeus. who therewith moved wroted to Victor an epistle in that matter. In the which (as Eusebius wittnesseth) Irenaeus reporting how Anicetus, Pius, Higinus, Telesphorus, and Xistus did bear with them, although they did not receive that order, and did communicate with them, said: Nunquam tamen ob hoc repulsi sunt ab Ecclesiae societate, aut venientes ab illis partibus non sunt suscepti: imò potiùs & omnes presbyteri, qui fuerunt ante te, omnibus semper, qui non ita obseruabant, presbyteris ecclesiarum Eucharistiam solemniter transmittebant. Never for all that were they for this repulsed from the fellowship of the Church, or else coming from those parties were not received, but raither all bishops, that were before thee, to all bishops of the churches, which did not so observe, they did always solemnly send the Sacrament. By this sentence it doth appear (as of the learned it is noted) that the Bishops of Rome accustometh, that if any Bishops came thither, that were catholic, they would in token of christian unity, send the Sacrament to them, that they might communicate together, for that they were of one Communion. Whereby it is evident, that the Sacrament was allwais reserved, to be ready for such pourposes. Tertullian writing (as some think) to his own wife, declareth the manner of good Christian people about the Sacrament in that time, saying thus: An arbitrare (o uxor) ita gesturam te, ut clam viro sint, quae facis? Non sciet ille quid Lib. 2. secretò ante omnem cibum gusts? et si sciverit, non panem illum credit esse, qui dicitur. Dost though think (o wife) so to handle thyself that those things, Tertullian with, one saying overthroweth three assertions of the Sacramentaties. that thou dost, shall be unknown to thy husband? Shall not he know, what before all meats thou dost secretly receive? And if he shall know it, he believeth not it to be that bread, that it is said to be. Hitherto Tertul. Whose little sentence, although it doth overthrow three or four assertions of the Auersaries in this matter of the Sacrament: Yet we shall here touch but two, that be to the purpose here. The first is, that good devout godly people had the Sacrament reserved in their houses, often to receive, as their devotion to God moved them, secretly by themselves. For at that time the church was not so settled, nor had The Sacrament reserved in private houses in the Primitive church. such peace, that the christian people might freely come together, and receive openly. Wherefore for the excercising of their faith and devotion, and doing of their duty to God, they had the Sacrament home to their houses and there reserved it to receive when they thought good. And this may ye very well gather of this that Tertullian saieh: Shall not thy husband know what thou secret he dost receive, before all meat? For the better understanding of which saying, you must suppose and know that Tertulian writeth to this woman, as though she had an infidel to her husband, and she a Christian. Unto whom she would not have her doings known in this behalf, Now to cover this matter from such an ynfidel, good people would secretly by themselves receive that they for such purpose reserved, and so it appeareth, that for such cause reservation of the Sacrament might be and was much used in the primitive church. The second note is for the presence, which is where he saith: And if he knoweth it yet he believeth not it to be the bread, that it yssaid to be. Whereby joan. De lapsis serm. 5. A miracle wrought in the Sacrament reserved. we are taught, that it is an other manner of bread, than it appeareth. For it appeareth to be but earthly bread, but in deed it is heavenly bread the bread of life, even that bread it self that said: The bread which I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. But to return to the matter of reservation, we have plain testimony there os in saint Cyprian, who reporteth thus: Cùm quaedam arcam suam, in qua Domini Sanctum erat, manibus indignis tentasset aperire, igne inde surgente deterrita est, ne auderet contingere. When a certain woman did attempt with unwourthie hands to open her coffer, in which was the holy thing of our Lord, there arose thence a fire, and so feared her, that she durst not touch it. Thus saint Cyprian. Do ye not hear that this woman had the Sacrament kept in her coffer? Perceive ye not the great power of it, that where she would but open the coffer with unclean hands, she was feared away with a fire that rose from thence? Is there any mean for the Adversary, to avoid this? Perchance he will cavil and say, that Cyprian speaketh not of the Sacrament, but of some other thing, which he calleth, the holy thing of our Lord. But if he would so seek to avoid, he should show himself to vain. For Cyprian speaketh there altogether of the Sacrament, in so much as he reporteth four miracles together, which God had wrought about the Sacrament. And albeit in this sentence, he doth not by express words call it the body of our Lord, as he doth in many other places, yet he so termeth it, Oecolamp. and Cranmers' doctrine reproved by S. Cipr. Vide sup. cap. 23. as he reproveth the doctrine of Oecolampadius, and Cranmer, and very likely of this Proclaimer also, For he calleth it the holy thing of our Lord: and they say there is no holiness in it. For it is a dumb creature. Thus though in words they pretend tofolowe the old Fathers: yet in very deed they slatlie against say them. But to proceed in the prooff of reservation, it maketh moche for it, that saint Ambrose reporteth of his bother Satyrus, who, as he saith, being a singular man in godliness, and affiamnce toward God, and being in damnger upon the Ambr. in oratione funebr, de obi tu sratris sui. sea yet not fearing death, but desirous not to be destitute of that blessed Sacrament (if it should so please God to call him) went to the christians that were there in the ship and desired to have that Godly Sacrament of the faith full, not that he would please his curious eyes in looking upon such a mystery, satire. had part of the Sacrament reserved in the ship and was saved there by from drowning. but that by such a Sacrament, he might obtain the help of his faith. Which when it was given him, he caused it to bound in a stole, and so hanged it about his neck, and when shippwracke happened, he sought not for a lose board of the ship to swim upon, and so to help himself, but for that he had sought the armour of faith alone, he did so commit himself to the sea, and thinking himself safe enough by the help of the Sacrament, he desired no other help, and (as saint Ambrose saith) his hope did not forsake him nor deceive him. For he was the first that eschaped out of the sea, and came to the land. Thus moche in effect reporteth saint Ambrose. In which his report it is more than manifest, that the Sacrament was reserved, and as it may be supposed for a good time. If it may be reserved three or four days, why may it not be reserved longer? As the whole report (for that it is made by so holy, and worthy a man) is worthy to be remembered: So be two or three things worthy of special note. The first is, that this good man, the Brother of saint Ambrose went to the Christians in the ship and obtained of them, to have, and to carry the Sacrament with him. If to reserve the Sacrament had been so heinous a matter, as this Proclaimer, and his complices make it, would they (trow ye) have committed soche an offence as to have it reserved in the ship, and to deliver it to Satirus to be so reserved? And further if the reserving of this Sacrament Sacrament reserved in the ship. had been against the order of the church, would Saint Ambrose to the praise of his Brother report it as a thing well and Godly done? No truly, it is not to be thought in so godly and so learned a father: but raither it is to be thought that the Brother of saint Ambrose doing no other thing but that was by the same saint Ambrose commended, did agreeable to the manner of the Church. Therefore saint Ambrose, to his Bothers' praise, and to the example of S. Ambrose commended the doing of his broth satire. the posterity to do such like virtuous works, did write this matter, and made a book to remain to keep the thing in memory. By this than it may appear, that the reservation of the Sacrament was in use in the church in those days. another thing worthy of note in this report of saint Ambrose is, that he with commendation declareth the affiance that his brother had in the Sacrament. Which was such that seeing imminent peril, and remembering what he had about him, did not seek earthly or worldly help, but reposing his trust in the Sacrament that he had about him, he persuaded himself to have help enough, and nothing distrusting rested only upon that help, and in that hope committed himself to the fearful, and terrible vaives of the sea. I pray thee (good Reader) weigh this well, and judge whether this good man the brother of saint Ambrose, did think or believe, the Sacrament to be but a piece of bread, a figure or sign of christ only. Would he (think you) in that great danger & peril, have committed the saving of his life (all other helps set a part) te a poour dumb creature, a little piece of bread? And above this, would that good man in that agony, so endangered his soul, as to commit so horrible idolatry, in placing and putting that his great trust in a piece of bread, which aught only to have been reposed in God? No, it is not to be thought, but this raither, that he being a faithful and godly man followed the example of faithful Peter, who, being in a ship, and hearing christ whom he saw walking on the sea saying to them that were in the Matth. 14 ship: be of good trust, it is I, be not afraid, said to him: if it be though lord command me to come to thee upon the waters. And he went out of the ship and walked upon the sea toward christ: Even so this man by faith knowing his master christ to be at hand with him presently in the sacrament, he committed himself with Peter to the sea, and was the first that was saved. Add unto this, that which is an other thing to be noted, that saint Ambrose commending this brother for the great faith, trust, and affiance that he had in the Sacrament, well declareth also his own faith, that he also believed the very presence of christ in the Sacrament. Holy men commend not the misbeleif of men to the world, no not by mouth, moche less by books, which must remain. For that then that saint Ambrose hath written this, no doubt aswell to our Imitation, as to the commendation of his brother: both the faith of the Church believing Christ'S presence in the Sacrament, is to be approved, and the reservation of the same Sacrament, for the comforth of us, being seek or whole, is not to be disallowed. And yet is there a more evident testimony of this matter of reservation in an epistle of Chrisostom to Innocentius, wherein he maketh complaint of the calamity that happened in his church of Constantinople by wicked Soldiers, and among other things reporteth thus: Ipso magno Sabbato Chrysost. epist. add Jnnocent. collecta manus militum, ad vesperam diei in ecclesias ingressa, clerum omnem, qui nobiscum erat, vi eiecit, & armis gradum undique munivit. Mulieres quoque quae per illud tempus se exuerant ut baptisarentur, metu graviorum insidiarum nudae aufugerunt: neque enim concedebatur ut se velarent, sicut mulieres honestas decet, multae etiam acceptis vulneribus eijciebanttur, & sanguine implebantur natatoria, & sancto cruore rubescebant sluenta. Neque hic rerum finis erat. Name & sanctuaria ingressi sunt milites, quorum aliquos scimus nullis initiatos mysteries, & viderunt omnia, quae intus erant, quin & sanctissimus Christi sanguis, sicut in tali tumultu contingit, in praedictorum militum vestes effusus est. Even upon the great Sabbath day (meaning Easter day) at the eventide, an Army of Soldiers entered the church, and by violence cast out all such as were with us of the clergy. And kept with strength the entry. The women also, which at that time had put of their clothes to be baptized, for fear of more danger, fled naked away. Nether were they suffered to cover themselves, as becometh honest women, many of them also being wounded were cast out, and the fontes prepared to baptize them in, were full of blood, and the waters of the fontes were made red with blood. But this was not the end of the business. For the Soldiers also went into the holy places, of the which, Christ'S blood in the Sacr. shed upon the soldiers. clothes. we know, some to have received no part of the Christian religion, and they saw all the things that were within. And besides that the most holy blood of christ (as it doth happen in such tumult) was shed upon the garments of the Soldiers. Thus facre Chrisostom. In this complaint, first note when these wicked soldiers entered upon the church, they entered in the evening. At which time they entering into the Sanctuary, Ye perceive they found the Sacrament there, for he saith that it was shed upon the clothes of the Soldiers. In the time of Chrisostom it was not in use to consecrated the Sacrament in the after noon, but only in the morning. This then being kept in the Sanctuary, and shed upon the garment of the Soldiers in the evening, it proveth invincibly, and most plainly that the Sacrament was reserved. Presence of Christ'S blood in the Sacra. and reservation avouched by Chrysost. If ye will also know what the Sacrament was, whether it was a figure only or the thing it self, Christostom by as plain words teacheth us that it was the blood of Christ, And that we should perceive it was so in deed, he contented not him self only to call it the blood of christ, but the most holy blood of christ. By Chrisostom then, the reservation of the Sacrament is so plainly wittnessed, that the Proclaimer can not deny it, & the very presence of Christ's blood in the same is so avouched, that the Sacramentary is confounded. It is with moche reverence termed and called the most holy blood of christ, whereby the vureverent and spiteful railing and raiging of the blasphemer is reproved and rebuked. But let us yet proceed further, may we not find the reservation of the Sacrament in S. Hieromes' time? Yes verily. For he wittnesseth it Reservation in S. Hieroms' time. himself declaring to one Rusticus, the godly life and great liberty of Exuperius Bishop of Tolosse, and signifying the great contempt of worldly things the same had, and his great pleasure in heavenly things, writeth thus. Nihil illo ditius, qui corpus Domini in canistro vimineo, sanguinem portat in vitro. There is no man richer than he, who beareth the body of our Lord in a wicker basket, and his blood in a glass. As who might say: So little regardeth this good bishop Exuperius the riches of the world, that giving away all his substance, and bearing about him the body of our Lord but in a little wicker baskett, and the blood of our Lord in a glass, Hiero. ad Rusticum. and so having these, he thinketh that no man us richer than he, as I also think there is not. In these words saint Hieron is a double help to us, for he doth not only testify that this holy Bishop, reserved and carried the Sacrament in such vessel, but also testifieth what it is, and that by as plain words Master Juell hath here a double blow. as can be spoken, calling it the body and blood of our lord. Whereby the Proclaimer hath a double blow. both for the reservation, and also for the presence. The Proclaimer would have plain words, if these be not plain enough, to call it the body and the blood of our lord. I can not tell what plainness he A clear and plain sentence for Master Juell. would have. But as touching reservation, and the use thereof, we read also in the Ecclesiastical History, a practice which well proveth them, where we find it written thus of one Serapion, that he lying in extreamis and wishing to die said: Quousque me detinetis? Quaeso vos, cito aliquis Presbyterum roget, ut possim aliquando dimitti, et cùm haec dixisset, rursum sine voce permansit. Abijt Euseb. li. 6. cap. 34. cursu puer ad presbyterum noclis tempore, infirmabatur presbyter, venire non potuit. Parum Eucharistiae puero, qui ad se venerat, dedit, quod infusum jussit sent praeberi. How long will you detain me? I beseech you let one quickly desire the priest, that I may be let depart. And when he had spoken these The Sacrament reserved sent to a sick man. words, he remained again speech less. A servant ran to the priest in the night time, the priest was sick and could not come. Wherefore he delivered of the Sacrament to the servant that came unto him, which infused he commanded to be given to the old man. Thus much the story. Consider now reader, that the Messenger came to the priest in the night time, considre also that the priest was sick, and could not come, so that for unsemelinesse of time, and specially for sickness he could not then celebrate that holy ministration, and yet he sent of the Sacrament to the old sick man. Is it not plain enough by this history, that the Sacrament was reserved, which in the night time was so ready to be sent? As for the manner of the place where it was reserved I stand not in it, as the Master juells trifling of a Canopy. Proclaimer in his trifling manner, disdainfully for so weighty a matter saith: that it can not be proved, that it should be hanged up under a canopy. The manner of the place is diverse, as he himself knoweth, in the countries where he hath travailed. But the substance of the matter, which is the reservation of the Sacrament, in all the catholic Church is one. But as it is in proverb: Simia semper simia. An ape is allwais an ape. An heretical contemner of blessed mysteries will always so be, and show himself allwais like himself, when he will trifle in the utterance of such matters, for the which so lamentable a division is in the Church. If he say he trifeleth not, then I say he seemeth either to grant the reservation, or else covertlie to impugn it, as fearing openly to do it, for that he knoweth he could not so stand in it, but soon be overthrown. But let the matter go on, and let us see more of the use of the reservation of the Sacrament. As it may be gathered, Satan the great enemy of the Reservation spoken against in S. Cirills time, but refuted of him as a mad doctrine. peace of Christ'S Church, as a roaring lion seeking whom he might devour, at last found some, that did not, as strong men in faith, resist him. Whom yet he durst not in that time of virtue, when so moche godliness, and so much reverence to the Sacrament flourished, incite and move to speak directly against the presence of christ in the Sacrament, as the doth in this time, but only that the Sacrament was not of force, nor virtue if it were reserved but until the next day. But note how good this doctrine was. As soon as the holy father and bishop cyril heard of it, he wrote against it, and with vehemency impuged it, as by his own words ye shall well perceive. Thus he writeth: Audio quod dicunt illi mysticam benedictionem, si ex ea cyril. ad Calosirium remanserint in sequentem diem reliquiae ad sanctificationem inutilem esse. Sed insaniunt haec dicentes, non enim alius sit Christus, neque sanctum eius corpus mutabitur, sed benedictionis virtus & vivifica gratia perpetuò manent in illo. I do hear, that they say, that the mystical benediction, if the leavings thereof remain until the next day following, is unprofitable to sanctification. But they are mad saying these things. For there is not made an other christ, neither shall his holy body be changed, but the power or virtue of the benediction and the lively grace do perpetually abide in it. Thus Cyrille. As it may be thought, to make away reservation of the Sacrament from the Church, whereby the honour of God, and of our Saviour christ was much caused to be in the hearts of people, and whereby also sick people had moche comfort, and many were won from the Devil, and their souls sent to God, which else perchance had perished, the Devil, as I said, not bearing this did invent this heresy against reservation of the Sacrament, and breathed it into some vessels of perdition. But this doctrine was so reasonable, and so agreeable to the word of God, that cyril saith they be mad that affirm it: If they were justly accounted mad, that taught such doctrine in those days, what be they, that teach the like now in these days? But holy cyril teacheth us the wholesome and sober doctrine of the Church, and saith, if the Sacrament be reserved until the next day, it is of like force, power, & virtue as it was when it was consecrated. This sentence of cyril doth also presuppose, that reservation of the Sacrament Reservation in use before S. Cirills time. was in use befooe he wrote, or else why should these naughty men, of whom he maketh mention, speak against it? Men use not to impugn a thing that is not. Wherefore it must needs be, that reservation being impugned, was then in use. It doth also teach that reservation is not unlawful, and a thing that may not be done, but raither, saying the thing continueth of like force, power and virtue, teacheth that reservation is to be used. Ye have now heard of the practice and use of the reservation of the Sacrament, in the primitive Church, even from the time of the Apostles to the time of cyril, for the space of more than four hundredth years, which was the purest time of the Church. Whereby we may well conclude against the Adversary, that reservation is lawful, and aught, by example of this that we have heard, to be used of all good Christian Churches, not withstanding the vain barking of heretics against it. To avoid tediousness, I do not tarry to note how notably he speaketh of the presence of christ in the Sacrament. But yet for so moche as it is so goodly a place, and so evidently plain, I pray thee, Reader, consider it, and well weigh it. For I have somewhat A plain place for Master Juell. more to say for reservation. THE FIVE AND twentieth CHAP. Proveth the same by councils that have been nearer to our time. forasmuch as the Proclaimer more arrogantly then seemly, chargeth, The church arrogantly charged with error. the Church with● error these nine hundreth years and above, and challengeth to him and his likes the restauring of the truth, which during all these years hath been lacking, as though christ were false of his promiss, who promised to lead his Church into all truth, and taketh upon him to reject all Fathers, to contemn all councils, and briefly to say, to frustrate and annihilate all that hath been written, decreed, determined, or done in matters of religion these ix. hundreth years, which is a strange enterprise: I will therefore produce certain decrees made as well by some other of authority, as by councils, to make a trial, how the practice of the ancient Church will agree with the decrees and practice of the Church that hath followed and continued, which he so much reproveth. Among the which I find alleged justinian the Emperor, who having a good zeal to godly religion made a constitution, that monasteries of virgens Justinian. con 123. the Nowell. shoule have liberty to choose a priest, who should bring unto them the holy communion. This constitution appointeth not the priest, that should be chosen by these virgens, to celebrate the holy mystery, but that he should bring them the holy communion, when they were disposed to communicate. And if it were brought, it argueth for the time a reservation. In the decrees also is alleged the Council of worms, which was De cons. dist 2. cap. Presbyter. The priest must always have the Sacrament ready for the sick holden a bout the time of Charles the great, in which such a Canon was made: Presbyter Eucharistiam semper habeat paratam, ut si quis infirmatus fuerit, statim eum communicet, ne sine communione moriatur. Let the priest always have the Sacrament in a readiness, that if any man be sick he may forthwith receive the Sacrament, that he die not without the communion. I need not to make here any note to the reader for his better understanding, for the decree is plain enough for the confutation of the Adversary. But the Adversary that esteemeth not the general councils, perchance will with much more contempt reject this Council, saying that it was but a provincial Council. It was but a provincial Council in deed, and although a provincial Council hath not authority to bind the whole Church by their private decrees: yet it hath authority to set forth a truth. And that this decree was not against the order received in the whole Church this proveth it invincibly, for that it was never by any general Council condemned. There was never provincial Council that decreed any thing contrary to Heretical councils always suppressed. the general received faith, but it was noted, and by some general Council confuted. The Arrians called many councils, besides that which they kept in Nicaea Thraciae, but they could never take place nor authority, neither did the Church suffer them to be published, but suppressed, impugned, confuted, and convinced them. The second Ephesine Council, although there was there a great assembly: yet it was overthrown by the general Council of Chalcedon. What shall I need to protract this matter with more examples? Certain it is, that if this Council had decreed any thing against the truth of the catholic faith, or against the received order of the Church in matters of Religion, it should have been impugned many years, ere this Adversary had been born. But for asmuch as it hath continued somany years not confuted by any general Council, nor impugned by any cattholique learned man, and is agreeable aswell to the order received in the ancient Church (as by that that is said in the last chap. it doth well appear) as to the order of the catoliq Church that hath been and is in this our time (for all these reasons and considerations it can not be but that the Decree of the Council before alleged is catholic, good and allowable. And if all this weigh not in the conceit of the Adversary: yet he can not deny, but that reservation was then in use, which well appeareth also by the Council called Concilium Remense, as it is alleged in the same decrees, Concil. Remen. and same distinction. Which for the reverence of the Sacrament, straictlie forbiddeth the priest to deliver the same to anielaie man or woman, to carry it to any sick person, but straictlie commandeth that the priest go himself, and minister to the sick. After these councils was the general Council of Lateran, which was a notable and a great Council, wherein were present besides a great number of Bishops, the four patriarchs, as some writers testify, and many grecians aswell as latins. This Council was celebrated under Innocentius the third, Concil. Lateran. the year of our lord M. CC. XV. and so CCC. XLVI. years agone. In which great Council this I find there Decreed: Statuimus in cunctis ecclesijs, ut Chrysma & Eucharistia, sub fideli custodia conseruentur. We do ordain Canon 20. that in all Churches, the holy oil, and the Sacrament be kept under faithful custody. Here ye see how the reservation being in use in the beginning, is in this Council appointed to be continued, and that not in some Churches, but in all. How so ever it shall like the Proclaimer to accept or to reject this Council: yet the sober Christian considering how great a Council it was, and that of the learned men as well of the greek Church as of the latin Church, which could, and did know as well as the Proclaimer, and see what is to be done as well as he doth: And considering also that it was holden more than three hundreth years agone, at which present time (although before and after) their was no public or open controversy in that point: and also that it is an ordinance agreeable to the use of the primitive Church, will regard it, and with humble manner obey it, or at the least wish it to be obeyed. After this Council in the time of Leo the tenth, Martyr Luther, a new Heresiarke, or inventor of heresy, rose up, who affirming the presence Luther his fond opinion of the presence. of christ in the Sacrament but very fondly without all authority of Scripture, Doctor, or Council, taught that the presence of christ was in the Sacrament if it were received: If not, there was no presence. And upon this reservation of the Sacrament was of him denied. Out of this Luther sprang first Corolstadins, who impugned his master's doctrine, and taught, as our Proclaimer teacheth, that there is no presence of Carolstad. christ in the Sacrament. With whom shortly joined Oecolampadius, and Zuinglius. Which first among all other wrote and set out their books Oecolamp. Zuinglius. against the Sacrament and denying the whole (as of consequence it must be) they denied the part also. And for that the Lutherans, and the named Sacramentaries did pietifullie disturb, rent, tear and divide those countries of Saxony, and Helvetia, with other in Getmanie with these rehearsed heresies, and an infinite number more, which daily grew up to the great endammaginge of many christian Souls: Paul the third then Bishop of Rome, to repress these heresies, called a Council at Trident, where among many other good and godly determinations as touching the matter of the reservation which we have now in hand, is this Canon: Consuetudo asseruandi in sacrario sanctam Eucharistiam, adeò antiqua est, ut eam Conci Trident. seculum etiam Niceni Concilij agnoverit. Porro deferri ipsam sacram Eucharistiam ad infirmos, & in hunc usum diligenter in ecclesijs conseruari, praeterquam quòd cum summa aequitate & ratione coniunctum est, tum multis in Concilijs praeceptum invenitur, & vetustissimo catholicae Ecclesiae more obseruatum. Quare haec sancta Synodus retinendum omnino salutarem hunc, & necessarium morem statuit. The custom to keep the holy Sacrament in the holy place is of such antiquity, that the world Nycen Council did agnize Reservation. in time of the Nicen Council did agnize it. Moreover that the Sacrament should be carried to them that are sick, and for this purpose to be diligently kept in Churches, be side that it is agreeable to equity and reason, it is also found to be commended in many councils, and in the most ancient manner of the catholic Church observed. Wherefore this holy Synod hath commanded this wholesome and necessary manner to be retained and kept still. Thus much the Council. I wish that the reader taking these words as the words and saying of a Council, and as the agreeable saying of a great number of learned men, would mark and learn there in, first, that the use of the reservation is of great antiquity. Secondly, that reservation, to the intent the Sacrament should be allwais ready for the sick, is here testified to be commanded by many councils. thirdly, that this Council judgeth meet and consonant to reason that it should be doen. Fourtly, that by the authority of a Council they have commanded this use of reservation to be retained and continued. If all these be (as they ought to be) well weighed, why should they not conteruaill, yea and so weightilie weigh down all contrary sainges, as these shoule be as a light feather, in respect of a thousand weight, when they be in lanceis to be weighed together. If a Parliament of a Realm give such authority to the Acts and Statutes there made, that the private talk of rebellious, and disobedient persons, If a Parliament be of force to bind, why not a Council. though they be many, can not dissolve them: Why is not the like pre-eminence given to the Parliament of Christ'S catholic Church. Where decrees are made not by the people of one Realm, but of many, yea of all christian Realms, that list to come, and they not vulearned but learned. If the one doth bind, why not the other? But not minding to enter into the disputation of so large a matter, and there by to make, to long digression from my purpose, I will stay and yet wish the reader to consider what followeth in the same Council decreed against such as shall contemptuously speak against this matter of reservation. Soche a Canon there I find. Si quis dixerit non licere sacram Eucharistiam Canon 7. in sacrario reseruari, sed statim post consecrationem astantibus necessariò distribuendam: aut non licere ut illa ad infirmos honorificè deferatur: Anathema sit. If Deniers of reservation accursed. any man shall say that it is not lawful to reserve the holy Sacrament but that straight way after the consecration it is of necessity to be distributed to them that be present, and that it is not lawful reverently to carry it to them that be sick, accursed be he. Although (I know) the Adversary contemneth this heavy sentence, forsamoche as he vilipendeth and derideth the councils: Yet (I thank God of that his grace) I regard them, I reverence their sentence, I fear and dread the same, having in mind the saying of our Saviour christ: Qui non Math. 18. audiverit Ecclesiam, sit tibi sicut Ethnicus, & publicanus. He that won't hear the Church, let him be to thee, as an ethnic and publican. And again. Qui Luc. 10. vos spernit, me spernit: et qui me spernit, spernit eum qui me misit. Hethat despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. This being spoken and meant of the Apostles and their successors, the spiritual rulars of the Church, the Proclaimer and his likes so doing, what do they else, but, as christ saith, contemn him and his Father? if they say they contemn not the rulars of the Church, but obey them: let them answer me. Whom did their great fathers Luther, Carolstadius, Oecolampadius, Obedience of the new Churches how it standeth. Zuinglius, Bullinger, etc. obey in the Church? if ye will say they could obey none of all the whole Church that was then and before, for it was no Church: well let this your false answer stand. If than your Church began with Luther, he being sole head, why did Carolstadius, Oecolampadius, and the rest disobey him? If all they were the Church, why did Thomas Monetarius, and Swenckfeldius disobey them, and not hear them: But to be short, good Reader, they obey none, neither will they hear any, but only such as say as they say. And this is proper to every secre of them, so that the Oecolampadians will not hear the Lutheraus, the Anabaptists, will not hear the Oecolampadians, the Swenckfeldians will hear none of all these. Yet every of these sects say, they be the Church, and every of them Every sect of Protestants challenge to them the word of God, and the name of the Church. say, they have the very word os God, and thereupon, they say, they build. And yet the word of God as it is one, so hath it one truth, which every one of these for saking, do miserably adulterate that holy and blesset word of God, and in stead of truth sell unto the people their heretical lies, under the pretence of God's word and his truth. I am loath to enter any further in the opening of the rebellious divisions, sects, and factions that be among them. And they be so many as would require a just volume to set them forth, such is the consent, agreement and obedience among themselves. wiche is even the just plague of God. For as man falling from the obedience of God, found by God's permission, a marvelous rebellion in his own body and members: So these men falling from the obedience of God in his Church, fall to continual disobedience, and implacable rebellion among themselves. But there was a Church before Luther began his malignant Church. which former Church being founded upon Christ continueth, for that it is builded upon a surestone. And this is that Church that must be heard and obeyed. Against this Church Berengarius, (as before is said) began B●rengarius Wicleff. Hus. to be disobedient, but he humbled himself and desired to be restored again. Wiclefand Husse also rebelled, and moved war, but they could not prevail. And although for our sins God suffered the Philystines now to make war against Israel, as he did against the carnal Israel: yet nothing mistrusting his mercy, and having sure affiance in his promise that Portae inferi non Math. 16. praevalebunt adversus eam, the gates of hell shall not prevail against his Church, I doubt not but he will at his merciful pleasure look upon it, and send peace to it. And now to return to that from which, I have a little digressed: I say, I do regard the sentence of the Church for it is terrible to be cut of from that mystical body of christ, and to be made a dead member, like unto a rotten or dead stick meit for no purpose but to be cast in the fire and burnt. Perchance the adversary will say, he feareth not to dissent from the Church, where the Church dissenteth from the Scripture, as it doth in this Jssue joined with the proclaimer touching reservation. matter of reservation. Year will I again join issue with the proclaimer, that if he can bring any plain scripture, catholic Doctor, or Council, that by express words forbiddeth reservation, I will subscribe, and come to him. If he can bring ● one such, what shameless rashness is it for him to calumniate the Church for that thing, for the which he hath no good warrant. Is he so imperial over the Church, that he may and will have it to leave of reservation of the Sacrament at his pleasure, which it hath used from the beginning, an can show no scripture, no catholic Doctor, no ancient Council that forbiddeth it? Is this word of the disciples of Pythagoras (ipse dixit, he said it) a sufficient warrant for us? Shall we so lightly cast away the orders, rites, Ancient and godly customs, are not to be left for the bare saying of à Protestant. customs, and manners of so long time received, used, and through all the Church frequented for such men's bare word? If he find any thing amiss let him reform it by scriptures, Doctors, or councils, and we shall hear: otherwise it shall be more easy for the Church, to repel his objections, than it shall be for him to prove them. And methinks, nay I do not only think it, but I say it is a shame for him to enterprise such prohibition, and to cry out upon the Church as though she had committed most high treason against God, aswell in other things, as in the use of reseruacio, which ye have heard to be commanded by decrees with in these nine hundreth years made to be continued as it was used in the primitive Church, and by the space of many years after, and to bring no piece of law to charge her by, and justly to prove that she hath offended. THE SIX AND twentieth CHApit. answereth the cheiss objection of the adversaries. IF any thing may be objected against reservation of the Sacrament this is it, which is Achilles with them, and even there common argument aswell against reservation, as other rites, and orders of the Church in the ministration of the Sacraments. In the institution of the Sacrament there is no mention made of reservation, where for (say they) it aught not to be used. Will ye see the great force of this argument: There is no mention made Protestant's arguments of negatives eluded. of prayer in the institution of the Sacrament of Baptism, when christ was baptized, Ergo, there aught to be no prayer made in the ministration of it now. Again there is no mention made of the baptizing of children in the institution of Baptism, Ergo, children aught not to be chrystened. There were no witnesses as godfathers, or godmothers to christ, Ergo, there aught none to be in the ministration of Baptism to children. There is no mention made of this term, Sacrament, as calling Baptism or the Supper of our lord a Sacrament, Ergo they ought not so to be called. Likewise, there is no mention made of prayers in the institution of the Supper of our lord, Ergo, there aught none to be said at the ministration there of. There is no mention made that any women were at Christ'S Supper, Ergo theridamas aught no women to come to the communion. There is no mention made in the institution of the The proclaemer useth the same manner of disputation. he denieth all and proveth nothing. Sacrament that it should be done in the day time, Ergo, it ought not so to be doen. And a great number of such might in this wise be inferred, where by it doth well appear how fond the argument is. And yet this is a common and invincible manner of argument with these people. For in other matters they use it thus: There is no mention of purgatory in the scripture, Ergo, there is none. There is no mention in the scripture to pray for the dead, Ergo they are not to be prayed for. There is no mention in scripture of the invocation of saints, Ergo, rhey are not to be prayed unto. There is prescribed no days of fasting in the scripture, Ergo, we are not bound to fast. This is the manner of disputation of that School. But to join with them in the solution of their argument. There be three manner Three manner of doings as touching the Scripture. of doings as concerning the Scripture: One is to do so much as the scripture biddeth. An other to do against that the Scripture biddeth. The third is to do something besides that the Scripture biddeth. As concerning the first, where christ took bread, and made it his body, and wine and made it his blood, And commanded them to be eaten, and drunken in the remembrance of his passion and death. If the true Christian to whom Authority is given, doth take the like matter of bread and wine, and doth consecrate it according to Christ'S commandment, Hoc facite: This day, and so eat it and drink, it in the remembrance of Christ'S passion and death: this man hath done as much as the scripture biddeth him, and therefore is he blameless in this respect. another manner of doing is when a man doth contrary to the scripture, 11. as when men will not use such matter as christ appointed of which sort there have been diverse. The Manyches having wicked opinions, among which one was that all August. li. de haresib. our food is unclean, and thereupon taking common bread to be unclean, they used slower in the Sacrament, mingled with water and other loathsome matter. And so did contrary to the scripture, not using pure bread, but other matter then christ appointed. Other there were, that for a singular sobriety which they seemed to profess, would not use wine in the ministration of the Sacrament, but only water, which therefore saint Augustine calleth Aquarios, watery men. Against Jbid. ca 64 these men did saint Cyprian write, and chrysostom also, and diverse other. The sixth general Council holden at Constantinople condemneth the Council Constant 6. ca Armenians, which did use wine alone in the ministration with out water. For confut ●ion of which error, they alleged the Mass of saint james, of basil, the Decree of the Council of Cartage, and chrysostom. Both these then, not using such matter, as christ did use in the Sacrament, are reproved and condemned, as doing contrary to the institution of christ. For to celebrate either with wine alone, or with water alone, is a plain conrrarie doing to the institution of christ. For as Alexander the sixth Alexand. primus. Not wine alone, not water alone in our lords cup. Master Juellcalleth for examples of the primitive Church for Doctors, and councils but he will believe, and follow none. Bishop of Rome after Peter, saith: Non debet (ut à patribus accepimus, & ipsa ratio docet) in chalice Domini aut vinum solum, aut aqua sola offerri, sed utrumque permixtum, quia utrumque ex latere eius in passione sua profluxisse legitur. As we have received of our Fathers, and very reason also teacheth, there aught not to be offered in the cup of our lord either wine alone, or water alone, but both mixed together. For it is red, that in his passion both ran out of his side. Thus Alexander. Note here that this Father saith, that he received it of his Fathers. Then he being the sixth, and as some account the fift from Peter, who were his Fathers but the Apostles? By this than it may be pereeaved, that even from the beginning of Christ'S Church it hath been used to mixed water with wine in the ministration of the Sacrament. Now this Proclaimer calleth for examples of the primitive Church, for Doctors and councils and all these be against him and his complices for that they use but wine alone, and yet obstinately they perfist in their error and disobedience. Why do you call for the examples of the primitive Church, for ancient Doctors, and councils, as though you would be ruled by them, and yet in so evident a mattery spurn against them, and do what you list, and not what you are taught? you contemn the rules and orders of the ancient Church in your deeds how so ever glosinglie you speak of them in words. In your own traditions you are very strait. I remembe the Summer before I wrote this rude work, I was near unto this man (whom I term the Proclaimer) within whose jurisdiction one of his Ale given in stead of wine at a Communion. ministers ministering the communion to a woman, gave her to drink a cup of ale in stead of wine. Which when this man understood, no entreaty, no desire, no letters of men of worship of the Same country might appease his displeasure, nor obtain pardon for the offender, but open penance must he do in diverse places. And certain I am that he was so enjoined, and did part ere I departed the country. I mislike not that an offender was punished, but I much mislike that they so straictlie punish the breach of their disordre, and they themselves break the order of the catholic Church. When I heard of this correction, there came to my mind the strange conscience of the high priests of the jews, who made no conscience in the compasing of the death of christ, and yet when judas brought the money Math. 25. again to them which they gave him to betray his master, here their consciences were spiced, and they said, those pence might not be cast in the Threasurie, by cause it is the price of blood. Their consciences suffered them to make away christ, which was incomparably a more heinous offence, and yet their consciences grudged that those plates should be put in to the treasury, which was but a small matter. So to impugn the truth of christ, to take away his body and blood from us in the Sacrament, and as it were, to make christ away, to transgress Sacramentaries take away the fat and sweet of the Sacrament. Mat. 23. They stumble at a straw and leap over a block the order of the holy institution of christ, contemptuouslie to leave the order of the catholic Church, it is easy enough to their consciences. But when they have taken the fat and sweet of the Sacrament away, and left nothing but lean bread, and bare wine, if then wine be not ministered how great an offence is committed? Thus ye streign out a guatte, and swallow (as christ said) a Camel. And as the proverb is, ye stumble at a straw, and leap over a block. Ye are curious in tithing mint, anise, and cumin, but ye omit the weightier matters of the law: ye are busy in bread and wine and leave out the body and blood of christ, the weightier matters of the law of the Gospel. Ye cast away the kernel, and fight for the shalt. And thus ye transgress the Jbid. 15. commandment of God for your traditions. And ye do not only transgress the commandment and order of christ, as is said, but also inexcusablie ye transgress the order of our seniors and elders of the primitive Church, in that ye use wine alone in the ministration of the Sacrament. And therefore leaving you among them, that be of this second sort of doers mentioned in our distinction, I shall divert me to speak of the third manner of doing, which is to do something beside the Scripture. This manner of doing, for the readers better understanding, may be diverse 111. ways. One is when the substauce of the institution is done according to the scriptures, but the manner of the doing is varied and altered. An other is when, the institution being accordingly done, some thing is added for the more devout; and seemly doing of the same. As touching the first way, it is certain that the substance of the institution The Substance of a Sacrament must be observed the manner of ministering may be altered. Mat. 28. of a Sacrament being observed, there is none offence committed by the Church to alter the manner of the ministration thereof. As for example. christ in the institution of Baptism was baptized in the River jordain, and giving commission to his Apostles to baptize, the matter of Baptism now presupposed, which is the one part of the Substance of the Sacrament, he taught them the form, which is the other part of the Substance of the Sacrament saying: Euntes, Baptisate eos, In nomine Patris, & filii, et Spiritus sancti. Go ye and christian them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. The one part of Baptism than is water, the other is the word: I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son etc. These two things being the Substance of the Sacrament must needs be doen. But the manner of the doing of these may be altered, as the practice of the primitive Church, as well as of the Church ever since weary well proveth. For the manner of the institution was to baptize in a River, and that in the River of jordan. This manner was altered by the Apostles. For Peter being at Jerusalem upon the day of the coming of the holy Ghost in to the Apoles, called the day of Pentecost, at one sermon the same day converted three thousand to christ, and baptized them furtwith, and neither went to jordan, non other River. The Church also now and of long time hath used no river, but seemly vessels with water, and so baptize them that are to be baptized. If we should be streict observers of the manner, and there in follow our Master christ, the Author of the Sacrament, then for that he was then a perfect man, and thirty years of age, none should be baptized until they were of the same age. Even so the institution of the Sacrament of the body and blood of christ, as it had by him a Substance appointed, as is before said: So he used also about it such manner as pleased him for that time to use. This manner Chrysts manner in ministering the blessed Sacrament hath no commandment. as it had no commandment for the observation of it from christ: So hath it no necessity to be observed. Wherefore as is said of the manner of Baptism: So the practice of the primitive Church proveth, that this also may be altered. Christ'S manner in the institution of the Sacrament was, that he did distribute it to twelve. This manner bindeth not, that it must allwais be imparted to twelve, and to none other number. These twelve also were Apostles: this likewise bindeth not, that the disciples and other Christians of inferior sort should not communicate. So to come to the purpose, christ distributed his body and blood to his Apostles, and reserved nothing of that, that was consecrated: This also being a part of the manner, and not of the Substance of the Sacrament, bindeth no more than these that follow. christ ministered his body and blood at night: it bindeth not us to do the like. For the Church useth it in the day. The Sacrament was ministered when they had supped with the paschal lamb, the Church even from the beginning hath and doth it fasting. And notwithstanding that it was used certain years after christ to be received after meat, as the Epistle to the Corynthians doth well prove: yet saint Augustine asscribeth the change of that manner to the holy Ghost. Placuit enim Spiritui sancto, ut in honorem tanti Sacramenti in os christiani Ad Janua. epist. 118. prius Dominicum corpus intraret quàm exteri cibi. It hath pleased the holy Ghost (saith he) that into the mouth of a christian man, first should enter the body of hour lord, than other outward meats. Seeing then all these manners of the ministration be altered, and the receiving of the Sacrament immediately upon the consecration, is not of the substance of the Sacrament, but of the manner of it, why may it not without peril be altered, as well as the other be? Saint Augustine giving a cause of that manner of receiving declareth that the order of receiving was left to the Apostles to dispose. salvator quò vehementius commendaret mysterij altitudinem, ultimum hoc voluit infigere cordibus, & memoriae Aug. ibi. Discipulorum, à quibus ad passionem digressurus erat. Et ideò non praecepit quo deinceps ordine sumeretur, ut Apostolis, per quos erat eclcesias dispositurus, seruaret bunc locum. Hour Saviour, whereby he might the more vehemently commendethe christ left the manner of ministration of the Sacrament to be disposed by his Apostles. great excellency of the mystery, would last of all fix this in the hearts and memory of his disciples, from whom he was about to depart to his passion. And therefore he did not g●ue commandment in, or after what order it should be after ward received, for that unto his Apostles, by whom he would set his Church in order he would reserve that place. Thus saiucte Augustin. In which sentence we are first taught, that christ did not give his body and blood to his Apostles after Supper, because it should so be done still, neither because it was straight way received after he consecrated it, that it should be so still: but both these were done than, because they should be his last facts before his passion, done to his disciples, that the mystery might thereby better remain in their memories. Note again that saint Augustine saith: That he gave no commandment, in what manner it should afterward be received, So that the manner that christ Christ'S manner in ministering the blessed Sacrament hath no commandment. used then was not as a commandment to bind us to every thing precisely and annswerablie as he did it. But the substantial part being observed, the manner was left to the disposition of his Church. Wherefore we may conclude, that, notwithstanding the argument of the Adversary, that reservation is not mentioned in the Scripture, therefore it aught not to be used, we may celebrate the blessed mystery in the morning, though he did it at night: We may receive it fasting, though he gave it to his Apostles after supper: So may we receive it long after the consecration, though it were ministered to the Apostles immediately after. For I say, we are bound to the substance of the Sacrament, and not to the manner. And here will I join again with the Proclaimer in this point, that if he Issue joined with the Proclaimer touching reservation. Reservation is not against the institution of christ. can upon the institution of the Sacrament prove, that we may not as well reserve the same after it is consecrate, as we may alter the time of ministration and receiving thereof, I will give place to him in this controversy. And so in the mean time I dare conclude this, that to reserve the Sacrament is not a thing against the institution of the same. Wherefore leaving this as sufficiently spoken of for this time, I will speak breislie of the other part of this division. The second part was, that some things be added to the ministration, not altering, or changing the Substance of it, but to cause and provoke devotion and seemly behaviour toward so worthy an institution. As for example: In the Baptism of christ, there were neither exorcisms, neither prayers, neither giving of name, neither any like Ceremonies. In the Baptism where Peter baptized three thousand, we read of no Ceremonies used, neither prayers. Act. 2. Likewise in the last supper, we find not many Ceremonies. This we read that: Surgit à coena & ponit vestimenta sua, & cùm accepisset lin theum praecinxit se. joan. 13. He rose from supper, and laid a side his garments, and when he had taken a towel, he girded himself, and putting water in to a basin he began to wash the feet of his Disciles. And after he had washed them, he putteth on his garments again, and sat down to the Supper of the institution of the Sacrament. In the which we neither read that any prays were made, nor that christ had any other than his own garments upon him, when he ministered. Now the Church hath in use, not only that the minister hath some other garments upon him, beside his usual garments, in the ministration of these Sacraments, but useth also certain Ceremonies, and prayers not used in the institution of them, which all are done to help our infirmity, imbecility, and weakness, and to lift us up to some higher consideration, and estimation of these Sacraments, than we should atteing unto, if they were but barely ministered. Soche is our grossness, that where we see no difference in extern and outward cowntenance, we judge the things internlie, or inwardly to be of like condition, or at the least not much better the one than the other. Where then these Ceremonies be added to the substance of the Sacrament for causes before said, it is not therefore to be said that Christ'S institution is altered, which in substance still remaineth whole, neither is the Church to be exclaimed upon therefore with reproach, no more than it is for that it ordaineth the Sacrament to be received fasting, for the which saint Augustine saith: Liquidè apparet, quando primum acceperunt Discipuli corpus & sanguinem Domini, non eos accepisse ieiunos. Nunquid tamen proptered Ad jan calumniandum est universae Ecclesiae, quòd à ieiunis semper accipitur? It doth plainly appear that when the Apostles did first receive the body and blood of christ, they did not receive them fasting. Is therefore the universal Church to be reproved because the same body and blood of christ is now received fasting? If the Church, by the judgement of saint Austen, is not to be reproved, though it altered the manner of the receiving of the body and blood of christ: how moche less is it to be reproved for the adding or putting to of certain godly Ceremonies for the better, and more devout manner of receiving? Seeing then the universal Church hath, put to the ministration of the Sacraments aswell of Baptism as of the body and blood of christ, certain prayers, and garments, for the admonition of the people, that heavenly things be in doing, and so to stir up their devotion, and not thereby altering the substance of the Sacraments: they be without all doubt to be accepted, regarded, and reverenced, and the Church therefore not to be reproved. THE SEVEN AND twentieth CHAP. AVNSWEring other arguments, and objections of the Proclaimer. I Have, as me seemeth, satisfied the request of the Proclaimer. For in this matter I have produced the examples of the primitive Church, the sainges of diverse of the ancient Fathers: the decrees of sundry councils: Which be not obscure, or doubefull sentences, but plain, and manifest. And now that we have proved the doings of the Church in this behalf to be lawful, and weldoens: let us now hear what proof he bringeth against the Church. In his sermon, among other things contained in the exclamation there, he said saith thus: If any learned man of all our Adversaries, or if all the learned men that be a live, be able to bring any one sufficient sentence, out of any catholic doctor, or out of any old general Council, or out of the holy scriptures of God, or any one example of the primitive church, whereby it may be clearly and plainly proved, that the Sacrament was then, or now aught to be hanged up under a Canopy, I promised then that I would give over, and subscribe unto him. The office and calling of him that spoke these words, the place they were spoken in the weight of the matter, that was spoken of, will not suffer the man (as I suppose) to favour reservation covertly, and with a gibing mock only to inweigh against the manner of reservation. I never knew any of his opinion, and doctrine, denying the presence, but he made clean work, and denied all the rest, that appertaineth to the Sacrament. It is then to be thought that this article of the proclamation impugneth as well reservation it self, as the manner of it. But this Proclamation including a law, that no such reservation should be in the Church, what prof, what ground hath it annexed? It is no small matter to improve the order of the whole Church observed nine hundret years and above. Wherefore it is like that he hath made some great proof against it, and specially his office and place withal considered. I never saw a man dispossessed, that had been in possession time out of mind, but he should, show good matter that would dispossess him, and the The Proclaimer impugned Reservation without reason or authority. other only to stand to his possession, and not be driven to show his evidence. What showeth this proclaimer? truly nothing. what no scripture? no doctor? no Council? that the Church should break this order? None at all, but his bare proclamation, and yet therewith driveth the Church to show. An imperious manner. After this manner he may break more good orders in one day, them he will make while he liveth. Well, by cause it is to shameful to break ancient orders of the Church, without some proof: I will apply one of his great proofs made in his sermon to one purpose, to serve this also. In his said sermon to improve private Mass (as he list to term it) he allegeth this saying of christ, Hoc facite. Do this: whereunto he addeth his Fol. 34. exposition saying: that is to say, practise this, that I have here done, and that in such form and sort, as ye have seen me do it. Thus much this Proclaimer. As by this his exposition, if it were aught wourth, he may seem to prove, that uless as christ did not receive alone, but gave also to the Apostles, the ministre may not receive alone, but must also give to other: So likewise it proveth aswell, that uless as christ reserved no part of the Sacrament, no more should the Church now. It is a great liberty that this man taketh unto himself, to make such expositions as liketh himself, and upon his own exposition to ground an argument to condemn the practice of the whole Church, as though it were Locus Topycus, a sure ground argument, when it is founded but upon his own authority. I have not red this manner of exposition in any catholic Author, ancient, or of the later days, that these words of christ (do this) should be a charge and commandment to celebrate the memorial of Christ'S death in the same sort and manner, that christ did: but raither that his body and blood should be received in the Sacrament, as the Substance whereupon the memorial should be ground, without any charge given of the manner and form. So doth Saint Hierom expownde these words, referring the commandment to the doing of the thing, and not to the doing of the manner for the memorial of christ. This is his saying: Ideò hoc salvator tradidit Sacramentum, ut per hoc semper commemoremus, quia pro nobis est mortuus. Name & ideò cùm accipimus, à sacerdotibus commonemur In 11. cap. 1. Cor. quia corpus & sanguis est Christi, ut beneficijs eius non existamus ingrati. Therefore our Saviour delivered this Sacrament, that by this we should always remember that he died for us. For therefore also, when we receive, we are put in mind by the priests that it is the body and blood of christ, that we should not be unthankful for the benefits received. Thus saint Hierom. Chrysostom also dissenteth not from this manner of exposition. For thus he saith: Deinde de coena illa referens, praesentia his, quae tunc fuerant, copulat, ut quemadmodum in illa ipsa vespera, & mensa dispositi, ab ipso Christo hoc acceperunt In 11. 1. Co. sacrificium: it a & nunc disponerentur, & inquit: Quotiescunque comederitis panem hunc, & sanguinem hunc biberitis, mortem Domini annunciabitis donec veniat. Quemadmodum Christus & in pane, & in chalice, in commemorationem hoc facite, dixit, causam nobis aperiens, quare mysterium daret, cum alijs hanc esse dicens sufficientem no●…s ad pietatem. Nam cùm intelliges, quid propter te Dominus passus est, sapientior efficieris. Ita & ipse iterum inquit: Quotiescunque manducaveritis, mortem eius annunciabitis. Et haec illa Coena est. Afterward speaking of that supper he coopleth things present, to those that then were, that as in the same eventide and table, they being disposed did receive of christ himself this sacrifice: even so now also they should be disposed, and said. As often as ye shall drink this blood, ye shall declare the death of our Lord until he come. For as christ both at the bread, and at the cup said: Do this in my remembrance, opening a cause why he would give the mystery among other, said this to be sufficient to godliness. For when thou shalt understand what our Lord hath suffered for thee, thou shalt be made the wiser: Even so he also saith again: As often as ye shall eat, ye shall declare his death, and this is even the same Supper. Thus far Chrysost. In whose words, as well as in saint Hieroms', we see this commandment of christ (Hocfacite, do this) to be referred to the Substance, that Christ'S words, This do ye, etc. Be referred to the substance, not to the manner. is, to the body and blood of christ to be received for his memorial, and not to the manner of receiving. And by the way (gentle reader) note and bear away these words of saint Hierom, that he saith, that when we receive, we are admonished of the priests that it is the body and blood of christ, whereby we are taught both whereunto tendeth the commandment of christ, and also what we receive in that holy and honourable Sacrament. I wish also that chrysostom might be noted, how he uttereth the words of saint Paul. Saint Paul saith thus: As often as ye shall eat What S. Paul calleth the cup Chrysost. calleth it to blood this bread, and drink this cup: Chrysostom thus: As often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this blood: not reporting every where the very words of saint Paul, but raither the sense, and understanding. So where saint Paul calleth it the cup of our Lord, this man expounding S. Paul calleth it the blood of christ, whereby we are taught, what is in the cup of our Lord, even the blood of christ, and not bare wine, if it be so in that part of the Sacrament, them in the other is the body of christ, and not bare bread. But to return to our purpose: Euthymius also expowndinge the said words of christ, understandeth them not of the manner, but of the Substance These be his words: Ait autem Lucas hoc quoque dixisse Christum: Hoc Euth. in 26 Matth. sacite in mei recordationem, hoc, inquit, nowm mysterium, & non illud vetus illud mysterium in recordationem inductum est salutis Hebraeorum primogenitorum in Aegypto, ac libertatis Hebraeorum: hoc autem in recordatiovem Domini. Per tale enim sacrificium reminiscimur, quòd corpus suum in mortem tradiderit, & sanguinem suum effuderit, ac ita continuitate, memoriam renovamus. Luke saith that our Lord also said: Do ye this in my remembrance. This new mystery (saith he) and not that old. For truly that old mystery was instituted in the remembrance of the saving of the first born of the hebrews, and of the deliverance of the hebrews. But this is in the remembrance of our Lord. By such a sacrifice we remember that he delivered his body to death, and shed forth his blood, and so by continuance we renew memory. Thus moche Euthymius. Who as the other Fathers above alleged, understandeth Christ'S commandment of the substance of the Sacrament no mention made of the manner. After these to see some of the later writers, how they understood these words, it shall not be amiss, that having the minds of men of diverse ages, what the true understanding is, it may the better appear. Saint Thomas, among learned and holy men, that have been with in these four hundredth years, a man right famous saith thus: Hoc facite etc. Iniungit usum huius Sacramenti, dicens: Hoc facite, quotiescunque sumetis in meam Tho. Aqui. in 11. 1. Co. commemorationem, id est, in memoriam meae passionis. Do this etc. He commandeth the use of the Sacrament, saying: This do ye as often as ye shall receive, in my commemoration, that is in the memory of my passion. And again he saith: Mortem Domini annunciabitis repraesentando eam, per hoc Sacramentum. Ye shall show forth the death of our Lord, representing it by this Sacrament. Having no regard of the contempt of the Adversary contemning the learned men of the later age, I will among many that may be brought, for the avoiding of tediousness, and yet to show the conformity of doctrine in this age, with the ancient age, bring the exposition of one named Hugo, whose saying is this. Dixerat quòd sumerent corpus Domini, & sanguinem in commemorationem eius, hic determinat in quam: quia in Dominicae passionis. Hugo Car. in 11. 1. Co. He had said, that they should receive the body and blood of our Lord in the remembrance of him. Here he determineth in what remembrance. In the remembrance (saith he) of our lords passion. Now ye have heard diverse expounding these words, Hoc sacite (do this) all agreeing that they are to be referred, and understanded to and of the substance and use of the Sacrament, that is, that it should be received in the remembrance of Christ'S passion and death. But that we are by those words commanded to observe that manner and form, that our Saviour observed in his ministration, otherwise then is said both in the The Proclaimer useth his own authority in expounding the scriptures for he hath none other. last chapter, and in this also, there is no one title in these Authors. By this than it may well be thought and supposed, that this man using his absolute authority, for lack of other help, had iwented and framed such an exposition upon this scripture, as was not known to the ancient expositors, nor yet to them of the later time, and so very like never seen written, or heard spoken before this time. And yet with a pretence of simplicity and sincerity, it is commended to the people, as the true sincere word of God, when it hath neither God's word, nor aid of holy Fathers to bear it, but is a plain invention of his own, void of all truth. Thus moche being done by authority, I shall also by good reason prove The Proclaimer his exposition in pugned by reason. his exposition false. For he himself granteth that for five or six hundredth years after christ, the Church used the institution of christ purely and well, without the breach of Christ'S word or commandment. But for the most part of that time they did not observe the practice of Christ'S institution in such form and sort as he did himself. Wherefore to practise that, that christ did in his last supper in some other manner or sort than he did, is not the breach of his word. If it be not the breach of his word, then is this man's exposition false. That the primitive and ancient Church used an other form and manner in the ministration of the Sacrament, than christ did in the institution of the Masses in the primitive church varied from the form and manner of Christ'S institution. same, the Mass of saint james, of the which this man maketh mention, the Mass of saint basil, the Mass of chrysostom, the Mass used in Milan by saint Ambrose, with the whole practice as well of the Apostles, as of other doth most manifestly testify. And these Masses used in the primitive and ancient Church did all agree in the Substance of the Sacrament: But in the form, manner, and sort of ministration, there was great diversity, one moche varying from an other, and every one of them varying from the manner that christ used, and yet every one godly and good. We may then conclude that either the primitive and ancient Church, varying from the form and sort of Christ'S ministration, did offend, which is not to be thought, or else that this Proclaimer so wresting the scripture to maintien his false Docttine, hath offended, which I dare avouch, may well be said. We may also impugn this exposition, by this man's own practice, who Proclaimer his reason impugned by his own practice. being such a precise reformer of the abuses of the Church (as he termeth it) will not in his doings commit any notorious abuse, how so ever he doth in his words. It is notorious that he ministereth in other sort and form then christ did. Wherefore if there be no abuse in his doing, there is abuse in his saying. For his saying, and doing in this matter be plainly contrary. He saith we must practise in such sort and form as christ did, but his doings be not in such sort and form as christ did. That his form is not such as christ used, it is more manifest than I need to make rehearsal. For christ ministered when the Apostles had eaten: this man when the people be fasting. christ in the evening: this man in the morning. christ I am not certain but J●udge the best. with usual vuleavened bread: this man with wafer cakes. christ without any other strange garment than his own usually worn: this man in other garments appointed to that purpose. christ did sit with the twelve: this man standeth with an uncertain number, with many other like. And here if this expositor will have his exposition streictly laid to all the form & sort of Christ'S doing in his supper: I would learn of him, whether I knowing a man to be far unworthy to receive the blessed Sacrament, shall admit him to the table, and minister unto him notwithstanding his unworthiness, because that christ did know judas to be unworthy and yet ministered to him. But to return, ye may perceive that the form and sort, which this man useth in his communion, is moche in many things discrepant from the doings of christ in his supper. And yet I suppose, that he thinketh Christ'S manner in ministration of the Sacrament never since used. well of himself in his so doing. If than his doing be good: then is his exposition nought. And to conclude, seeing the Apostles, the Fathers of the primitive Church, the ancient doctors that were within three, four, and five hundredth years of christ, observed not the form and sort that christ used in the ministration of his Supper, nor any other age since that time, neither this man himself hath or doth practise the same, we may boldly say, that it is no charge given of christ to do all things in the ministration in such sort and form as he did, but the substance done, the other things be of no necessity, but be at the liberty of the Church to dispose and order, as it hath doen. Then as many things have been done about the ministration, which christ did not: So may reservation be done, though christ did it not. This argument then being, as I trust, fully solved, I find nothing in his sermon, that he objecteth against this matter of reservation directly. But I find a pretty sleight that he useth, as thereby to make his audience believe, that to reserve the Sacrament is an abuse, which sleight when I have opened to the reader, he shall I trust perceive, that under the pretence and cowntenance of sincerity, and simplicity, he iugleth with craft and subtlety. For the better perceiving of this sleight, if ye do not remember what is alleged out of Tertullian, and saint Cyprian in the xxiv. chapter of this book, have recourse thither, and read them. This Proclaimer being pressed with those places (for they make mightily and directly against him in this matter) enombring diverse and sundry abuses of the Sacraments of Baptism, & of the body and blood of christ, it liked him to put that, that Tertullian and Cyprian spoke of the Sacrament reserved and received of good women, among his abuses, wherein in deed he moche abuseth himself. His words be these: A sleight of the Proclaimer to abuse Tertul. and S. Cyprian. In the time of Tertullian and saint Cyprian, which was a thousand and four hundredth years agone, women commonly took the Sacrament home with them in their napkins, and laid it in their chests, and received a portion of it in the morning before other meats. See ye not how by this sleight, he would dazzle the eyes and judgement of the reader, that when he should hap to read these places, he should repute and esteem them, not as good examples, but as abuses, and so shadow the matter of reservation which they prove. But doth he find this spoken of Tertullian as an abuse? Doth Tertullian so term it? Nay I am sure he doth not. If Tertullian do not so account it, why doth this new maker of abuses so term it? Tertulian speaketh of it as a thing well done, what commission then above Tertullian had this man to say it is evil doen. As for saint Cyprian the Adversary perhaps would gloze it a little, and prove it an abuse, because the woman, when she opened her coffer, where the holy Sacrament lay, there sprang out a fire that feared her, that she durst not touch it. But let the Proclaimer veive that place of saint Cyprian well, and he shall find none other abuse mentioned there of him, but that the woman would have presumed to touch the holy thing of our Lord (as he termeth it) with unworthy hands. This is the abuse that S. Cyprian rehearseth ther. But that she reserved it, he accounteth it no abuse. For there is no such word in saint Cyprian. Wherefore Reader, be ware of such sleights, and by this perceive, that all is not truth, that this man so gloriously setteth forth. And if he account it an abuse, because they carried it home, what will he say to the use of the Church in the time of justinus Martyr? was not then the Sacrament carried home to such as were absent? This holy man so testifieth saying thus: Cùm autem is qui praeest gratias egerit, & totus populus Just. in Apologia. approbaverit, high, qui vocantur apud nos Diaconi, distribuunt unicuique praesentium, ut participent de pane, in quo gratiae actae sunt, et de vino et aqua, et ijs qui non sunt praessentes deferunt domum. When he that is chief hath given thanks, and all the people hath consented to it, these, that with us be called Deacons, do distribute of the consecrated The Sacrament carried home to them that were absent. bread, and of the wine and water, to every one that is present to receive, and to those that be absent they carry it home. Thus justinus. Saint basil also wittnesseth that holy men living in wilderness did reserve the Sacrament in their Cells, and as devotion moved them, received it. Thus he saith: Epist. ad Caesariam Patriciam. Omnes in eremis solitariam vitam agentes, ubi non est sacerdos Communionem domi servants, à seipsis communicant, All that lead solitary lives in the wilderness, where there is no priest, keeping the Sacrament in their houses, receive it by themselves. Thus saint basil. The Sacr. reserved in Rome. in S. Hieroms' time. Saint Hierom also in his Apology against jovinian, testifieth that the people of Rome in his time used to keep the Sacrament in their houses, and received it by themselves. Now if the Sacrament were carried to the houses of such as were absent (as appareth by justinus) and of diverse kept to be received as devotion served (as is wittnessed by saint basil and saint Hierom) And so to do was then the use of the Church, it doth well appear that for such godly purposes, to carry it home and to reserve it, is no abuse. Wherefore in this that the Proclaimer accounted it an abuse because it was carried from the Church, and received at home (as before is said) in making that account he moche abuseth himself. And here, Reader, beside that good use to carry the Sacrament to such as needed it, is there not in justine a good argument for reservation? was not the Sacrament, when all the Communion was done in the Church, reserved to be carried to them that were absent? Now if it may be reserved but so long time, why may it not be kept a longer time? If not a longer time, let the Proclaimer bring forth the just prescript time out of the Scriptures, the Doctors, or councils, and we shall regard the prescription, if he can not (as I am sure that he can not) let him cease with these his vain invented trifles to vex, disturb, divide, molest and slander the catholic Church, and let him acknowledge that the Church in these our days, carieng the Sacrament to such as be sick, and to such as can not come to the Church, offendeth not, neither abuseth the Sacrament in so doing, but followeth the godly example of the ancient catholic Church, as now ye have heard to the full testified. And where the Churchc keepeth and reserved the Sacrament on the altar, or else where, let him know by saint basil, and saint Hierom, that so it The church now reserving the Sacr. and sending it to the sick offendeth not was in their time, and from the beginning likewise reserved and kept, so that the Church neither in sending the Sacrament to sick folks, or other absent in their necessity, neither in keeping it in the church, doth other wise than was done in the primitive Church. Wherefore I wish thee (gentle Reader) to stay thyself, and not to suffer thyself to be carried away with such vain, diverse, and strange Doctrines, but consider well the practice of the Church declared unto thee in this matter. Consider the use of reservation through out all the Church until this time of Schism and heresy, to be done not only in england, but in all Realms Chrystened, which being so universally received, may not be thought to be evil done, or any abuse to be therein committed: but it aught with all humbleness to be obeyed, received, and followed. For two things by the doctrine of saint Augustine must we observe: the one is what so ever is taught us of the Scripture: the other, what we find observed throughout all the Church. Soche rule gave he to januarius: Si quid divinae scripturae praescribit autoritas, non est dubitandum, quin ita facere Ad janua. Epist. 118. What soever the Church useth throughout the world it is to be observed. debeamus ut legimus. Similiter etiam si quid per orbem frequentat Ecclesia. Nam hoc quin ita faciendum sit, disputare, insolentissimae insaniae est. What soever the authority of the divine scripture prescribeth unto us, there is no doubt but we aught even so to do as we read, likewise what soever the Church useth throughout the world. For to dispute whether this should be so done or no, it is a most presumptuous madness. Thus saint Augustin, then reservation is and hath been used through out all the Church: And yet now this Proclaimer without any authority maketh his proclamation against it, is not he convinced by the sentence of saint Augustine, to be a presumtuouse mad man, or presumptuously mad? For although the scripture giveth no commandment for reservation, as it doth not also for receiving in the morning, and before meat, yet the use and custom of the people of God, and the commandment of the elders are to be holden for a law, as saint Augustine saith in an other place: In his rebus, Ad Casulanum Epist. 86. Oordinaunces of the elders to be holden for laws, where scripture prescribeth not. de quibus nihil certi statuit scriptura divina, mos populi Dei, vel instituta maiorum prolege tenenda sunt. Et sicut praevaricatores Divinarnm legum: ita contemptores ecclesiasticarum consuetudinum coercendi sunt. Si quis autem videtur contentiosus esse, nos talem consuetudinem non habemus, neque Ecclesia Dei. In these things of the which the scripture of God hath determined nothing certain, the custom of the people of God, or the ordinances of the elders, are to be holden for a law. And as the breakers of the law of God: so the contemners of the ecclesiastical ordinances, or customs of the Church, are to be punished. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor yet the Church of God. Thus ye see, what be saint Augustine's rules in such matters, as be not expressedly determined by the scriptures. Ye hear how the decrees, commandments, and the customs of the people of God (how soever it liketh this new reformer to mock and scorn them) by the mind of saint Augustine, are to be holden for haws, and the contemners of them are to be punished. These matters with me seem to have weight, but with such as can swallow a Camel, and choke with a gnat, perchance they seem light enough. But yet how a private person may break a common order, universally received, which is not against the scriptures, I know not. But of this matter for answer to this Proclaimer, I trust there is sufficiently said. Wherefore leaving it, I will proceed further in the order of my matter chiefly purposed and intended. THE EIGHT AND twentieth CHAP. BEGINNETH to speak of the prophecies, and first of the prophecy of the priesthood of christ after the order of Melchisedech. Now after the figures, which in a dark manner did as it were paint the mysteries of christ being applied to the same, by order follow the prophecies, which also spoke before of the same mysteries. Among the which that Prophecy shall be first spoken of, that answereth the first figure. Which figure was of Melchisedech, answerably to which the Prophet David prophesied thus: juravit Dominus, & non poenitebit eum, tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundùm ordinem Melchisedech. Hour lord hath sworn, and it shall not forethink him. if Psal. 109. art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech. That this prophecy is spoken of christ, he himself proveth in the Gospel, where we read that the Phariseis being gathered together, christ asketh them a quiestion, saying: Quid vobis videtur de Christo? Cuius filius est? Dicunt ei Mat. 22. David. Quomodò ergo david in spiritu vocat eum Dominum, dicens: Dixit Dominus Domino meo, sede à dextris meis, etc. Si ergo david in spiritu vocat eum Dominum, quomodo filius eius est? What think ye of christ? Whose Son is he? They said unto him: The Son of David. How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying: The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, etc. If than David in spirit call him Lord how is he then his Son? By which allegation of our saviour christ it is manifest, that this psalm is to be understanded of him, which also hath some proof of the Phariseis so to be. For when they heard christ allege this psalm, and being learned in the law knew that it was prophesied of Messiah, though they were so confounded, that they could not answer a word: yet they said not that this psalm is not understand of christ, which they would not have spared to do, if in the common opinion of learned men it had been so understanded, raither than they would have sustained such confusion as to be put to silence. Wherefore by this it may appear that the common opinion of the jews was also, that this psalm was a prophecy of christ. Among the which jews one Rabbi jonathas a man of great authority among them, an Rabbi Barachias being writers both do expound this Psalm of Christ. But what needeth me seek for proof so far of, seeing that saint Peter in the Acts, and saint Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians, and to the hebrews may suffice to prove this matter. Saint Peter in the Acts doth allege the same psalm understanding Act. 2. it of christ. Saint Paul to the Corinthians applieth the same psalm to christ saying. Oportes illum regnare, donec ponat omnes inimicos sub pedibus eius. 1. Cor. 15. He must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. But to the hebrews he most fully and plainly teacheth the same, proving first thereby the excellency of christ above the Angels, and saith: Ad quem autem Angelorum dixit aliquando: Sede à dextris meis, donec ponam inimicos Hebr. 1. tuos scabellum pedum tuorum? Unto which of the Angels hath he said at any time, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thy enemies thy footstool? All these alleged do well prove this psalm to be a prophecy of christ. But yet saint Paul proceeding, cometh somewhat nearer to the purpose, and applieth the verse of this psalm first above alleged, unto christ in more places than one, proving thereby the ceasing of the legal priesthood, for that christ was now commed the priest after the order of Mechisedech. And first declaring that christ did not usurp his preistheade, but that he was appointed to it by God, he said: Sic & Christus non semetipsum glorificavit ut Pontifex fieret, sed qui locutus est ad eum, etc. Tu es sacerdos Hebr. 5. in aeternum secundùm ordinem Melchisedech. Even so christ also glorified not himself to be made the high pteist, but he that said unto him, etc. if art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech. And declaring the great benefit, that came by him being the high priest to all believers, he saith again: Et consummatus factus est omnibus obtemperantibus sibi causa salutis aeternae, appellatus à Deo Pontifex juxta ordinem Melchisedech. And Ibid. he being perfect, was the cause of eternal salvation unto all them that obeyed him, and is called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedech. Likewise he calleth him in the VI chapter. And the whole VII. chap. he occupieth in applying Melchisedech to christ, proving by this prophecy, the abrogation of the priesthood of the law, and so consequently of the law it self. Wherefore he said. If now therefore perfection came by the preistheade Hebr. 7. of the Levites (for under that priesthood the people received the law) what needeth further, that an other priest should rise to be called after the order of Melchisedech, and not after the order of Aaron? For if the priesthood be translated, then of necessity must the law be translated also, etc. For after this manner doth he testify, if art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech. Then the commandment that went before is disannulled, because of weakness and unprofitableness. And further declaring the excellency of Christ'S preisthead above the priesthood of Aaron, he saith: For these priests were made without an oath, but this priest with an oath, by him that said to him: The Lord swore and will not repent him. Thowe art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedech. Thus as the law of nature hath in Melchisedech figured christ, And the law of Moses by prophecy forespoken it: So hath the law of the Gospel (as ye have now learned by saint Paul) fulfiled the same, and most plainly and evidently proved it so to be. If then christ be a priest after the order of Melchisedech, we must seek what the order of the preistheade of Melchisedech is, and wherein it consisteth, And thereby shall we know the preistheade of christ, & wherein it consisteth. Saint Paul generally declareth the order of a priest when he saith: Omnis namque Pontifex ex hominibus assumptus, pro hominibus constituitur in ijs, Hebr. 5. quae sunt ad Deum, ut offerat dona & sacrificia pro peccatis. Every high priest, that is taken from among men, is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, to offer gifts and Sacrifices for sin. By which description of saint Paul it doth appear, that the order of priesthood standeth in two parts: The first he teacheth when he saith: Ordre of priesthood standeth in two parts. Pro hominibus constituitur in ijs, quae sunt ad Deum. He is ordained for men in things pertaining to God. Whereby is meant, the preaching to the people, and teaching them the laws of God, and ministering the Sacraments to them, as it was said unto Moses: Esto tu populo in ijs quae ad Exod. 18. Deum pertinent, ut referas quae dicuntur ad eum, ostendasue populo ceremonias & ritum colendi, viam per quam ingredi debeant, & opus facere. Be thou unto the people to Godward, that thou mayst bring the causes unto God. And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and show them the way, wherein they must walk and the work that they, must do. The second part of the order of preistheade standeth in offering gifts, and sacrifices for the sins of the people. Then they that be called of God, as was Aaron, and do preach and teach one faith of God unto the people, and offer unto God one manner of sacrifice, they be one order of preistheade. So that these two must concur, or else it is not a perfect order. For Elias the prophet of God, and the 3. Reg. 18. priests of Baal did offer one manner of thing in sacrifice (for they both offered oxen) yet they differed in priesthood. For Helias was the priest of God, the other the priests of Baal. And why was this difference? because they taught not one faith in one God, Melchisedech and Aaron taught one God, and were both priests of Gen. 14. levit. 8. Heb, 5. God. For Melchisedech was the priest of the most high God, as the book of Genesis wittnesseth, and Aaron was called of God, as the book of Leviticus, and saint Paul to the hebrews testify. And yet they were not of one order of priesthood, because their sacrifices were not of one manner. By this than it may be taken for a truth, that christ, not being a priest after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchidech (which two orders differed not in faith, but in manner of sacrifice) is so called a priest after the order of Melchisedech for the manner of the sacrifice. For he must agree with Melchisedech in that thing, that maketh the difference betwixt the order of Aaron, and the order of Melchisedech, and that was and is in the manner of sacrifice. For Aaron offered in blood, the other in bread and wine. But here the Adversary will say, that christ is not likened to Melchisedech for any sacrifice by all the process of saint Paul. But for Objection. that Melchisedech was Rex Salem, king of Salem, and withal the priest of God, and for that he was with out Father, without Mother, having neither beginning of days nor ending, in these points he is the figure of christ, who is both king and priest, having no Father in earth, nor mother in heaven, neither as concerning his Godhead any beginning, and as touching his Godhead and manhood no ending. And so is he a priest for ever. To this I say, that the thing that saint Paul principally intended, is to be considered. And then it shall easily be perceived, why he did not Principal intent of S. Paul in his epist. to the hebrews. make rehearsal of the manner of the sacrifice of Melchisedech, nor mention of the doing of the same in christ. The principal intent of saint Paul in this place was to prove and make manifest the excellency of christ and his priesthood, above Aaron and his priesthood. Which excellency in nothing more appeared then in that, that christ was an everlasting priest, and his priesthood everlasting, and not in the manner of sacrifice. For if he had alleged that Melchisedech did sacrifice in bread and wine, The hebrews would quickly have said, that their sacrifices in that respect much excelled, and had a moche more glorious show and cowntenance, than the sacrifice of Melchisedech, being but bread and wine. And therefore saint Paul omitted to make mention Why S. Paul spoke nothing of she sacrifice of Melchisedech in his epist. to the Heb. of the sacrifice, and choose to speak of that, that most manifestly, and also invincibly proved the excellency of christ and his preistheade above the priest and priesthood of the law. And therefore among other points. declaring the excellency of christ, as that he was made a priest with an oath, other without an oath, last as the chiefest he rehearseth his eternity saying: Among them (meaning the priests of Aaron) many were made priests because they were not suffered to endure by reason of death: But this man because he endureth ever, he hath an everlasting preistheade. Wherefore he is able also ever Heb. 7. to save them to the uttermost, that come unto God by him. he ever liveth to make intercession for us. Thus now ye may perceive that the objection of the Adversary is answered, when saint Paul's principal intent is once known. If by the sacrifice of Melchisedech, the excellency of christ might as well have appeared to the hebrews (who as yet were such, as Quibus lact opus erat non solido cibo, which had need of milk, not strong meat, and could not bear the mysteries of our faith) as by his eternity, be you well assured, Saint Paul would not have omitted it. But because in the conceit of the hebrews, their sacrifices appeared to them more glorious, and more excellent than the sacrifice of Melchisedech: therefore saint Paul did not speak of it. But yet the Adversary, who can not cease to impugn the truth, when he seeth that he can not prevail with his first objection, he hath invented an other which is such one as men overcomed with fury and malice do make. Whose reason and knowledge being obscured do speak they cannot tell what, and in that rage utter as soen a falsehood as a truth, and having no sound judgement, say good is evil, and evil is good, darkness light, and light darkness. Their objection is this. Melchisedech (say they) did not offer bread and wine in sacrifice, but he Objection of the Adversaries. met with Abraham returning from the slaugter of the Kings, and brought forth bread and wine, as it were to welcome Abraham homeward from the battle. For the scripture (say they) hath not in that place of Genesis the word offer, to offer but proffer, to bring forth. For the text is: At verò Melchisedech Rex Salem proferens panem & vinum. And Melchisedech king of Salem brought forth bread and wine, and blessed him. This objection is so vain that it is raither worthy to be exploded, then Thanswer with pen to be remembered, raither to be laughed and hissed at, of the children in the schools, then to be answered and solved. Notwithstanding that the vanity of the same may the better appear to the reader, and that he also may be satisfied, it shall be answered both by Scriptures, and also by the eldest and noblest learned men of Christ'S Parliament house. It is manifest by that, that is above said, that one of the parts of the function of a priest is to offer sacrifice. Now for asmuch as the Scripture, when it said that Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine, and immediately added: For he was the priest of the most high God, what dependence is there of this one part of this scripture to the other, or why should this that he was the priest of the most high God be added, as the cause why he brought forth bread and wine, but that he as the priest of God, had sacrificed that, that he brought forth? What direct cause is it, that Melchisedech, because he was the priest of the most high God, should bring forth bread and wine? It is nothing perteigning to the preistheade to bring forth bread and wine, in the absolute or bare respect of bread It pertained not to Melchisedech his priesthood to bringfurth: but to offer bread and ctine. and wine, but in the respect that bread and wine were the things, that he did use in sacrifice, which he had at that time offered to God for a thanks giving for the victory of Abraham, so it appertaineth to the priesthood. And this part of the text (for he was the priest of the most hig God) may very well be added as the cause, as in very deed it is. Otherwise the bringing forth of bread and wine is not appertaining to the priesthood, neither to be the priest of the most high God is or can be the direct and proper cause of the bringing forth of bread and wine. This understanding the very connexion of the scripture and dependence of the same, enfortceth us to take, and none other can be admitted. And thus the scripture taken in his own native sense, and then to say, he brought forth bread and wine, doth nothing improve the sacrificing of Melchisedech in bread and wine, as more at large it shall appear to you, when we come to hear the Fathers. Now for so much as Melchisedech did sacrifice in bread and wine, and to sacrifice is one of the essential and necessary parts of priesthood, and christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedech, of necessary he must then do sacrifice with bread and wine. This necessity saint Paul affirmeth to the hebrews. Omnis namque Pontifex ad offerenda munera & hostias constituitur, unde necesse est & hunc habere, quod offerat. Every high priest (saith he) is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices, wherefore it is of necessity, that this man also have somewhat to offer. christ then being a priest after the order of Melchisedech, must needs have somewhat to offer after the manner of that order. But we never red that he made any more oblations than two. The one was upon the cross, christ executed his priesthood after the order of Aaron upon the Cross, but after the order of Melchisedech in his Last supper. when he offered his own body to be slain, and that oblation was after the manner of Aaron. The other in his last supper, where we must needs confess (except we will say, that christ altogether neglected the priesthood appointed him of God, which is not to be said) that he did execute the office of his priesthood after the order of Melchisedech, when taking bread and wine, he said to his Apostles: Take eat, this is my body: Take and drink this is my blood. If not then: let the Adversary show, when and where christ did sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech. If he did never sacrifice after that order, then is it not true that he was a priest after that order, for so much as one chief part and office of priesthood standeth in sacrificing. But undoubtedly he a was priest after that order, and in his last supper he showed himself so to be. When under the forms of bread and wine he offered his own body and blood, an unbloody sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech. And thus moche for the proof of this matter by the Scripture. THE NINE AND thirtieth CHAP. proceedeth to prove the same by saint Cyprian and Isychius. THat christ did Sacrifice at his last supper after the order of Melchisedech: and thereby was as well likened to Melchisedech, as by the eternity of his priesthood: and that Melchisedech himself offered bread and wine in sacrifice (which three things the Adversaries deny) it shall be, by the great famous elders, that were near to christ, and which lived in the time, that the Church had most perfect knowledge of god's truth, and therefore knew the enacted and received truth in the Parliament house of christ, made so plain and cuident, that the enemies shall be confounded, and the Reader, if he will see, shall perceive that the Adversaries have spoken against a most manifest truth. And first we will hear the testimony of the holy Martyr Saint Cyprian. Who saith thus: Significata olim à tempore Melchisedech prodeunt Serm. de Coena Domini. Sacramenta, & silijs Abrahae facientibus opera eius, summus sacerdos panem profert & vinum, Hoc est, inquit, corpus meum. Manducaverant, & biberant de eodem pane secundùm formam visibilem, sed ante verba illa cibus ille communis tantùm nutriendo corpori commodus erat. Sed ex quo à Domino dictum est, Hoc facite in meam commemorationem, Haec est caro, & hic est sanguis meus. Quotiescunque his verbis, & hac fide actum est, panis ille substantialis, & calix benedictione solemni consecratus, ad totius hominis vi tam salutemue proficit, simul medicamentum & holocaustum ad sanandas infirmitates & purgandas iniquitates existens. Manifestata est etiam spiritualis, et corporalis cibi distan tia: Aliud fuisse quod prius est appositum, aliud quod à magistro datum est, et distributum. The Sacraments signified long agone from the time of Melchisedech now do come abroad. And the high priest to the children of Abraham doing his works, doth bring forth bread and wine: This (saith he) is my body. Consecration and sacrifice plainly avouched by S. Cyp. They had eaten and drunken of the same bread after the visible form. But before those words, that common meat was only meat profitable to nourish the body, but after the time that it was said of hour lord: This do ye in the remembrance of me, This is my flesh, this is my blood. As often as it is done with these words, and this faith, that substantial bread and cup consecrated by the Solemn benediction doth profit and avail to the health and life of the whole man, being both a medicen and Sacrifice, to heal infirmities and to purge iniquities. There is also declared, the difference of the spiritual, and corporal meat. It was one thing that first was set before them and consumed, and an other thing that was given of our Master and distributed. Thus far S. Cyprian. Ye see here a clear testimony, both of the thing that is in this place specially inquired, that is, of the application of the bread and wine, which Melchisedech offered in figure, to the bread and wine which christ offered in verity: and also of the thing that generally is inquired through out the whole book, which is of the real presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament. Of the first there needeth no note to be made, for he saith manifestly, Bread and wine offered by Melchisedech were figures of that, which christ offered in his last supper. that the Sacraments signified from the time of Melchisedech in the last Supper of christ came abroad. What they were he openeth saying: And the high priest (meaning Christ) bringing forth bread and wine, etc. Whereby it must needs follow, that the bread and wine which Melchisedech used, was the figure of the bread and wine with christ occupied. And thus where the Aducrsaries say that christ is likened to Melchisech for his eternity, and not for his sacrifice of bread and wine, how moche therein they speak against the ancient faith of the Church, this holy Martyr declareth, which thing also, not only by this Author but by other hereafter shall be most evident lie proved. Now of the Real presence also, saint Cyprian speaketh very plainly. As touching the which although there might be taken here diverse notes: Two notes out of S. Cyprian for the presece of Chrysts body in the Sacrament. yet I will at this present take but two. The one is that he saith, that before those words (meaning the words of christ This his my body, which be a little before spoken) that bread was only meat to nourish the body. But after it was said of christ. This do ye in remembrane of me: and, This is my flesh, And this is my blood: that substantial bread consecrated by the Solcnne benediction is profitable to the health and life of the whole man, that is, both of body, and of soul which both together make an whole man. And how it doth profit he declareth. It is (saith he) both a medicen and a sacrifice, to heal infirmities and to purge iniquities. Note well that he doth not here in this place say, that the faith only to believe that christ hath suffered for us, or the benefits and merits of Christ'S passion, and death, which is spiritual receiving, is both a medicine to heal infirmities, and a sacrifice to purge iniquities (although neither he, ner we be ignorant of the virtue power, and efficacy of them) But he here saith that the substantial bread being consecrated, is the medicine and the sacrifice. Whereby what else doth he mien, or can mien, but that that bread is consecrated into his body, who is our high Sacrifice, which hath purged us from our iniquities? Lavit nos à peccatis nostris in sanguine suo. He hath washed us from our sins in his blood. For neither Apoc al. 1. The thing that the bread is consecrated into, is the sacrifice that purgeth our iniquities. our faith in christ crucified, neither the merit of his passion is that sacrifice, for the one is the mean to attain to be partaker of that sacrifice, the other the effect of the same sacrifice, So that neither of them is the sacrifice it self: But the thing that the substantial bread is consecrate into, is the sacrifice that purgeth iniquities. There is nothing that is or can be that sacrifice, but the body of christ. Wherefore the thing into the which the bread is consecrated is the body of christ. And for the confirmation of this, take also the second note which is Aliud in the neuter gendre signifieth a real difference in things. where he saith: Aliud est, quòd prius est appositum et consumptum: Aliud quod à magistro datum, & distributum. It is one thing that was first set before them and consumed: And an other thing that was given of our Master and distributed. It is well known to learned men, that this word (aliud) in the neuter gendre importeth a difference substantial, from the thing that it is compared to, and so the two things that be compared together, be of two different substances. And therefore for so much as the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost be three distincted persons, the catholic faith teacheth us to say: Alius est Pater, alius Filius, alius Spiritus sanctus. The Father is one, the Son is an other, and the holy Ghost is an other. But formoche as they be not distincted in substance we may not say: Aliud est Pater, aliud Filius, aliud Spiritus sanctus. The Father is one thing, the Son an other thing and the holy Ghost an other thing. But contrary wise because these three be one in substance, the Scripture teacheth us thus: Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in coelo, Pater, Verbum, & Spiritus sanctus, & high tres unum sunt. There be three that bear witness joan. 5. unum in the neuter gendre signifieth unity of substance. joan. 10. in heaven, the Father, the Son and the holy Ghost, and these three be (unum) that is one thing or substance not (unus) one person. So we read in the Gospel: Ego & Pater unum sumus. I and the Father be one, that is in substance. So here where saint Cyprian saith: Aliud est quod appositum, etc. It is one thing that was set before them and consumed, and an other thing that the master did give and distribute: he showeth that these two things were things substantially distincted. For before it was the substance of bread, of the which he spoke in the beginning of the sentence when he said: Manducaverant de eodem pane secundùm formam visibilem. They had eaten of the same bread after a visible form. But now after the solemn benediction it is an other substance, that is, the substance of christ, which (as before is said) is the medicine to heal our infirmities, and the sacrifice to purge our iniquities. If there were the same substance of bread still remaining after the consecration by the solemn blessing, as was before, so as there were none other change but an accidental change, that is (as the Adversaries say) that the bread before the words of christ spoken over it (For they abhor to use the word, consecration, as saint Cyprian doth, and other holy Fathers) is but common bread, but after the words be spoken it is a sacramental bread, than this Author would not say: Aliud est it is an other thing. Which latin word (Aliud) respecteth the difference of the substance (as is before said) and is as much to say, as an other thing in substance, or an other substance. Wherefore to conclude, this holy Martyr of christ teacheth us here, The bread, that before consecration serveth to nourish the body only, after consecration is an other thing, which nourisheth the soul. that the bread consecrated by the Solemn benediction, where before it was bread only to nourish the body, it is now after the consecration a thing profitable for the health and life of the whole man, that is, both of the body and of the soul, being a medicine to beale infirmities, and a sacrifice to purge iniquities. Which thing is an other thing from the thing that it was before, differing from that in substance. We must needs therefore affir me and profess that it is the very body of christ substantial and Real. But that this may appear unto you to be the very mind of saint Cyprian, and not a sense of mine own wresting, as the Adversaries for the more part will say, when else they could say nothing, being put to silence by force of the truth, ye shall hear an other place of the same Author. At Melchisedech Rex Salem protulit panem & vinum (fuit enim sacerdos Li. 2. Epi. 3. ad Cicil. Dei summi) & benedixit Abraham. Quòd autem Melchisedech typum Christi portaret, declarat Spiritus sanctus in psalmis ex persona Patris ad Filium, dicens: Ante luciferum genui te. juravit Dominus, & non poenitebit eum, tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundùm ordinem Melchisedech. Qui ordo utique hic est de sacrificio illo veniens, & inde descendens, quòd Melchisedech sacerdos Dei summi fuit, quòd panem & vinum obtulit, quòd Abraham benedixit. Nam qui magis sacerdos Dei summi quàm Christus jesus Dominus noster, qui sacrisicium Deo Patri obtulit, & obtulit hoc idem, quod Melchisedech obtulerat, id est, panem & vinum, suum scilicet corpus & sanguinem. And a little after it followeth: ergo in Genesiper Melchisedech Sacerdotem benedictio circa Abraham possit ritè celebrari, praecedit antè imago sacrificij in pane & vino scilicet constituta. Quam rem perficiens, & adimplens Dominus, panem & calicem mixtum vino obtulit, & qui est plenitudo veritatem praefiguratae imaginis adimplevit. And Melchisedech King of Salem (saith holy Cyprian) brought forth bread and wine (For he was the priest of the most high God) and he blessed Abraham. And that Melchisedech did bear the figure of christ, the holy Ghost in the person of the Father to the Son, doth declare in the psalms saying: Before the day star have I begotten thee, Hour Lord hath The order of Melchisedech came to christ, not only in that he was the high priest, but in that he offered bread and wine the like sacrifice. sworn, and it shall not repent him, if art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech. Which order also is this coming from that Sacrifice, and from thence descending, that Melchisedech was the priest of the most high God, that he offered bread and wine, that he Blessed Abraham. For who is more the priest of the most high God, than our Lord jesus christ, who did offer sacrifice to God the Father. And offered the very same that Melchisedech had offered, that is to say, bread and wine, even his body and blood. And after a few words, he proceedeth thus: That therefore the blessing about Abraham might lawfully be celebrated by Melchisedech the priest in Genesis, the image of the sacrifice goeth before, appointed in bread and wine. Which thing hour Lord perfecting and fullfilling, hath offered the bread and the cup mixed with wine. And he that is the fullness, hath fulfilled the truth of the prefigurated image. Thus far saint Cyprian. What needeth me here to say any thing where every part of the sentence is so plain, that it clearly and plainly openeth it self? As touching the special matter of this place, do ye not see, that he saith, Melchisedech was the figure of christ? Do ye not perceive that he also saith, that the holy Ghost declareth the same in the psalm? Do ye not also see that Melchisedech was the figure of christ in three points, that is, in that he was the priest of the most high God, in that he offered bread and wine, and in that he blessed Abraham? Do ye not also see, that this Author applieth these to christ, in that there was none more the high priest of God than our Lord jesus christ, who offered sacrifice unto God the Father? And perceive ye not that christ offered the very same, that Melchisedech, which was bread and wine. Where (gentle reader) let me note by the way for the satisfying of my promise, that where the objection of the Adversary is, that S. Cyprian by express words saith Melchisedech offered. Melchisedech did not offer in sacrifice bread and wine, and for his proof he said that the text in Genesis, had not obtulit, he offered, but Protulit, he brought forth: Now note if this Father useth not this word, obtulit, he offered, saying that christ offered the very same that Melchisedech did offer. And what he did offer, he also declareth saying: that it was bread and wine. What impudency then is there in the Adversaries to improve that, that so ancient and so famous a learned holy Martyr so plainly teacheth, and not he alone, but all the holy company of the writers, of the which the testimony of some more shall be heard hereafter. As you see that Melchisedech did offer bread and wine, which was the Christ offered bread and wine, in verity, that is, his body and blood. figure: So did our Saviour christ (saith Cyprian) offer bread and wine in verity, that is, his body and blood. And that the Adversaries shall not cavil, and say: Where Cyprian saith, christ offered his body and blood, it is not to be understanded of any sacrifice offered in the last Supper, but of the sacrifice of his body and blood offered upon the cross: The same saint Cyprian stoppeth the mouth of the wicked in the other sentence before alleged where he saith: The image of the Sacrifice went before appointed in bread and wine, which things our Lord perfecting and fulfilling offered bread and the cup mixed with wine. And that we should not take occasion to stumble with the Adversaries, taking it but for bread and wine, he addeth: And he that is the fullness hath fulfilled the verity of the prefigurated image. Do ye not hear that christ offered the sacrifice in his last supper, of the which the image went before in bread and wine? And do ye not hear that he offering bread and wine, did offer in that sort, that he fulfilled the verity of the prefigurated image? Which verity was (as saint Cyprian said before) that he offered bread and wine, that is, his body and blood: Learn then (thou Reader) of this substantial pillar, the substantial faith of Chrysts catholic Church. And suffer not thyself to be carried away with the adversaries painted reasons, and gloss, having a show of truth, and godliness above, but under there lurketh falsehood and Hypocrisy. But abhor them as saint Paul doth advertise. For as the fish is deceived by the fair bait, which outwardly showeth to be a thing of commodity, but inwardly is destruction and death, when she taketh it: Even so the reasons of the Pseudochristians may appear to thee most godly and true, and to have the commodity of eternal life, But inwardly they contain destruction and death of the soul, to the which they will draw thee, except though shift thyself of from that bait, whilst if art yet in the waving water of this world. Therefore be warned and while if havest time look to thyself. Now that we have heard this noble learned Father of the one side of Christ'S Parliament house, we will hear an other of the other side, which shall be Isychius, who upon Leviticus toucheth this matter and saith: Et quod hoc est sacrificium? Duae decimae similae conspersae oleo. Oportet enim scire persectam humanitatem, & perfectam divinitatem contemperare, id est, in unum convenire in oleo, id est, In Levity. li. 6. ca 23. per eam, quam circa nos habet, compassionem. Sic enim sacrificium odor suavitatis Domino invenitur, sapientibus nobis de eo, quae digna sunt. In quibus autem sacrificium, & per quos agitur, quomodò celebratur intelligiblis agni oblatio, quod sequitur ostendit. Neque enim in sanguine, neque per irrationabilia animalia sacrificium à nobis Deus suscipit, secundùm quod sequentia demonstrant. Ait enim: Liba quoque vini quarta pars hyn, panem & polentam. Quia dubium futurum erat forsan, à quibus mysterium sacrificij, quod per Christum est, quod superiùs diximus, celebratur: habes ecce intelligibilis Melchisedech oblationem, quae in pane & vino perficitur, in qua quarta pars hyn in libis vini offertur, ut per quartam evangelii traditionem, quae in libris quatuor est, per libationem verò Dominicum sermonem significaret, quum ait: Hic est meus sanguis, qui pro vobis fundetur: sine imminutione enim significare legislatori visum est Christi mysterium. And what is this sacrifice? Two tenth deals of fine flower sprinkled with oil. For we must know to contemper the perfect manhood, and perfect godhead, that is to come together into one in oil, that is, by that compassion, which he hath toward us. For so the sacrifice is found a sweet savour to our Lord, when we understand of him things that be worthy. In what things this sacrifice, which is the oblation of the intelligible lamb, is, and by whom it is done, how it is celebrated, that that followeth, declareth. For neither by unreasonable beasts doth God receive sacrifice of us, according as the words that follow plainly show. For he saith: And the drink offering thereof shall be of wine even the fourte part of an hyn, bread, and perched corn. Because perchance it might have comed in doubt hereafter Christ sacrificing in bread and wine was ● the intelligible sacrifice. of whom the mystery of the sacrifice which is by christ, which we have spoken of above, is celebrated, behold if havest the sacrifice of the intelligible Melchisedech, which is full done in bread and wine, in which sacrifice is offered the fourth deal of the drink offering of wine, that by the fourth deal the tradition of the Gospel, which is in four books, and by the drink offering he would signify the word of our Lord when he saith: This is my blood, which shall be shed you for. And so it pleased the Law giver that it should fully signify the mystery of christ Thus far Isycbius. In the which saying ye have the whole matter testisied that we seek for. For where in Leviticus God commanded an he lamb to be offered, and that the meat offering thereof should be two tenth deals of fine flower mingled with oil to make bread, and the drink offering should be the fourth deal of an hyn of wine which thing this Author seeking to Apply to the new Testament, if havest (saith he) the Melchisedech sacrificing in bread and wine was the figure of Christ, oblation or sacrifice of Christ in the intelligle Melchisedech answering this, which sacrifice was fully and perfectly done in bread and wine Whereby he doth not only teach us, that Melchisedech was a figure of christ absolutely: but that in sacrisicing bread and wine he was also the figure, and christ sacrificing in the like things was the intelligle Melchisedech, that is to say, he whom Melchisedech so doing did prefigurate. In these few words than we may first learn these two things, which the Adversaries do deny, that is, that Melchisedech did not only bring forth, but did also offer bread and wine in sacrifice. And that christ the intelligible Melchisedech did also sacrifice in bread and wine. But that none occasion should be given, either to the Adversaries to say that christ gave but bare bread and wine, or to the Reader to take scruple because he saith, that christ did sacrifice in bread and wine, he openeth immediately what bread and wine it was, saying: by the drink offering which was in wine, he would signify that of which christ said: This is my blood, which Isychius acknowledgeth the presence of Christ'S body and blood in the Sacra. shall be shed for you. Whereby he delivereth us from that doubt, and teacheth plainly the presence of Christ'S blood in the Sacrament. Where if we acknowledge that, and that this Author so meaneth that such presence is there, we may also confess the presence of his body in the other kind, for so the Author also intendeth, as not only in that, that is above said it doth appear, but in that also, that followeth it is manifest and evident. For thus he saith: Oblatio enim praesentium donorum, quam esse mysterium Vnigeniti ostendimus, reconc●liauit nos Deo, & cibum nobis novae polentae praestitit. The oblation of these present gifts, which oblation we have declared to be the mystery of the only begotten son of God, hath reconciled us to God, and hath given us meat, of new dried corn. This oblation that Isychius speaketh of here, is it (as he saith) which reconciled us to God, which oblation is not an other from that he spoke of before, but it is the same. The oblation that he spoke of before was the oblation after the order of Melchisedech. Wherefore in the oblation after the or dre of Melchisedech, was christ offered, who by his death reconciled us to God. christ then being sacrificed, and therefore present, is now also sacrificed, and therefore present. For the table of christ that now is (as chrysostom saith) being in no point inferior to that, but being all one, As christ was there in his sacrifice verily present: So is he here verily present. Thus Although Melchisedech (as the Adversaries affirm) was a figure of christ in the eternity of his priesthood: yet was he also (as by these Fathers before alleged is taught) the figure of him in the very office of the priesthood in offering bread and wine: Melchisedech in his manner, in earthly bread and wine: christ in his manner in heavenly bread and wine, which is his very flesh and blood the bread and wine of everlasting life. THE thirtieth CHAP. TREATETH OF THE same matter by saint Hierom and Theodorete. Saint Hieron handling the prophecy of David speaking of the priesthood of christ after the order of Melchisedech, giveth us a notable and most clear testimony in this matter and saith: Superfluum est nos de isto versiculo velle interpretari, cùm sanctus, Apostolus ad Hebraeos plenissimè disputavit. Ipse enim ait: Iste est Melchisedech, sine patre, sine matre, sine generatione. Et ab omnibus ecclesiasticis dictum est, quoniam sine patre dicitur secundùm carnem, sine matre dicitur secundùm Deum. Hoc solùm ergo interpretemur: Tues Hieron. in Psal. 110. sacerdos in aeternum secundùm ordinem Melchisedech. Hoc solùm dicamus, quare dixerit, Secundùm ordinem. Secundùm ordinem: Nequaque sacerdos eris secundùm victimas judaicas, sed eris sacerdos secundùm ordinem Melchisedech. Quomodò enim Melchisedech Rex Salem obtulit panem & vinum: sic & tu offeres corpus tuum, & sanguinem, verum panem, & verum vinum: Iste Melchisedech ista mysteria, quae habemus, dedit nobis. Ipse est, qui dixit: Qui manducaverit carnem, & biberit sanguinem meum etc. Secundùm ordinem Melchisedech, tradidit nobis sacramentum suum. It is superfluous for us to go about to expownde this verse, seeing the holy Apostle hath fully unto the hebrews treacted of the same. For he saith: This is Melchisedech without father, without mother, without generation. And of all men of the church it is said, that he is without father as concerning the flesh: and without mother as concerning his godhead. This only therefore let us interpret: Thowe art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech. Let us only say, wherefore he saith: after the order, After the order. that is: Thowe shalt not be apreist according to the sacrifices of the jews: but thou shalt be a priest after the order of Melchisedech, For as Melchisedech king of Salem did offer bread and wine: So if also shalt offer thy body and blood, the true bread and true wine. This Melchisedech gave us these mysteries, which we have. It is he that hath said: He that shall eat my flesh, and drink my blood etc. He after the order of Meichisedech hath delivered unto us his Sacrament. Thus far saint Hierom. Now where the adversaries being sore pinched with this figure of Melchisedech labour with might and main to cast mists before the eyes of men, to make them believe that they see in Melchisedech but only the figure of the eternity of christ, and not the figure of his priesthood and sacrifice, and for that purpose allege saint Paul, treacting of the same to the hebrews, and say, that he doth there only so apply it: I wish you would well note saint Hierom, how as concerning the matter of the eternity of christ he saith, that it is supperfluouse to speak of it, because saint Paul even to the full hath clearly opened that matter to be hebrews. But what then? Doth saint Hierom say nothing to the explication and application of this figure? Yes, notwithstanding that full, and plain explication of saint Paul, he addeth also an exposition, not of that saint Paul had expounded, but of that, that saint Paul had left unexpownded. And therefore he saith: Hoc solùm interpretemur. Tu es sacerdos etc. Let us only expowde this: if art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech. Why? is this the text that is fully handled of saint Paul, and so clerlie expounded to the hebrews? It is the same. S. Paul tree acteth fully of the eternity of Chrysts priest head but not of the order after Melchisedech. Wherefore note that in this little wrose, two things being contained: the one that christ is a priest for ever, the other that he is of the order of Melchisedech: The first is at large expounded by saint Paul: but the other, that is, the order of Melchisedech is not expounded by saint Paul. Wherefore saint Hierom saith immediately: Hoc solùm dicamus, quare dixcrit secundùm ordinem. Let us only declare this: Why he saith after the order. As who might say, Saint Paul hath plentifully said of the eter nitie of the priestgood of christ. Wherefore it were vain for me to speak of that: But I will only speak of the order of the priesthood of christ. for that hath not saint Paul spoken of. And entering to show of what order of priesthood christ is, he speaketh in the person of God the Father and saith: Thowe shalt not be a priest after the or dre of offerings of the jews sacrifices, but thou shalt be a priest after the order of Melchisedech And how he should do sacrifice after that order, he furtwith declareth. For as Melchisedech (saith he) king of Salem did offer bread and wine: So shalt though also offer thy body and blood, the true bread and true wine. A brief exposition, but as plain, as it is brief. Now as saint Paul to the hebrews hath oponed the first part for the eternity of the prestheade of christ: So here saint Hierom hath as touching this order, and sacrifice opened the second part. wherein reader, first note, that where the Adversaries (as is before said in the last chapter) to deny the sacrifice of christ after the order of Melchisedech, do first deny that Melchisedech himself did offer bread and wine, saying, that in Genesis it is not readd of Melchisedech: Obtulit panem & vinum: he offered bread and wine, but protulit panem, & vinum he brought forth bread and wine: Yet Melchisedech offered bread and wine after S. Hierom. saint Hierom knowing the old Testament, and well understanding the Hebrew tongue saith that Melchisedech did offer bread and wine, and useth the latin word, obtulit, he offered, and not, protulit, he brought forth. whereby we are taught that this is the true meaning, and understanding of the place. Further also, as we are taught that Melchisedech did offer bread and wine: So also are we taught (which is in the se conned part to be noted) both that christ did offer, and what he did offer, he did offer after the order of Melchisedech bread and wine, not bare bread and bare wine, as Melchisedech did in the figure, but his very body and blood, the true bread and true wine, as saint Hierom expresseth, whereby we are taught not only the very presence of Christ'S body and blood in the sacrament: But also that he in his last Supper did offer the same body after the order of Melchisedech. Which for so much as it is so plainly spoken, I shall not need either to bring in any other saying of the same saint Hierom to declare his mind more plainly in this: or I myself to tarry any longer in opening of this his saying, being all ready so plain, that it can be made or spoken no plainer. Only this I shall desire thee (gentle Reader) to call to thy memory the end of the saying of saint Cyprian last alleged in the chapter before, and compare it to the end of this saying, and I think verily, it will wonderfully delight thee, to see the truth not only so painlie, but also with so goodly consonannt agreement uttered and spoken. Saint Cyprian said: who is more properly the priest of the most high God, than our Lord jesus Christ, Who offered a sacrifice to God the Father, and offered the same that Melchisedech offered, that is, bread and wine, even his body, and blood? Saint Hierom saith: As Melchisedech Aplain place for master jewel. offered bread and wine: So shalt though offer thy body and blood, the true bread, and true wine. what goodly consent is this? what plain manner of speech is this? what more needeth to be said in this matter? Is it not confessed that christ offered in his last Supper his body, and blood? I trust the proclaimer himself will grant it, and say it is most plain. for who can doubt that these words be spoken of the sacrifice in the Supper, saint Hierom saying, that this Melchisedech (meaning christ) delivered us these mysteries etc. Wherefore leaving further explication of this Author we will hear Theodorete, one of the other side of Christ'S parliament house, who as briefly as plainly openeth the truth of the matter which we seek, as it shall appear in this his saying: Antiquam genealogiam conscribens divinus Moses, docuit nos, quòd Adam, cùm tot annos natus esset genuit Seth. Ei cùm tot annis vixisset, finem vitae accepit. Ita etiam dixit de Seth & Enos, & alijs. Melchisedech et generationis Theodoretus Dial 2. initium, et vitae finem silentio praeterijt: Ergo si historia spectetur, nec initium dicrum, nec vitae finem habet. Reverà autem Dei filius nec esse coepit, nec finem accipiet. In ijs ergo maximis, et verè divinis fuit Melchisedech figura Christi Domini. In sacerdotio autem, quod hominibus magis quàm Deo convenit, Dominus Christus Pontifex fuit secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Melchisedech enim fuit gentium Pontifex. Et Dominus Christus pro omnibus hominibus sactum et salutiferum sacrificium obtulit. The godly Moses writing the old genealogy, hath taught us, that Adam when he was thus many years old, he begat Seth, And when he had lived so many years he made an end of his life. Even so also he saith of Seth, and Enos, with other. As for the beginning of the generation of Melchisedeh, and the end of his life he overpasseth it with silence. Wherefore if the history be looked on, he hath neither beginning of days, nor the end of life. So in very deed the Son of God neither hath beginning of his being, neither shall have ending. In these great things then very divine, was Melchisedech a figure of our Lord christ. In the priesthood also, which is more meet or agreeable for men then for God, our lord christ was an high priest after the order of Melchisedech. For Melchisedech was the high priest of the gentiles. And our lord christ offered for all men an holy and wholesome sacrifice. Thus moche Theodorete. Whom ye do perceive to testify not only that Melchisedech was a figure of christ as concerning his eternity, but also as concerning his Christ's of fring of sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech overthroweth the heresy of Eutiches. priesthood, and Sacrifice, which did appertain to him as man. By which Application he convinceth the Eutychians, who forsaking the catholic faith, which teacheth that in christ be two natures, that is to say, the perfect nature of God, and the perfect nature of man, and so confesseth christ to be very God, and very Man, followed their master Eutiches, and taught (as in the Chalcedon Council it is testified) that christ before the adunation, was of two natures, but after the adunation he was but of one nature, which was God, and therefore denying christ to be man, confessed him only to be God. Wherefore following Appollinaris, Valentinus, and Macedonius, they would not receive this common article of ourfaith: Which was conceavedby the holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary. Now as these confessed christ to be God: So this Theodorete labouring to prove him also to be man, bringeth in this figure of Melchisedech, which as by eternity it proveth him to be God, For eternity, that is, to have no beginning, nor ending, far surmounteth the created nature of man, and appertaineth to the increated nature of God: So by the priesthood of Melchisedech which was in christ (which being to base an office for God, doth properly appertain to man) he proveth christ to be a very man.. If than the Adversaries shall deny Melchisedech to be a figure of christ, adversaries expositions maintain the heresy of Eutiches. as touching his priesthood and sacrifice, they shall take away the argument of this learned man, and helping the part of the heretics, shall weaken the part of the catholics. And so where by the full and true application of the figure, christ is proved to be both God and man, by the only application of the eternity (which the Adversaries would have) he shall be proved only God. Now not only the argument of the matter proveth that this Author brought in this figure chiefly to prove the manhood of christ, which was the thing to be proved against Eutiches, and that by the priesthood of Melchisedech: But also his very plain words do prove the same. For when he saith: In sacerdotio, quod hominibus magis quàm Deo convenit, Dominus Christus secundùm ordinem Melchisedech Pontifex fuit. In the priesthood which more agreeth to men, than to God our Lord, christ was an gigh priest after the order of Melchisedech. Leaving the eternity of the Godhead of christ, whereof Melchisedech was a figure in that he is overpassed in the history with out mention made either of his beginning or ending: He cometh to that part, that proveth him a man, which was to be a priest after the order of Melchisedech. What is it to be apreist, but to do the office of a priest? What is the office of a priest? the office of a priest is to offer Sacrifice to God for sins (as Office of a priest. saint Paul wittnesseth, which also this author alleging for his purpose bringeth in thus: Si est ergo sacerdotum proprium offerre munera, Christus autem, quod ad humanitatem attinet, sacerdos appellatus est, non aliam hostiam, quàm suum corpus obtulit. If then it be solely appertaining to priests to offer sacrifice, and Dial. 1. christ as concerning his humanity, was called a priest, he offered no other sacrifice but his own body. Then may we also conclude, that christ being a priest after the order of Melchisedech, and the office of a priest after the order of Melchisedech is to offer such sacrifice as to that order appertaineth, therefore christ offered such sacrify as to that order appertaineth. It appertaineth to that order to offer bread and wine. Wherefore christ sacrisiced in bread and wine. In bread and wine I say, a kind of food of more excellency, than the bread and wine which did figure it, I mien with Theodoret, and saint Hierom, the body and blood of christ, the true bread, and true wine, which feedeth us to live the true life. the life, that endureth and faileth not: Qui manducat joan. 6. hunc panem vivet in aeternum. He that eateth this bread, shall live forever. What needeth me any more to say here, seeing that both saint Hierom, and Theodorete do thus plainly and agreeably (as ye have heard) declare, that Melchisehech was a figure, as well of the priesthood and sacrifice of christ, in that he offered sacrifice to God in bread and wine: as of his eternity, for he is accounted without ffather, without mother, without beginning, or ending. But Reader, when thou seest them so manifestly, err, and so maliciously impugn that, which the holy Fathers do teach, by so plain sentence and express words as can not but be seen and perceived, except where malice blindeth, think with thyself, that just cause is ministered unto thee, to fear them and their sainges in other matters. Thus much for thy advertisement by the way, being said, gentle Reader, I will for thy further instruction, and confirmation of the matter bring yet more witnesses of the truth hereof. THE ONE AND thirtieth CHAPTER CONcludeth this matter of Melchisedech by saint Augustin and Damascen. AS ye have already heard some ancient men of Christ'S Parliament house agreeably testifying the truth of the figure of Melchisedech, even as it hath been enacted, and received from the beginning of the same house: So shall ye hear one couple more of them doing the like, and so shall we end the explication of this prophecy of the psalmist as touching the priesthood of christ after the order of Melchisedech. Saint Augustin writteh of the matter thus: Erant sacrificia antea judaeorum secundùm ordinem Aaron in victimis pecorum, & hoc in In Psa. 33. mysterio. Nondum erat sacrificium corporis & sanguinis Domini, quod fideles norunt, & qui evangelium legerunt, quod sacrificium nunc diffusum est toto orb. Proponite ergo vobis ante oculos duo sacrificia: & illud secundùm ordinem Aaron, et hoc secundùm ordinem Melchisedech. Scriptum est enim, turavit Dominus, et non poenitebit eum, Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundùm ordinem Melchisedech. De quo dicitur, Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundùm ordinem Melchisedech? De Domino nostro jesu Christo. Quis enim erat Melchisedeh? Rex Salem. Saleni autem fuit Civitas illa, quae postea (sicut docti prodiderunt) Jerusalem dicta est. Ergo antequam ibi regnarent judaei, ibi erat ille sacerdos Melchisedech, qui scribitur in Genesi, sacerdos Dei excelsi. Ipse occurrit Abrahae, quando liberavit Loth de manu persequentium, et prostravit illos, à quibus tenebatur, et liberavit fratrem. Et post liberationem fratris occurrit et Melchisedech, (Tantus erat Melchisedech à quo benediceretur Abraham) protulit panem et vinum, et benedixit Abraham, et dedit ei decimas Abraham. Videte quid protulit, et quem benedixit, et dictum est postea: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundùm ordinem Melchisedech. David hoc in spiritu dixit, longè post Abraham. Temporibus autem Abrahae fuit Melchisedech. De quo alio loco dicit: Tu ès sacerdos in aeternum secundùm ordinem Melchisedech, nisi de illo cuius nostis sacrisicium? There were before, the sacrifices of the jews after the order of Aaron in the offering of beasts, and that in mystery. The Sacrifice of the body and blood Sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech is now diffused troughout the world. of our Lord, the which the faithful, and they that have red the gospel know, was not yet. Which Sacrifice is now diffused throughout all the world. Set before your eyes therefore the two sacrifices, both that after the order of Aaron, and this after the order of Melchisedech. For it is written: The Lord hath sworn, and it shall not repent him. if art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech. Of whom is it said: if art a priest after the order of Melchisedech? Of our Lord jesus christ. who was this Melchisedech? King of Salem. Salem was before time, that same City, which as the learned have declared, was afterward called Jerusalem. Therefore before the jews reigned there, the priest Melchisedech, who is written in Genesis the priest of the high God, was ther. He met with Abraham when he had delivered Loath from the hand of them, that did persecute him, and he overthrew them, of whom he was holden, and delivered his brother. And after the deliverance of his brother, Melchisedech met him (So great a man was Melchisedech of whom Abraham was blessed) he brought forth bread and wine, and blessed Abraham, and Abraham gave him tithes. Behold what he brought, and whom he blessed. And it is said afterward, if art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech. David spoke this in spirit long after Abraham. Melchisedech was in the time of Abraham. Of whom in an other place saith he, if art a priest For ever after the order of Melchisedech, But of him whose sacrifice ye know? Thus far saint Augustine. Ye have here heard the distinction of the two orders of priesthood, of Aaron, and of Melchisedech. Ye have heard also the distinction of the two sacrifices. the one according to the order of Aaron, the other after the order of Melchisedech. What this sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech is, saint Augustin hath declared where he said: The sacrifice of the body and Sacrifice avouched. blood of our Lord was not yet, which sacrifice is now diffused throughout all the world. What he meeneth when he saith: as yet the sacrifice of the body and blood of our Lord was not, and also whether this sacrifice be after the order of Melchisedech, in a brief sentence of few words, he doth very plainly in an other place open and declare. Sublatum est sacrificium Aaron, & caepit esse sacrificium, secundùm ordinem Melchisedech The sacrifice of Aaron was taken away. And the sacrifice after the order of Melchisedcch began. By the which sentence it is manifest, that while the sacrifice of Aaron endured, this sacrifice was not used. But when, that was taken away, this sacrifice began. Likewise he hath taught also that the sacrifice of the body and blood of christ is the sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech. For where before Sacrifice of the body and blood of christ in the Sacr. is after the order of Melchisedech. he said that the body and blood of our Lord was not yet, And now he saith, that the sacrifice of Melchisedech began, when Aaron's sacrifice was taken away: What doth he else signify, but that they be all one thing? that is, that the body and blood of christ be the sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech. And so convertiblie that the sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech, is the body and blood of christ. Which body and blood be no where else offered in sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech, but in the sacrifice of the Altar, where bread and wine be turned into the same body and blood. For the body of christ upon the cross was a bloody sacrifice, perfected with bloodshedding after the manner of Aaron. Therefore the holy sacrifice of the Altar, which (as saint Austen saith) is now diffused and spread through all the world is the very body and blood of christ. Although this, that is alleged out of saint Augustin, is so plain, that the Adversaries can not but see the truth, and so strong, that they can not against say it: Yet that they may see all this that is spoken confirmed, and made more plain, and that so being confounded by the evident truth, they may give over their error, and yield unto truth, we will hear the sentence of the same saint Augustine, treating of this same matter in an other place. Thus it is. Coram regno patris sui mutavit vultum suum, & dimisit eum, et abijt, quia erat ibi sacrificium secundùm ordinem Aaron, et postea ipse corpore et sanguine suo instituit sacrificium secundùm ordinem Melchisedech. Mutavit ergo vultum suum in In Psalm. 33. Contion. 3. sacerdotio, et dimisit gentem judaeorum, et venit ad gentes. Before the kingdom of his Father he hath changed his cowntennce, and left him and went away. because there was there the sacrifice after the order of Aaron. And after ward of his body and blood he instituted the sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech. He changed therefore his countenance in priesthood, and left the people of the jews, and came to the Gentiles. Thus saint Augustin. Dooye mark what is here said? If ye do, ye must needs understand it, it is so plain. For what can be more briefly, and more plainly said, than that christ did institute a sacrifice of his body and blood after the order of Melchisedech? By this brief sentence many things be answered: First, where the adversaries most slaunderouslie have said, to bring the thing in hatred emongethe people, that the Pope made the holy Sacrament a sacrifice to obscure the glory of christ, and to diminish the worthiness and merit of Christ'S sacrifices upon the cross, and therewithal to bring the people into beleiff, that the Sacrifice of christ upon the cross was not sufficient without this: And that without authority (as this Proclaimer saith) we offer up christ unto his Father: And thus with a number of like lies, The Pope and the Papists were made Authors and founders of this sacrifice. Not the Pope nor the Papists made the sacrament a sacrifice but christ himself after S. Augustin. But basshe and be ashamed thou slanderous man, if Enemy of the truth, and open thine eyes to see, and thine ears to hear what saint Augustine that holy Father, and learned doctor here teacheth, that is, that christ did of his own body and blood institute a sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech. So that christ, even by this bolie Father's testimony, is the institutor and founder of this blessed Sacrifice, and not the Pope, neither the papists as though termest them. But they be the humble receivers of this same institution of christ. secondarily, where the Aduersaties have said that christ did not offer his body in sacrifice in his last Supper, this sentence also confuteth them. It must of necessity be granted that christ did sacrifice in his last supper. For saint Augustine saith here, that christ did institute a sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech. Now where read we that christ did sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech, but only in his last Supper? Wherefore seeing christ did institute a sacrifice after that order, and did never execute the office of a priest of that order in visible form and manner (For other wise he doth daily) but in the last Supper: Then of necessity it must be, that in the last Supper he did sacrifice. thirdly, for so much as christ did institute this sacrifice in his body and blood, it must necessarily follow that Christ'S body and blood be present in the Sacrament. And as christ did verily make his body and blood present in that sacrifice in his last Supper instituted and offered: So doth he verily make his body and blood present in the sacrifice of the Altar, and that as often as the same is duly executed and doen. For as he did in that Supper: So doth he in every ministration of the blessed Sacrament duly ministered. For the Sacrament is of no less force, poour, wourthinesse and dignity now in the Altar, that it was in the table, where christ himself visibly present did sanctify it, as chrysostom doth testify. Non sunt haec humanae virtutis opera, quae tunc in illa coena confecit ipse quoque Chrys. in 26 Matth. nunc operatur, ipse perficit. Ministrorum nos ordinem tenemus, qui verò haec sanctificat & transmutat, ipse est. Cum Discipulis (inquit) meis, facio Pascha. Haec enim illa non alia mensa est: haec nulla re minor, quàm illa est. Non enim illam Christus, hanc homo quispiam facit, sed utramque ipse. These works be not of christ and not man doth consecrate. man's power, which he then did in that Supper, he doth now also work, he doth perfect it. we hold the order of ministers, but it is he, that doth sanctify, transmute or change these things. With my disciples (saith he) do I keep the Passover. This is even the same, not an other table. This is in nothing lesser than that. For christ maketh not that table, and some other man this, but christ both. Thus Chrisostom. Whereby we are taught, that as much as was done by christ in his last Supper, so moche is done now. So moche as the Apostles received, so much receive we now. The reason is (as chrysostom saith) that christ, who did sanctify that table, doth also sanctify this our table, and this table is in nothing less, than that table was. In that table (as saint Augustine in his last sentence did teach) Christ'S body was by himself sacrificed, and so verily present in that sacrifice. Wherefore in this table likewise Christ'S body is verily sacrificed, and so verily and Sacrifice avouched. realie present. But somewhat to say of that, that may be gathered of this saying of Chrysostom: If nothing were given to the Apostles (as the Adversaries teach) but a piece of Sacramental bread, a figure of Christ'S body: what nead all these comparisons betwixt table, and table. For if the doctrine of the adversaries be true, we can have no less, except we should eat course bread, whereas the Apostles eat fine bread. we can have nolesse I say, than they had. A piece of bread each of them had: a piece of bread each of us hath. If that bread were a figure, this bread is a figure. What thing now then moved Chrysostom to travail so much to set forth the equality of these two tables (so I term them for distinction of knowledge) seeing there can be no inequality between them, each of them having a piece of bread, and a cup of wine? Be you well assured, Chrysostom saw much cause in the imperfection and weakness of the faith of men, which might think, that forsomuch as christ was then in visible manner present at the Supper, and so the Sacrament being of himself consecrated and distributed, that it might be and was his very body: But now that he was ascended, and not in visible manner present, with his own mouth speaking, and with his own hand delivering, they might think that there was no such wonderful work wrought, he being now from visible seight absent, as then when he was in visible seight present. And in deed such an heresy did the Petrobrusians, and the Henricians Petrobrusians and Henricians their heresies. Petr. Cluniacen. hold (as Petrus Cluniacensis testifieth, who in the beginning of his book written against them, rehearseth the sainges of those heretics in this wise: Nolite, o populi, Episcopis & presbyteris ceu Clero vos seducenti credere, qui sicut in multis, sic in altaris sacrificio vos decipiunt, ubi corpus Christi se conficere, & vobis ad vestrarum animarum salutem se tradere mentiuntur: Mentiuntur planè. Corpus Christi semel tantùm ab ipso Christo in coena ante passionem factum est, & semel, hoc est, tunc tantùm Discipulis datum est. Exinde neque confectum ab aliquo, neque alicui datum est. Believe not (o people) said those heretics, the bishops and priests or the clergy begilinge you. Which as in many things: so also they deceive you in the office of the Altar, where they lie unto you, that they do consecrate the body of christ, and deliver it to you for your soul's health. They lie plainly. The body of Christ was once only made of christ in his last Supper before his passion, and once, that is, then only was it given to the Disciples. Since that time, was it neither given to any, neither made of any. Thus they. Now ye may see, that the holy Ghost did not without cause move his holy organs to speak such things before hand, as whereby the Succession of the catholic Church, should find the heresy answered, before the said heresy were set forth abroad (The holy Ghost well knowing that such evil weeds should spring in the vinyeard of christ) And yet this may ye mark that heresy the further it goeth, it is always the worse as saint Paul comparing it to a Canker doth very well express the Heresy further it goeth the worse it is. 2. Tim. 2. condition of it, and by plain words showeth the progress of it thus: Prophana autem & vaniloquia devita. Multum enim proficient ad impietatem, & sermo eorum ut cancer serpit. As for ungodly and vain talks, avoid them. For they will increase to further ungodliness. And their words shall creep even as doth the disease of a Canker. For the Petrobrusians being bad enough, yet they upon the consideration of Christ'S presence in the last Supper, granted that he then made his body, and that the Apostles received his body. But never after was it given to any. This was a very evil canker, but it hath increased since to so moche ungodliness, and hath Cankrelike fretted so sore, that now in our time men have denied the body of christ to be consecrated and given, either by the priests or ministers of the church, or yet by christ himself in the last Supper. For he gave (say they) but the figure of his body to his Apostles, as the ministers do now to the people. But as chrysostom in his sentence hath answered the Petrobrusians: So hath he also answered the Oecolampadians, calvinists, and the rest of the vipers that broke out of Luther's beallie (of the which generation this challenger is one) who like vipers in deed, which gnaw and fret their dames beallie christ doth sanctify and transmute the bread and wine. to come from her, even so these impugning the doctrine of their Father, have endeavoured, to destroy both him and his doctrine to be rid thereof. Qui verò haec sanctificat & transmutat ipse est. It is even he (saith Chrysostom meaning christ) that doth sanctify and transmute these things? Hour heresiarke of England, Cranmer saith in his book, that the creatures of bread and wine can not be sanctified. But by Chrysostom's sentence they be sanctified in to some other thing. Which is so in deed, and therefore Transubstanciation avouched. he addeth, & transmutat, and doth transmute or change them. For christ sanctifying doth change the substance of the creatures of bread and wine, into the substance of his body and blood. For (as Origen saith) the bread is made in to an holier body. Nos conditori rerum morem gerentes, pro eius in nos collatis beneficijs ubi & gratias diximus oblatis Orig. cont. Cells. li. 8. The bread is turned into an holier body. panibus vescimur, qui utique ex oratione & precibus in sanctius quoddam corpus conslantur, quod sanè sanctiores hos reddit, qui mente integriore hoc ipso utuntur. We obeying (saith Origen) the creator of things, when we for the benefits which he hath given us, have given him thanks, we eat the breads that be offered, which by oration and prayers, are made into a certain holier body, which maketh them holier, which with an whole mind do use the same. Thus Origen. Do ye not hear that the breades that be offered be made into a certain holier body? And what a body is it? Soche a body as maketh those holier, which receive it with a pure and godly mind. What body is it, that we receive having power to make us holier, but the holy body of him, who is hour sanctification, justification, and redemption? Now here is no place for the adversaries common gloze, to say, that we receive the body of christ spiritually, which maketh us holier that receive it, and thereby to seclude the receiving of Christ'S body really. For he saith that the breades, which be offered, be made into an holier body. And Li. 4. de S●cramentis. that body that is made of the bread (I use saint Ambrose his phrase, Depane fit corpus Christi) maketh them holier, which receive it with a good and godly mind. Which body being such that the bread is turned or made into it, must needs be the real and substantial body of christ. Understand me not here, that I reject the spiritual receiving of christ in the Sacrament. But I wish both the receivings to go together. He can not receive christ spiritually, which believeth not that he receiveth him really For as the receiving of christ really profiteth not without the receiving of him spiritually: So he can not receive him spiritually, that believeth not him to be received really. And therefore when opportunity serveth, as I wish both the receivings to go together, so must they in deed go together, if the receiver will take and have any profit thereby. Albeit these might suffice, that be heretofore alleged to testify unto us, what is the enacted and received truth of Christ'S Parliament house as concerning the priesthood and sacrifice of christ after the order of Melchisedech: Li. 4. de de thod. side. Melchisedech and his sacrifice a figure of christ and his sacrifice yet that S. Augustine may have one of the other side of the house, that is of the greek church, joined with him, I will bring you Damascen, who in few words saith thus: Pane & vino suscepit Melchisedech Abraham excaede alienigenarum revertentem, qui erat sacerdos Dei altissimi. Illa mensa hanc mysticam praefigurabat mensam, veluti & sacerdos ille Christi veri sacerdotis figuram praeferebat, & imaginc. Tu es (inquit) sacerdos in aeternum secundùm ordinem Melchisedech. With bread and wine did Melchisedech receive Abraham returning from the slaughter of the strangers. That table did prefigurate this mystical table, as also that priest did bear the figure and image of christ the very priest. if art (saith he) a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech. Thus Damascen. In which sentence ye see the comparison & application of table to table, Table signisieth sacrifice as in S. Paul. 1. Cor. 10. of priest to priest, Damascen teaching the one to be figure of the other. Where I would that the Adversary did note that the table of Melchisedech, which all men of learning do know, is taken for the sacrifice, as in saint Paul, ye can not be partakers of the table of God, and the table of devels also. In which saying what else meant saint Paul, but that the Corinthians could not be partakers of that, that was offered to God in sacrifice, and of that, that was offered in sacrifice to devels also? The table of Melchisedech (I say) which is the sacrifice of Melchisedech, did prefigurate the table, that is, the sacrifice of christ. The sacrifice (I say) which he offered after the order of Melchisedech. Now see (o thou Adversary) the concord and plain testimony of these right ancient elders, and famous learned Fathers of Christ'S Parliament house, how all they, with one mouth as it were, have reported, what was the received truth in the house of christ in their times, which times were the times of pure and sincere knowledge in this matter, a time when there was no heresy nor controversy to move them to writ of it, but quietly and godly for the instruction of God's people in the truth of his faith, and to leave certain both monuments and muniments of the same to the posterity, they have expressed their faith in this and other diverse matters. And not only their private faith, but the universal faith of Christ'S catholic Church. And left the same in writing for the stay and confirmation of them that remain in the faith and for the calling home again of them that have erred. Therefore where thou erring from the true faith, havest taught that Melchisedech did not offer bread and wine in sacrifice, behold that these Fathers by express words avouch the contrary. Where thou havest also defended, that Melchisedech was not a figure of christ as concerning his sacrifice, see how constantly and uniformly though art impugned, all these teaching, that the sacrifice of Melchisedech, was a figure of Christ'S sacrifice, offered and done by christ after the same order. And what that sacrifice is, they have not left undeclared, but by plain words they have taught that it is the body and blood of christ, which body and blood of christ being offered in sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech (as by them also it is affirmed) doth invincibly prove the very real presence of Christ'S blessed body in the Sacrament, which daily is offered after the order Aug. cont. judaeos. The priest head of christ shall not be changed. of Melchisedech, and shall be to the woorldes' end. juravit Dominus, & non poenitebit eum. Our Lord hath sworn, and it shall not repent him. Quid est (inquit Augustinus) iuravit Dominus, nisi inconcussa veritate firmavit? Et quid est non poenitebit eum, nisi hoc sacerdotium nulla ratione mutabitur? What is it (saith saint Augustin) that our Lord hath Sworn, but that with a most certain truth he hath made it sure? And what is that: It shall not repent him, but that this priesthood by no means shall be changed? If then (as saint Augustin saith) this priesthood shall not be changed, how shall it be continued? Theophilacte one as it were of the other side of Christ'S parliament house, being one of the greek Church, joineth with saint Augustine and Theophila. in Epistolam ad Hebr. christ is daily offered by his ministers and shall be so continued for ever. teacheth how, expounding to the hebrews these words: Thou art a priest for ever, etc. In aeternum dicit, quia quotidiè offertur, vel in perpetuum offertur per Dei ministros oblatio, Christum Dominum & Pontificem habens & sacrificium, qui seipsum nostri ob gratiam sanctificat, frangit, & tribuit. He saith for ever: because he is daily offered, or because by the ministers of God, is for ever or continually offered the oblation having christ our lord, being both the high priest, and the sacrifice, who doth for our sake continually sanctify, break, and give himself. Cease therefore to revile and blaspheme this blessed mystery. For heaven and earth shall pass away, but the word of God abideth for ever. Which word of God saith that this priesthood and sacrifice shall continue for ever. And therefore though you bark against it, as do the dogs against the moon: Yet as the moon notwithstanding abideth in her heaven, and goeth her course, and shall continue: So shall this blessed mystery abide in his state, and shall go forward and continue until the world end, what so ever ye say or do, it shall not be impaired. But ye shall for your abominable doing, be not a little decayed and afflicted. I would bring certain of the lower house (I mien of them that were after six hundreth years after christ) to give their testimony in this matter, but that it would make this rude work grow to a greater volume, than I would wish. Therefore for this place I will omit them, and end this matter of the prophecy of Christ'S preistheade after the order of Melchisedech, which hath answered the figure that did prefigurate the same. And proceed to speak of the prophecy that answereth the next figure. THE TWO AND thirtieth CHAPTER TO prove the sacrifice of our Show bread to be a continual sacrifice, as the old show bread was, allegeth the prophecy of Daniel and rejecteth the false expositions of the Adversaries. THe figure that followed next after the figure of Melchisedech, was the figure of the paschal lamb, the accomplissing of the which was done (as it was declared) in the last Supper, the which last Supper being done after the order of Melchisedech, the prophecy, that answered the figure thereto appertaining, answereth also the figure of the paschal Lamb, forsomuch as the body of christ sacrificed after the order of Melchisedech, and eaten in that Supper, answereth also the eating of the paschal Lamb in the old testament, and is our very paschal Lamb in the new Testament. And therefore being loath to trouble the Reader, with the reading of that, of the which moche is already spoken, and (as I trust) fufficiently both in the handling of the figure of the paschal Lamb, and also of the sacrifice of christ after the order of Melchisedech: Therefore I shall go to the next figure, which is the Show bread, and thereunto apply such prophecies, as seem to answer the same, and maie-wel bejoined to it, as I have done in the setting forth of the priesthood of christ, after the order of Melchisedech, with the prophecies thereto appertaining. The Show bread (if ye remember what is before said) was a bread, that was both offered in sacrifice, and eaten, but so that none might eat of it, but the priests, and such as were clean, as by the story of David and Abimelech 1 Reg. 21. Show bread continually upon the table of the Tabernacle applied to the Sacrament. it did appear. Which bread was not seldom offered, but as soon as the old was taken away, new were offered, and put in their place, so that the table might not be without show bread: but it was always reserved, and their remained. Now as the reservation of that bread, was a figure of the reservation of our blessed bread (as there it was declared) So that bread being offered in sacrifice, was a figure of our bread offered in sacrifice. And as that bread was appointed to be a perpetual sacrifice, always to continue: So this sacrifice is appointed to be perpetual, and to continue until Christ'S coming. Of the which Sacrifice, and of the continuance of it, not only the Prophet Daniel, but also the Prophet Malachi hath prophesied. Daniel (as the holy Fathers do expound) speaking of the wickedness of the time of antichrist, among other evils that then shall be wrought, he said that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away. At which time what daily sacrifice shall there be to be taken away, but the sacrifice of the Christians? For (as Petrus Cluniacensis saith) there be in the world four principal sects: that is, of the jews, the Saracens, the pagans, and the christians. Petrus Cluniacen. contra Petrobr. Four principal sects of religion in the world. The jews persevering in the carnal observation of their carnal law, for somuch as it is among them received that only in Jerusalem they must honour God, do sacrifice there, and no where else. And now for so much as they are dispersed among nations, and had no temple this fourteen hundreth years, and for that God hath not, sense the devastation and subversion of Jerusalem, suffered them yet there to dwell, therefore they use no sacrifice. wherein also is fulfiled the prophecy of Daniel, which saith, that after a certain time after christ is slain, sacrifice and meat offering shall cease among the jews. And what soever was after done in the temple (as saint Daniel. 9 Hierom saith) Non suit sacrificium Dei, sed cultus Diaboli. it was not the sacrifice of God, but the woourshipping of the Devil. And this desolation (saith Hieron in Daniel. cap. 9 Daniel) shall continue to the end. Whereby is meant, that the abolishing of the sacrifice of the jews, is perpetual and for ever. The Saracens being deluded by the shameful imposture and deceit of Mahomete, have a certain mingled religion, using circumcision, and certain lotions of the jews. And so use a part of Moses law. They also confess that christ was born of a virgin, and that he lived holily, and preached truly, and wrought many miracles: But external and special sacrifice, whereby their religion should be discerned from other, they use none, but that certain hours on the night, and certain hours on the day, they give themselves to prayer, and specially after meat. The Pagans being a rude, gross, and barbarous people, almost unknown to the world, and neither knowing God, neither almost themselves, dwelling far of in the furthest part of the north, and not knowing the names of the Idols of other Idolaters, nor religion, what thing so ever they first meet in the morning, be it horse, hog, Cow, or calf, that same for that day do they take, and honour for their God. So that they have Pagans have day Gods, and hour Gods, and no certain God. not Deos perpetuos, but Deos Diarios vel horarios. Gods for ever continual, but day Gods, and hour Gods, unto whom yet they do no sacrifice, but according to their ignorant education they live without the knowledge of doing sacrifice. The christians being called to the knowledge of the true living God, and of his son jesus christ, instructed in his laws, and taught the true manner of honouring and serving him: know that all that have served God from the beginning, have not only served him with the sacrifices of lawdes, praises, prayers and obedience, which be things common: but have used also this special sign of service, as to offer some extern sacrifice to testify their duty and right proper service to God. Which manner of service I call propre, for that it can be done to none, but to God, or to some thing taken for god. Call to mind all the Fathers in the beginning, the patriarchs, the Prophets, and all other holy men knowing God, and ye shall perceive that all they besides lawdes, praises prayers and other, did also testify their service to God, by their external sacrificing of some of the fruits of the earth. So did Abel, so did Noah, so did job, Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, and many other, as the books of the old Testament do testify. And christ himself did not only offer his blessed body a bloody Sacrifice christ offered sacrifice in his supper, and commanded it to be continued. upon the Cross to God his Father, which all that do but taste the name of the religion of christ do confess: But he also as the author of the new Testament did first offer to God his hody and blood an unbloody sacrifice in his last supper after the order of Melchisedech, theridamas and then instituting the same sacrifice, and commanding it to be done and continued in his Church, as it is already proved. And so (as Irenaeus saith) he taught the new oblation of the new Testament. Now then seeing that no sect in the world useth any daily sacrifice, but we Christians: If we also had no daily sacrifice (as the enemies of ●od have travailed to compass) how then should the prophecy of Daniel be fulfiled, that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away? if there be none, none can be taken away. But the Prophet saith, that one shall be taken away. wherefore there must needs be a daily sacrifice, which for the fullsilling of the prophecy, must be taken away. Of this prophecy is saint Hierom an expownder, who being more busied to refel the wicked expositions of Prophyrius, and briefly to open the true understanding of the Prophet, then at large to set forth hour mysteries in plain words, saith yet that, that is sufficient to satisfy any man that is not contentious, that this prophecy is to be understanded of the daily sacrifice of the christians, although not in so express words, as this time of controversy in this matter would require. Thus is the text of the Prophecy Et à tempore quo ablatum fuerit iuge sacrificium, & posita fuerit abominatio in desolationem, dies mill ducenti nonaginta. And from the time that the daily Daniel 12. or continual Sacrifice shall be taken away or put down, and the abominable desolation set up, there shall be a thousand days two hundredth and ninety. Upon this text Hierom saith thus: Ho● mill ducentos nonaginta dies Prophyrius Hieron in Danielem. in tempore Antiochi & in desolation temple, d●oit completos, quam & josephus, & Machabaeòrum (●ut diximus) liber tribus tantùm annis fuisse commemorant. Ex quo perspicuum est tres istos & semis annos de Antichristi dici temporibus, qui tribus & semis annis, hoc est mill ducentis nonaginta diebus sanctos persecuturus est, et postea corruiturus in monte inclyto et sancto. A tempore igitur quod nos interpretati sumus iuge Sacrificium, quando Antichristus orbem obtinens, Dei cultuns interdixetit, usque ad internitionem ciustres et semis anni, id est, mill ducenti nonaginta dies complehuntur. These thousand two hundredth and ninety days, Porphyrius saith, they were fulfiled in the time of Antiochus, and in the desolation of the temple, which both josephus, and the book of the Maccabees (as we have said) do testify to be done in antichrist shall cause the daily sacrifice to cease. three years only, whereby it is plain, these three years and a half to be spoken of the times of antichrist, who by the space of three years and a half, that is, a thousand two hundredth and ninety days, shall persecute the holy and faithful Christians, and after shall fall down in the famous and holy hill. From the time therefore that we have interpreted the daily sacrifice, when antichrist shall for bid the service of God, unto his destruction there shall be fulfiled three years and a half, that is to say, a thousand two hundredth and ninety days. Thus moche S. Hierom. Who if we mark, interpreteth the greek word, and calleth it the daily sacrifice, and there with remember that (as before by him is said in the exposition of the prophecy of the priesthood of christ after the order of Melchisedech) christ our Melchisedech offered his body and blood, the very The daily sacrifice is the sacrifice of the body and blood of Chryst. true bread, and true wine, and delivered unto us these mysteries that we have to use in the remembrance of him until he come to judgement. Whereto if we add the exposition of this prophecy of Daniel that in the time of Antichrist the service of God shall be by him forbodden, what shall we else understand by the daily sacrifice, but the sacrifice of our Melchisedech, left with us to be used as our most high service to God. Which thing Lyra by very plain words doth declare expounding this text of Daniel thus: Hic Angelus instruit Danielem de termino à quo incipiendi sunt praedicti tres anni cum dimidio, dicens: A tempore cùm ablatum fuerit iuge sacrificium, id est, à tempore quo sacrificium altaris cessabit celebrari solemniter. Here the Angel teacheth Daniel the time from the which the three-years and a half shall begin, saying: from the time when the daily Sacrifice shall be taken away, that is, from the time in the which the sacrifice of the Altar shall cease solemnly to be celebrated, Thus Lyra. As by the exposition of these Fathers it doth appear that the daily Sacrifice is the sacrifice of the Altar, the Sacrifice of Christ'S body and blood, So hereunto reason also agreeth, and by it we are also forced thus to understand the prophet. For he can not be understanded of the sacrifice of laud, and praise, of the which S. Paul speaketh, Per ipsum offeramus hostiam laudis semper Deo; id est, fructum labiorum confitentium nomini eius. By him (meaning Hebr. 13. christ) let us offer sacrifice of laud allwais to God, that is to say, the fruit of our lips confessing his name. Of the which sacrifice the prophet David speaketh, saying: Immola Deo sacrificium laudis. Ofer up unto God Psal. 49. the sacrifice of laud. Neither can it be understand of the sacrifice of the mortification or affliction of our bodies, to the which S. Paul exhorteth us, saying: Obsecro vos per misericordiam Dei, ut exhibeatis corpora vestrae hostiam viventem, sanctam, De● placentem. I beseech you by the mercy of God, that ye give up your bodies as a lively and holy sacrifice unto God, and pleasing to him, Neither can it be understanded of the sacrifice of a contrite heart, of the which David speaketh: Sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus, A troubled spirit is a sacrifice unto God. For all these sacrifices shall be in use in the time of Psal. 50. Antichrist even in the heat of his persecution. For the Angel said: Eligentur, & dealbabuntur, & quasi ignis probabuntur multi. Many shall be chosen, Daniel. 12 and purified, and shall be tried as it were fire. In such men there is no doubt but they will continually with their humble prayers praise God, and confessing his faith, magnify his holy name, and fo offer unto God the sacrifice of laud and praise as the fruits of their lips. They will also not only mortify and crucify their bodies with all the lusts and concupiscence: but they will also at that time give up their bodies to suffer torments, yea and very death for the name of christ, and so offer them as pleasant sacrifices unto God. Other some there shall be, which seeing the heavy, great, and violent persecution that shall be used by antichrist, and Psal. 105. his ministers will with Daniel confess their sins, and the sins of the people, and humbly with David say: Peccavimus cum patribus nostris, iniustè egimus, iniquitatem fecimus. We have sinned with our Fathers, we have done unjustly, we have committed iniquity. Seeing then that Antichrist neither shall nor can put down or take away these sacrifices, but that they shall be used under his sword, and in the midst of his flames and other torments: it is most evident, that none of these be that daily sacrifice, that shall be put down. For these sacrifices shall be openly offered, and that daily. It remaineth then that of necessity this prophecy must be understand of the daily sacrifice of the body and blood of christ, which although Antichrist shall put down the daily sacrifice of the Altar. some godly disposed people may percase secretly use (as Lyra saith) ut shall for three years and a half cease openly and solemnly to be celebrated. And further of congruence it may be reasoned, if the Fathers that have been in all ages before christ, did know that it was a thing acceptable and pleasing to God to offer extern sacrifice to him: should not the Christian know more, who liveth in the clear light, where they lived in the shadow? If those sacrifices were a sweet savour to God (as no doubt but they were so for his sake whom they figured) how moche sweeter than is our sacrifice unto him, offering (as we do) christ himself in sacrifice? If they gave to God not only the sacrifices of lawdes and thanks, but also an extern sacrifice of thanks, as it were of an higher thank for such befits as they received: shall not the Christian, who hath received greater benefits, incomparably passing there's, give at the least as great thanks as they? If we shall offer no other sacrifice, than the sacrifice of praise and thanks giving and sochelike, the fathers did so as well as we, and over and beside that they offered an extern sacrifice of thanks: What ingratitude may it well be thought then, that we receiving many more benefits than they, should give fewer thanks than they? It is an evil proportion, the more and greater benefits, the fewer and less thanks: the fewer and smaller benefits, the more and greater thanks. O lord what obcecate, and blind enemies of God were these, that could Chrystians' using no external sacrifice are less thankful than the Fathers of the law. not see these things, but would that we Christians having clearer knowledge than other, should less do their duty then other, and receiving more benesittes, should be less thankful? And thus God should be rob of his honour, and the christians withdrawed from doing of their due services. And then would it shortly come to us, as it came to them, who knowing God, have not glorified him as God, neither were thankful, but waxed full of vanities in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was blinded, when they counted themselves wise, they became fools. THE THREE AND thirtieth CHAP. OPENETH the prophecy of Malachi. NOt only the Prophet Daniel (as before is said) doth prophecy that there shall be a sacrifice: but also Malachi, who plainly declareth the rejecting of the sacrifice of the jews, and the placing of a common used sacrifice: Non est mibi voluntas in vobis, dicit Dominus Malac. 1 exercituum, & munus non suscipiam de manu vestra. Ab ortu enim solis usque ad occasum magnum est nomen meum in gentibus, & in omni loco sacrificatur, & offertur nomini meo oblatio munda, quia magnum est nomen meum in gentibus, dicit Dominus exercituum. I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, And as for meat offering, I will not accept it as your hands. For from the rising up of the sun unto the going down of the same, my name is great among the gentiles. yea in every place shall there be sacrifice done, and a clean meat offering offered up unto my name. For my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts. This prophecy hath moche tormented the Adversaries, and therefore all Protestants tormented with the prophe●… 〈◊〉 how ●…ey wrist it. their engines, hooks, and all their fetches have be set upon this place to draw it to their sense and purpose, but it will not be, all will not serve that they can do. for truth will show it self, and prevail. This prophecy in deed invincibly proveth the Sacrifice of Christ'S Church, as hereafter shall be showed. But first let us see, how the Adversaries would wrest this place, and let us make it plain to the reader, that the sense which they would have the scripture understanded in, is not the right and full sense, but a distorted sense, a wrong sense, and such a sense, as the place can not bear, a sense disagreeing from the expositions of all the holy Fathers both of the latin church, and of the greek church. Occolampadius in a book that he did write of the Mass unto the Senate of Basille, saith that by this prophecy of the Prophet Malachi, was Prophesied, Occolamp. that the ministers of the new testament should make a faithful people out of all nations, as a pure and an holy oblation and sacrifice to God. And this (saith he) is the mind of the Prophet. Martin Bucer not moche differing from him, in his answer that he made to Latomus, saieh that by this Prophecy is chiefly promised the preaching of the Gospel, by the which God shall be every where acknowledged, and Bucer. the fruit also of the same preaching, that is faith, and the confessing of the same faith. And he saith also that by the incense and oblation are to be understanded the sacrifices of christian men, which be (saith he) the praising and calling on the name of God, whereunto is always annexed the giving up of ourselves to the will of God, and the declaration of our thankful mind towards God, by the doing, and showing of love and mercy to the poor. And thus doth he expound the Prophet. Bullinger an other of the same sect and sort, saith that the laud and praise of God his name is the pure sacrifice that the Prophet speaketh of. Bullinger, Vrbanus Rhegius. But Vrbanus Rhegius writing against Eckius his master in his firstbooke saith thus: The sacrifice that Malachias prophesied of, is the mortification of the flesh, and the calling on the name of God, with godly prayer. And this was his fantasy, which so I term as I might the rest, for that each of them hath understanded the prophecy as him listeth, and not as the full meaning of the same hath required. And although other have uttered their conceptes and coniecturs upon this prophecy: Yet these being the standard bearers of that wicked army, that hath so maliciously fowght against God's truth, may fuffice to be rehearsed for this time, presupposing that the rest do follow their standard bearers. But let us now examine, and weigh their expositions. If ye mark they do all agree in this, that this prophecy is to be understanded of the sacrifice of praise and thanks giving, which they call the pure sacrifice. It is to be considered here that almighty God by his Prophet declaring, that the sacrifice of the jews, which was only done in Jerusalem should be rejected, abolished, and left, signified also, that an other sacrifice should be substituted in the place of the same, which should be a pure and clean sacrifice, which should not be done only in Jerusalem, as the other was, But in every place. Now as for the sacrifice of a contrite heart, of laud, praise, and thanks giving, who doubteh but that they were used and offered of diverse holy Psal. 50. and virtuous men in the old law, and well accepted? which thing David was not ignorant of, when he said: Sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus, Psalm. 49. cor contritum & humiliatum, Deus, non despicies. A troubled spirit is a sacrifice to God, a contrite and humble heart (o God) shalt though not despice. Of the sacrifice of laud David also speaketh Immola Deo sacrificium laudis. Offer to God the sacrify of laud &c. praise. And in the same Psalm: Sacrificium laudis honorificabit me. Who so offereth me thanks and praise, he honoureth me. The heretical expositions of the prophecy of Malachi cannot stand. Therefore where the Adversary would, that these kind of Sacrifices should be they, of the which the prophet Malachi spoke, that should come into the place of the sacrifice of the jews, which God would abolish, their exposition can not stand. For these can not now be placed as new sacrifices, which were placed and used from the beginning of the first good man, that offered sacrifice to God, Abel, who with the sacrifice of the fruits of the earth, which he offered, offered also praise and thanks giving to God, These sacrifices than be not new placed, but being of old time used, God would have them so continued. Neither do I mien that these be separated from that sacrifice, that God would place in stead of the sacrifice of the jews. For their is no extern sacrifice Sacrifice of laud separated from the extern sacrifice. but if it be rightly, and duly offered, it bringeth with it the sacrifice of laud and praise, and of other also. But that the Prophet doth mien of these only, and not raither of some extern sacrifice to be used, offered, and frequented among the christians: and that he meant not chiefly and principally of an extern sacrifice, to be placed in the place of the jews extern sacrifices, that is most untrue. And that may be perceived by the difference of the new sacrifice from the old. What is that? That it shall be a pure sacrifice. Why, were not theirs pure sacrifices before in the old law? Was there not a sacrifice of expiation, and a day of expiation assigned, in the which the cleansing sacrifice should be offered? Read the xvi chapter of Leviticus, and there shall ye find that almighty God saith thus: In hac die expiatio vestri erit levit. 16. atque mundatio. ab omnibus peccatis vestris coram Domino mundabimini. In this day shall be your expiation and cleansing, and ye shall be made clean from all your sins before the Lord. Was not this then a pure sacrifice, that purified, and cleansed the people from all their sins before God? Is it not a pure sacrifice that is a sweet savour to God? were not the sacrifices of the old law such? Doth not Moses from God's mouth so term them? It can not be denied but the scripture doth so call them. But as christ saith, Nemo bonus, nisi solus Deus. There is no man good but God alone. And yet again he saith: Bonus homo de bono thesauro prosert bona. The good Man out of good treasure bringeth Luc. 18. Matth. 12 God good by nature man by participation. forth good things: So though God alone of himself, and of his divine nature be only good: yet men be good also, not of themselves, nor of their own natures, but by participation of the goonesse of God. So there is one sacrifice which only is pure, for that it is pure of it self, which sacrifice is the body and blood of our Saviour jesus christ. Other sacrifices that be called pure and cleansing sacrifices, they be so called by participation, that they do please God, and purify men by the virtue and merit, of that pure Sacrifice jesus christ, who is the lamb, that was slain from the beginning of the world, giving virtue to all sacrifices that were yet offered from the beginning of the world. And therefore when the Prophett putteth Apoc 13. this difference to this sacrifice, that shall succead the sacrifices of the jews, that it shall be a pure sacrifice: If it were pure but by virtue of other, as the sacrifices of the jews were, than were this word, pure, no word of difference, but raither a superfluous word making no distinction between the two sorts of sacrifices. But for so moche as the Prophet hath put it as a difference, seeing the other were pure by virtue of other, this must needs be the sacrifice, that is pure of it self, which (as is before said) is the body and blood of christ. Neither may this now be drawn to that most blessed Sacrifice of the body and blood of christ upon the Cross. For that Sacrifice in that manner was offered in one place only, that was, upon the mount calvary: But this Sacrifice (saith God by the Prophet) is offered in every place. Wherefore of necessity this must be understanded of the pure Sacrifice of Christ'S body and blood offered on the Altar, which is offered, not in Jerusalem, not on Sacrifice of the cross and of the altar, all one in substance, but diverse in manner. calvary, but in every place, where christ is known and received. Which sacrifice although in manner of offering, it differeth from that offered upon the Cross: yet in substance it is all one. Now ye may perceive, that the expositions of the standard bearers of the wicked army of the enemies of gods truth, is but a violent or a wrested exposition, and will not be born of the text. THE FOUR AND thirtieth CHAP. expoundeth the Prophecy of Malachi by Martialis, and Irenaeus. THat the Adversaries shall not say that I am judge in mine own cause, although I am certain that I build upon the rock: Yet to the better contentation of the Reader, and more manifest confutation of these Adversaries, I will report the judgement of the right ancient Elders of Christ'S Parliament house, as touching the enacted truth of this matter by their own words. Sanctus Martialis a great ancient in Christ'S house as being one of Christ'S disciples, and after the death of his and our master almost continually in the Company of the Apostle Peter, is a notable witness of this truth, and worthy to be credited. This holy man maketh mention of this prophecy of Malachi after this manner. S. Martialis Martyr epist. ad Burdegalem. cap. 3. Sacrificium Deo creatori offertur in ara, non homini, neque Angelo. Nec solùm in ara sanctificata, sed ubique offertur Deo oblatio munda, sicut restatus est, cuius corpus & sanguinem in vitam aternam offerimus, dicentes: Spiritus est Deus, & eos qui adorant eum, in spiritu & veritate oportet adorare. Ipse enim corpus habens immaculatum, & sine peccato (quia conceptus est de Spiritu sancto, natus ex Maria virgine) ipsum in ara crucis permisit immolari. Quod autem judaei per invidiam immolaverunt, putantes se nomen eius à terra abolere, nos causa salutis nostrae in ara sanctificata proponimus, scientes hoc solo remedio nobis vitam praestandam, & mortem effugandam. The sacrifice is Christ'S body and blood is offered every where, a pure oblation to everlasting life. offered unto God our creator on the altar, not unto men, nor unto Angel, nor only on hallowed altar, but every where is offered to God a pure oblation, as he hath wittnessed, whose body and blood we offer to everlasting life, saying: God is a spirit, and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and truth. For he having an immaculate body, and without Sin (for he was conceived by the holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary) he suffered that same body to be sacrificed on the altar of the Cross. And that, that the jews did sacrifice by envy, thinking to abolish his name from the earth, we for cause of our health do set forth in the sanctified altar, knowing that by this only remedy life is to be given, and death to be driven away. Thus much this holy Martyr Martialis. What a notable sentence is this? Do ye not see that he maketh mention of the saying of the Prophet Malachi saying: Every where is offered the pure oblation or sacrifice? And perceive ye not that immediately he saith, that we offer the body and blood of christ unto everlasting life? And that this his meaning should not be wrested, nor mistaken, he declareth what body of christ we offer, and what body we offer, in what place and to what effect where. The body of christ which we do offer, is that body, that the jews offered by envy: The place that we offer it on, is the hallowed altar. The effect that the jews sought by the offering of Christ'S body, was to take life from him, and thereby to abolish his name from the earth: The effect that we Christians seek by the sacrificing of his body on the altar is to magnify his name, and by that sacrifice, as by the only remedy, to get us life, and to drive away death. Note well that this holy Martyr and ancient Father teacheth that pure doctrine, that the primitive church of the Apostles did profess, and teach. And judge if the church that now is, which the Adversaries have so vilely reviled, and so maliciously railed on, hath taught any other doctrine, than this holy disciple of christ hath taught. The Church hath taught, and doth now teach, that the body of christ is in the Sacrament of the altar really: This holy man teacheth that the same which the jews crucified, we set forth upon the hollowed altar. The jews crucified the real body of christ, Wherefore we set forth or sacrifice Christ'S real body. The church now teacheth that we offer the real body of christ on the altar: This holy man teacheth, that we offer the body and blood of christ unto everlasting life. And that we should know that this is a sure doctrine ground christ commanded his body and blood to be offered upon a sure foundation he endeth his sentence thus: Hoc enim ipse Dominus jesus jussit nos agere in sui commemorationem. This (saith he) hath our Lord jesus commanded us to do in the commemoration or remembrance of him. Weigh this saying with me, I beseech thee, gentle Reader. Many of the wicked teachers have wonderfully deceived the simple people with this sentence A fond objection of the Adversaries, answered by the holy Martyr Martialis. of christ, which this Father here allegeth, saying that christ instituted this Sacrament for a memorial or a remembrance of him. But a memorial (say they) is of a thing that is absent, and not of a thing, that is present, wherefore christ is not present in the Sacrament. If he were, what needeth any other memorial, but his presence? A more full answer shall be made to this, by the help of God's grace, in the third book, where this matter shall be treacted of more at large. But at this present, this holy man only shall answer. Whose answer, his gravity, Cap. 41. holiness, and ancienty is such, that they that flee not from god's grace, to their own singular affection, and opinion, shall perceive that in it is such pith and substance, that they may well stay themselves upon the same. For when the holy Father had declared the real presence of christ in the Sacrament, and that he is offered in sacrifice, than he added, that our Lord jesus commanded us so to do. Whereby what else doth he mien, but that as our Lord jesus did consecrate, and sacrifice his own body, and gave the same also to his Apostles to eat in his last Supper, as is already declared: So do we now consecrate and offer the same body, and receive it according to his commandment and that in the remembrancece of his death? This I say may serve and suffice for an answer to a man that is not contentious, nor listeth to make every part of his faith a doubt, and call it Let master jewel confer this with his private gloze upon the same text in his sermon fol. 34. into question. This man I say, his ancienty in the Parliament house of christ considered, is of authority more sufficient, and better to be believed, than Lutherus, Oecolampadius, Zuinglius, Caluimus or our own country men Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, or their complices dead or living, whose sayings having no ground of ancient truth, and so of congruence none authority, yet have they been (the more is the pity) to rashly believed, to the casting away of many a soul, and to then crease of the damnation of the speakers. But further to proceed to learn the enacted truth of this matter, I mien the true understanding of the Prophet Malachi: we have an other ancient elder of the same house, Irenaeus the disciple of Polycarpus, which Polycarpus was disciple of S. john the Evangelist, as Eusebius wittnesseth in the ecclesiastical history. And therefore is this ancient Father not to be suspected of his truth, nor distredited. Thus he writeth: Sed et suis Discipulis dans consilium primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis, non quasi indigenti, sed ut ipsi nec infructuosi, nec ingratisint: eum, qui ex creatura panis est, accepit, & gratias egit, dicens, Hoc est corpus meum. Et Li. 5. ca 5. Irenaeus. Li 4. c. 32. calicem similiter, qui est ex ea creatura, quae est secundùm nos, suum sanguinem confessus est, & novi testamenti, novam docuit oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in universo mundo offert Deo, ei, qui alimenta nobis praestat, primitias suorum munerum in novo testamento, de quo in duodecim Prophetis Malachias sic praesignavit: Non est mihi voluntas in vobis dicit Dominus omnipotens, & sacrificium non accipiam de manibus vestris, etc. But also giving instruction to his disciples, to offer the first fruits of the creatures to God, not as to one having need, but that they should neither be unfruitful, nor unthankful, he took that bread which is a creature, and gave thanks, saying: This is my body: And the cup likewise which is a creature as we, he confessed to be his blood. And of the new testament he taught the new oblation, the which the church receiving of the Apostles, christ taught the new sacrifice of the new Testament, the Church received it of the Apostles. offereth to God in all the world, even unto him, who giveth us food, being the first fruits of his sacrifices in the new testament. Of the which among the twelve Prophets Malachi did this speak before hand: I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord omnipotent, and I will take no sacrifice of your hands. And so forth he rehearseth the whole sentence of the Prophet. In the saying of this holy Elder of Christ'S house, ye see a goodly agreement, with the other Elder before recited. For this Elder teacheth that christ of the creatures of bread and wine made his body and blood, and therewith all instituted and taught the new sacrifice of the new testament, the which sacrifice the Church receiving of the Apostles, doth offer throughout all the world, of the which the Prophet Malachi (saith he) spoke before. Make now then comparison between Martialis and Irenaeus. Martialis teacheth the presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament: Irenaeus teacheth the S. Martialis and Irenaeus compared together in their doctrine of the Sacrament. same, saying that christ confessed the bread and cup to be his body and blood. The other said that the body and blood of christ were offered in sacrifice: This man saith that christ confessing his body and blood to be present, taught a new oblation of the new testament. The other said that christ commanded us so to do: This man saith that christ taught the new sacrifice of the new testament to the Apostles and that the Church receiving the same of the Apostes doth offer it to God troughoute all the world. The other alleging Malachi, treateth of the sacrifice of Christ'S body and blood: This man treating of the body and blood of Christ, the new sacrifice of the new testament offered of the Church throughout all the world, allegeth Malachi, saying, that he spoke of the same. Above these goodly notes of agreement between these two great ancient Two notable documents out of Iren. whereby the gloss of the Adversaries are reproved and overthrown. Fathers, this is in Irenaeus specially to be observed, that in saying that christ taught the new oblation of the new Testament, he giveth us two goodly documents for the maintenance of the truth of the catholic faith, and the repression of the false errors of the Adversaries, and malicious reproaches. And first, where he saith, that christ taught a new oblation, it confowndeth all the expositions of the Adversaries so plainly, that any child may see that they are confounded. For where they say that by the pure sacrifice that Malachi speaketh of, is understanded the sacrifice of praise and thanks giving, mercy to the poor, obedience to gods will and such other, this Author saying, that christ taught a new oblation, of the which Malachi did speak, doth clean overthrow them. For these sacrifices of the which the Adversaries make mention, be not new, but such as have been used of godly men from the beginning, as is before touched. But christ taught a new oblation that was answerable to the new testament, of the which it was by christ ordained and appointed to be the oblation. Now the new Testament was so new, that it was never before in manifest form or manner. Wherefore the new oblation or sacrifice was so like wise, and in like sort new, that it was newer before in very deed, but in figure, as many other things were. The second document is, where he saith that christ taught a new oblation of the new testament. Wherein he doth deliver us from the maliouse slanders of the Adversaries, which say that it is an Idol, a mere invention of the papists, to make merchandise to empty poour men's purseiss, and such like railing slanders. But now, reader, judge though whether it be so or no, now that thou have heard the sainges of these ancient holy Fathers, who say that this new sacrifice of the new testament was of the doctrine of christ, was commanded by him to be done, was received by the Church at the hands of the Apostles, and by and in the same Church is offered throughout the whole world. THE FIVE AND thirtieth CHAP. proceedeth in the exposition of the same Prophet by saint Augustin and Eusebius. YE have heard one couple of the ancient Fathers of Christ'S Parliament house, reporting what the true understanding of the Prophecy of Malachi is: It shall not be, I trust, without profit to hear the report of an other couple, to the intent the reader may see some plenty of good matter to be satisfied withal, forsomuch as the Adversaries have powered out about this prophecy, so much false and naughty matter to deceive him withal. And therefore me will proceed to set out the truth, and hear saint Augustine what he saith therein. Dominus omnipotens dicit: Non est mihi voluntas in vobis, & sacrificium non suscipiam de manibus vestris. Certè hoc negare non Augustin li. adversus judaeos. potestis, o judaei, non solùm non sacrificium non accipere de manibus vestris, locus enim unus est loco Domini constitutus, ubi manibus vestris sacrificia jussit offerri, praeter quem locum omnino prohibnit. Hunc ergo locum quoniam pro meritis vestris amisistis, etiam sacrificium, quod ibi tantùm licebat offerri, in locis offerre alijs non audetis. Et impletum est omnino, quod ait Propheta: Et sacrificium non accipiam de manibus vestris. Nam si in terrena Hierusalem maneret vobis templum & altar, possetis dicere in eyes hoc esse completum, quorum iniquorum inter vos constitutorum sacrificia Dominus non acceptat. Aliorum verò ex vobis, atque in vobis acceptare sacrificia, qui Dei praecepta custodiunt, hoc non est cur possit dici, ubi nullus omnino vestrum est, qui secundùm legem, quae de monte Sinai processit, manibus suis sacrificium posset offer. Neque hoc itae praedictum, & impletum est, ut vos prophetica sententia respondere permittat, quiae manibus non offerimus carnem, cord & ore offerimus laudem, secundùm illud in psalmo: Immola Deo sacrificium laudis, etiam hinc contradicit vobis, qui dicit: Non est mihi voluntas in vobis, etc. Deinde ne existimetis, non offerentibus vobis, nec illo accipiente de manibus vestris, Deo sacrificium non offerri, quo quidem ille non eget, qui bonorum nostrorum nullius indiget, tamen quia sine sacrificio non est, quod non illi sed nobis utile est, adiungit, & dicit: Quia ab oriente sole usque in occidentem nomen meum clarum factum est in omnibus gentibus, & in omni loco sacrificium offertur nomini meo, sacrificium mundum, quoniam magnum nomen meum in gentibus, dicit Dominus omnipotens. Quid ad haec respondetis? Aperite oculos tandem aliquando, & videte ab oriente sole, usque in occidentem non in uno, sicut in vobis erat constitutum, sed in omni loco offerri sacrificium Christianorum, non cuilibet Deo, sed ei, qui ista praedixit, Deo Israel. unde & alibi dicit Ecclesiae suae: Et qui eruit te, ipse Deus israel universae terrae vocabitur. Scrutamini scripturas in quibus putatis vos vitam habere aeternam, & profectò haberetis, si Christum in eyes intelligeretis & teneretis. Sed perscrutamini eas, & ipsae testimonium perhibent de hoc sacrificio mundo, quod offertur Deo Israel: non ab una gente vestra, de cuius manibus non se suscepturum praedixit, sed ab omnibus gentibus, quae dicunt: Venite, ascendamus in montem Domini, nec in uno loco, sicut praeceptum erat in terrena Jerusalem, said in omni loco usque in ipsam Jerusalem, nec secundùm ordinem Aaron, sed secundùm ordinem Melchisedech. I have no pleasure in you saith the Almighty Lord, And sacrifice I will none accept at you hands, Certainly this ye can not deny, o you jews, that not only he doth not take sacrifice of your hands (for there is one place, in the place of God appointed, where he hath commanded sacrifice to be offered with your hands, beside the which, he hath forbodden every place. This place therefore for so much as for your deserts ye have lost, that which was lawful there only to be offered, in other places ye dare not offer. Behold it is fulfilled that the Prophet said: And sacrifice I will not accept at your hands. If in the earthly Jerusalem, there were remaining a temple and an Altar for you, ye might say it were fulfilled in wicked men. of the which wicked men being among you God doth not accept sacrifice. But of other which be of you, and among you, which keep the commandments of God, he accepteth the sacrifice. But this can not be said, forasmuch as there is not one of you all which according to the law, that proceeded from mount Sinai, may offer sacrifice with his hands. Neither is this so forespoken and fullsilled that the sentence of the Prophet will suffer you to answer, that though with our hands we offer not flesh, yet with our heart and mouth we offer laud and praise, according to that in the psalm. Offer unto God the sacrifice of laud, From this place also he speaketh against you, who saith: I have no pleasure in you. Yet further, that ye should not think, that forsomuch as ye offer not, nor that he taketh no sacrifice at your hands, that there is no sacrifice offered to God the which in deed he needeth not, who needeth not the goods of any of us, yet because he is not without sacrifice, the which is profitable to us, and not to him, he addeth and saith: from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same my name is made honourable among the gentiles. And in every place is offered sacrifice unto my name, which is a pure or clean sacrifice. For my name is great among the gentiles saith the lord almighty. What do ye answer to these? Open your eyes once at the last, and see from the rising of the Sun to the going down of the same, not in one place, as to you it was appointed, but in every place the sacrifice of the christians is offered, not to every God, but to him that spoke these things before hand, even the God of Israel? Wherefore in an other place he saith to his Church: And he that hath delivered thee, that same God of Israel shall be called the God of the whole earth. Search ye the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life. And truly ye should have it, if in them ye would understand christ, and hold him. But search them through, and they do bear witness of this pure Sacrifice, which is offered to the God of Israel, not of your own nation, of whose hands he hath said before that he will take no sacrifice, but of all nations which do say: Come and let us go up to the hill of our Lord neither in one place, as it was commanded in the earthly Jerusalem: But in every place, even in Jerusalem it self. Neither after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchisedech, Thus moche S. Augustine. Whose saying although it be long: yet I thought it good wholly to ascribe it, both because it is a goodly, lively, and pleasant exposition of the place of the Prophet Malachi, and also that the dependence of the sentence might be seen, whereby great light is given to the understanding of the matter that it us alleged for. Of the which long exposition to make a brief collection of things appertaining to the declaration of the matter which we have in hand, this is to be observed, that saint Augustine very strongly, and pithily proving the rejection of the sacrifices of the jews, saith yet that there must be a sacrifice to be offered to God not for his necessity, who needeth not our goods: but for our own utility and profit. And proving it by the Prophet Malachi that in every place, there shall be sacrifice offered to the name of God, he saith, that that Sacrifice is the Sacrifice of The sacrifice of the Christians is a peculiar and special Sacrifice. the christians, which Sacrifice of the christians he willeth the jews to open their eyes, and see it done, from the rising of the Sun to the going down of the same. Which manner of sacrifice when he calleth it the sacrifice of the christians, he doth plainly show that he meaneth a special manner of sacrifice, peculiar and proper to the christians, where with the jews be not acquainted. For if he had here meant the sacrifice of laud and thanks giving, or such like, the jews might have said that those be their sacrifices, but when he said the sacrifice of the christians, he meant undoubtedly their peculiar sacrifice, as when it is said: the Sacrifice of the jews did cease at the coming of christ, what else is meant but these sacrifices, which were peculiar to the jews, than ceased. But as for the spiritual sacrifices, as the sacrifice of a contrite heart, of a believing heart ceaseth not. But as they were used of the faithful jews believing Messiah to come, so may they be used of the faithful jews believing that he is comed, where as the other may not, which be properly called the sacrifices of the jews. But this scruple saint Augustine doth yet more plainly dissolve, and so plainly that the Adversaries can not say against it, neither the true catholic, any further doubt in it. For S. Augustine saith to the jewe. Search the scriptures through, which do bear witness of this pure sacrifice, which (saith he) is offered not in one place of Jerusalem, but in every place not of one nation of the jews, but of all nations. And at last touching the very pith: not (saith he) after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchisedech. Note then the sacrifice which he first called the sacrifice of the christians, and after the pure sacrifice, now he calleth it the sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech. Now then, Reader, thou mayst perceive what sacrifice it is, that God spoke of by his Prophet Malachi, that should be the pure sacrifice, which should succead the sacrifice of the jews, and be the sacrifice of the christians. It is (saith S. Augustin) the Sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech. What the sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech is, that our high priest after the order of Melchisedech did institute, it is before in the prophecy of Christ'S priest head declared and testified by grave and weighty authority, that it is the sacrifice of Christ'S very body and blood, the very true heavenly bread and wine. How then standeth the expositions of the Adversaries? How moche doth their malicious falsehood appear, who by their voluntary gloss laboured to take away from the mind of the Prophet, that, that was principally by him intended and spoken of, and only to place that was presupposed, and as it were annexed. For those spiritual sacrifices before touched, with other like be presupposed as necessarily required to concur with extern sacrifice, if it be duly and acceptably offered. As notable a saying as this hath saint Augusten in an other place also. Who so listeth to read, shall there find that, that shall not repent him of Li. 1. cont. Aduersarium leg. & Proph. the reading. Now must we have an other witness of the other side of the Parliament house agreeable to saint Augustine. This shall be Eusebius a great learned man, and an ancient of the house of God, who saith thus: Mosaicis reiectis sacrificijs, quod futurum erat, nostrum ipsorum institutum divinitùs nunciat dicens: Quoniam ab ortu solis usque ad occasum, nomen meum glorificatum est in gentibus, Li. 1. evangel Demonst. cato. & in omni loco incensum offertur nomini meo, & hostia munda. Sacrificamus igitur Deo altissimo sacrificium laudis, Sacrificamus Deo plenum, & horrorem adferens, & sacrosanctum sacrificium. Sacrificamus novo modo, secundùm nowm testamentum hostiam mundam etc. The Mosaical sacrifices being rejected, he doth by the revelation of God show our ordinance that was to come, saying: From the rising of the Sun, to the going down of the same, my name is glorified among the gentiles, and in every place incense is offered unto my name, and a pure Sacrifice of the Christians a full Sacrifice. and most holy. sacrifice. We do sacrifice therefore unto the high God, the sacrifice of laud. We do sacrifice to God a full and most holy sacrifice bringing horror. We do sacrifice a pure sacrifice in a new manner, after the new testament. Thus Eusebius. Do ye not see this ancient Father how he expoundeth the Prophet, and declareth that we sacrifice to God a pure sacrifice in a new manner after the new testament? And declaring what sacrifice it is, he saith, it is a full and most holy sacrifice bringing horror. What sacrifice is that, that is a full sacrifice, but the sacrifice of Christ'S body? that is a full sacrifice in it self. All other sacrifices, that ever were or shall be, are not full, but all they must take their fullness of this. And what sacrifice is most holy but this, which maketh all other holy? In so much as holy Dionyse the disciple of S. Paul, who was a man full of the spirit of God saith Neque enim fermè fasest sacerdotalis muneris mysterium aliquod peragi, nisi divinum istud Eucharistiae augustissimumue sacramentum complete. Dionys. Ecclesias. Hierar. part. 1 ca 3. Neither is it almost lawful for any mystery of the priestly office to be done, except this divine and most noble Sacrament of christ do fulfil or end it. And what sacrifice is it that bringeth horror with it, but the Sacrifice that containeth the high Majesty of christ, which is to be feared of all Li. 6. de Sacerdocio. men? of the which speaketh chrysostom, saying: Quando autem ille & Spiritum sanctum invocaverit, sacrificiumue illud horrore, & reverentia plenissimum perfecerit, communi omnium Domino a●siduè manibus pertractato, Quaero ex te, quorum illum in ordine collocabimus? When he hath called upon the holy Ghost (saith Cbrisostom, speaking of the priest that consecrateth) and hath perfected that Sacrifice most full of horror and reverence, the common or universal Lord of all things being felt Sacrifice full of horror because the Lord of all is there handled. with hands: I ask of thee, in the order of whom shall we place him? Thus Chrysostom. Ye see here that he calleth the sacrifice of the Altar, the sacrifice most full of horror and Reverence, and why he doth so, he giveth cause, for that the universal Lord being in the Sacrifice, is so present, that he is handled with hands. Who is this Lord in this sacrifice, in an other place he doth expressedly declare: Ad sanctum & terribile sacrificium properas, erubesce oblationis arcana. De prodition. judae. homil. 30. occisus propositus Christus est. Thowe comest (saith Chrisostom) unto an holy and terrible sacrifice: Basshe at the secret thing of the oblation. christ that was slain is set forth. Mark (reader) that in both sainges he calleth it a sacrifice: but in the first saying, a sacrifice full of horror and reverence, in the second, an holy and a terrible sacrifice. The cause why it is full of horror and reverence is by cause the universal Lord of all is there in handling: Who is this Lord in the second sentence he openeth, saying: christ that was slain is set forth in sacrifice. And therefore no marvel though Eusebius did call it a sacrifice bringing horror, where the majesty of christ is (as Chrisostom hath wittnessed) In that he said, we sacrifice, after the new manner of the new Testament what doth he say, but as Irenaeus said: that christ taught it, that we do sacrifice, to be the new sacrifice of the new Testament. And the sacrifice of the new testament is, that the high priest of the new testament, being a priest after the order of Melchisedech doth set forth, after that same order. Which sacrifice is (as S. Hierom saith) his body and blood, the very true bread, and true wine. Thus have ye heard the witness of S. Augustine and Eusebius consonnant and agreeing both the one to the other, and also to those that were before them alleged and brought for the declaration of the true meening of the prophecy of Malachi. THE sixth AND thirtieth CHAP. ENDETH the exposition of Malachi by saint Hierom and Damascen. TO end this process in the exposition of the prophecy of Malachi now in hand, least I might be tedious to the Reader, I will only add the testimony of S. Hierom and Damascen and of no more at this present, trusting that these with tother before alleged shall satisfy thee, gentle Reader, and fully instruct thee in the truth of this matter. S. Hierom upon the Prophet Malachi saith thus: Propriè nunc ad sacerdotes Hieron. in Malach. judeorum sermo sit Domini, qui offerunt caecum & claudum, & languidum ad immolandum, ut sciant carnalibus victimis spirituales victimas successuras: Et nequaquam taurorum hircorumue sanguinem thine. iama, hoc est, sanctorum orationes Domino offerendas, & none in una orbis Provincia judaea, nec in una Iudeae urbe Jerusalem, said in omni loco offerri oblationem nequaqnam immandam, ut à populo Israel, sed mundam ut in ceremonus Christianorum. Now the word of our Lord is properly spoken to the priests of the jews, which bring the blind, the lame, and the sick to be offered in sacrifice, that they should know that spiritual sacrifices shall follow their carnal sacrifices, and that not the blood of bulls and of goattes, but incense or sweet perfume, that is, the prayers of the holy men shall be offered, and that not in jewrie being one Province of the world, neither in Jerusalem alone, the City of jewrie, but in every place shall be offered, not an unclean sacrifice, as of the people of Israel, but a clean oblation as in the Ceremonies of the christians. Thus moche of saint Hierom in the exposition of the Prophecy of Malachi now in hand. In the which prophecy ye may perceive two things that shall be offered unto God in every place, that is incense, and the meat offering. Incense (saith S. Hierom) is the prayers of the holy, which shall not be offered to God in Jerusalem alone, but in every place shall the faithful offer that sacrifice as the sacrifice of thanks, lawdes, and praise. So that kind of sacrifice by S. Hierom is contained under this woordo incense. The other that is meat offering, which is the pure and clean sacrifice, shall be done (as S. Hierom saith) in the Ceremonies of the christians. Which Ceremonies Sacrifice of the christians Christ'S body and blood. contain the rites and sacrifices of the christians. Among these Ceremonies what is there that can be properly called the pure or clean sacrifice, but the pure sacrifice of Christ'S body and blood, which (as before is said) is a pure sacrifice in it self, and of it self, and is able to purify all other. That the body and blood of christ be a sacrifice among the Christians, S. Hierom in this same chapter declareth. who speaking to bishops, priests, and Deacons, and other that necligentlie come to the Altar of God, saith: Offertis (inquit) super altare meum panem pollutum. Polluimus panem, id est, corpus Christi, quando indigni accedimus ad altar, & sordidi mundum sanguinem bibimus. Ye offer (saith almighty God) defiled bread upon mine Altar. We defile the bread, that is, the body of christ (saith S. Hierom) when we being unwourthie come to the Altar, and being filthy drink the clean blood of christ. In this exposition of S. Hierom is given us to understand not S. Hierom expoundeth the scriptures contrary to the Sacrumentries. only that the body and blood of christ be the sacrifice of us that be Christians, which we offer upon the Altar: but also we are taught an other manner of exposition than the Adversaries teach: yea even a clean contrary. For they, where in the scriptures or doctors they read these words, the body of christ, they expownde it to be bread a figure of the body of christ: contrary S. Hierom declaring how we offer defiled bread, and how we defile it, expoundeth the bread to be the body of christ. Neither can the Adversary shift himself from this saying of S. Hierom, with the invented gloze of his own head, that we defile and do injury to the body of christ, when we take the Sacrament of his body unworthily. For he doth not only say that by the bread is understanded the body of christ: but he also by most plain words saith, that we drink his blood. He doth not say that we defile the blood of christ, when we drink the Sacramental wine: but he saith we defile the blood of christ, when we being defiled do drink the same. So that by saint Hieron, we do not take one thing, and do injury to an other, but receiving a pure thing when we be defiled, we do injury to the same. Wherefore receiving the bread that is the body of christ, we do injury to the same, receiving it unwourthilie, and drinking the pure blood of christ, we do injury to the same, if we receive it, being unpure our unclean ourselves, If there were not the body and blood of christ in the Sacrament, would S. Hierom, who in this place taketh upon him to be an expositor, which is to make things clear and plain, that be dark and lie hidden, would he (trow ye) so handle the matter, that the things he speaketh of should imply more difficulty, more darkness, and harder manner of understanding, than they had before? If there were not the presence of christ in the Sacrament S. Hierom would have said, we defile the bread, when we take that bread which is the Sacrament of Christ'S body unwourthilie: And we defile his blood when we take the Sacrament of it unpurely. And this were the plain manner of an expositor to speak lively, and plainly to utter the matter, with out any tropes or figures: but saying (as before is said) and speaking it as an expositor, we must understand, that he teacheth that the bread on the Altar is the body of christ, and that there is also his very blood, which two be the sacrifice of the christians also after the mind of S. Hierom. Damascen also breflie cometh to the point, and affirmeth all that is said by S. Hierom. For he speaking of the very real presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, and teaching that it is the sacrifice that Malachi spoke of, saith thus: Haec est pura illa hostia, & incruenta, quam ab ortu solis usque Damasc. li. 4. ca 14. ad occasum ipsi offerri per prophetam Dominus loquitur, corpus videlicet & sanguis Christi, in stabilimentum animae nostrae & corporis, inconsumptum, & incorruptum, non in secessum abiens (absit enim huiusmodi imaginatio) sed in nostram sustentationem & conseruationem omnimodo nocumenti reparatio, sordis omnis purgatio. This is that pure sacrifice and unbloody, that our Lord speaketh by the Prophet, to be offered to him from the rising of the sun, to the going down of the same, that is to say, the body and blood of christ, unto the inconsumed, and incorrupted establishment of our body and Soul, not going into secesse (God forbid that any such imagination should be) but it is a purgation of all manner of filth, and a reparation of all manner of hurt, unto our sustentation and conservation. Thus Damascen this saying need no exposition it is so plain that every child may perceive, that the pure sacrifice, that the Prophet speaketh of, is the body and blood of christ, which may not be wrested to be said, that the sacramental Sacramentaries gloss overthrown by Damascen. bread (as the Adversaries term it) is figuratively the body of christ. For this Author excludeth all such interpretations, when he saith, that the body and blood, he speaketh of, goeth not into secesse, which can not be verified of their bread, which they say and confess that it goeth into secesse. whereby ye may perceive that this author, who is an ancient of Christ'S Parliament house not to be contemned, reported to us that enacted truth that Christ'S body and blood be really in the Sacrament, and that that body and blood is also the sacrifice, that was prphecied of the Prophet Malachi, to be the Sacrifice that should succeed the sacrifice of the jews, and to be offered unto the God of the christians, whereby his blessed name should be glorified among them. And thus this Author agreeing which the rest alleged for the declaration of this matter, which other be of the most ancient and famous men of Christ'S Church, men of holy life, of great learning, and without corruption of judgement: methinks men should raither appoint them selves to follow their judgements, than the light and rash sainges of such, as neither integrity of life, neither incorruption of judgement, nor ancienty of time doth commend: but raither the contraries of these do them discommend. Now as ye have heard this prophecy: So have ye heard other Prophecies and figures, that did prophecy and figurate this blessed Sacrament of Christ'S body and blood, duly, justly, and truly applied to the thing. In the doing whereof I claim not credit to be given to me, as to myself, for so moche as I am in the wicked time, in the time of corruption, in the time of Controversy: But I claim credit to be given to me for the truths sake which I follow. Which truth hath been in ancient time, before this time of corruption and controversy taught, believed, and followed. I claim also creditte to be given to the holy ancient Fathers, whom I have alleged, who being in that pure time, when faith was purely taught, do communicate to us such doctrine as the Church of God then had, whose doctrine how much it is different from the doctrine of this wicked teacher, that hath thus exclaimed, and how repugnant his doctrine is to the teaching of these Fathers, it is as easy to discern as darkness from light, or white from black. Wherefore, gentle Reader, now being by me advertised after such sort as it hath pleased my lord God to impart his grace unto me, if if havest not erred rejoice in God, and be confirmed: If thou havest erred repent before God, and be reduced. And thus moche of the scriptures of the old Testament. THE SEVEN AND thirtieth CHAP. MAKETH a brief Recapitulation of things before written, with th'application of them to the Proclamation of the adversary, and so concludeth this first book. ALthough I am not ignorant (gentle Reader) that in the Psalms be diverse other prophecies, which according to the mind of saint Hierom do speak of this blessed Sacrament and sacrifice of Christ'S body and blood, that should be offered in the Church of christ, and of the which the poour in spirit should eat and be satisfied, as in the xxi. xxij. lxxj. cx. psalms: Yet for that the figures of this Sacrament be already answered by prophecies to them answerable: And these that be left may by just occasion be spoken of hereafter, I shall for the Readers ease, disadvantage myself of the allegation of them to the setting forth of the matter here taken in hand by me to be defended, and so conclude this book with a brief recapitulation of some thinghes before said to the intent they may be applied to answer some one or more membres of the adversaries proclamation not yet spoken of. I did of purpose omit to apply that is said, as answer to that part of his wicked proclamation which it doth fully confute, by cause I would not to moche trouble my process, but thought it best to reserve it to this place, as in other matters I have also done the like in this book. Wherefore that it may well be perceived, that this that is said doth clean overthrow this man's doctrine, understand first what is his doctrine, Thus in his proclamation he crieth. If any one of all our Adversaries be able plainly and clearly to prove by such authority of the scriptures, the old Doctors, and councils (as is before said) that the priest had then authority to offer up christ unto his Father, etc. In which his proclamation he denieth the Sacrifice of the church, which is the body and blood of our saviour christ which (he saith) the Church hath none authority to offer to God in sacrifice. Against this his false doctrine, call to mind what is in this book said specially in the setting forth of the prophecies of the priesthood of christ The devil hath bewitched the Proclaimer after the order of Melchisedech: of the prophecies of Daniel, and Malachi, where (but that the devil hath bewitched this man, and to his perdition hath cast a mist before his eyes, that he should not see the truth) he could not else but see, that the body and blood of christ were of himself offered in his last supper, and there and then instituted and ordained to be offered and continued in his Church as the memorial of his passion and death. S. Cyprian (as it is alleged) saith, that our Lord jesus offered the same Cyprian. that Melchisedech offered, that is bread and wine, that is to say (saith he) his body and blood. Isychius saith, that we have the sacrifice of christ the intelligible Melchisedech, Isychius which sacrifice was perfectly done in bread and wine, when christ said: This is my blood, that shallbe shed for you. S. Hierom saith, that as Melchisedech offered bread and wine: so shall christ Hieron. offered his body and blood the true bread, and true wine. S. Augustin saith, christ did institute the sacrifice of his body and blood according to the order of Melchisedech to succeed the sacrifice after Augustin. the order of Aaron. Where note that he saith, christ did institute the sacrifice of his body and blood after the order of Melchisedech If he did institute the sacrifice, then is their authority by the same institution given to the Church to offer the same. Which well appeareth by the saying of Origen which followeth in this process. We (saith Origen) being obedient to the Creator of things, when we Origen. have given thanks, we receive the breads that were offered. which be turned into a certain holier body, which body truly maketh them holier, that with a sound and pure mind use it. Note then that our obedience standeth not only to eat the bread, but to eat the bread that is offered, and therforre we must both offer and eat, The church must both offer and eat. if we will be obedient. If it be our obedience to offer, than there is commandment given to offer. If commandment be given, than Authority also. Theophilact saith, that the oblation containing christ our Lord, Bishop, and Sacrifice, is continually offered by the ministers of God. that christ is offered Theophila. (as Theophilact saith) by the ministers of God, it is evident that it is done with authority. For without authority can none offer him. Martialis one of the disciples of christ, saith, that we for our health offer that upon the holy Altar, that the jews did offer upon the Cross for envy. And if ye S. Martia. We offer ou the altar, that the jews offered on the cross. Irenaeus. require by what authority we do it, he saith that our Lord commanded us so to do, in the remembrance of him. And if ye will understand how the authority cometh orderly to us, to offer the body of christ to God the Father. Irenaeus will teach you. For he saith, that christ giving instructions to his Apostles to offer sacrifice to God, took the creature of bread and gave thanks, and said: this is my body. And the cup also he took, and confessed it to be his blood, and so of the new Testament taught the new oblation, which the Church taking of the Apostles, offereth it in all the world to God according to the prophecy of Malachi. Can not now this Proclaimer, or raither Blasphemer, see or perceive what authority the priest hath to offer christ to God the Father? It is derived from christ to the Apostles, from the Apostles to the Church, and so used through out all the world. S. Augustine saith, that the pure and clean sacrifice that Malachi speaketh of, that shall be offered in every place, is the sacrifice after Augustin the order of Melchisedech. What the sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech is, by the mind of S. Augustin it is above declared, where he saith that christ did institute the sacrifice of his body and blood after the order of Melchisedech. Eusebius saith, that the Mosaical sacrifices being rejected, Eusebius Caesarien. the Prophet Malachi by the revelation of God, showeth what is our ordinance that was to come. And therefore we sacrifice now to the most high God the sacrifice of laud, We sacrifice to God a full and a most holy sacrifice bringing horror. We sacrifice a pure sacrifice, in a new manner after the new Testament. What this most holy sacrifice is bringing horror with it, it is declred by Chrysostom saying: Thowe comest to the holy and terrible sacrifice, Bashe at the Chrysost. secret thing of the sacrifice, For christ that was slain is there setforth. The cause then why this sacrifice is called the most holy sacrifice, Why it is called terrible, Why it is said to be full of horror, is, because christ that was slain, is in the sacrifice set forth before us. christ then being settfurth in our sacrifice. It is to be said after the mind of these holy Fathers, that christ is offered in our Sacrifice. Last of all to make the conclusion, Damascen saith that the body and blood Damascen. of christ is that pure and unbloody sacrifice that our Lord speaketh of by the Prophet to be offered from the east to the west. If our Lord spoke it, meet it is that it be doen. And the doers have good authority to do it, seeing their Lord hath so ordained and commanded. Now Reader dost thou not see the great brag of this young Goliath overthrown. See you not plain scriptures, and doctors, and those the gravest and eldest, with their plain and weighty sentences press and crush this his puffed bladder, and thrust out in his seight the vanity therein contained? Perceive you not by these holy Fathers that the priest hath authority to offer up the body of christ to God the Father? which thing this Proclaimer in his stout manner flattering himself, seemed percase to many of his auditory by his Proclamation to have overthrown: But what so ever he or any other with him phantasied, both he and they may perceive that this blast was not against a reed waving and bowing with the wind: but it was against the sure and substantial pillar, and ground faith of Christ'S Church, and against that sure builded house the catholic Church builded upon the Rock, and therefore shaketh it not, neither with the waves of the trooblesome sea: nor yet with such blasts as this man bloweth. Thus ye perceive, here is good matter showed for that, that the catholic The Proclaimer hath none authority to disprove the Sacrifice but his bare Proclamation. Church teacheth: What bringeth he for that which he so stoutly blowstereth? It is with good authority now proved, that christ is offered in the holy sacrifice: What proof hath he that christ is not so offered now but his bare Proclamation? A marvelous matter. He requireth scriptures, Doctors, and councils, for that, that the catholic Church teacheth, and for that he teacheth and would have received, he bringeth not one title And therein he doth but as he may do. For certain I am that he can bring none And here will I again join with him, that if he can bring any one sufficient authority, that shall directly say that the Church may not Issue joined with the Proclaimer for the Sacrifice. offer the body of christ in such sort as it doth, I will give him the victory. He requireth plain proof that the priest offereth christ: his request is satisfied: the plain proof by express words is made: Let him do the like for his doctrine if he can. But let him not trust to prove it by the wresting of saint Paul to the hebrews, following calvin, and other of his Fathers: For that will not serve his turn. As for Doctors, there is not one that will favour him and his Cranmer in his siste book hath not one doctor nor Council to make any show for him. doctrine in this point. For if there had been any, his predecessor Cranmer, or he that was the author of that book, would in the fift book, where he treateth of the sacrifice, have alleged some one. But I say, he had not one Doctor or Father, nor Council by whom he impugneth the doctrine of the catholic Church that christ is offered in his Church. He would fain Father his doctrine upon saint Paul's epistle to the hebrews, but that scripture accepteth it not as a lawful child, but as a Bastard begotten by some wicked parents, and therefore refuseth it. He is much encumbered labouring to deliver himself from chrysostom and other, but all in vain. Wherefore as this man, who sparing not stirreth and moveth (as the prover be saith) every stone to get some help or find some shift for the maintenance of his doctrine, could not get one wholly to go with him, although he seemeth to allow Lombardus, and Nycen Council: yet he durst not so allege them as that he would stand throughlie with them: So I believe verily, that this Proclaimer can no more do but (leving the holy Fathers) sing a little voluntary false deskant upon a scripture or two, as Cranmer did. By this then thus much may be said, that to say that christ is not offered in and of the Church, and the ministers thereof, is no catholic doctrine, for that it is not taught of any catholic Father. But that the contrary is a catholic doctrine, it doth well appear by a number of catholic Fathers before alleged, and shall more appear to you by those that shall be yet alleged. For God be praised this truth is not so slender that it lacketh good witnesses, nor yet so barren that nothing can be said of it, but what I can invent. But it is so full that to say all it would fill an whole volume. Wherefore in this place I shall of many produce but four or five to be added in this recapitulation, and so end this book. justinus Martyr of the Sacrifice of the christians saith thus. Deus ipse Dialog. a duersus iudaeo. ait: In omni loco in gentibus hostias acceptas gratasue immolari. Neque verò à quoquam hostias Deus accipit, nisi à suis sacerdotibus. Itaque omnia sacrificia, quae suo nomine facienda jesus Christus tradidit, it est, in Eucharistia panis & poculi, quae in omni loco à Christianis fiunt, praeoccupatione usus Deus sibi grata esse testatur. God himself saith, that of the gentils acceptable and pleasant Sacrifices in every place shall be offered. christ instituted the Sacrifice of the Church. Neither truly doth God accept Sacrifices, but of his own priests. Wherefore all the sacrifices which jesus christ hath delivered to be done in his name, that is to say, in the Sacrament of bread and the cup, which sacrifices are done of the Christians in every place, God using preoccupation wittnesseth them to be acceptable unto him. Thus justinus, of whom we may learn, that the Sacrifices of the Sacrament are delivered to us by jesus christ. So that the authority of this manner of sacrificing cometh from him, and is not of ourselves S. Hierom over and above that, that is already alleged of him, saith thus: Quòd autem ait, Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundùm ordinem Melchisedech: mysterium in Li. quest. Hebraic. verbo ordinis significatur, nequaquam per Aaron irrationabilibus victimis immolandis, sed oblato pane & vino, id est, corpore & sanguine Domini jesu. Whereas he saith, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech: our mystery in the word of order is signified, not by Aaron in offering brutish sacrifices: But in offering bread and wine, that is to say, the body and blood of our Lord jesus. Thus saint Hierom. Of justinus we learned, that the sacrifices of the christians were delivered unto us by jesus christ. Of S. Hierom we learn, that these sacrifices be the body and blood of our Lord jesus. So by these two, in most manifest and plain words we be taught, that jesus christ delivered unto us the authority to offer in sacrifice his body and blood. S. Ambrose also teacheth us the same lesson saying thus: Ego enim, Domine, memor In prima oratione prepar. ad Missam. venerandae passionis tuae accedo ad altare tuum, licet peccator, ut offeram tibi sacrificium, quod tu instituisti, & offerri praecepisti in commemorationem tui pro salute nostra. For I, o Lord, being mindful of thy passion, come unto thine Altar, although I be a sinner, that I may offer unto thee, the sacrifice that thou diddest institute, and command christ instituted and commanded the Sacrifice of the Church. to be offered in the remembrance of thee for our health. Thus holy Ambrose, who maketh the matter out of all controversy, that a priest hath authority to offer christ in sacrifice. And to declare what sacrifice, he saith the same sacrifice, that christ did institute. And to let you understand by what authority he would offer it, he saith by that, that christ commanded it to be offered in the remembrance of him. As this may well instruct the reader, what is the plain and very truth of this matter: So it may very well compel the Proclaimer, to confess that this is a plain sentence impugning his false doctrine, and acknowledging other his ignorance or malice, submit himself to the truth. But yet let us descend a degree lower towards our time, and see what was then taught. Isidorus, who lived above nine hundredth years agone in Isydorus li. 1. de off. ca 18. this matter giveth this testimony: Sacrificium quod à Christianis offertur Deo primum Christus Dominus noster & magister instituit, quando commendavit Apostolis corpus & sanguinem suum priusquam traderetur, sicut legitur in evangelio: Accepit jesus panem & calicem & benedicens dedit eyes. The sacrifice that is offered of the christians unto God, first our Lord and master jesus christ did institute, When he gave his body and blood to his Apostles before he was betrayed, as it is read in the Gospel: jesus took bread and the cup, and blessing them gave the same unto them. In these few words of this Author we may learn that christ did institute the sacrifice of the christians. We may learn that the thing that is offered in sacrifice is the body and blood of christ. We may learn to whom it is offered, that is unto God. We may also learn what time it was instituted: even at that time, when christ took the bread and the cup, and when he had blessed them gave them to his Apostles. Which was in his last Supper. All these joined together do well bear the contrary proposition to this man's proclamation, that is, that christ gave authority to offer his body and blood unto God. A consonant testimony have we also of Haymo, who as he is of good ancienty: So is he accounted a learned Author. This man expounding Haymo in 5. ad Heb. the epistle of saint Paul to the hebrews, and declaring christ to be a priest after the order of Melchisedech, saith thus: In cuius ordine sacerdotij Christus factus est sacerdos, non temporalis, sed aeternus, nec offerens victimas legales, sed instar illius panem & vinum, carnem videlicet & sanguinem suum, de quibus ipse dixir: Caro mea verè est cibus, & sanguis meus verè est potus. Ista quoque duo munera, panem videlicet & vinum commisit Ecclesiae suae in memoriam sui offerenda. unde patet sacrificium pecudum, perijsse quod fuit ordinis Aaron, & illud manner potius, quod fuit ordinis Melchisedech, quia & Christus illud corroboravit, & Ecclesiae suae tenendum reliquit. In the order of the priesthood of Melchisedech. christ being made not a temporal but an everlasting priest neither offering legal sacrifices, but like unto him (meaning Melchisedech) bread and wine, that is to say, his body and his blood, of the which he saith: My flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drink. These two gifts, that is to say, bread and wine he hath committed to this Church to be offered in the remembrance of him. Thus Haimo. Whereby it it manifest that the Sacr●… of beasts is vanished away, which was of the order of Aaron, and tha●●…at raither remaineth, which is of the order of Melchisedech, because christ also hath confirmed it, and left it to his Church to be kept and used. From whence the authority comet that the Church offereth the sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech, this Author, like as the other before alleged hath declared that it cometh from christ. And opening what the Church doth offer, he saith that christ did offer bread and wine, that is (saith he) his body and blood, which bread and wine he committetd to the Church to be offered in the remembrance of him. Plain sentences for master Juell. Eycept that the calling of a man, a man: or an ox, an ox, be no plain speeches, these sentences of these Authors in this matter, be plain speeches, and plain sentences. Yet to conclude this matter, we will hear a Graecian speaking as plain as any of these, which is Nicolaus Cabasila, who although he be long: yet for his plainness he is pleasant. And for that he is a Graecian we shall learn of him the faith that is yet received in that Church, Nich. Cabasila c. 27 as before of long time it hath been. This author showing how the blessed Sacrament is consecrated, sacrificed, and ministered there, saith thus: Cùm venerandam illam coenam narravit, & quomodò ante passionem ipsam dedit sanctis suis Discipulis, & quòd accepit calicem, & quòd accepit panem, & acts gratiis sanctificavit, & quòd dixit ea per quae significavit mysterium, & cùm ea ipsa verba dixit, deinde procidit, & orat, & supplicat, divinas illas voces ipsius unigeniti seruatoris nostri etiam in donis propositis applicans, ut suscepto eius sanctissimo & omnipotent Spiritu convertatur quidem panis in ipsum preciosum & sanctum eius corpus: vinum autem in ipsum immaculatum, & sanctum eius sanguinem. Haec cùm oravit & dixit, universum sacrificium peractum & perfectum est, & dona sunt sanctificata, & hostia integra & perfecta effecta est, & magna hostia & victima, quae pro mundo mactata est, supra sacram mensam sita cernitur. Panis enim non ampliùs figura Dominici corporis, neque donum ferens imaginem veri doni, neque ferens aliquam descriptionem ipsius seruatoris passionum tanquàm in tabula: sed ipsum verum donum, ipsum sanctissimum corpus Domini, quod omnia illa verè suscepit probra, contumelias, vibices, quod crucifixum, quod interfectum, quod sub Pontio Pilato pulchrum testimonium confessum est, quod colaphis appetitum, quod contumelijs affectum, sputa passum est, & felgustavit. Similiter & vinum ipse sanguis, qui exilijt occiso corpore, hoc corpus et sanguis qui ex Spititu sancto constitutus est, natus ex Maria virgine, qui sepultus est, qui resurrexit tertio die, qui ascendit in coelos, & sedet ad dexteram Patris. When he hath declared that honourable Supper, and how he gave it before his passion to his holy disciples, and that he took the bread, and took the cup, and giving thanks sanctified them, and said those words by the which he declared the mystery. And when he hath spoken those words, than he falleth down and prayeth, and maketh humble request, applying those sainges of God the only begotten Son our Saviour, to the gifts The bread of the Sacrament is turned into the very body of christ, and wine into his blood, and is no figure of them. set forth, that his Almighty and most holy Spirit being received, the bread may be turned into the self same precious and holy body of him, and the wine into the self same immaculate and holy blood of him. When he hath prayed and said these things, all the whole sacrifice is throughlie done and perfected, and the gifts are sanctified, and an whole and perfect host is made. And the great host and sacrifice which was ssain for the world is seen set upon the holy table. For the bread is no more a figure of our lords body, neither is it the gift bearing the image of the true gift, neither as in a table, but the very gift it self, the very most holy body of our Lord, which verily suffered reproaches, contume lies, beatings, which was slain, which confessed a goodly testimony under Ponce Pilate, which being buffited and with contumelies affected, suffered spitting and tasted gall. Likewise the wine is the self same blood that gushed out of the ssain body. This is the body and blood that was made by the holy Ghost, borne of the virgin Marie, which was buried, which rose again the third day, which ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father. Thus much this Author, who as he hath very plainly and fully testified the sacrificing of Christ'S body in the holy table, So doth he immediately in the next chapter declare the commandment of christ unto the Apostles Id●ca. 28. and the Church to do the same, and saith thus: Ipse dixit, Hoc est corpus meum, hic est sanguis meus. Ipse etiam inssit Apostolis, & per Apostolos universae Ecclesiae hoc facere. Hoc enim (inquit) facite in meam recordationem. Non iussisset autem facere, nisi esset potestatem daturus ut possent hoc facere. He said, this is my body, this is my blood. He also commanded his Apostles, and by his Apostles the universal Church this to do. For do ye this (saith he) in my remembrance. But he had not commanded them to do it, except he would give them power that they might do it. And in the end of this chapter he saith thus: Dominus autem videtur, & contrectatur per veneranda, & sacra mysteria, ut qui naturant nostram & susceperit, & ferat in aeternum. Haec est sacerdotij potestas: hic est sacerdos. Etenim qui seip sum semel obtulit, & sacrificavit, à sacerdotio non cessavit, sed perpetuum hoc sacrificij munus nobis obit: per quod etiam est advocatus pro nobis ad Deum in aeternum. Hour Lord is seen and felt by the honourable and holy mysteries, as he who hath both taken our Nature upon him, and will bear it for ever. This is the power of the priesthood: This is the priest. For be that hath once offered and sacrificed himself christ ceaseth not to execute his perpetual priest hood and Sacrifice. ceaseth not from his priesthood, but he doth execute the perpetual office of sacrifice in us, by the which also he is Advocate for us to God for ever. Now this Author (as other before have done) hath taught us both that Christ'S body is sacrificed, and also that he hath commanded his Apostles, and by the Apostles all the Church, to do even the same. And thereto he hath also given power to his Church to offer christ. For (as this Author saith) except he had given power to do it, he would never have commanded it to be doen. And that the very body and blood be sacrificed, and not only a piece of bread eaten in the remembrance of christ, this Author so plainly teacheth that this Proclaimer can not avoid him: but as his Father Luther did answer saint james epistle in the matter of justification rejecting the same epistle. For first, to avoid the figures, tropes, and signs, which the Adversaries commonly cast upon this matter, this Author saith, that by the Almighty power of the Spirit of God, the bread is turned into the very body of christ, and not into an image of christ: And the wine into his immaculate blood. secondarily, to avoid their figures, by express words he saith: that Note this master and see your heretical doctrine directly impugned. after the consecration the bread is no more a figure of our lords body, neither is it an image of the very thing: neither an only description of christ as a thing might be described in a table: but it is the thing it self, even the very same body that was crucified, and the self same blood that yshued out the same crucified body. What can we have more? What more plainness can be desired? Ye see that the body of christ is offered in sacrifice: ye see that power, authority and commandment is given to the Church so to do. And now I doubt not, but the reader seeth good, plain, and sufficient matter to approve the doing of the holy catholic Church, in this matter. And will, I trust, judge this Proclaimer sufficiently answered by the best learned Fathers, as well of the greek church, as of the latin, and will therefore think it right, that where this Proclaimer required but one plain sentence, having now a number, that he do perform his promise, and submit himself to the truth, and subscribe to the catholic Church, and become her child again, which God of his mercy bring to pass in him. For truly the gifts that God hath placed in him considered, I cannot but love him, and praise God in him, and wish that I might join with him: But when I remember his great fall into this wickedness, I piety him, and utterly divide myself from him, as my bownden duty before four membres for the Proclamotion answereth. God is. In this book then as occasion hath served, I have answered four pieces or members of his proclamation: The first, for the having of the scriptures in the vulgar tongue: The second, for Reservation of the Sacrament: The third, for the authority of the offering of christ to his Father. The fourth, for the presence of Christ'S body and blood in the blessed Sacrament. In the other books, by the help of God, shall be likewise answered some other parts of the same proclamation as like occasion shall be ministered, which God grant may be to his everlasting praise and honour. Amen. THE SECOND BOOK. THE FIRST CHAPTER DECLARETH THE OFFICES OF THE OLD LAW, AND THE benefits OF the new Law, with an exhortation to submit our understanding to the knowledge of faith, and therewith to the belief of the Sacrament. LEX per Moysen data est, gratia & veritas per jesum Christum facta est. The Law (saith saint john) was given by Moses but grace and truth came by jesus christ. The Law (as saint Paul declareth) had two offices, for the joan. 1. The law hath two of fices. Rom. 3. Ibid. 7. which it was given of God, by Moses to the people. The one was to give them knowledge of fin, and to restreign them from it. The first part of this office S. Paul speaketh of to the Romans, saying: Per legem cognitio peccati. By the law cometh the knowledge of sin. For (saith he in an other place) Peccatum non cognovi nisi per legem. Nam concupiscentiam nescieban, nisi lex diceret: Non concupisces. I knew not sin but by the law. For I had not known what lust had meant, except the law had said: Thowe shalt not lust. The second part he speaketh of to the Galathians, where, when he had proved that the promiss of the blessing came not by the law, but by faith, as being made four hundredth and thirty years before the law was given, he moveth this question: Quid igitur lex? wherefore then serveth the Law? As who Galat. 3. should say, if the law were not given, that by it men should attain to justification, whereto then serveth it? what then is the office of it? He answereth: Propter trangressionem posita est. it was added for transgression, that transgressors taking with the law the spirit of servitude in fear, might be withholden from the transgression of the same Law, although the outward observation of it, conferred not that justification to the observers thereof, that availeth before God. The other office of the Law was by lineaments of figures and shadows to lead the people to christ, as S. Paul saith: Lex poedagogus fuit in Christo. Jbid. The Law was our schoolmaster to christ. Wherefore our saviour christ willed the jews, who were not willing to receive him as the Messiah, being yet by the Law taught to know him, that they should repair to joan. 5. the scriptures of the Law, as to their schoolmaster saying: Scrutamini scripturas, in quibus putatis vos vitam habere aeternam, & illae sunt, quae testimonium perhibent de mè. Search the scriptures, in the which ye think to have eternal life, and they are they, which testify of me. Which Law undoubtedly did so teach them Christ by promises, figures, and prophecies, that they could not pretend ignorance, but they must needs be found offenders of malice, whereof the chief ruler of the school Moses would accuse them, as christ saith to them: Nolite putare quòd ego accusaturus sum vos apud patrem Jbid. 5. meum, est qui accusat vos Moses, in quo speratis, Si enim crederetis Moysi, crederetis forsitan & mihi. De me etenim ille scripsit. Do not think that I will accuse you to my Father, there is one that accuseth you, even Moses in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would peradventure have believed me, for he wrote of me. Of this office of the Law, that is of the school mastership of it, How it promised christ: How it painted, and deschribed him by figures and shadows. How it spoke of him by prophecies in the old testament: it is (as to the purpose of the matter, which is now in hand, appertaineth) treacted of in the first book. Now minding to seek the truth of the same matter in the new Testament, I am much comforted and delighted, trusting with moche more facility and ease to attain the same. And yet as not without pleasure mixed with travail, I have done the like in the first book, passing through the thikkes (as it were) and obscure places of the Law, not all unlike unto an Hunter, who painfully beating the bushes, and traveling through the thicks, yet not without pleasure seeking his game, and coming to the goodly fair Lawnde, seemeth to be moche eased, and as it were, relieved of a great grief, and then with more delight and pleasure followeth the same: Even so now that I am comed to the beautiful Lawnd of the new Testament, where, for the sharp priking bushes of the sevitute and bondage of sin under the Law, and for the obscure and dark thicks of figures, and shadows of the same, finding the goodly pleasant Lawnde of grace and verity by jesus christ, I forget my former travails, and with fresh delight follow on my gamme. The Law had two offices not void of incommodities: The Gospel hath The Gospel hath two commodities. two benefits, enriched with great commodities. The Law gave knowledge of sin: The Gospel giveth grace for remission of sins. the Law had figures: the Gospel hath the verity. He then by whom came this grace and verity, jesus Christ, who is the joan. 1. light of the world and lighteneth every man, that cometh into the same, give the bright and clear beams of his knowledge unto us, both the writer, and the reader, that being led by his grace, we may come persightlie to his truth and verity, and coming to the same, we may with all humility and meekness subdue our understanding to the service of faith. And so learning not to be wise in our own conceits, we may embrace the truth of it, earnestly and unfeignedly believing the same truth, and by believing also understand it. for Nisi credideritis non intelligetis, saith the Prophet, Except ye believe, ye shall not understand. And therefore let us all call to the Esay. 7. Author of grace, and giver of faith with the Apostles and say: Domine adauge nobis sidem. Lord increase our faith, and I doubt not, but if he see that Luc. 17. we come to him, he will have compassion upon us, and run and meet with us, and fall one our necks, and kiss us, and so receiving us with moche Luc. 15. joy and gladness, walk with us on the way, and interpret the Scriptures unto us, and so open our eyes which were holden before, that we shall Ibid. 24. know him in breaking of the bread. And here be advertised (Reader) that if thou be not with christ in the breaking of bread thy eyes shall never be opened to know christ. For saint Augustine showing that the eyes of the two disciples that went in Emaus were holden from the knowledge of christ, until the breaking of bread saith Non enim incongruenter accipimus hoc impedimentum in oculis eorum à Satana fuisse, ne agnosceretur jesus, sed tantùm à Christo, propter eorum sidem ambiguam facta Agust. de. consensu Evangelist. est permissio usque ad sacramentum panis, ut unitate corporis eius participata, removeri intelligatur impedimentum inimici, ut Christus posset agnosci. We do not take it incongruentlie, that this impediment in their eyes (meaning the two disciples that went to Emaus) was of Satan, that jesus should not be known. But only it Luc. 24. was permitted of christ for their doubtful faith sake, until they came to the sacrament of bread, that the unity of Christ'S dodie being participated, it might be perceived, that the impediment of the Enemy was removed, that christ might be known. agreeably to this also saith Theophilact upon Luk. Insinuatur & aliud quiddam, Theop. in Luc. ca 24 nempe quod oculi eorum, qui benedictum panem assumunt, aperiuntur, ut agnoscant illum. Magnam enim & indicibilem vim habet CARO DOMINI. another thing also is here insinuated, that is, that the eyes of them which do take the blessed bread, are opened that they may know him (meaning Christ) For the flesh of our Lord hath a great and unspeakable power or strength. Thus moche Theophilacte. Thus although the two disciples were in the company of christ, and heard him interpret the scriptures unto them: yet he was a stranger unto Soche as have not a sowndfaith in the verity of the Sacrament are strangers to Chryst. them, for they knew him not. And very well. For as they for lake of perfect and full faith in him, were strangers to him: So he agreeably as a stranger appeared unto them. And even so though many have heard the interpretation of scriptures, yea and can themselves interpret and understand many of them, and can speak and talk of christ, as these disciples did: yet be they strangers to christ, they know not christ, for that they have not a sound faith in the verity of the Sacrament, and so in diverse other points and matters of faith. Which happeneth to all sohe as will not be with christ in the breaking of the bread. For note well this (Reader) that whosoever he be, that erreth in the matter Who erreth in the Sacrament, erreth in many other matters of faith. of the Sacrament, he erreth in many more. So did Luther the Raiser, and stirrer up of heresies in our time. So did Oecolampadius, Zwinglius, Bullingerus, Bucerus, and Petrus Martyr. So did our country men, Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and Taler. So doth this Challenger, as his own confession in his sermon well proveth. So do such as yet live convertlie, cloaking, and dissembling their heresies. So that though some other heresy may be alone in a man: yet be well assured, the heresy against the blessed Sacrament is never alone in any man, but accompanied with so many other heresies, as he that hath them becometh a stranger to christ, and for lack of a sound faith knoweth not christ. Come therefore, and join with christ in the breaking of the bread, be partaker of the unity of Christ'S body, that (as saint Augustine saith) the impediment of the Enemy, which letteth thee to know christ, may be removed, and taken away. For the flesh of christ (as Theophilacte sayeth) hath an unspeakable power or strength, such power or strength that after the receipt The ffesh of christ in the Sacrament hath an unspeakable power of it in due manner of faith, and sincere devotion, it will open thine eyes, that thou shalt know him truly, which now, phantasieng that thou dost know him, knowest him but fantastical. Seeing then this blessed Sacrament is of such great, and unspeakable virtue and giveth so great a benefit, let us hear the Author of verity, and of the Sacrament also, commending to us the verity of the same. THE second CHAPTER EXPOUNDETH THE sixth of saint john according to the letter. THe holy gospel teacheth us, that the Author of this blessed Sacrament made two notable mentions thereof at two sundry Two notable mentions made by christ of the Sacrament. times. The one was the promiss of the institution of it, with a declaration of the befitte, that should ensue to men thereby, which is set forth and declared in the sixth chapter of saint john. The other was the plain and certain institution of it in the last supper, accomplishing the promiss before made. Of these two by the help of the Author of them, with th'assistance, and direction of that his Spirit of truth, which he hath promised should lead us into all truth, this book shall tell the very truth. And forasmuch as by order the promiss goeth before the accomplishment of the promiss, although saint john, who is the writer of it, did write it many years after the other evangelists had written the last supper, yet will I, as it was spoken of christ first, before the other was done, so first treacte of the same. Our Saviour christ being God and man, and knowing (for that nothing was hidden to him) all things, as well the present secret things and thoughts of man, as also the order and succession of things to come, foreseeing that the people would resort unto him, and that meet occasion should be given, and that the time would very well serve for the preparing of the minds of such as would believe in him, to speak of the high mystery of the receiving of his body and blood: he began with the great miracle of the multiplying of five batlie loaves and two fishes. By the which miracle they being moved to consider his great power, might the more easily be induced to the belief of the great miracle of the giving of his blessed body and blood in the Sacrament, as chrysostom saith: Propterea id prius fecit miraculum, ut per illud non essent ampliùs increduli his, quae postmodum diceret, Therefore Chrysost. hom. 45 in joan. (saith Chrysostom) did he work this miracle first, that by it they should be no more unbelieving in those things, which he would afterward tell them. For as the same Chrysostom saith, Ex eo, & haec credere oportuit ei facilia factu esse. By that miracle it behoved them to believe, that these things also were easy for him to do. Ibidem. This miracle then being done as a preparative or induction to the belief of that great miracle, that afterward he would tell them that he would do: many people did follow him, though drawn by diverse Spirittes: Some by the heavenly spirit moving the mind: Some by the fleshly spirit, moved of the belly. which our Saviour christ did note when he said: Sequimmi me, non quia vidistis signa, sed quia manducastis ex panibus, & saturati estis. joan. 6. Ye follow me not because ye have seen the miracles, but because ye have eaten of the loaves, and were filled. And so proceeding nearer to enter into the matter, which he chiefly intended, said unto them: Operamini non cibum qui perit, sed qui permanet in vitam aeternam, quem filius hominis daturus est vobis. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth into everlasting life, which meat the Son of man shall give unto you. The jews now by this advertised, perceived that they were moved to work for the heavenly life, and therefore ask how they should work the work of God, received answer, that it was to believe in him whom god had sent. Yet now forgetting the miracle so lately done in feeding so great a multitude with so feweloaves, for the which then they could say: This is the very Prophet, which should come into the world, and would have taken him and made him king: they said now unto him: Quod ergo facis signum, ut videamus, & credamus tibi etc. What sign showest though now, that we may see and believe thee? What dost though work? Our fathers did eat Manna in the desert (as it is written) he gave them bread from heaven to eat: Here our Saviour Three sundry breads mentioned by christ. Joan. 6. christ having just occasion, entereth into a large disputation with them which continueth to the chapters end. In the which he maketh mention of three sundry breads: that is, of the bread Manna, of the bread the Son of God, and of the bread the flesh of christ. Which three breads, as they be distincted in nature: So doth the Evangelist, distinct them, by the distinction of their times in the which they were given. And therefore speaking of Manna, which was given long before, he doth distinct it by the time that is past, saying: Patres vestri manducaverunt Manna Ibid. 6. in deserto. your fathers have eaten Manna in the wilderness. By which saying is declared not only a distinction and difference of the thing it self, being Manna, but also of the time and place that it was eaten of their fathers. The second bread is the Godhead of christ, which as it is distincted from the first bread in substance: So is it distincted by the difference of the giving of it. And therefore our Saviour christ uttereth it in the present tense, as then presently given, saying: Non Moses dedit vobis panem de caelo, sed Pater meus dat vobis panem de celo verum. Moses' gave you not that bread from heaven: but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven, Where note that christ saith: that his Father giveth the true bread. He did not say, that he did give, or will give: but presently, giveth. And who is this bread he declareth, saying: Ego sum panis vitae. I am the bread of life. And whether this be spoken of his manhood, or of his god head, he immediately openeth: Qui venit ad me non esuriet, & qui credit in me, non sitiet in aeternum. He that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth in me shall never belief is directed to God alone. thirst. belief is directed to none, as to believe in them, but to God alone. We believe in jesus christ God and man, not by the consideration of his manhood alone do we believe in him, but in that his Godhead and his manhood be joined in unity of person, so as God and man is one christ. Wherefore in this place he must be understanded of necessity to speak of his Godhead. The third bread he beginneth to speak of when he said: Et panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est, quam dabo pro mundi vita. And the bread which, I will give is my flesh. which I will give for the life of the world. In the which words he teacheth a manifest diversity of this bread here spoken of, from the other spoken of before. For here by express words he nameth the bread his flesh. which yet more plainly he teacheth to be his very real and substantial flesh, when he saith: that he will give them that same flesh, which he will give for the life of the world. He gave not his flesh spiritually to suffer death for the life of the world, But the very real flesh of his very body. Where now note, that where I said before, that in this chapter (besides the bread which our saviour christ fed the people then with, miraculously) therwere three breades spoken of by christ: These three breads be distincted not only with difference of time, as is before declared, but also with the difference of substance, as being three several and diverse substances, as in this sequel it shall appear. As for Manna, that it was a diverse substance from either of the other two, ye will easily grant me. That these other two be different in substance also, it is partly proved already, for that the one of the same is the God head of christ, the proof whereof is, that he moved the jews to believe in it. The other is his flesh. which he gave for the world. And here note that speaking of the bread of his Godhead he moveth the christ moved the jews to believe in his Godhead, and to eat the flesh of hismanhead jews more than once to believe in him. But speaking of this other bread he never moved the jews to believe in it, but allwais to eat it. There he said: Ego sum panis vitae. I am the bread of life. Here (as it were disseveringe his flesh, as being one of the substantial parts of his person, from the whole) he saith, Panis etc. The bread which I will give is my flesh, which is a different Substance from the substance of the Godhead of christ although both these Substances in christ, be but one person. As touching the difference of time in the giving of these two breades: The first is given presently, and therefore christ said: Panis enim Dei est, qui de coelo descendit, & dat vitam mundo. For the bread of God is he, which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Where he allwais speaketh of the present time, saying: that he cometh and giveth life to the world. Now speaking of the third bread, he spaketh of the time not present, but of the time to come, saying: The bread which I will give. So that as there is two plain differences of time, that is the time present, and the time to come: So be the two breades, two different Substances, the one being expressed as the cheifer part to be believed on, the other as the inferior part, by the name of flesh to be eaten on. This I dare avouch to be the very native sense, and the true understanding of this scripture, as ye may perceive the very scripture it self enforceth us to take this sense, according to the letter. Never the less that ye may perceive, that I will not arrogate to myself such authority to expownde this scripture, as the Adversaries have done, who have so impudently upon their own head and authority taught, that christ here spoke no one word of his body and blood in the Sacrament, but only of his word and our belief in the same: for the confirmation of that, which it hath pleased god to be uttered by me, and the confutation of that, that Satan hath moved the Adversaries to say against the truth, I will as heretofore is done, consult with certain of the elders of Christ'S Parliament house, and learn of them if in that same house, there is acknowledged, and received any such differences of breads in the sixth chapter of saint john, as I have declared or no. which differences when they shall be by them avouched, I will use their testimony and authority to expownde the rest of the chapter, that toucheth my matter chiefly intended, and not mine own. Whose authority (Reader) if thou will not by thy affection so far abase, that thou wilt counteruaill the same with a bare saying of a light Newling, and prefer him before so many grave ancients, I doubt not but thou shalt see matter enough, to draw thee to the ancient, and very truth, professed and received many hundredth years in the Church of christ. THE third CHAPTER PROVETH BY THE doctors that the sixth of saint john speaketh as well of the bread Christ'S flesh in the Sacrament, as of the bread his Godhead. ANd first let us see the distinction of breades. As for the bread which our Saviour christ multiplied and the bread Manna, which be manifestly distincted in all men's knowledges, and of the which there is no Controversy, I shall not need to speak any more. Of the other two breads, where our Saviour christ began to enter disputation of them, and in the beginning of the same said: Ego sum panis vitae: joan. 6. Chrysost. homil. 44. in joan. There Chrysostom in expounding the same text, saith: jam in mysteriorum traditionem deventurus est, et primùm de divinitate sua sic disputat: Ego sum panis vitae. Neque enim de corpore, hoc dictum est, de quo circa finem inquit, Panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est: Sed adhucde divinitate. Etenim ille propter Deum Verbum panis est, quemadmodum hic panis, propter advenientem ei Spiritum, panis caelestis efficitur. Now will he (meaning christ) come to the setting forth of the mysteries, and first of his Godhead, he saith thus: I am the bread of life. For this was not spoken of his body of the which about the end he saith: The bread which I will give, is my flesh: But as yet of his Godhead. For as that is bread for God the Son: So is thy bread made heavenly bread, for the Spirit coming to it. Thus moche Chrysostom Christ'S Godhead and manhood distincted as two breades. Is not this a cler testimony? Do ye not see here, a plain distinction of breads? This (saith he) I am the bread of life, is spoken of the Godhead, and continueth disputation of it, till he come to this text: The bread that I will give is my flesh. And this (saith he) is spoken of his body. And doth not now the sixth of S. john speak of the body of christ in the Sacrament? Note further that he saith, as the Godhead is bread for God the Son (meaning that the Godhead in christs God the Son) So (saith he) this bread (meaning the flesh of christ) is made the heavenly bread for the spirit coming to it. But I will not trouble thee (Reader) with many words in so plain a matter. I will raither produce some other one of the other side of Christ'S Parliament house, to see if their testimony be agreeable, and whether they be taught of one Spirit, one true exposition of Christ'S Gospel. S. Augusten expounding the same text (that Chrysostom saith christ spoke of his body) writeth thus: Determinat consequenter Dominus quomodò se panem dicat, non tantùm secundùm divinitatem, quae pascit omnia, sed etiam secundùm humanam naturam, quae est assumpta à Verbo Dei, cum subdit: Et panis quem ego dabo caro mea est. our Lord (saith S. Augustine) determineth consequently how he calleth himself bread, not only after his Godhead, which feedeth all things, but also after his human nature, which is assumpted of the Son of God, when he said afterward: And the bread which I will give is my flesh, etc. Doth not here S. Augustin agreeably with chrysostom, teach a plain difference of the bread of the Godhead of christ, and the bread of his manhood? doth not he say that christ in this text. The bread which I will give, is my flesh, doth speak of his human nature? Consider then (Reader) the authority and ancienty of these two great and famous Fathers of Christ'S Church, and accept their judgements before these new-fangled inventors, in the exposition of the scriptures. And now that ye have heard these two of the higher house agreeably reporting how the Church in their times understood the sixth chap. of S. John of the Sacrament: We will also hear some of the lower house, and some of them not of the later days, but of the ancients of that sort being well toward a thousand years agone. Of the which we will first hear Theophilacte the follower of chrysostom in many things, whether he follow him in this also or no. Thus he writeth upon the same text. Manifestè autem nobis hoc loco, de communione corporis dicit. Nam panis (inquit) quem Theophilact. in 6. joan. ego dabo, caro mea est, quam ego dabo pro mundi vita. Porro potestatem suam indicans, quòd non ut servus, & minor patre crucifigendus, sed voluntariè, inquit, Ego dabo carnem meam pro mundi vita. Manifestly doth christ speak unto us of the mystical communion of his body. For the bread (saith he) which I will give you, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. And showing his power, that he should be crucified not as a servant, and less than the Father, but willingly he saith: I will give my flesh for the life of the world. Note here that Theophilacte doth not only follow, and agree with chrysostom: but also he seemeth to signify, that it was a clear matter, a plain matter, a matter received of all men of Christ'S Church in his time without controversy, when he saith, that christ in that text spoke manifestly of the communion of his body. A marvelous matter, that, that christ did speak so manifestly, and of these Fathers was conceived so clearly: should now a days be taken of these perverters of God's scriptures so obscurely By this ye may see that in the cler light they are blind, and can not see. For blind malicious ignorance hath utterly blinded them. Therefore an other day, except in time they repent, Sap. 5. they shall say, and lamentably confess, as in the book of wisdom is said in the persons of such: Erravimus à via veritatis, et justitiae lumen non illuxit nobis, etc. We have erred from the way of truth, and the light of righteousness hath not shined to us, and the Sun of understanding rose not up upon us. We have wearied ourselves in the way of wickedness, and destruction. tedious ways have we goen, but as for the way of the Lord we have not known. Which manner of lamentation God avert from them, and give them grace in time to repent, that the Sun of understanding may rise upon theme. To proceed, and thereby to try whether such as have written of late years, I mean, which were within these three hundredth years or there about (which have been so vilely esteemed of these singular phantasied men of our time) did dissent from these elders in the exposition of this scripture: And whether the Church these two or three hundredth years last past, did otherwise understand the scriptures than the fathers did, by the hearing of someone we shall perceive. And to speak here what I think, verily I think the subtle and crafty conveyance of the Adversaries, and this Proclaimer also, was and is to contemn and despise these late authors, first, because they were (as they say) not cloquent, and therefore Erasmus moche inveigheth against Lyra. Then these are not ancient, and therefore not to be alleged. Last they open themselves a little more, and say these authors are not, to be alleged, but rejected because their doctrine is not sound, but corrupted. And they have corrupted (say they) and perverted, and destroyed God's word with the inventions of men. And by this were all the learned writers, which were within these six or seven hundredth years defaced and rejected as. S. Tho. Aquinas, S. Bonaventura, Petrus Lombardus, Dionysius Carthusianus, Hugo Cardinalis, Holcot, and N. Lyra, Fathers in old time spoke of the mysteries covertly. with a great number more of that age, which are not esteemed, nor accepted as of authority, nor none that have written within the compass of these thousand years can be allowed by some of the Adversaries. And why was this? Because they wrote so plainly, that they could not be wrested. As for other Fathers, that were before a thousand years, though many of them did writ very plain, as occasion did serve, when they did write to christian men. Yet oftentimes when they did preach to the people, or write to such as were weak in faith, as in those days the Church was mingled with those that had not received the faith, then because Perfectorun est solidus cibus, strong meat is for them that be perfect, and Paruulis in Christo lac dandum. To ●onglinges in Christ milk is to be given: therefore they oftentimes (as it was necessary, that the mysteries of our faith, should not be uttered to them that could not bear them) did speak of the same covertlie and closely, and therefore they were fain oftentimes to knit up their talk of the Sacrament, with this or like saying: Norunt fideles, the faithful do know. And by like occasion did in many places writ obscurely in this matter, and did not so manifestly and plainly utter it, because there was no occasion given them by heresy in that matter, but all were of one mind in it, having most godly peace and quietness in the same. And therefore the Adversary more delighted with obscure places, which he thinketh better to draw to his sense, than the plain places, which will Heretics▪ how they allege the fathers. not suffer themselves to be drawn, hath laboured to reject such as did write, since the Church was well settled and stayed, and might therefore write plainly, what their faith taught them in this mystery. But cheiffie all them that did write since the time of Berengarius, which upon occasion of heresy were enforced to write plainly in this matter. But God be praised the eldest and ancientest Fathers, have yet in diverse places written so moche in plain manner, that it is able to convince and overthrow the heresies of the Adversaries, as partly ye have heard already. And yet for all the pretenced ancienty they sought, refusing these learned men, that were within a thousand years, yet one of them would allege Like to like. Zuinglius slain in a rebellion begun by himself. an other, as Bullinger alleged Zuinglius in his exposition upon saint Paul's epistles, which, Zuinglius was so holy and so ancient a father, that he was slain in a sedition raised by him and his disciples, against the magistrates of his country. And this is as good a change, as the heretics made in the beginning of this wicked time of heresy, when they put the holy saint and Polycarp. put out of the Calendar Martyr Policarpus, that was saint john the Evangelists disciple, out of the calendar, and put in the heretic Thomas Hutten, that was bourned for heresy. Now notwithstanding their crafty iniquity in rejecting these good catholic authors, I will use plain simplicity in the accepting of them, that the truth which they profess being ancient though the authors be of late days, and the consonancy of these with the most ancient authors in teaching and uttering the same truth; may be perceived. For if these of late years agree with them of the old time in the truerh, Thauthority of late writers approved by good reasons. and teach the same truth that tother do, what should let us to hear them, and accept them? If none should be received but such as were a thousand years since, and such also as be of this our time, shall be refused, them preachers must cease. For of what more authority or credit is he of, that teacheth in the pulpit by speaking, than he that teacheth by open writing? If ye will not believe me writing, ye will not believe me preaching. If ye will believe me preaching, for that I speak the truth by the scriptures, and ancient fathers: Believe me also writing the truth by the scriptures and ancient fathers. And if these allowed writers of these later days teach the truth by the scriptures, and ancient fathers, them must they neds be received. And there for truly it is necessary that they be alleged, to th'intent the truth may be perceived to be one throughout all, and that they being joined with the ancients, it may be seen that the same truth is taught now, that was taught a thousand years agone before? And therefore have I determined not to give place to this refusal of Heretics, but to allege the Authors of these later years, that the consonancy and unity of the truth may be perceived in all ages, and that there is no other truth taught now, than was taught in the Primitive Church, and the time of the Apostles, yea, no other truth, than was taught by our Saviour christ himself, and by his holy Spirit, the Author of all truth. Whereby the foul railings, and slanders, which bemost common lie in the mouths of the enemies may be taken away, and they of their untruth and malice worthily confounded. Thus much I thought good to say, for that in this book I mind to use the testimonies of these late writers for th'intent above specified. And now therefore to Theophilacte the Grecian, I shall join the learned doctor Nicolaus de Lyra a latin Author who writing upon the sixth of S. john cometh to this text: Et panis, quem ego dabo, caro mea est. And the bread, which I will give is my flesh: and expoundeth it thus: Postquam egit de pane spirituali, qui est Verbum, hic consequenter agit de pane spirituali, qui est Sacramentum. After he hath done (saith this Author, of christ) with the spiritual bread, which is Nico. Lira in. 6. joan. the word: here consequently he treacted of the spiritual bread, which is the Sacrament. What doth this author dissent from the Fathers? doth he not signify that christ before the sentence so often alleged, did speak of the spiritual bread his Godhead, which he calleth the word? And doth he not now say, that in it that followeth christ speaketh of the Sacrament? These be sufficient to declare the true understanding of our Saviour Christ'S process, and order in the sixth of S. john. And for that ye perceive the same, aswell after the mind of christ, the very text so leading us to understand it, as also after the mind of diverse learned authors, I will now proceed to see the understanding of diverse texts of the rest of this chapter, that treacte of the blessed Sacrament. THE FOURTH CHAPTER BEGINNETH A further proof of the former matter by S. Cyprian and Euthymius. THis distinction of these two breades last before mentioned perceived, and being withal remembered, that at this text (The bread, which I shall give, is my ●…esh, which I will give for the life of the world) christ began to speak of the Sacrament, and continueth the disputation thereof to the end of the chapter: to prove the same more manifestly to the Reader, and withal to make it clear, that that process is not of a figurative flesh, but of Christ'S very proper flesh and body I will begin at the same text, and so descending to the last by a number of the most ancient Fathers of Christ'S Parliament house, open both the one and the other, I trust, to the full contentation of the godly Reader. The first that shall show his mind of this matter shall be the holy Martyr Cyprian, who saith thus: Panis vitae Christus est, & panis hic omnium non est, sed noster est. Et quomodò dicimus, Pater noster, quia intelligentium, & credentium pater est: sic & panem nostrum vocamus, quia Christus noster, qui eius corpus contingimus, panis est. Hunc autem panem dari nobis quotidiè postulamus, ne qui in Christo sumus, & Eucharistiam quotidie ad cibum salutis accipimus, intercedente graviore aliquo delicto, dum abstenti, & non communicantes, à caelesti pane prohibemur, à Christi corpore separemur, ipso praedicante, & monente: Ego sum panis vitae, qui de caelo descendi. Si quis ederit de hoc pane vivet in aeternum. Panis quten quem ego dedero, caro mea est, pro seculi vita. The bread of life is christ, and this bread is not the bread of all men, but it is ours. And as we do say, Our Father, because he is the father of all that do believe and understand: Even so also, our bread, call we, which touch his body, because hour christ is bread. This bread we daily desire to be given us, lest we, which be in christ, and take the Sacrament daily to our meat of health, some grievous offence coming between, while we being excommunicated, and not receiving be forbidden from the heavenly bread, may be separated from the body of christ, he himself openly saying and teaching: I am the bread of life, which descended from heaven. Whosoever shall eat of this bread shall live for ever. The bread, which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. Thus much S. Cyprian In this sentence, I doubt not but ye perceive, that this holy Martyr applieth the sentences of the sixth of S. john to the Sacrament of Christ'S body and blood. According to which understanding he calleth christ our bread, S. Cyprian aplieth the sixth of. S. john to the Sacrament whom he so calleth, not only because of his Godhead, but also because he feedeth us in the Sacrament with his body. For (saith he) we being in christ, do receive the Sacrament daily to the meat of health. But if by sin we forbear to receive the heavenly bread, we be separated from the body of christ. Whereby we may perceive that not only the sixth of S. john is to be understanded of the Sacrament, But also when S. Cyprian calleth the Sacrament the meat of health, the heavenly bread, and the body: we are taught that in the Sacrament is the very presence of that body, to the which properly these goodly titles may be wourthilie applied. Which body can be none other but the body of christ God an man. But forasmoch as the faith of this famous Father and holy Martyr Cyprian in this point hath been notably and manifestly declared in sentences before alleged in the first book, and more hereafter shall be spoken, I will not now trouble the reader, with any longer declaration of the same, but will join with Cyprian one of the other side of Christ'S Parliament house, even Euthymius a Graecian, whose sentence, Reader it shall not repent thee to hear, if thou desire to know the truth. Upon the text of S. john before treacted of he maketh this exposition. Duobus modis dicitur Christus esse panis, secundùm divinitatem scilicet, & humanitatatem. Euthymins in 6. joan. Postquam ergo docuit de modo qui secundùm divinitatem est, nunc etiam docet de modo, qui est secundùm humanitatem. Non autem dixit, quem do, sed quem dabo. Daturus namue erat in ultima coena, quando sumptum panem, acts gratijs fregit, deditue Discipulis, & ait, Accipitt, & comedite: Hoc est corpus meum. christ is said to be bread two ways: that is, after his Godhead, and after his manhood. Therefore when he had taught the manner which is after his Godhead: Now doth he also teach the manner which is after his manhood. For he did not say, which I do give, but which I will give. For he would give it in the last Supper, when thanks being given, he broke the bread which he had taken, and gave it to the disciples and said: Take, eat, this is my body. What can the Adversaries say against so manifest, and so plain a sentence? Do not their cheeks wa●e red for shame? Is not blind ignorance, or devilish malice to be laid unto these men, that either do not know the learning of so many great clerlees, or else, if they know, do so maliciously, so devilish lie prefer their own arrogant fantasies and opinions, and presume to say the contrary to that, so many, in such sundry ages, declaring also thereby the wholconsent of the church through all âges in the same do affirm and teach? which is, that christ did treact of, and promiss in sixth of john, the Sacrament of his body and blood. Now (gentle Reader) wilt thou believe them in their matters, when they be deprehended in such notable falsehood, as all the Church doth reprehend them for. And yet their falsehood shall more appear by other more hereafter. Whereby it shall most clearly be perceived, that they have attempted against all truth, to wrest the sixth chapter of saint john, from the Sacrament. And so shalt though see how far they have swerved, and do serve from the truth. THE FIFTH CHAPTER proceedeth UPON the same text, by saint Augustin and chrysostom. THat ye may see more of the understanding of this text, an other couple shall be produced to show you how this place of John is understanded. The first of them shall be famous Augustine, who saith thus: Mensa sponsi tui panem habet integrum, & poculum sanctum, quem panem, etsi fractum, comminutumue vidimus, integrè tamen cum August. de cultura agri Dominici. ipso suo Patre manet in caelis. De quo pane dicit: Panis quem ego daho, caro mea est pro mun di vita. The table of thy spouse hath perfect or pure bread, and an holy cup. Which bread although we have seen broken, and bruised on the cross: yet it abideth with that his Father whole in heaven. Of the which bread he saith: The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. S. Augustine speaking here to the spouse of christ, saith, that the table of her Spouse or husband hath a perfect bread, The bread on the table of christ, what is it but the Sacrament? Of this bread which is the Sacrament in the table of christ, the same christ (saith S. Augustine) saith: The bread which I will give is my flesh. By which words it is inevitably manifest that that sentence of S. john is spoken of the Sacrament. But now whether it be spoken of the Sacrament, as of a bare sign, which sign (as the Adversaries allege) as other signs likewise, doth but take the name of the thing, that it is the sign of, or no, let us search by saint Augustine here. It is evident that saint Augustine here teacheth, that it is spoken of the very thing which is signified, and not of the bare sign. For S. Augustine speaking of the bread, and that of one bread, doth declare it to All one body that was broken on the Cross, is with the Father in heaven, and on the altar. be, and to have been in three sundry places, that is, on the table, on the cross, and in heaven with his Father. The Sacrament, that is, the extern sign, was neither on the cross, neither is in heaven. Wherefore it is the very body of christ which was upon the cross, and is with the Father in heaven, that is now on the table of christ. For note the saying well, and ye shall find, that he speaketh but of one bread. For when he had spoken of it, as being on the table, he speaketh again of the same by the relative, saying: which bread although we have seen broken on the cross. A relative (as the grammarian knoweth) maketh rehearsal of a thing spoken of before. Then when he said, which, he speaketh of the bread on the table. So that by S. Augustine, that same bread, that is on the table, is it which was broken on the cross. And that that was broken on the cross, is it, that is whole sitting in heaven with the Father. whereby it is consequent, that it is the same, and very body of christ that is on the table, that was upon the cross, and is at the right hand of God the Father. As saint Augustine in few words hath pithily touched that, that we here seek, namely that this place of the sixth chapter of saint john speaketh of the Sacrament, and yet not of the Sacrament as of a bare sign, but of the very body of christ, and of the same dodie by the name of bread spoke the sentence, The Bread which I will give, is my flesh: So I briefly have touched and noted the same to you, hasting to hear the sainges, and expositions of chrysostom upon the same text. chrysostom, after he had in his learned manner declared in his 44 home lie, that christ spoke this text of S. john, which we treact of now, of his body, when he cometh to the same in his own place, after he had reprehended the jews for their incredulity, and slackness in the belief of Christ'S words, saith that they therefore took no profit of them. Illi tunc temporis Chrysost. hom. 45. in joan. nihil ex ijs dictis, nos illius beneficij utilitatem cepimus. Quare necessariò dicendum quàm admiranda misteria, & cur data sint, & quae eorum utilitas. They at that time took nothing by those words, we have taken the profit of the benefit, wherefore necessarily it is to be said, how wonderful the mysteries be, and wherefore they be given, and what is the profit of them. These words chrysostom speaketh upon the words of christ, The bread which I will give, is my flesh. In the which words forsomuch as christ said he would give his flesh, Chrysostom saith, they be wonderful mysteries, And therefore he would search the cause why he gave them, and what profit cometh to us by them. And immediately as a cause why christ gave unto us this mystery, the bread which is his flesh: the said Chrysostom adjoineth this sentence of saint Paul: unum corpus sumus & membra ex carne & ossibus eius. We are one body and members of his flesh and of his bones. And that he would not be mistaken, but that these words be spoken of the receipt of that bread that christ gave, which is his flesh, he more plainly uttereth his meaning, expounding the former words thus: autem non solùm per dilectionem, sed reipsa in illam carnem convertamur, per cibum id efficitur, quem nobis largitus est. That we should not only by love, but in very deed be turned into that flesh, that is brought to pass by the meat which he hath granted us. Thus chrysostom. Christ'S flesh turneth us into it. And what meat did he grant us? even that, that he freely promised to give us, a bread which is his flesh. which flesh being our heavenly and spiritual meat contrary to the order of carnal food, which received is turned into us, and not we into it, turneth us into the flesh of christ, as it was said to saint Augustine: Nec tu me mutabis in te, sicut cibum carnis tuae, sed tu mutaberis in me. Neither shalt though change me into thee as the meat of thy flesh: but thou shalt be changed into me. And this is one cause why christ gave us this wonderful mystery as chrysostom right godly termeth it. He addeth also an other cause of the giving of this great mystery unto us, which is this: Cùm enim suum in nos amorem indicare vellet, per corpus suum se The same flesh and blood that christ took of ourna ture, he giveth ut again. nobis commiscuit, & in unum nobiscum redegit, ut corpus cum capite uniretur. When he would show forth his love towards us, by his body he mingled himself with us, and brought himself into one with us, that the body might be united with the head, Thus much Chrysost. Mark his words, that christ By his body hath mingled himself with us. which body is not a fantastical body, but his very real body, as the same chrysostom after goodly examples godly setting forth the matter, speaketh in the person of christ. Vester ego frater esse volui, & communicavi carnem propter vos & sanguinem, & per quae vobis coiunctus sum, ea rursus vobis exhibui. I would be your brother, and for your sakes I took flesh and blood with you, and by what things I was conjoined to you, those things again I have given unto you. Weigh this golden sentence with me (gentle Reader) I beseech thee, weigh it well, and see whether we receive but a piece of bread in the holy Sacrament or not. It is most certain, that christ took not a fantastical body. as the Manichees here toforesaied, but a very true body, of very flesh and very blood, and was in all things found a very man, save only that he lacked sin, and having such flesh, and such blood, he must needs A plain place of Chrysost. for the Proclaimer bejoined to us as one of our nature and kind, a very man as we be. If then he gave unto us those things, by the which he was conjoined to us, he was conjoined to us by very substantial flesh and blood, wherefore he gave unto us his very substantial flesh and blood. If he gave (as the adversary saith) unto us his flesh but only in a sign, than he gave not his very flesh in deed: But he was not conjoined to us by flesh and blood in a sign only. Wherefore he giveth us not his flesh and blood in a sign only. And again (as some other do say) he giveth us his flesh and blood, that is the benefit, the merit and grace of his flesh and blood, and not his very real flesh and blood. I deny not but he giveth us the merit of his passion, fuffred in his flesh, and shedding of his most precious blood, but that is not imparted and given to us only in the Sacrament of his blessed body and blood: but also in other sacraments. As in Baptism we have remission of sins, both original and actual, from the which we be washed in his blood: Lavit nos à peccatis nostris in sanguine suo. He hath washed us from Apocal. 1 Receipt of Christ'S merits not proper to one but common to all sacraments our sins in his blood: So have we also in the sacrament of penance, where also we have remission of sins by the merit of Christ'S passion, And brief lie all the sacraments have their efficacy, power and strength of the merits of Christ'S passion. So that to have the meritie of Christ'S passion is not the proper benefit that cometh to us by the receipt of this Sacrament of the body and blood of christ, but is a benefit given to us in the ministration and due receiving of all other sacraments. But the proper benefit of this sacrament, is to receive the very body of christ, as a singular pledge and token of his love, who voucheth saif for the unmeasurable love that he beareth to us, not only to be with us by his sign or token: but (as vehement and perpetual love requireth) to be with us by his very presence, and that we receiving him should be turned into his flesh whereby (as S. Hilary saith) we are naturally in him, as he is naturally In us, being mebres of his hody, of his flesh and of his bones, yea and into that flesh, which (as cyril saith) is vivifica, that is, giving life or making to live everlastingly, according to his own promiss: Qui manducat me, viaet propter me, he that eateth me shall live by means of me. These be the benefits proper unto this Sacrament (as chrysostom hath rehearsed) who also proceeding declareth the great and wonderful excellency of this Sacrament, and a number of other benefits ensuring to us by the receipt of the same. Whose process although it be somewhat long●… yet for that it declareth most manifestly the truth of Christ'S presence in the Sacrament, and most godly commending the same, teacheth us not only to reverence it in our hearts, and also by mouth reverently to speak of it (which both two have much decayed in these days) but also moveth spiritual delectation in the heart of the true Christian, I trust it: shall not be tedious to the Reader in reading. And therefore shall I more gladly take pains in the writing. When Chrysostom had spoken moche of the flesh of christ, of which some part ye have now heard. He cometh to speak of his blood, of the which ye shall now hear. Thus he writeth: Hic sanguis sacit, ut imago in nobis regia storeat. Hic sanguis pulchritudinem, atque nobilitatem animae, quam semper irrigat Chrisost. ibid. & nutrit, languescere non sinit. Sanguis enim à eibo non fit● repentè, sed prius aliud quiddam. Hic quàm primùm irrigat animam, eademque vi quadam magna r●buit. Hic mysticus sanguis Daemones procul pellit, Angelos & Angelorum Dominum ad nos allicit. Daemons enim cùm Dominicum sanguinem in nobis vident, in fugam vertuntur, Angeli autem procurrunt. Hic sanguis effusus universum ablu●e orbem terrarum, de quo multa Paulus ad Hebraeos prosecutus est. Hic sanguis abdita, & sancta sanctorum purgabat. Quòd si eius figura tantam habuit vim in templo Hebraeorum, in medio Aegypto limmibus aspersus, long magis veritas. Hic sanguis aureum altare significavit. Sine hoc Princeps sacerdotum in penetralia ingredi non audebat. Hic sanguis sacerdotes faciebat. Hic sanguis in figura peccata purgabat, in qua si tantam habuit vim, si umbram ita mors horruit, quantoperè quaeso, ipsam formidabit veritatem? Hic animarum nostrarum salus est, hoc lavatur, hoc ornatur, hoc incenditur. Hic igne clariorem nostram mentem reddit, & auro splē didiorem. Huius sanguinis effusio coelum pervium fecit. Admiranda sanè Ecclesiae mysteria, admirabile sacrarium. Ex Paradiso fons scaturiit, à quo sensibiles stwij emanarent. A mensa hac prodiit, fons, qui flunios spirituales diffundit. This blood maketh that the kings The great excellency of the blood of christ in the Sacrament. image doth flourish in us. This blood doth never suffer the beauty and nobility of the soul, which it doth allwais water, and nourish, to fade or wax faint. Blood is not made of meat forth with, but first it is some other thing. This blood at the first do the water the soul, and endue it with a certain great strength. This blood driveth devels a far of, and allureth unto us Angels, and the Lord of Angels. When the devels see the blood of our Lord in us, they are turned to flight, but the Angels run forth to us. This blood being shed, did wash all the whole world, of the which Paul hath made a great process to the hebrews. This blood did purge the secret places, and the most holy place of all. If than the figure of it had so great power in the temple of the hebrews, and in Egypt, being sprinkled upon the upper posts of the doors, much more the verity. This blood did signify the golden Altar. Without this blood the chief priest durst not go into the inward secret places. This blood made the priests. This blood in the figure purged sins, in the which if it had so great might and power, if death so feared the shadow, how moche, I pray thee, will it fear the verity itself. This blood is the health of our souls. With this blood our soul is washed, with it she is decked, with it she is kindled. This blood maketh our mind clearer than the fire, more shining than gold. The effusion of this blood made heaven open. Truly the mysteries of the Church are wonderful, the holy treasure house is wonderful. From The mysteries of the Church be wonderful. Paradise a spring did run, from thence sensible waters did flow: from this table cometh out a spring which diffundeth and poureth out spiritual floods. Hither to Chrysostom. In the which process ye may perceive how moche this holic man esteemed the blessed Sacrament. Even so moche did he esteem it, so moche did he regard it, so much he reverenced it, that after so much praise and magnifying of it, as a man beholding the unspeakable highness of it, he broke out and said Admiranda Ecclesiae mysteria. wonderful be the mysteries of the Church. Objection But perchance the adversary will gladly here seek a starting hole, as commonly he doth, when he is charged with the inevitable truth, and will say that all these great praises be not of the blood of christ, which we say is in the Sacrament: but of the blood of christ that was shed upon the cross. Answer. To the which I answer, that truth it is, that all this praise is of the blood of christ which was shed upon the Cross. Blood of christ on the cross and in the Sacrament all one. For I understand the blood of christ in the Sacrament, to be the same, and none other, that did flow out of Christ'S side upon the Cross. For as in the Sacrament is the very same body in substance, that was crucified upon the Cross: so is there the self same blood in substance that was shed upon the Cross. But in manner diverse. There the body and blood of a man mortal: Here of christ immortal. There passable here impassable: There visible: here invisible There sensibly perceived: Here faithfully believed. Nevertheless I say that Chrysostom spoke all these praises of the blood of christ in the Sacrament, the praise of which is the praise of the other, for that they be all one. But that my bare saying shall not be sufficient authority to answer the untreu saying of the Adversary, and that I seek raither to satisfy then to contend: Chrysostom himself shall sufficiently answer this, by his authority. And that both by that, that is alleged of him already, and also by that, that followeth the same. Call therefore to remembrance the sentence of Chrysostom To prove that he spoke of the Sacrament immediately preceding this long saying now last alleged, and let them be joined together, and then by the dependence of the one to the other, ye shall perceive whether all this praise was directed. The sentence going before was this: I would be your brother, and for your sakes I took flesh and blood with you. And by what things I was conjoined to you; those same again have I exhibited, And then entereth into this long praise, whereby when he speaking of the giving to us of his flesh and blood (of the which also he made a long disputation before, and of the which the whole homely treacted) joined this saying to it: whereof should he speak, but of that blood in this sentence, that he spoke of before in the other, and in the whole homely? And also when he had so greatly and highly magnified the blood of christ: Yet he declareth whereto he looked when he exclaimed and said: Admiranda Ecclesiae mysteria. The mysteries of the Church are wonderful. and then proceeding declareth himself manifestly to speak of the Sacrament, by a similitude saying: From Paridise runneth a spring, from the which floweth sensible rivers: from this table goeth out a wellspring, which diffundeth spiritual rivers. all which words do clearly show, that all this his process, tendeth to the blood of christ, as being in the Sacrament. And although this above said doth sufficiently prove this to be spoken of the Sacrament: yet this that followeth doth more prove it, and maketh it so clear, that it can not be 'gainst said. enim homo servos suos emit, & ornat: ita nos sangume suo Christus. Qui huius sanguinis sunt participei, cum Angelis, & Archangelis, & supernis virtutibus commorantur, ipsam regiam stolam Christi induti, spiritualibus armis muniti. Sed nihil dixi, ipsum induti sunt regem. Sed sunt purum est, & admirabile, ita si purè accesseris, ad salutem accessisti, sive prava conscientia, ad poenam & supplicium. Partakers of the blood of christ dwell with Angels. Qui enim manducat, & bibit indignè SANGVINEM Domini, indicium sibi manducat & bibit. As a man (saith Chrysostom) doth both buy his servants, and deck them: even so doth christ us with his blood. They that be partakers of this blood, they dwell with Angels and Archaungells, and with the powers above, being clothed with the kingly garment of christ, are defended with spiritual armour. But I have said nothing. They have put on the King himself. But as it is a great thing, and a wonderful: even Note here, that he speaketh of the Sacrament so if if come to it purely, if havest comed to health or salvation: But if with an evil conscience, if havest commed to pain and punishment. For he that eateth, and drinked the blood of our Lord unwourthelie, eateth and drinketh his own damnation. Thus Chrysostom. What can the enemy now say? hath not now chrysostom opened himself? and fully, and plainly certified us, that all this his communication was of the blessed Sacrament? Doth not his allegation of saint Paul invincibly prove it? if saint Paul in the place alleged spoke of the Sacrament, than Chrysostom that alleged him spoke of the Sacrament. and undoubtedly he did so. Wherefore (Christian Reader) observe here and note that Chrysostom doth not only understand the text of saint john of the Sacrament: But also that therewith, both by plain opening of the words of S. Paul by most goodly and high praise, he teacheth us that in the same Sacrament is the very presence of Christ'S body and blood. And in his so doing teacheth God plagueth us for abuse of the Sacrament also all good Christian men highly to esteem, and greatly to reverence and magnify this wonderful mystery of Christ'S blessed body and blood, considering, and by faith perceiving very christ God and man there to be present. And not so lightly, so irreverently, so undevoutlie to use it, as heretofore, even before the time of heresy, it was used or raither abused. For the which abuse, I assure you, I earnestly believe, that as in it we did sore offend: So by it God hath sore plagued us. Let us therefore be admonished, and learn to amend ourselves. And the like I would wish the Adversary to do, that where he in this wicked time hath forsaken his faith, and with defiled mouth hath railed in blaspheming this most holy Sacrament, and hath called the faithful christians, Idolaters, and robbers of God, robbing him of his honour, and giving it to a piece of bread, he would now learn that he hath gone astray. and that not the Catholic Christians, but he and such like have been Idolaters, and robbers of God his honour, not honouring him where he was present, but with all vile means dishonouring him, which he and they may repent. Would this famous and noble clerk holy Chrysostom have so extolled Honourable titles, and great effects of the Sacrament prove the presence of christ therein. and magnified this Sacrament, so oftentimes calling it blood, and atributing to it god's power in fearing and driving away of devels, in washing our souls, in giving remission of sins, in putting death to flight, in being our health, and salvation, with a number of such effects, as ye have heard, if it were but wine? Can a cup of wine work soche wonderful works and effects? is it of such force and strength? if it so be, the chamberlain of king Darius that took upon him to prove, that fort est vinum, wine is strong, would not have omitted so great praises of it in his oration, for it would have made moche for his purpose. But surely this is spoken by chrysostom of the very blood of christ, which in deed hath this great might and power, or else this great Father would never so have magnified it, And now thou that wast once in Christ'S faith, and havest run astraic, return again, and magnify this divine Sacrament with Chrysostom, and all other faithful in christ. Return, I say, while the time serveth thee, and while it is day, for Venit nox, quando nemo potest operari. The night will come, when no man can work. Therefore I do advertise thee with saint Paul, Cum metu et tremore salutē●nam operare, with fear and trembling work thy salvation. Return, and say with the Prophet David: Erravi sicut ovis quae Philip. 2. Psal. 118. periit, quaere servum tuum Domine. I have erred like the sheep that hath perished: seek thy servant o Lord. And now although I have a little digressed from the right line of the proof of the sixth chapter of saint john, to be understanded of the Sacrament: Yet I have not digressed from charity, neither from the principal purpose of this book, which is to labour to reduce them, that have erred, to the truth, and to confirm and comforth them that be in it. THE sixth CHAPTER proceedeth IN THE opening of the understanding of the same text of saint john by Beda and Cyrillus, THe truth of this matter is such, that yties testifiedand avouched by many more fathers, of the which we will hear first Beda, and Beda in 6. joan. Cirille. Beda expoundeth the foresaid text of S. john thus. Hunc panem Dominus dedit, quando mysterium corporis et sanguinis suis Discipulis tradidit et quando semetipsum Deo patriobtulit in ara crucis. Quòd verò dicit, pro mundi vita, non debemus intelligere pro elementis, sed pro hominibus qui mundi nomine designantur. This bread (saith Beda) our lord gave, when he delivered the mystery of his body and blood to his disciples, and when he offered himself on the Altar of the Cross to God the Father. And where he saith: for the life of the world, we may not understand it for the Elements, but for men, which by the name of the world are signified. Thus have ye Bedes exposition, which all though it be brief and short yet it is plain and clear. As he text saith that christ would give twice a bread that should be his flesh: So Bede declareth two sundry manners, and times for the giving of the same. First, where christ said, the bread which I shall give, that (said Bede) our Lord gave, when he delivered unto his Disciples the mystery of his body and blood. The second, where christ said, which I shall give for the life of the world, that bread (saith Bede) did our Lord give when he offered himself to God the Father on the altar of the Cross. I need not here to note that Bede expoundeth this text of the Sacrament, where the words are so plain. But this I note that he calleth the flesh of Christ'S body upon the cross called bread. christ offered upon the Cross, bread, as well as the same flesh delivered to the disciples in the last supper. Whereby it appeareth, that where the Adversary, when he findeth the Sacrament called bread, do the take occasion to maintain his error, and say that it is but bread, it is no good argument. Neither doth it any more conclude, that the Sacrament is but bread, because it is called bread, than that Christ'S body on the cross is but bread because it is called bread. christ calleth himself being wholly God and man (as ciril saith) bread. And therefore both the godhead and the manhood of christ may be called bread, and be of christ himself in the sixth of S. john so called. But yet therefore it is no good consequent that the body of christ should be but material bread. So likewise is it no good consequent, that the manhood of christ should be but material bread. If than these two in the person of christ be called bread, and yet be not material bread, why should not they being in the Sacrament be called bread, and yet be no material bread? But raither this is to be said, according to the saying of christ in this place of S. john, and also Bede expounding the same, that as the flesh of christ upon the cross is called bread, and yet is very flesh: So is the blessed flesh of christ in the Sacrament called bread, and yet is it very flesh, christ so saying, that the bread which he would give was his flesh. This his giving, as ye have heard Bede expound, was unto his disciples, unto whom he gave his flesh called bread. As ye have hitherto heard diverse, which be of good authority, and high estimation in Christ'S Church, which all have expounded this text of S. john, to be spoken of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, not as in sign, but by real presence: So God aiding, ye shall hear some other lively and agreeably expounding the same, Therefore now shall cyril also, a Father of the Greek Church, give his testimony. This man like himself, learnedly and godly expounding the sixth chapter of S. john saith thus: Antiquus ille panis figura, cyril. in 6. joan. imago, umbraue solummodò fuit nec quicquam praeter quàm quòd corruptibile nutrimentum, ad modicum tempus exibebat. Ego verò sum ille panis vivus, ac vivificans in aternum. Et panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est, quam ego dabo pro mundi vita. Vides ut paulatim magis magisue se aperiat, & explicet mirificum hoc mysterium. Dixit se pavem vivum, et vivificantem, qui se manducantes faceret corruptionis expertes, & donaret immortalitate. Nunc dicit panem illum carnem suam esse, quam daturus erat pro mundi vita, & per quam nos illam participantes vivificaturus. Siquidem verbi vivificans natura illi ineffabili illo unionis modo coniuncta, vivificantem eandem effecit, & propterea participantes vivificat ista caro, eijcit ab eis mortem, & interitum penitus expellit. That old bread was only a figure, an image, a shadow, neither did it geveunto the corruptible body any thing else, but a corruptible nutriment for a little time. But I (saith Christ) am that living and quickening bread for ever. And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Thou seiest, how by Christ'S flesh in the Sacrament giveth life to the receivers. little and little, he more and more openeth himself, and doth declare thiswonderful mystery. He hath said that he is the living, and quickening bread, which should make the partakers of it without corruption, and give them immortality. Now he saith his flesh is that bread, which he would give for the life of the woorld. And by the which he would give life to us that do receive the same. For truly that quickening nature of the Son of God conjoined to that flesh, by that unspeakable manner of union, hath made that flesh quickening, and therefore doth this flesh quicken the partakers of it. For it doth cast out death from them, and utterly expelleth destruction. I think it not obscure to you to perceive that cyril in this saying doth both expownde this sentence of christ so often already spoken of, of the flesh of christ in the Sacrament: And also that he doth here, as he doth all most every where in this chapter, teach the very presence of christ in the same. For after he had alleged the saying of christ, note that he doth advertise us, how christ doth open himself, and doth plainly set forth this wonder full mystery. For where before he said that he himself was the bread, Now he doth more open himself, and say that his stesh is bread. And that he speaketh of the flesh of christ in the Sacrament he declareth by that, that he saith, that it giveth life to them that be partakers of it. For the proper partaking of Christ'S flesh is in the receiving of this holy Sacrament. This being plainly declared by Cyril who draweth by the line concord with the rest of the ancient fathers, as ye do perceive, it may be known that on both sides of the Parliament house, God hath ever remained with one received truth of this Sacrament. THE SEVENTH CHAPTER ENDETH THE exposition of this text by Theophilacte, and Lyra. forasmuch as there remaineth more matter to prosecute in the expounding of the rest of this sixth chapter of saint john, for the proof of the verity of Christ'S real presence in the blessed Sacrament: I shall add only two more witnesses to give their testimony of this text now in hand, and so ending the exposition thereof, proceed in my matter and purpose intended by like exposition of other more texts in the same chapter. The first of these shall be Theophilactus, who expounding this text giveth Theophilact. in sextam joan. a plain testimony of the truth. Attend (saith he) quòd panis, qui à nobis in mist rijs manducatur, non est tantùm figuratio quaedam corpo is Domini, sed ipsa caro Domini. Non enim dixit: Panis quem ego dabo, figura est carnis meae, sed caro mea est. Transsormatur enim arcanis verbis panis ille per mysticam benedictionem, & accessionem sancti Spiritus in carnem Domini. Et ne quem conturbet, quòd credendus sit panis caro, etenim in carne ambulante Domino, & ex pane alimoniam admittente, panis ille qui manducabatur in corpus eius mutabatur, & similis fiebat sanctae eius carni, & in augmentum & sustentationem conferebat, juxta humanum morem. Igitur & nunc panis in carnem Domini mutatur. Et quomodò (inquit) non apparet nobis caro, sect panis? non abhorreamus ab eius esu. Nam si qui dem caro apparuisset, insuaviter affecti fuissemus erga communionem. Nanc autem condes●ēdēte domino nostrae infirmitati, talis apparet nobis mysticus cibus, qualibus aliquando asue Christ'S very flesh in the Sacrament, not the figure. ti sumus. Take heed, that the bread which is eaten of us in the mysteries, is not only a certain figuring of the body of our Lord, but the very flesh of our Lord. For he did not say: The bread which I will give is a figure of my flesh but, it is my flesh. For the bread is tranfoarmed, by the secret words of the my sticall benediction, and coming of the holy Ghost, into the flesh of our Lord. And let it not trouble any man that the bread is to be believed flesh. For our Lord walking in the flesh, and receiving food of bread, that bread which was eaten, was changed into his body, and was made like to his holy flesh and it went to the augmentation, and sustentation of him according to the manner of man. How the bread is turned into sl●sh, and why flesh is not seen in the Sacrament. Therefore also now the bread is changed into the flesh of our Lord And how (saith he) doth it not appear flesh, but bread▪ that we should not abhor from eating of it. For if it had appeared flesh we should not have been well affected towards the Communion. But now our Lord condescending to our infirmity the mystical meat appeareth such to us, as we have been otherwise accustomed unto. Thus Theophilacte. By whom it is most manifest, that this text of S. john yet in hand is understanded of the blessed Sacrament. And further he most plainly avoucheth the real presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, when he saith, that the bread by the work of the holy ghost is transformed into the flesh of christ, whereby ye are not only taught without all obscurity and darkness of speech that the very flesh of christ, is verily and really present in the Sacrament: Transubstanciation avouched. But ye are also taught the manner how the flesh is made present that is by transubstantiation. which although he utter by an other word, yet in effect it is all one. For where as he saith it is transformed, and every creature hath two forms, an outward form, and an inward, and he affirmeth, and declareth that the outward form remaineth, when he saith: it Form nature, essence substance all one. appeareth bread, which also our senses judge and perceive, than it must needs be, that this transformation must be of the inward form. which invarde form (as learned men do know) for somuch as forma, natura, essentia, and substantia be all one, is the nature and substance of the thing: which form, nature, or substance being changed, that change may aswell be called transubstantion for the change of substance, as transformation for the change of form, form and substance being all one very thing. And that he meant of the change of the very substance of the bread into Bread in the Sacra. changed into flesh, aplain saying for the Proclaimer. the flesh of christ, he declareth by that he saith: that as when our Saviour walked here upon the earth, and being a natural man, did for his natural sustentation eat hread, which bread was changed into the substance of his flesh, and was so changed that it was made like to his holy flesh, as Theophilactes words be: Even so now (saith he) the bread is changed into his flesh. By which similitude he most plainly teacheth, that as the substance of the bread which christ did eat, by natural disposition was substantially changed, into the substance of Christ'S flesh: So is now the substance of bread by the operation of the holy Ghost changed into the substance of Christ'S flesh. And to prove this he useth the words of scripture noting to us that christ did not say: The bread which I will give is a figure of my flesh: but my flesh. If then it be not the figure of Christ'S flesh, and yet is flesh, it must needs be his very natural and substantial flesh. Neither is this to be overpassed, and left unnoted to the reader, that this Oecolampadius falsifieth Theophilacte. author by a plain negative, denieth the false affirmative of the Adversary. For where the Adversary saith it is but a figure, This author saith, it is not only a figure: And yet this word (only) did Oecolampadius put to of his own, in the translating. For the greek hath not that word, as the learned in that tongue have noted. And where the Adversary saith by the negative, it is not flesh: This author boldly using the word and truth of his master christ saith the affirmative, that it is flesh. And thus (reader) though mayst perceive the great impudency and shamelessnes of these Professors of heresy, that what the holy writers, and ancient authors do expressedly affirm, that do they deny, and that, that the ancient Fathers do manifestly deny, that do they affirm, what now is to be judged of these I leave to thee Reader. The other whose testimony shall finish the exposition of this text, shall be Lyra, one of the other side of Chrysts Parliament house, who albeit in time he be not ancient, yet in truth he is ancient, in the which he concordeth and agreeth even with the most ancient, as it shall appear. Upon this same text Nico Lyra in 6. joan of S john so often repeated, without all manner of high speech, he writeth thus plainly: Sciendum quòd in sacramento Eucharistiae continetur ipsum Verbum incarnatum. Et ideo ostendens qualitate huius sacramenti, quatuor tangit: Primum est illud, quod est ibi sacramentuntantùm, scilicet species panis, cùm dicit: Et panis, etc. Secundum est, author huius sacramenti, qui est ipse Christus summus sacerdos. Sacerdos autem, qui est minister huius sacramenti tantummodo profert verba, non in propria persona, sed in persona Christi. In aliis autem sacramentis utitur minister verbis suis, vel verbis Ecclesiae, quibus exprimitur actus quem facit, ut in Baptismo, cum dicitur: Ego baptisote, etc. Sed in Sacramento refert solùm verba Christi, cùm dicit: Qui pridie quàm pateretur etc. et sequuntur postea verba Christi consecrationem efficientia, & hoc notatur cùm dicitur: Ego dabo, etc. Tertium est, res significata, & contenta, scilicet verum Christi corpus, cùm dicitur: Caro mea est. Quartum est, res signata, sed non contenta, scilicet corpus Christi mysticum, quod coniungitur capiti per charitatem. Hoc autem sacramentum dicitur sacramentum amoris. Thus moche Lyra. who although he speaketh plainly (as is said) yet fully and truly, so fully and truly, that he hath wholly set forth that faith that the whole Church doth profess, and so plainly as here is no obscure manner of speech for the Adversary to lurk under, and by a wicked gloze to draw to his sense and purpose. It is to be known (saith Lyra (that in the Sacrament of thanks giving, is contained the very Son of God incarnate. And therefore showing the quality of the Sacrament, he toucheth four things: The first, that there is one thing, which is a Sacrament only, and that is the form of bread, when he saith: And the bread, etc. The secondeys the Author of this Sacrament, which is christ himself the high priest. The priest which is the minister of this Sacrament, doth only speak the words, not in his own person, but in the person of christ. In other sacraments the minister doth use his own words, or the words of the Church, by the which the act that he doth is expressed, as it doth appear in Baptism, where it is said: I baptize thee. But in the Sacrament he doth only rehearse the words of christ, when he saith. Who before the day he suffered, etc. And after follow the words of christ working the consecration. And this is noted when it is said: which I shall give to you. The third is the thing signified, and contained, that is the very body of christ, noted when it is said: it is my flesh. The fourth is the thing signified, and not contained, and that is the mystical body of christ, the which is conjoined to the head by charity. For this Sacrament is called the Sacrament of love. This is the exposition of Lyra. In the which that he doth understand this text of the Sacrament it is more manifest than I need to note it to you, That he also in the same Sacrament teacheth to be the very real presence of Christ'S body. For in the first entry he affirmeth that the very Son of God incarnate is in the Sacrament. Which in the third note he groundeth upon this Very Son of God incarnate in the Sacra. word of christ (it is my stesh) which flesh of christ) saith he) is the thing signified, and contained. It is signified by the Sacrament, that is, a sign of an holy thing, which is the forms of bread, and wine, And is contained being really present, as the very substance under the same forms. In these two parts this Author dissenteth not from other, that have been hitherto alleged. For they all teach one doctrine. One thing in deed he teacheth here which the other alleged for the exposition of this text have not taught, which is that he noteth in this text, that christ doth account himself the Author and giver of this Sacrament. Which in my judgement he doth very well take of these words of christ, which I will give etc. By which words christ signifieth unto us, that he himself is the doer, the worker, and the giver of this Sacrament which thing this author more at large opening saith: christ is the author of this Sacrament, For he is the heigh priest. The priest that is the minister doth but only speak the words, and use his ministery. By the which words the vain saying of vain men, which do deceive the simple, and have not passed to Blaspheme this holy mystery, and shamefully to slander the Church of christ, are made openly to be known in their own sort as they be. For where to draw the simple from Christ'S holy sacrament, and bring the same most excellent mystery in contempt to be derided of boys and Girlles, they would say: dost thou believe that God is in Priests make God, Cavil of the Adversaries opened the Sacrament? why? then the priest doth make him. And believest thou that the priest can make God? What? God made all the world, and he is made of none. With these and such like the simple astoined and not seeing what to answer, is led away as the ox to the slaughter. THE EIGHT CHAPTER DECLARETH BY whose authority and power the Sacrament is consecrate and Christ'S body made present. But that ye may perceive, that to say the priest maketh God, is the Priest maketh God, the doctrine of the Devil. doctrine of the devil and his disciples, who have invented such lies, and slanders to dishonour God, and his holy Sacrament, and to snare and entrap the simple in heresy, and so finally to cast them headlong into perpetual damnation: I shall open, and declare unto you, what is the very true doctrine of Chrysts Church in this matter. The doctrine of Christ'S Church was declared unto us by the author last alleged in the chapter before. Who saith that christ is the high priest and that he is the author and worker of this Sacrament. This was the doctrine taught now in the latter days, which undoubtedly was also taught in the ancient Church, as it shall appear to you by the Fathers which shall be alleged, which lived in diverse ages. Damascen an holy father and of good antiquity, as touching this matter Damasce. de orth. sid. lib. 4 ca 14 saith thus: Quemadmodum omnia quae fecit Deus, Spiritu sancto cooperant fecit: sic & nunc Spiritus sancti operatione haec supra naturam operatur, quae non potest cognoscere, nisi sola fides. Quomodò fiet istud, dixit sancta virgo, quoniam virum non cognosco? Respondit Gabriel Archangelus: Spiritus sanctus superueniet in te, & virtus Altissimi obum brabit tibi. Itaque si & nunc interrogas: Quomodò panis fit corpus Christi, vinum & aqua sanguis Christi: Respondeo & ego tibi, Spiritus sanctus obumbrat, & haec supra sermonem & intelligentiam operatur. Panis autem & vinum Transsumuntur. As all things that How the bread is made the body of christ. God hath made, he hath made them by the holy Ghost working with him: Even so now he worketh these things above nature, by the operation of the holy Ghost. Which things no man can know but only faith. How shall this thing be done (saith the holy virgin) seeing I know not a man? The Archangel Gabriel answered: The holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most highest shall overshadow thee. Therefore if if all so ask now, how the bread is made the body of christ, and the wine and water his blood, I also answer thee. The holy Ghost overshadoweth, and worketh these things above speech and understanding. The bread and the wine be transsumed. Thus moche Damascen, who did write a book of the faith of the Church, in the which writing this saying, that you have now heard, he doth sufficiently give you knowledge what was taught to the faithful people of his time. In the which saying also ye perceive how reverently he frameth himself toward the work of God in this blessed and wonderful mystery. And certifieth us, that if ye ask him how the bread and wine, be made the body and blood of christ: he will answer that the holy Ghost above speech and understanding worketh these things. In the which words we are not only admonished by his example to speak reverently of the mysteries of Christ'S Church, but we are also taught that it is not man, that worketh this wonderful work, or to use the manner of speech that the Devil teacheth his disciples, it is not the priest that maketh God, but it is the holy Ghost, who above that, that man can speak or conceive worketh this wonderful A plain place for the presence and transubstantiation. work. And though this be the principal thing, that in this author is at this present to be sought: yet note also by the way for the presence of christ in the Sacrament, that he both teacheth that the bread and wine be made the body and blood of christ, and also the mean how that by the work of the holy Ghost is brought to pass. For the bread and wine be transsumed (saith he) that is, turned, transmuted, changed, transelementated (as the fathers say) and as the Church now saith, transubstantiated, which is as much to say, as the substance of bread and wine, is turned into the substance of the body and blood of christ. Chrysostom (who lived long before Damascen, writeth also of this matter Chrysost. homil. 2. in 2. Tim. thus: Velo quiddam adijcere planè mirabile, & nolite mirari, neque turbemim. Quid verò est istud? Sacra ipsa oblatio, sive illam Petrus, sive illam Paulus, sive cujusuis meriti sacerdos offerat, eadem est, quam dedit Christus ipse Discipulis, quamue saccrdotes modò conficiunt. Nihil habet ista, quàm illa minus. Cur id? quia non hanc sanctificant homines, sed Christus, quiantè illam sacraverat. Quemadmodum enim verba, quae locutus est Christus, eadem sunt, quae sacerdotes nunc quoque pronunciant: ita & oblatio. I will add hereunto a certain thing plainly wonderful, and marvel ye not, neither be troubled. And what is that? The holy oblation, whether Peter, or Paul, or a priest of any Sacrifice of the Mass what priest soever offer it, is all one with that, which Christ did manner of life do offer it, it is even the same that christ gave unto his disciples, and that the priests do now consecrate: This hath nothing less than that, why so? Because men do not sanctify this, but christ, who did consecrate that other before. Even as the words that christ spoke, are the same which the priests do now pronounce: So also is the oblation. Thus moche Chrysostom. Whom ye have heard not only teaching that christ doth sanctify the table now, who did hallow the table in the last Super: but also with a plain negative denying that men do sanctify it. Which Chrysostom also in an other place speaketh more plainly to this matter. The words there may be an exposition of these words here, and be after the phrase of speech that is used now a days. And therefore I think it expedient, to ascribe them. Nunc ille praestò est, Christus, qui illam ornavit mensam, ipse istam quoque consecrat: Non enim homo est, qui proposita de consecratione mensae Domini corpus facit & sanguinem, sed ille qui pro Chrysost. homil. 30. de predu. nobis crucifixus est Christus. Sacerdotis ore verba proferuntur, sed Dei virtute consecrantur & gratia. Hoc est, ait, corpus meum, hoc verbo proposita consecrantur. The same christ is now present, which did beautify that table, he also doth consecrate this. For it is not man which with the consecration Not man but christ himself doth consecrate. maketh the things of the table, that be set forth, the body and blood of our Lord, but he that was crucified for us, even christ. The words are spoken by the mouth of the priest, but they be consecrated by the power of God and grace. This is (saith he) my body, with this word the things set forth are consecrated. Thus chrysostom. Do ye not see the doctrine of the Church yet every where like? Do ye not hear Chrysostom by direct words, answer these slanderous heretics, saying that it is not man that doth make the body of our Lord, and blood, but he that was crucified for us, even christ. Of whose words also, as before of Damascen, learn not only who doth consecrate, but also what is done and consecrated. This is done (saith chrysostom) that christ maketh the bread A plain place for the Procl. and wine, which be the things set forth, to be his body and blood. Here is no mention of any figure or sign, but plain speech they be made his body and blood, which thing all catholic fathers do teach. And that as well of the Latin Church, as of the Greek Church, we may see the truth with full consent and agreement testified, S. Ambrose shall also be brought forth as a witness in this matter. Who treacting of the blessings of the patriarchs, and among them of the blessing of Aser and of the mystery of the same, for Aser by interpretation is riches, saith thus: Quis igitur dives, nisi ubi altitudo diutiarum est sapientiae & scientiae? Hic ergo dives est, thesaurus huius pinguis panis, quem qui manducaverit, esurire non poterit. Hunc panem dedit Apostolis ut dividerent populo credentium. Hodieue dat nobis eum, Amb de Bened. Patriarch. c. 9 quem ipse quotidie sacerdos consecrat suis verbis. Hic ergo panis factus est esca sanctorum. Who is then rich, but he in whom is the great depth of of wisdom and knowledge? This rich man than is the treasure of this fat bread, which who shall eat, he can not hunger. This bread he gave to his Apostles, that they should divide it to the believing people. Christ doth daily consecrate with his own words. And now he giveth the same to us, which he being the priests, doth daily with his own words consecrate. This bread than is made the meat of the holy. In these words saint Ambrose saith that the priest doth consecrate, but what priest is it? the priest in whom is the deapt of the riches of wisdom, and knowledge, of whom saint Paul speaketh to the Collossians, which is christ. For there is none that can consecrate, with his own words but christ. And with his words the consecration is done, as saint Ambrose saith in an other place: Hoc igitur astruamus, quomodò potest, qui panis est, corpus esse Christi? Consecratione. Consecratio Li. 4. de Sacra. cap. 4. igitur quibus verbis est, et cuius sermonibus? Domini jesus. Nam reliqua omnia, quae dicuntur, laus Deo defertur, oratione petitur pro populo, pro regibus, pro caeteris. Vbi venitur ut consiciatur venerabile Sacramentum, iam non suis sermonibus utitur sacerdos, sed utitur sermonibus Christi. Ergo sermo Christi hoc conficit Sacramentum. Let us then teach this. How Consecration how it is done: can that, that is bread be the body of christ? By consecration By what, and whose words is the consecration? Of our Lord jesus For all the other things that be said laud is given to God, petition is made in prayer for the people, for kings and other. When the time is comed that the honourable Sacrament shall be made, than the priest useth not his own words, but the words of christ. Therefore It is the word of Christ that maketh this Sacrament. A plain place of S. Amb. for master jewel. Thus moche S. Ambrose whose words are so plain that I need not by notes unto you declare the same, and his testimony so consonant and agreeable with the Fathers before alleged for this matter her handled, that ye may evidently perceive how one truth and the self same doctrine, hath been constantly taught in the diverse ages in the which these Fathers lived. And to ascend a little higher and nearer to the Apostles time, we will, for the full declaration of this truth and doctrine already avouched, hear Eusebius Emis. in homil. pasch. Christ doth consecrate his own body by turning the substance of bread etc. the testimony of Eusebius Emissenus an ancient Father in Christ'S church, who saith thus: invisibilis sacerdos visibiles creaturas, in substantiam corporis & sanguinis, verbo suo, secreta potestate convertit. The invisible priest, with his word, by a secret power, turneth the visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood. Thus Eusebius. Whom hear you here tomake the body of christ? doth not the invisible priest, which is our Saviour jesus christ, and not the priest, who is but the ministre? as the Auersaries maliciously blaspheme. But leaving to thee (gentle reader) to weigh and consider, what manner of people they are, that have feigned soche abominable untruths, as to say to deceive with all, that the priest made God, and to judge what credit aught to be given to such, as with lies, slanders, and blashemies go about to maintain their detestable heresies, I will join one more of like ancienty to this Eusebius, and then, I trust, this may satisfy thee in this matter. And this shall be Cyprian that holy martyr, who speaking of evil receivers, Cypr. decoena Dom. saith thus: Melius erat illis mola asinaria collo alligata mergi in pelagus, quàm illota conscientia de manu Domini accipere, qui usque hody hoc veracissimun & sanctissimum corpus suum create, & sanctificat, et benedicit, & piè sumentibus dividit. It were better for than, a millstone tied to their necks to be drowned Christ doth create, sanctify, and bless his own body a plain saig of S. Cyp. in the sea, then with an unwashed conscience to take the morsel at the hand of our Lord, who until this day, doth create, and sanctify, and bless, and to the godly receivers divide, this his most true and most holy body. Thus Cipr. Do ye not see, and learn by this holy martyr, who doth make the body of christ in the Sacrament? Our Lord (saith he) doth even till this tune create, sanctify, and bless this his most holy body. Note also against these sign makers, and figure feigners, that he saith not, he createth a body: But his body, Corpus suum. and not an imaginative body: but veracissimun, & sanctissimum corpus suum, his most true, and most holy body. And he did not only so do in his last supper (as the Petrobrusians said) sed usque hody create. until this day he doth create, sanctify and bless this his most true and most holy body. whereby is taught that christ and none other doth continually create in that holy ministration, and make his body. Now ye have heard, from the latter days until the time of this holy martyr Cyprian and Eusebius before alleged, who were near to the primitive church, what hath been taught as concerning this matter, in diverse ages, and that Supra. li. 1. cap. 31. aswell in the Greek Church, as in the Latin Church, which is, that christ himself doth work this wonderful work of consecration, to make present in this blessed sacrament his very body and blood, and not the priest, who (as Chrysostom hath taught) speaketh the words, but the power and grace of God doth consecrate the things. Wherefore (Reader) take heed of this wicked sort of people, who (as ye may perceive) have not only, for the setting forth of their wicked heresies wickedly slandered the whole Church, and the holy ministery of the same. But also most impudently have spoken the contrary of that, that the famous learned holy Fathers have taught. What truth may be thought to be in them in other matters, by this ye may conjecture. But now leaving this matter as sufficiently declared and proved against them: I will resume my intended purpose to expownde the sixth of saint john, whereof ye have heard one text, and the testimony of diverse Fathers avouching the same to be understanded of the blessed Sacrament, and of the real presence of Christ'S body in the same. Now will I proceed to other texts in the same chapter touching this matter. THE NINTH CHAPTER EXPOUNDETH THE next text that followeth in saint john. THe next text following in the sixth chapter of saint john is this: Litigabant ergo judaei adinuicem dicentes: Quomodò potest hic nobis carnem suam dare ad manducandum? The jews strove among them joan. 6. selves, saying: How can this fellow give us his flesh to eat? The jews unto whom (as saint Paul saith) usque in hodiernum diem, cùm legitur Moses, velamen positum est super cor eorum. Until this day, when 2. Cor. 3. Moses is red, the veill is put upon their hearts, their understandings being carnal, and covered with so gross a veill, that they could not perceive the spiritual talk of christ, they strove together, and asked how he could give them his flesh to eat. They lacked the right principle of the understanding of his matter, which is faith: Esay 7. For Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis. Unless ye believe, ye shall not understaud They did not understand it, because they did not believe it. No more shall they understand, until they turn unto God by true belief, as saint Paul saith Cùm autem conversi fuerint ad Dominum, auferetnr velamen de cord eorum. Nevertheless when they turn to our Lord, the veil shall be taken away from their heart. And then shall they not use this word of incredulity, and doubtfulness, which never passeth from man, but in the want of faith, as saith Chrysostom upon this text: Quando subit quaestio, quomodò aliquid fiat, simul subit & incredulitas. Itaque & Nicodemus perturbatus est inquiens, Chrys. homil. 45. in joan. Quomodò potest homo in ventrens matris suae iteratò introire et renasci? Itiden & high nunc: Quomodò potest hic nobis dare carnem svam ad manducandum? Nam si hic inquiris, cur non idem in quinque panum miraculo dixisti, quomodò eos in tantum auxit? Quiae tunc tantùm saturari curabant, inquies, non considerare nuraculum. Sed res ipsa tunc docuit. Ergo ex eo & haec credere oportuit ei facilia factu esse. When the question, how, cometh, there cometh also incredulity. Even so Nichodemus was troubled saying: How can a man enter into his mother's womb again, Even so these now, how can this man give us his flesh to eat, For if thou inquirest this, why dost though not say the like in the miracle of the five loaves, how he increased them to so great a quantity? By cause then (ye will say) they did only care to be filled with meat, not to consider the miracle, but then the thing it self taught them, that the bread was multiplied. Therefore by that then it behoved to have believed these things to have been easy to him to do. Thus moche Chrysostom. In deed (as this author saith) the jews having experience of Christ'S power by that miracle wrought in bread for their bodily sustenance, might very well have believed, that by the like power he might work this miracle also in bread, to turn the substance thereof into the substance of his body, in a manner convenient to be received for their spiritual sustenance but Animalis homo non percipit ea quae sunt Dei. The natural or carnal man doth not perceive 1. Cor. 2. False Christians worse than Jew's with their questioning how. the things of God. No more do our Pseudochrystians, who be worse than the jews, for that they once believed, and yet now be led away by diverse and strange doctrines, the contrary whereof saint Paul counseileth them in his epistle to the hebrews. And for that they would not remain and continue in that faith, whereunto God had once called them, he suffereth them to be as gross and carnal in understanding, as the jews, and to use the like question that the jews did, and say, How can the body of christ be in the Sacrament, under so little a piece of bread? And how can we receive the body of christ in at our mouths? And how can christ be in the Sacrament, that is at the right hand of the Father? And how can the body of christ, being but one, be at once in so many Altars? All which questions do plainly declare a lack The miraculous work of the Sacrament promised by Chryst. of faith to and of God's works and power, that he is able to do and doth these things. For unto all these questions the aunsweries: that they be done by the power, and miraculous work of God. If ye do proceed to ask, where find you that God did say, that he would work soche a miraculous work by his divine power? Ye heard it even now, that christ said: The bread which I will give is my flesh, not a fantastical flesh, not a Mathematical, or a figurative flesh (as Theophilacte expoundeth that text) but that same flesh, that I will (saith christ) give for the life of the world, I will give you that same flesh to eat, that I will give to be crucified upon the cross, for the redemption of the world, and none other but even the very same. Soche as believed God, among the children of Israel, that they should possess the land of Canaan, when God had, said they should so do, and not withstanding the mightiness of the people that did inhabit that land, which by the judgement of men were so mighty, that it was unpossible for the children of Israel to vanquissh them, as by their own arm, yet did not mistrust, but that God, that had said it, was able and would perform it, these I say, enjoyed that land according to their belief, and their faith was not frustrated of her expectation. But such as had heard the saying of God, and considered how great a matter it was, and how far exceeding the power of the Israelites to compass, and upon this consideration measured the power of God, according to the measure of man, and so having a little faith, and moche doubt, began to question: how can we debel this people so great, mighty, and strong? and would not by an assured faith leave the manner of the doing and compasing of it to God, assuredly believing that no word of his shall fall to the ground unsulfilled, soche I say, never came to vanquish the people, but vanished away in their unbelief, and procured God's displeasure upon them, and died in the wilderness. Wherefore seeing christ hath said, that he would give us that same flesh, God's power is not to be measured by man's reason. which he would give for the life of the world, let us not measure his power by ours, to think that because we can not do it, nor comprehend it, or because it misliketh our natural reason, therefore he can not do it. But humbly let us understand it by faith, and not ask how can he give us his flesh to eat? but by faith confess it: Quia omnia possibilia sunt credenti, & quae sunt impossibilia apud homines, possibilia sunt apud Deum. Quia non est impossibile apud Deum omne verbum. All things Marc. 9 Luc. 18. Jbid. 1. are possible to the believer. And such things as are unpossible with men, are possible with God. For with God nothing is unpossible. And so leaving to be a curious searchers of gods wonderful works, praise God and say: Tu es Deus, qui facis mirabilia. if art God that woourkest marvelous things. But for so moche as this text declareth the incredulity of the jews only in this mystery, and teacheth not the faith of a christian man necessarily to be had about the same, Therefore I have decreed briefly to overpass it, and by occasion thereof some what to say to the Adversaries. THE TENTH CHAPTER PROVING AGAINST the Adversaries, that the body of christ may be and is in more places than one at once. OCcasion being here given by the doubtful how of the jews ask, How can this man give us this flesh to eat? to make mention also of the doubtful how of faithelesse christians, ask, how christ, who is at the right hand of the Father, can be in the Sacrament: And how the body of christ being one, can be at one time on many Altars: I have thought good here a little to stay, by faith theological to answer, not the faith, but the doctrine Philosophical, both of the Proclaimer, and also of his Complices. For this is a member of his proclamation: whether the body of christ is, or may be in a thousand places or more at one time. Which albeit in sense it be coincident to the other before mentioned: yet in utterance it showeth a more doubtful countenance. For ask whether Christ'S body can be in a thousand places at once, he doth both by the word, thousand, moche declare his incredulity to the mysteries of God, and by the same persuadeth to his hearers an impossibility, And for that this manner of questioning is a question on incredulity, as the jews was, and spring both out of unbelief, I have thought good to join them together, and after the handling of the one, to handle the other. And to them both to say: As the jew remaining with in the compass of his carnal understanding, could not attain to the understanding of this matter, which was by faith, and yet possible, So these men measuring christ and his power by natural knowledge, which is but gross dregs and suds, to the pure knowledge of faith, they come in doubt, and ask a question as of a thing unpossible, when yet it is very possible. But perchance ye will say to me, if it be a thing so very possible, how Objection with answer. Faith judgeth it possible, that reason judgeth impossible. doth it appear to this man and his likes unpossible? I answer that it appeareth to them unpossible, because they leaving the knowledge of faith, are returned to the only knowledge natural, and thereby will they measure Christ'S doings in this matter. And for so moche as this appeareth unpossible to that knowledge, therefore they also say that it is unpossible. For although, because they would seem to build upon faith, they do sometime allege the article of our faith, that christ ascended into heaven an sitteth at the right hand of God to Father, yet the ground of their disputation, the force of their praclamation, yea the shottanker of their refuge in this matter is natural reason, even plain natural philosophy. That thou mayst see this (gentle Reader) I will for example make one of their arguments, that Christ'S body can not be in the Sacrament. Thus they reason. He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father. Ergo he is not in the Sacrament. If the true Christian say, it is no good consequence. For though it be true that christ beat the right hand of the Father: yet it improveth not the presence of christ in the Sacrament. For the catholic faith confesseth both that christ is present with his Father in heaven, according to the article of the faith, and also present in the Sacrament according to his word, when he said: This is my body. This is my blood. This do ye in remembrance of me. So that his presence in heaven, denieth not his presence in the Sacrament, but he is present in both, in manner convenient to both. Against this they reply and say: Every natural body can be but in one place: christ hath a natural body: Ergo it can be but in one place. But it is in heaven as in a place. Ergo it is there and in no other place, Mark ye now, how they fly to natural phisolophie as to their great strength, to maintain Sacramentaries chief grounds be natural reasons. their faith? is it not a sure piece of faith that is builded upon natural philosophy, and natural reason, and not upon the scriptures, the ancient fathers, or the universal received faith? Perchance it may be said, that I reason thus of myself to deface the validity of their matter: Well, to avoid this imagination, I will bring in the very argument of Oecolampadius, the great fownder, and prince of this school Oecolamp. De verbis coenae Domini. in our time, and the master of this Proclaimer in this matter. Thus he reasoneth: Si dicas, panis continet corpus, vide quid sequitur. ergo panis locus erit, & unum corpus erit in multis locis, & multa corpora in uno loco, & corpus in corpore etc. If thou sayest, the bread containeth the body, look what followeth, them the bread shall be a place, and one body shall be in many places, and many bodies in one place, and one body in an other. Thus Oecolampadius. Do I now feign this manner of reasoning? Doth not Oecolampadius resort to natural phisolophie, to prove his heresy, and impugn the faith catholic? Although in deed the argument proceedeth directly against Luther, who taught the bread in the Sacrament to remain with the body of christ (such is the agreement of the Father, and the Son, of the master and the scholar, of Luther, and Oecolampadius, and so of one of them with an other) yet it is also against the catholic faith, for it impugneth the presence of christ in the Sacrament. But how? as is said, by natural reason. And shall I say why they prove this their doctrine by natural reason? In deed because it is so far unknown to the scriptures that I dare say, they never were, nor shall be able to bring fruthe any one scripture to prove it, and so much to diminish the omnipotency or almighty power of God. But to answer O●colampadius for his natural reason, I think the saying of saint Ambrose to be a good answer. Quid hic quaeris naturae ordinem in Christi corpore, De initiand mist. cap. 9 cum praeter naturam sit ipse Dominus jesus partus ex virgine? What seekest though (saith saint Ambrose) the order of nature in Christ'S body here, seeing the self same our Lord jesus besides nature was born of a virgin. And to add to saint Ambrose saying, not only his birth was besides nature, but many other his acts: as his great learning and wisdom declared in his disputation with the doctors in the temple, when he was but twelve years of age, his Natural order had no place in many of Christ'S doings, walking upon the sea, his voluntary death in giving up his blessed soul at his own pleasure, without force or violence, as it were, to thrust it out and to cause ut to depart. His resurrection and his ascension withal be as much against the order of nature, as his blessed body to be in diverse places, and as good arguments may the Adversary find in natural philosophy against them as against this. Which if he do or may do, shall we therefore deny Christ'S walking on the sea, his death, his resurrection, Mahomet's patched religion and the Sacramentaries ●och like. and his ascension as they do his presence in the Sacrament. Then shall we make a mingled faith, as the Turks do. For as they keep part of Moses' law, part of Mohometes invention: So we must have a faith partly ground upon the scriptures, partly on natural reason. But so, that when we will scripture shall rule natural reason, and when we list natural reason shall command and withstand both faith and scripture. This is a madsetled faith. Wherefore thus moche to conclude with saint Ambrose, let us not seek the order of nature in Christ'S body, but let us seek the order of faith, and cleave to that. But this proclaimer would have some one scripture doctor, or Council, that should declare that Chryststes body is or may be in a thousand places or more at one time. In deed to answer truly, I must confess I find neither scripture, nor doctor nor Council teaching this matter in such manner. For there is not one of these that speaketh so fondly, and so unreverently, to prescribe the omnipotency of God a certain limitation, and a stinted number and that with such a diffidency uttered, as this Proclaimer saith, in a thousand places or more: signifying thereby an impossibility, that it is unpossible for christ to be in a thousand places at one time, so in deed I find not. But I find them with reverence and faith, without prescription of number of places (for that they leave to Gods will) saying and teaching, that the body of christ is in diverse, or in many places. And this (gentle reader) for thy satisfaction shall I, by the testimony of diverse and many of the most ancient Fathers, lay before thee. And here I confess, that this matter, by learned Fathers hath been so well laboured, that I can not bring in moche more, than they have before me gathered together. but that their confession of this truth, and their faith therein may not be unknown to thee, I will not stick hitherto ascribe, that I find collected in other, raither then though shouldest be defrauded of so much good knowledge, and this fond member of this proclaimers proclamation not fully answered. And first, to declare and prove this matter by the scripture, I say that our saviour christ taking the bread, and blessing it, made it his body Mat. 26. Mare. 14. Luc. 22. saying: Hoc est corpus meum, This is my body. Which being done, his body was at that time present in diverse places, as in his own hands, in the hands also of every of his Apostles. That at that time he did bear or hold himself in his own hands, saint Augustin is a notable witness, speaking of king David and applying it to christ, saying: Et ferebatur manibus suis. Hoc verò fratres, quomodò August. in Psalm. 33. possit fieri in homine quis intelligat? Quis enim portatur in manibus suis? Manibus altorum potest portari homo, manibus suis nemo portatur. Quomodò intelligatur in ipso david secundùm literam non invenimus, In Christo autem invenimus. Ferebatur enim Christus in manibus suis, quando commendans ipsum corpus, ait: Hoc est corpus meum. And he was borne in his own hands. But brethren how this may be done christ in his supper bore himself in his own hands in man, who can understand? Who is borne or carried in his own hands? A man may be carried in the hands of other men, in his own hands no man is borne. How it may be understanded in David himself according to the letter, we find not: But that it may be understanded in christ we find. For christ was borne in his own hands when he giving forth the self same body, said: This is my body. Ye have here heard saint Augustin affirming that christ carried himself in his own hands. Then this must needs follow, that the self same body that did bear or carry, and the self same body that was born or carried, being but the very one body of christ, was then at one time in diverse places. And the same one body of christ being given forth to each of his Apostles, and they sitting in diverfe places, argueth that the same one body of christ, was at one time in twelve sundry places at the least. And as it was then in so many: So may it be now in fewer or more, according to the omnipotent pleasure of him that is Lord of nature, and natural order and is subject to neither of them, but ruleth and altereth them as to his wisdom seemeth convenient for the setting forth of his honour, and glory. This was so well known, and so firmly believed of Saint basil that holy Father, that hereunto agreeably he prayeth in his Mass thus: Respice Domine Basil. in sua Liturgia. Plain places for the Proclaimer. jesu Christ, Deus noster, de sancto habitaculo tuo, & veni ad sanctificandum nos, qui sursum Patri consides, & hic nobiscum invisibiliter coes. Dignare manu tua sorti dare nobis sanctum, & intaminatum corpus tuum, & preciosum sanguinem, & per nos peccatores populo tuo. Look o Lord jesus christ our God, from thy holy tabernacle, and come to sanctify us. Which sittest above with thy Father, and art with us here invisibly, vouchsafe with thy mighty hand to give unto us thy holy and undefiled body, and precious blood, and by us sinners to thy people. chrysostom in his mass hath almost the same words, that he prayeth Respice Domine jesu christ Deus noster de sancto habitaculo tuo, & de sede gloriae regnitui, Chrys●in sua Liturg. & veni ad sanctificandum nos qui sursum cum Patre sedes, & deorsum nobis invisibiliter assistis, Dignare tua potenti manu tribuere nobis immaculatum corpus tuum, & preciosum sanguinem, & per nos omni populo. O Lord jesus christ our God, look from thy holy tabernacle, and from the seat of the glory of thy kingdom, and come to sanctify us, which sittest above with the Father, and standest by us beneath invisibly, vouchsaif with thy mighty hand to give unto us thy undefiled body, and precious blood and by us to all thy people. These two holy Fathers, what soever natural reason or order would, not withstanding they prayed according to the order of faith, and thereunto according they confessed, and acknowledged christ both to be above with the Father, and also present with us in the Sacrament. Although Chrysostom doth so plainly with basil testify the presence of christ both with the Father in heaven, and with us here in earth: yet more plainly he doth witness the same in an other place, speaking of the sacrifice of Christ'S body offered in the Church, and saith: Hoc autem sacrificium Chrysost in 10. add ●c. hom. 17. exemplar est illius. Idipsum semper offerimus, nec nunc quidem alium agnum, crastma alium, sed semper eundem ipsum. Proinde unum est hoc sacrificium hac ratione. Alioquin quoniam in multis locis offertur, multi Christi sunt. Nequaquam: Sed unus ubique est Christus, & hic plenus existens, & illic plenus, unum corpus. Sicut enim qui ubique offertur unum corpus est, & non multa corpora: ita etiam & unum sacrificium. This sacrifice is an exemplar of that, that christ offered: Even the self same do we always offer. Neither do we now offer one lamb, and to morrow an other, but allwais even the self same. Therefore is this one sacrifice, by this reason. Otherwise for that The sacrifice offered in many places is but one christ. it is offered in many places, there be many Christ'S. Not so. But there is one christ every where, both here being full and there full, even one body. And as he, that is every where offered, is one body, and not many bodies: Even so also is the sacrifice one. Weigh well this testimony of Chrysostom, gentle Reader, and first this that he saith: That the sacrifice of Christ's body is but one. For otherwise because it is offered in many places, there should be many Christ's. In which words how plainly doth he say that christ is offered in many places? and yet not many Christ'S, but one christ. This Father teacheth not like a natural Philosopher, but like a divine Philosopher, a lover of the wisdom of Christ'S faith, according to the which, and contrary to Philosophy, he confesseth Christ'S body to be in many places at once, and that with reverence, and not with doubtful admiration, and exclamation (as this Proclaimer doth) to be in a thousand places at once. Although in his reverent words there is as much implied, as the words following do well declare. Which also good reader note. For he saith: ubique offertur, he is every where offered, and that is more than in a thousand places. And although this man's heresy hath fretted, and eaten in many places, moche like a deadly canker: yet I believe christ is not so forsaken, but he is yet offered in more than a thousand places, and shall be, except our sins shall deserve that he be taken away from us. As for that that he saith, that christ is our sacrifice, and therefore present, I will leave it without note, to be considered in a place more convenient. As before ye have heard S. basil and Chrysostom uttering almost all one and the same words of this matter: So shall ye hear Saint Ambrose speaking almost the same words that chrysostom did. So be these good Fathers linked together in one truth, that they oftentimes speak all one, and the same words in one and the same matter. Thus writeth saint Ambrose: Proinde unum est hoc sacrificium. Alioquin hac ratione, quoniam Ambr. in 10. Heb. multis in locis offertur, multi Christi sunt. Nequàquam: Sed unus ubique est Christus, & hic plenus existens, & illic plenus, unum corpus. Sicut enim qui ubique offertur, unum corpus est, & non multa corpora: ita etiam & unum sacrificium. Therefore this sacrifice is christ offered every where is but one body, and one sacrifice. one. or else by this reason, for that it is offered in many places, there be many Christ'S. Not so but every where one christ, both here being full and there full, even onen body. For even as he that is offered every where is one body, and not many bodies: Even so also is the sacrifice one. I will not trouble you with noting saint Ambrose words, but what is given you to note upon Chrysostom, note the same even here likewise, and I will hast me to hear an other place of S. Ambrose where he saith thus: Vidimus Principem sacerdotum ad nos venientem. Vidimus & audivimus offerentem pro nobis sanguinem suum. Sequamur ut possumus sacerdotes, ut offeramus pro populo sacrificium, Amb. in Psalm. 38. etsi infirmi merito, honorabiles tamen sacrificio, quia etsi nunc Christus non videtur offer, tamen ipse offertur in terris, quando Christi corpus offertur. We have seen the high priest coming to us. We have seen and heard him offering for us his blood. Let us priests, as we may, follow, that we may offer sacrifice for the people, although by merit we are weak: yet are we by the sacrifice honourable. For although christ is not now seen to offrer: Yet is he offered in earth, when the body of christ is offered. Leving all other things that may be here noted, this is not to be overpassed, that saint Ambrose saith, that Christ is offered in earth. But when christ is offered in earth, when his body is offered. is he offered? When his body is offered. whereby it is manifest, that as we may confess christ verily to be in glory: So may we also confess that he is verily in earth, for so much as he is there offered in sacrifice. And so being verily both in heaven and earth, that is true, that we travail here to prove. But that, that is yet remaining to be said in this matter, will not suffer me to tarry to note, and say, what might be noted and said here: For besides other things we have yet to hear the goodly testimony of S. bernard, who so plainly teacheth this matter, and so godly, that it were pity the reader should be defrauded of the reading of so notable a sentence. Thus he writeth: Sed unde hoc nobis pijssime Domine, ut nos vermiculi reptantes super faciem terrae, nos inquam, qui pulvis & cinis sumus te praesentem habere mereamur Bernard. sermone de coena Dom. prae manibus, prae oculis, qui totus & integer sedes ad dextram Patris, qui etiam unius horae momento, ab ortu solis usque ad occasum, ab Aquilone usque ad Austrum praestò es omnibus, unus in multis, idem in diversis locis, unde hoc, inquam? Certè non ex debito, neque ex merito nostro: sed ex voluntate tua, & dulcedinis tuae beneplacito. But how happeneth this unto us, O most merciful Lord: that we little worms creeping upon the face of the earth, may have thee present, before our hands, before our eyes, which all and whole sittest at the right hand of the Father. Which also in the minute of an hour, from the East to the West, from the North to the South christ being one is at one time in many places. art present to all. though being one, art in many, and being the self same art in diverse places, from whence cometh this I say? Truly not of any duty, neither of our desert, but of thy will, and the pleasure of thy gentleness. Thus saint Bernard. See ye not how this holy Bernard not with words of scoffs and doubtfulness, but with godly simplicity, and reverence confessing the verity of Christ's presence, both at the right hand of God the Father, and also in the Sacrament before our hands, before our eyes, and thereof nothing doubting, woundereth at the great goodness and mercy of our Saviour christ, how he doth vouchsaif so much to do for us poour little worms creeping upon the earth. Such was the simplicity of faith, the humbleness of mind in good Fathers, that believing the thing, they did agnize the great benefit of God, where this Proclaimer puffed up with pride, rejecteth the simplicity of faith, and contemneth the benefit of God. But contemning him that condemneth God, let us hear more of this good Father, that honoured our Lord God. In the same sermon he hath also this saying, speaking to the Church, which is the Spouse of christ to stir her also to agnize this great benefit of God, saying thus: Gratulare sponsa, gaude Bernard. serm. cod. incomparabiliter. Praesidentem habes, & rectorem sponsum in praesentis exilij militia. Pignus habes, arrham tenes, quibus foeliciter uniaris sponso in patria, gloriosa & amabilis sponsa. In terra sponsum habes in sacramento: in coelis habitura es sine velamento, & hic & ibi veritas: sed hic palliata, ibi manifestata. Gene thanks, O spouse, rejoice incomparably. In the warfare of this present banishment, if havest thy husband precedent, and ruler, if havest the pledge, if havest thy earnest money, by the which thou mayst as a glorious and beloved christ both in heaven and earth in verity. Spouse be united and joined to thy Spouse in heaven with felicity. In earth though havest thy Spouse in the Sacrament: In heaven thou shalt have him without any covert. Both here, and there is the verity. But here covered, there openly showed. This is a goodly sentence, and worthy well to be noted, but this for our purpose special, that the Church hath her Spouse christ in earth in the Sacrament, which in heaven she shall have in open vision. Here verily christ, and there verily christ, all the difference is, that here he is under coverture, there manifestly seen. To conclude, that the adversary shall not reject saint Bernard for his plain saying: it shall be confirmed by the like saying of Chrystom, who saith Chrysost. li. 3. de sacer. thus: O miraculum, O Dei benignitatem, qui cum Patre sursum sedet, in illo ipso temporis articulo omnium manibus pertractatur, ac se ipse tradit volentibus ipsum accipere ac complecti. christ sitting above is also in the hands of men. O miracle, O the gentle goodness of God, he that sitteth above with God the Father, even in that same point of time is handled with the hands of all, and he delivereth himself to them that will receive him, and embrace him. Thus moche chrysostom. Behold now (good reader) how Chrysostom agreeably to the speech of saint Bernard, acknowledgeth the great goodness of God, that christ which sitteth at the right hand of the Father is in that time, meaning the time of ministration, in the hands of men. In that he saith, he is in the hands of men, it argueth a real presence, for the spiritual presence can not be in hands, but in heart. To the proof of this also it maketh invincibly, that chrysostom exclaimeth Christ'S being in the Sacr. is miraculous contrary to the rules of philosophy. with reverent wonder saying: O miracle. In this that he acknowledgeth it a miracle, he doth acknowledge more than the bread to be a figure of Christ'S body. For that is no miracle to be wondered at. But he doth acknowledge the miracle to be, that christ that sitteth above with the Father, should also be in the Sacrament in the hands of men. This is the miracle. For this is both above nature, and against nature, and done by the only power of God, and therefore is a miracle. Thus than it is manifest by the humble lowly, and faithful confession of the faith of these holy fathers, that Christ'S body miraculously is both in heaven, and in earth in the Sacrament, and so in many places at one time notwithstanding the contemptuous exclamation of this Proclaimer, limiting the power of God by an impossibility, as it appeareth to his unbelieving understanding, that the body of christ should be in a thousand places. Which his exclamation was his best argument to bring the people from their faith. But if he will acknowledge the miracle with Chrysostom, he shall perceive how foolish his argument is. THE ELEVENTH CHAPTER PROVETH THAT as two bodies may be in one place: so the body of christ being one may be in diverse places. AS the Adversaries to overthrow the work of faith have used natural philosophy: So to maintain their natural philosophy, they have utterly denied the very Gospel, the ground of faith. For where the good catholic learned men of charitable pity laboured to bring them, from this their wicked error, persuading them not to cleave to natural reason, as therewith to measure, and streicten that, which is the body of the Son of God, exalted to be in unity of person with the Godhead, as they would do our bodies which be but natural, and earthly bodies only, infinite degrees under the condition of that blessed body of christ: but to consider, that as the body of christ, though it be a natural body, might be with an other body in one place at one time, which is against natural Philosophy and reason: So the same being but one body, might be in diverse places at one time, notwithstanding natural reason and Philosophy. To prove two bodies to be in one place at one time, the Gospel of saint Joan. 20. john was alleged, where we read: Venit jesus ianuis clausis, & stetit in medio eorum & dixit: Pax vobis. jesus came the doors being shut, and stood in the midst of them and said: Peace be with you. This being testified of saint john, for the miraculous coming in of christ to his Apostles, proveth that he so coming in, passed through door or wall as his pleasure was to do, and so doing, there was, contrary to Oecolampadius saying, Corpus in corpore, & duo corpora simul. One body in an other, and two bodies together one place. Cranmer in his answer against winch. I remember, that this scripture was objected by master Smith against Cranmer: and for answer thereunto thus saith Cranmer: But peradventure Master Smith will ask me this question: How could christ come into the house, the door being shut, except he came through the door? To your wise question, master Smith, I will answer by an other question. Could not christ come aswell into the house, when the door was shut, as the Apostles could go out of prison, the door being shut? Could not Act. 5. God work this thing except the Apostles must go through the door, and occupy the same place that the door did? In this answer by Cranmer made by questions, as there be two questions so there be two parts. But by the answering of the first, the answering to the second shall be the easier. The first question asketh: if christ could not come as well into the house the doors being shut, as the Apostles could go out of prison the door being shut: which question I pray thee, Reader, well to weigh. Which if thou do thou shalt perceive that to avoid this argument, and to deceive Cranmer falsifieth the scripture to maintien his heresy. the reader, he here uttereth a manifest and shameful untruth, and abuseth the Scripture for the maintenance of his heresy to wickedly. For he, to make the readers believe that the coming in of christ into the house, and the going of the Apostles out of prison, was of one manner, saith that the going out of the Apostles, and the coming in of christ were both the doors being shut. Which is very false, and directly against the truth of the scripture. For as concerning the going out of the Apostles out of prison, Look the acts of the Apostles, and ye shall find, that they went not out the doors being shut, as this man untruely reporteth, but the doors being open. Which thing the holy Ghost left not undeclared. For thus shall ye read there: The chief priest rose up, and all they that were with him, which is the sect of the Saducees, and were full of indignation, and laid hands on the Apostles, and put them in the common prison. But the Angel of our Lord by night opened the prison doors and brought them forth, and said. Go and stand, and speak in the temple to the people all the words of life, When they heard that; they entered early in the morning and taught. But the chief priest came, and they that were with him, and called a council together, and all the elders of the children of Israel, and sent men to the prison to fetch them, when the ministers came, and found them not in prison they returned, and told, saying: The prison truly we found shut, with all diligence, and the keepers standing without, before the doors, but when we had opened, we found no man within. In this scripture first note, that when the Apostles were committed to prison, the Angel of God came by night and opened the doors of the prison and not only opened the doors, but also brought the Apostles out. Then is it false that this man saith, that the Apostles went out of the prison the doors being shut. Truth it is that the doors were made fast again after their departure. For the messengers, that came in the morning to fetch the Apostles reported that they found the doors shut with all diligence, and the keepers standing before the door. And herein would the holy Ghost the miracle to be noted, that the Angel opened the prison doors, and shut them again, and brought forth the Apostles, and the keepers standing at the door perceived not. But yet he would not this miracle of their going out to be like the miracle of Christ'S Coming in. For as touching the Apostles, the holy Ghost plainly reporteth how they went out by the help of the Angel opening the doors: But in Christ'S coming in there is no means declared how he came in, but it is absolutely spoken, Venit jesus ianuis clausis, jesus came, the doors being shut, signifying that he came in christ entered in to his Apost. the doors being shut. more miraculously by the power of his Godhead, not requiring the aid of the opening of any door. But that ye may perceive that I do expound and understand this fact and miracle of christ as the holy fathers do, and that ye may the better credit the matter, ye shall hear how they understand this place of saint johan. Chrysostom to prove the Mother of christ a virgin both before and after his birth, allegeth this place, and saith thus: Sancta Maria, beata Maria, matter et Chrysost. homil. de joan. Bapt. virgo. Virgo fuit ante partum, virgo post partum. Ego hoc miror, quomodò de virgine virgo natus sit, & post nationem virginis matter virgo sit. Vultis scire quomodò de virgine natus sit, & post nativitatem matter ipsa sit virgo? Clausa erant ostia, & ingressus est jesus. Nulli dubium quin clausa sint ostia: qui intravit per ostia clausa, non erat phantasma, non erat spiritus, verè corpus erat. Quid enim dicit? Respicite & videte, quia spiritus carnem, & ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere. Habebat carnes, habebat ossa, & clausa erant ostia. Quomodò clausis ostijs intraverunt ossa, & caro? Clausa sunt ostia, & intrat, quem intrantem non vidimus. unde intravit? omnia clausa sunt, locus non est per quem intret, & tamen intus est qui intravit. Nescis quomodò factum sit, & das omnipotentiae Dei: Da potentiae Dei, quia de virgine natus sit. The holy Marie, the blessed Marie, mother and virgin, she was a virgin before birth, a virgin after birth. I marvel at this, how of a virgin, a virgin should be born, and after the birth of a virgin, the mother should be a virgin. Will ye know how he was born of a virgin, and after the birth, how she was both mother and virgin? The doors were shut and jesus entered in. No man doubteth but that the doors were shut, He that entered by the shut doors was no fantasy, he was no spirit, he was verily a body. For what said he? Look and see that a spirit hath no flesh and bones, as ye see me have. He had flesh, he had bones, and the doors were shut, How did flesh and bones enter the door being shut? The doors be shut, and he goeth in, whom we saw not going in. How did he go in? all things are close, there is no place, by the which he might go in, and yet he is within, that went in, and it doth not appear how he went in. Thowe knowest not, and dost refer it to the omnipotency of God. give this also to the omnipotency of God, that he was born of a virgin. Saint Hierom useth the same argument, to the same purpose and saith: Hieron. in Apologia, cont. Jovin. Respondeant mihi, quomodò jesus ingressus est clausis ostijs, cùm palpandas manus, & latus considerandum, & ossacarnemue monstraverit, ne veritas corporis phantasma putaretur: Et ego respondebo quomodò sancta Maria sit matter & virgo, virgo post partum, matter antequàm nupta. Let them answer me (saith saint Hierom) how jesus entered in the doors being shut, when, lest his body should be thought a fantasy, he showed both flesh and bones, and his hands to be felt, and his side to be considered: And I will answer them, how the holy Marie, may be both a mother, and a yirgen. A virgin before birth, a mother before she was known of man. In both these authors, we may perceive not only by their words, but also by the argument which they make, that the doors remained still shut, both at the entering in of christ in to the house, and after that he was entered in, whereby they prove that the clausures of the virginity in the virgin Marie, remained close, both before the birth in the birth, and after the birth of christ. Now if the doors did open at the going in of christ to his Apostles (as some have wickedly taught raither seeking to shadow the miraculous work of christ, and to falsify the scriptures, than they would forsake their error, or have it convinced) then could it not prove that the clausures of the virginity of the mother of christ, notwithstanding his birth, remained allwais closed which (as ye may perceive) they intended to prove. It may be that the Adversary being pressed with the authority of these grave and learned fathers, will grant that christ went in to this Apostles the doors being shut, But yet he went not (he will say) through the door, nor no other body, so as there should be two bodies in one place at one time. That he went in the doors being shut he will grant: But how he went in, he can not tell. To make this matter plain to the Adversary and thee, Reader, we will hear Chrysostom in an other place, giving some cause, how he might so go in. Dignum autem dubitatione est, quomodò corpus incorruptibile formam clavorum acceperit, Chrysost. homil. 86. in Joan. & mortali manu tangi potuerit. Sed hoc te non perturbet, hoc enim permissionis fuit. Corpus enim tam tenue & leave ut clausis ianuis ingrederetur, omni crassitudine earebat, sed ut resurrectio crederetur, talem se exhibuit. Et ut ipsum crucifixum fuisse, & neminem alium pro eo resurrexisse intelligas, proptered cum signis crucis resurrexit. It it worthy of doubt, how the incorruptible body did take the form of the nails, and Christ'S body was so void of grossness that it might enter the doorees being shut could be touched with mortal hand. But let not this trouble thee, For this was done of permission. For that body, being so subtle and light, that it might enter in, the doors being shut, was void of all grossness. But that the resurrection might beleleved, he showed himself soche a one, and that if mightest understand, that it waseven he that was crucified, and no man else did rise for him, therefore he rose with the figures and tokens of the cross. Thus moche chrysostom. The cause which is given here to help up the weakness of our faith the sooner to believe that christ passed through the door, is, that he had after his resurrection, a pure, clear, and subtle body, void of all corruption, and grossness, even a spiritual body, that might to our own judgement and reason the easilier so do: and yet was it a perfect body of a man in substance, and lineaments. But that he came in to his Apostles through the door, and how, and by what means he so did, Chrysostom by express words in an other place declareth, speaking in the person of christ after this manner. Non est meum meos ludificare phantasinate, vanam imaginem visus si timet, veritatem corporis manus Chrys. de resarrect. sermon. 9 & digitus exploret. Potest fortassis aliqua oculos caligo decipere, palpatio corporalis verum corpus agnoscat. Spiritus (inquit) carnem, & ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere. Quòd ostia clausa penetravi, sola est virtus divini Spiritus, non sola carnis substantia. It is not my property, mine to delude with a fantasy. If the seight fear a vain image, christ entered through the doors that were shut. let the hand and fingar try out the verity of the body. Perchance some mist may deceive the eyes, let the corporal feeling acknowledge a true body. A spirit (said he) hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me to have. That I entered through the doors, that were shut, it is only the power of the divine spirit not the only substance of the flesh. Thus Chrysostom. As this place giveth goodly instruction to the reader: so doth it fully, and mighteilie stop the mouths of them that speak wicked things against God, in denienge the miraculous works of our Saviour and master christ. That christ with his perfect body entered in to his Apostles, Chrysostom proveth by Christ'S owen saying being in the midst of them, when he said: A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. How this body, being a perfect body of a man entered, he declareth when he saith in How Christ's body, entered through the doors shut. Amb. in Luc. li. 10. cap. 14. the person of christ, that it entered through the doors. If ye will learn by what mean, he saith, it was not by the substance of the flesh, but by the virtue or power of the Godhead, Of this matter also saint Ambrose is a goodly witness, who upon the Gospel of saint Luke saith thus: Habuit admirandi causam Thomas, cum videret, clausis omnibus per invia septa corporibus inoffensa compage Christi corpus insertum, & ideo mirum quomodò se natura corporea per impenetrabile corpus infuderit, invisibili aditu, visibili conspectu, tangi facilis, difficilis aestimari. Thomas had a cause to marvel when he saw (all things being shetuppe and closed) the body of christ by clausures, without all ways for body to enter, the walls being unbroken, to be entered in among them. And therefore it was wonder, how the corporal nature passed through the impenetrable body, with an invisible coming, but with visible beholding, easy to be touched, hard to be judged. Thus saint Ambrose. If ye note this testimony, it varieth not from Chrysostom: For it testifieth that our Saviour christ came in to his Apostles, the doors being shut And that notwithstanding he went through the clausures of the house, they not being broken. And hereupon, saith saint Ambrose is the great wonder, how his natural body could entre through an impenetrable body. Whereby both these Fathers declare the truth of the doctrine of the Church, that christ thus entering, there were two bodies in one place. There be many that bear very plain testimony in this matter. But we will hear but two more only. Which, I suppose, with these before alleged, being all men of such gravity, holiness, authority, and learning, may suffice, not only to counteruaill these fond babblers, void of like gravity, holiness or learning: but also with them, that have any spark of grace and wisdom, take such effect, as to cause them flee these lewd teachers, and to hiss them out of all Christian company, forasmuch as they teach such learning, as none of the holy Fathers do teach, but such raither as is contrary to them. But let us hear saint Augustine in this matter, thus he saith: Nec eos audiamus, qui negant tale corpus Domini resurrexisse, quale positum August. de agone Christi. cap. 24. est in monumento. Nec nos moveat, quòd clausis ostijs subitò eum apparuisse Discipulis scriptum est, ut proptereà negemus illud fuisse corpus humanum, quin contra naturam huius corporis videmus illud per clausa ostia intrare, omnia enim possibilia sunt Deo. Si enim potuit ante passionem clarificare illud sicut splendorem Solis, quare non potuit & post passionem, ad quantam vellet subtilitatem in temporis momento redigere, ut per clausa ostia posset intrare? Neither let us give ear to them, that deny the same body to have risen, Christ's body against the nature of a body entered through the shut doors that was put in the grave. Neither let it move us, that it is written, that suddenly he appeared to his disciples, the doors being shut, that therefore we should deny it to be a man's body, because we see it against the nature of this body to entre in through the shut doors. For all things are possible to God. For if he could before his passion make it as clear as the brightness of the Sun, why might he not after his passion also in a moment of time, bring it to asmuch a subtility as he would, that he might enter in through the shut doors? Note here in saint Augustine, that where the Adversary would not that the body of christ should be in diverse places for offending the law of natural order, he saith, that christ against the nature of this body, entered in through the shut doors, so that the body of christ may not be bound to the law or order of nature, for that he is the lord of nature, not an only man, but a person that is God and man, as ciril saith: Clausis cyril. in Joan. li. 12. cap. 53. foribus repentè Dominus omnipotentia sua, natura rerum superata, ingressus ad Discipulos est. Nullus igitur querat, quomodò corpus Domini ianuis clausis penetravit, cùm intelligat non de homine nudo, ut modò nos sumus, sed de omnipotent filio Dei, haec ab evangelista describi. Nam cùm Deus verus sit, rerum naturae non subiacet; quod in caeteris quoque miraculis patuit. The gates being shut our lord through his omnipotency, the nature of things being overcomed, suddenly went in to his disciples. Let no man therefore ask how the body of our Lord went through the gates being shut, forasmuch christ is not subject to law of nature. as he may understand, these things to be described of the Evangelist, not of a bare man, as we be now, but of the almighty Son of God. Who uless as he is very God, is not subject to the law of nature. Which thing did appear in other his miracles also. Thus cyril. Now ye have heard a sufficient number of holy learned Fathers, avouching this great miracle of christ, not as some of the Adversaries say, that he came into his disciples after the doors were shut, after the manner of other men: neither as some other of them do say, that he caused the doors or walls to open, and so came in: neither that an Angel did open the doors to him, as to the Apostles, that were in prison: but that he being very God, gave unto that his manhood that singular subtility above all other, that it was not subject to nature (as ciril saith) but above nature, so far, and in such excellent degree, that it might pass through those doors, the doors not broken (as saint Ambrose said. In this matter, thus much have I laboured, both that the miraculous work of christ might not be obscured, nor shadowed by the malignity of men, and also that it might be perceived, that in the works of christ we may not so look to the order of nature, to natural reason, or natural philosophy, that for the maintenance thereof, we shall deny the work of christ. Natural philosophy, hath many propositions, that will not stand with our faith. For natural philosophy teacheth that mundus est perpetuus, the world is perpetual or overlasting: Faith teacheth, that: In principio creavit Gen. 1. Deus coelum & terram. In the beginning God created heaven and earth, and Psal. 191. that therefore the world had a beginning. And it teacheth, also that it shall have an end. For coelum & terra transibunt, heaven and earth shall pass away. Of the which both, the Prophet saith: In principio Domine terram creasti, et opera manuum tuarum sunt coelitipsi peribunt, tu autem permanes, etc. though in the beginning (O Lord) diddest lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy hand. They shall perish, but thou dost abide. Of the which matter also saint Peter maketh plain declaration. Likewise natural philosophy teacheth, quod unum corpus non potest esse simul & semel in diversis locis: that one body can not be at one time in diverse places. But faith teacheth us (as it is declared in the last chapter) that Christ'S body is and may be in diverse places. Natural philosophy teacheth, that duo corpora non possunt simul esse in uno & eodem loco. Two bodies can not be together in one place: Yet the Scripture teacheth (as ye have heard the holy learned Fathers understand them) that Christ'S body entered in through the door, and so there were two bodies at one time in one place. Now therefore forasmoch as these two, that is, that the body of christ is in diverse places, and that the body of christ and the door that he entered through were in one place, be the works of God, let us in the consideration of them, forget natural philosophy, and remember faith. That these appertain to faith it is proved by a number of the holy Fathers, and both these be acknowledged of them to be miraculous works of christ above nature. And as these works were verily done by christ: So is the other mentioned in the chapter before done by christ. Wherefore (Christian reader) weigh well what in these two chapters is said, how many holy and learned Fathers be alleged, how plainly they testify the matter, and have regard to them, stay thyself by them, and be not carried away with them that have nothing to confirm their doctrine but natural philosophy. For as touching the matter spoken of in this chapter let the Aduersatie bring any one sufficient Author, that shall by express words teach the contrary, and I will join with him. THE TWELVETH CHAPTER ANSWERETH certain objections that seem to impugn the catholic doctrine of this matter. THere is nothing so true in all our holy faith, but some heresy Nothing so true but he resie may impugn it Deut. 6. Heresies against God, and every person in the trinity may be found to against say it, and arguments devised to impugn it. It is a most a certain truth, that there is but one God the scripture saying: Deus noster Deus unus est. Hour God is one God. Yet there were that taught that there were two Gods, as Apelles, and Manichaeus. Who taught that there was a good God, and an evil. And for the maintenance of this their heresy, had their arguments which apparently confirmed their sainges. It is a very truth that christ is both God and man, and yet there were that said he was not God, as Ebion and Cerynthus, and there were that said he was no man, as Eutyches, and Dioscorus. It is a certain truth, that God the Son is God coequal, and consubstantial to the Father, yet Arius said that he was a creature not equal to the Father in deity, power or majesty. It is an infallible truth that the holy Ghost is God, yet Macedonius taught that he was a creature. It is a certain truth that christ suffered death for us: yet there were that said that it was Simon Cyrinensis, of whom there is mention made in the Gospel, that he bore Christ'S cross. These and an innumerable sort more have all apparent arguments, to make a cowntenance, that their doctrines be true, and do intermingle in August ho. All false doctrine hath some truth admixed. deed some truth with their falsehood as saint Augustine saith: Nulla porrò doctri●a falsa, quae non aliqua vera intermisceat. There is no false doctrine, that doth not intermingle some truth, thereby the better to utter their heresy. So of this matter of the presence of christ in heaven and in the Sacrament, apparent arguments be made by other Adversaries to deceive the people, which well weighed and examined, have no force nor weight, to prove that they intended. As for this Adversary the Proclaimer (as it is said) made no argument in his matter, for that he would have the people receive but his only bare proclamation, wherefore to him the answer is soen made. But his great master Oecolampadius, heapeth up in deed a great number of Scriptures by quotation only, which (he saith) he shall not need to allege Scriptures alleged against the presence by Oecolamp. at large because it is an article of our faith, that christ sitteth at the right hand of the Father. Of the which scriptures I will allege some, that the reader may both know them, and also perceive that they be not against the doctrine of Christ'S Church as touching the real presence of Christ'S body and blood in the blessed Sacrament. In saint john his gospel we find written thus: jesus knowing that this hour was comed, that he should go out of this world to the Father etc. And in an Joan. 13. other place thus: A little while (saith christ) and ye shall not see me, and a little Ibid. 16. while and ye shall see me. For I go to the Father. And in the same place: I went forth from the Father, and came into the world, again I leave the world, and go to the Father. Jbid. Again in an other place: And now I am not in the world, and these be in the world and I come to thee. And in the Acts of the Apostles: This jesus that is taken from Act. 1. you into heaven shall so come as ye have seen him going into heaven. These and all other like scriptures that teach us of Christ'S going to his Father, of his exaltation above all pours, and such other, we reverence than Phil. 2. we accept them, we believe them, we embrace them. For they teach us that, which we do confess, that christ is God, that he is ascended, Arsicle of the Ascension impugneth not Christ'S presence in the Sacr. that he is in glory, But when we confess this, and believe this,. doth this take away this truth, that christ is verily present in the Sacrament? No in deed. For that standeth still as an untouched truth, neither impugning the other, neither impugned of the other. And therefore we confess both to be true. For he that said: Vado ad Patrem, I go to the Father: said also. Hoc est corpus meum. Hoc facite. This is my body. This do ye. wherebily he both consecrated his body (for as chrysostom saith, Qui enim dixit Chrystome. 51. in Mat. I loc est corpus meum, & rem simul cum verbo confecit. He that said, This is my body, made the thing together with the word) and also gave authority to his priests to do the like. Which thing Luther denieth not. Then uless as christ willed that this mystery shall be continued, frequented, and used until his coming, in the which mystery by his power, is his body, we may not think any contrariety or repugnance in his words, but believe that as he is the very truth: So is it all true that he hath spoken. And as he is almighty: So is he able to perform, and make good that he hath said. And therefore aught we to believe both that he is in heaven, and also in the Sacrament, forasmuch as by his word, we learn his presence in both. If this our Saviour christ, where natural knowledge saith, Omne grave Examples of many things done by our Saviour christ above and contrary to nature. appetit deorsum, every heavy thing is inclined downward, could yet by his power make the earthly body of Peter, which was a mere natural body, and therefore heavy, contrary to his nature to walk upon the sea, and when it pleased him to leave him to his nature to suffer him to sink, and begin to drown: can not he at his own pleasure make that blessed body of his, which is so excellently conceived and born, and therewith united to the Godhead in unity of person, that although it be a natural body, yet it doth surmount, and is above all nature, and natural bodies: can not he, I say, at his pleasure demise, let down, or abase that his body to the state and condition of a very natural body? and again at his pleasure exalt and magnify the same above the state of a natural body? He did fast forty days and forty nights and eat no meat, which Matt. 4. was above natural order: In the end of that fast he was hungry, and Jbid. 17. therein he subjecteth himself to natural order. He was transfigured in the Mount where, as it pleased him, he showed joan. 4. his power, and made his face to shine as bright as the Sun, and his garments white as snow, which was above the state of a bare natural man. An other time he was weary of his journey, which was agreeable to the nature of man. The jews came to apprehend him, and with the voice of his mouth Jbid. 18. Jbid. 19 Mat. 27. he threw them all to the ground: Again he abased himself, and suffered himself not only to be taken of them, whom he had so easily over thrown, but also to be buffited, and to be scourged, and finally to be crucified. What shall I stand in the rehearsal of these things, which be so plentiful in the Gospel? Therefore to conclude I will say with Cyrille, we may not think of the body of christ, as of the body of a bare natural man: but we must think of that body, as of the body of the Son of God. Which for that it is so, it passeth by infinity degrees the state and condition of one of our bodies. Wherefore methinks the Adversaries be to streict, yea and cruel to the body of christ, that where, for causes above said, it is so excellent a body, and yet for our sakes he made himself obedient to death even to the death of the cross, they will for all this excellency, give unto it no more prerogative, nor privilege, than they will do to an other body, which is an injury to that blessed body. I wish that the Adversaries should not only after the counsel of Cyrille think that it is the body of the Son of God, and leave it as a natural body joined to the Godhead: but also consider the singular prerogatives that it hath by the same conjunction to the Godhead. And then shall they see how that body may, above the common condition of other bodies, through the power of the Godhead, be in sundry places. Although it be not appertaining to the body of a man to give life: yet cyril saith that the body of christ, for that it is joined to that which cyril. in 6. foan ca 14. is life, it giveth life. Thus he speaketh it: Quoniam salvatoris caro Verbo Dei, quod naturaliter vita est, coniuncta, vivifica effecta est, quando eam comedimus tunc vitam habemus in nobis, illi coniuncti, quae vita effecta est. Because the flesh of our saviour joined to the Son of God, which is naturally life, is made able to give life: when we eat that flesh, then have we life in us, being joined to that flesh, which is made life. See this great prerogative that cyril giveth to the flesh of christ, for that it is joined to the Godliead. If it have prerogative to give life to them that receive it: can not God give a less prerogative to it to be in diverse places? Objection. Perchance it may be said to me, that God can thus do: but we find not that he doth it. Answer. To the former part of this objection I say, that if the adversaries thought that God could do it, than the Proclaimer was to blame, to speak of Christ'S being in a thousand places or more, as thereby to signify an impossibility. Again Oecolampadius would not labour to bring in so many inconveniences upon it, if it appeared possible to him. To the second part I say, that it is sufficiently showed already, that christ caused his body to be in diverse places at one time, and that the holy Fathers of Christ'S Church, yea and that a good number teach, some of them that he is both in heaven with his Father, and also in earth in the Sacrament: some that he is in many places, as it is declared in the tenth chapter. And thus although the scriptures alleged by Oecolampadius seem, if a man will only lean to natural philosophy, to be against the faith, that the catholic Church teacheth: yet when those scriptures be compared to other scriptures, and the Fathers well weighed and understanded: and the omnipotency of God considered, and the excellency of the body of christ remembered, it shall be perceived that the Scriptures be not against us neither we against them. For they say that christ is in heaven and so say we: and yet nevertheless we say that he is in the Sacrament, and so say they. If the Scriptures, that be alleged, had said that christ is in heaven only, and can be in no other place, than the Adversary might have triumphed. But saying that he is in heaven, without any exclusives or exceptives, there is no denial implied in that his being, to a Christian man, but that he may be believed, to be also in the Sacrament. And this, I trust, may suffice to answer all the Scriptures that be, or can be produced of the being of christ in heaven, as thereby to exclude and deny his presence in the Sacrament. There is made an other objection out of saint Augustine, who writeth thus: Cavendum est, ne ita Divinitatem astruamus hominis, ut veritatem auferamus August. ad Dardanum. corporis. Non est autem consequens, ut quod in Deo est, ita sit ubique ut Deus. We must beware that we do not so affirm the deity of man, that we take away the verity of the body. For it is no consequent, that that which is in God, should so be every where as God is. Again in the same place. jesus ubique per id quod Deus est: in coelo autem per id quod homo. jesus by that that he is God, is every where: by that that he is man, he is in heaven. For answer to these places of Saint Augustin first understand that S. Augustin his place to Dardan. declared. one Dardanus wrote to Saint Augustine to dissolve this question: whether Christ'S manhood, for that it was united to the godhead in unity of person, was every where as his Godhead is. For answer to which question, among other things S. Augustin wrote the propositions, which Oecolampadius allegeth against Christ'S being in the Sacrament, and in heaven, for that by his judgement, his body can not be in two places at one time. Wherefore first I wish you to note, that S. Augustin in that epistle not speaking of the Sacrament, the sentences alleged make not against the matter. And although this might suffice: yet for the better understanding of the matter, more shall be said. Wherefore that a thing may be at one time in many places, understand that it may be two ways. One thing in many places at one time two ways. Heir. 23. isaiah. 66. The one is by nature, the other by gift. By nature to be in many or all places at one time, it appertaineth only to God, who by his immensity is every where, so that there is no place in heaven, in hell, in earth, or in the waters, in the which God is not. And therefore he saith. Ego coelum & terram impleo. I fill both heaven and earth. And again: Coelum mibi sedes est, terra autem scabellum pedum meorum. Heaven is my seat, and the earth is my foot stool. After this sort, that is, by nature, no creature can be in all places, but only God. Wherefore Didymus by this did well make his argument to prove the holy Ghost to be God, because of his own nature he is every where, and so Didym. de Spiritu S. can no creature be. The other way that a thing may be in many places, not by nature, but by the gift of God may be in man. For nothing being unpossible to God, it is then possible to him, to give his gift to his creature, that it may be in many and diverse places at once which manner of being is in the manhood of christ, which man head hath it not of the own nature to be in many places at one time, but by the gift of the Godhead. And therefore the argument of Oecolampadius is nothing worth. And it seemeth to me he did not understand this difference of being in many places at once, when he argued, that if christ could be in many places at one time, by the like he might be in all places, and so should a creature become God, which sometime was no God, which is a great absurdity. By this argument if it were good, it might be proved that Christ'S flesh is not quickening or giving life, because it appertaineth to God alone to give life. And so should Christ'S saying be untrue where he saith: Qui manducat meam carnem & bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam aeternam. He that joan. 6. Cyril. in 6. Joan. ca 14 eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life. And Cyrille saith, as ye have heard, that the flesh of christ being made the flesh of the Godhead, which is life, is made also able to give life. But this is very true that the flesh of christ is able to give life. Which thing is aswell only pertaining to God to do it by nature, and of himself, as it is to be in many or all places. And yet Christ'S flesh having this power to give life is not for all that, when it is considered in it self, thought that it is God, for it hath it not of it self, but by the power of the Godhead, whereunto it is joined in unity of Person. No more is the body of christ thought to be a God. because it may be in many places at one time, because it is not so of the own nature, but by the power of the Godhead. And this difference it to be observed in all things that be given of God to creatures, wherefore when christ said: Nemo bonus, nisi unus, Deus. No man God alone good by nature, creatures by participation. Gen. 1. is good but God alone. It is not therefore to be thought that every creature that is good, is forth with also God, for then all the creatures of God be Gods, for they be all good, as the Scripture saith: Vidit Deus cuncta, quae fecerat, & erant valdè bona. God saw all things that he had made, and they were very good: but it is to be considered that that, that is good of it self is God, and so there is none good but God alone. All creatures are good by participation of the goodness of God, and therefore though they be good: yet be they no Gods. And by this ye may perceive that the Church doth according to the advertisement of saint Augustine. For it doth not so deify the manhood of christ, that it thinketh it of the own nature able to be in many places, for than should it take away the verity of the flesh or body of christ. But as touching that nature in it self it is acknowledged to be in one place in heaven, but as touching the power of the godhead whereunto it is annexed, with the consideration of the ordinance of the Sacrament, in the which is appointed also the presence of the same body: it is believed, that the same one body is in diverse and many places at one time. Unto all this for the perceiving of a more difference between the nature of the God head, and the nature of the manhood in christ, Note godhead of christ hath not possibility but to be every where, his manhood hath possibility to be somwher. that the nature of the Godhead of it self is so in every place, that it hath not possibility to be out of any place. The nature of the manhood of christ though by the power of the Godhead it is and may be in diverse places at one time: yet it hath always a possibility to be but in one place alone, and may so be and is. By this also we may see that there is moche difference between the Godhead, and manhood, whereby we may easily, and clearly perceive, that though Christ'S body be in many places, yet we confess it not to be the godhead, but acknowledge it to be the flesh of the Son of God, and one of the natures of the person of christ, and therefore an excellent body, and worthy moche honour and estimation. And thus moche for answer and understanding of saint Austen in that epistle to Dardanus. And other objection there is made out of the same epistle, which doth raither declare the malicious ignorance of the Adversary, then make any thing against this truth here defended. And if we shall here write it, even as Oecolampadius did, then shall we also see his subtlety and craft. Thus it is to be found in his book: Spacia locorum tolle corporibus, & nusquam erunt: & quia nusquam Augustin. ad Dardan. erunt, nec erunt. Tolle ipsa corpora qualitatibus corporum, non erit ubi sint, & ideò non alibi quam in coelo corpore fatemur Christum. Take the spaces of places from bodies, and they shall no where be. And because they shall no where be, they shall not be. Take those bodies from the qualities of bodies, there shall no place be found Oecolamp. falsisieth S. August. by a subtle ad dition. where they may be and therefore we confess christ in body to be no where else but in heaven. thus Oecolampadius. Ye hear all this alleged, as the whole were of S. Augustine, but it is not. For Oecolampadius hath wickedly patched on a conclusion, as though it were saint Augustine's own words, but it is not. He hath craftily pciced it, to deceive the simple. For these words (And there for we confess christ in body to be no where but in heaven) be the words of Oecolampadius and not of Saint Augustin. Soche is the sincereritie of these men, that they can not maintain there evil and false matters, but with craft and subtlety. Now to answer saint Augustine's own words, they be not spoken of the body of christ, but they be spoken of natural bodies upon the earth, which be subject to earthly qualities. Glorified bodies such as Christ'S body is, are delivered from earthly qualities. For they areneither hot, nor cold, wet nor dry, wherefore it maketh nothing for the adversaries purpose to allege saint Augustine in this place, more than to declare, that blind malice would be saying somewhat, against the truth, it careth not what. another place is produced out of saint Augustine and it is this: Augustin. 30. Tract. in joan. Sursun est Dominus, sed etiam hic est veritas Domini. Corpus enim Domini in quo resurrexit in uno loco esse potest, veritas eius ubique diffusa est. Hour Lord is above, but his verity is also here. The body of christ wherein he did rise may be in one place, but his verity is diffused every where. Thus far saint Augustine. That, that is before said doth fully answer this. For we believe that hour Lord is above with the Father, and withal we believe that his Godhead is every where. It is not denied, but declared above also, that the body of christ in which he did rise, may be in one place. So that we descent not one title from saint Augustin. For though the body of Christ may be in one place: yet it is not enforced that it must of necessity be in one place. Now (gentle Reader) if havest seen the truth of this matter testified by witnesses sufficient, thou havest seen the objections of the Adversaries ●ullie dissolved. I wish thee now such faith as Abraham had, whereby he was justified. Who hearing the promiss of God that his seed should be as the stars of heaven, and Sands of the Sea, fainted not in faith nor yet considered Gen. 13. & 15. Rom. 4. his own body, which was now dead, even when he was almost, an hundreth years old, neither yet that Sara was past child bearing, he staggered not at that promiss of God through unbelief, but became strong in faith, and gave God the praise, being full certified, that he which had promised was also able to make it good: that thou likewise knowing by faith which thou havest learned of the Fathers, as they have learned the same of the very word of God, that Christ'S blessed body is in the Sacrament, and also in heaven, consider not now the natural order of things, as Abraham did not, neither of his own body neither of his wifes, but become strong in faith, and faint not, neither stagger at the promiss of God through unbelief, But consider and be fully certified that christ, who hath spoken and said: This is my body, is able to make it Natural order had no place in many of Christ'S doings. good. And he that against the order of nature began this life of man, for that he was born of a virgin, and against the same order without enforcement gave up his own soul, and died at his own pleasure, and that crying with a great voice, and likewise contrary to the same nature rose from death the third day, passing through the stone, for that his monument was ●ast closed: and the eight day after (as it is testified) passed through the doors into his disciples, and finally ending his a bode upon earth besides nature ascended into heaven, that he appointing his body to be here in the Sacrament, and in heaven also, is so to be believed, though natural order repeine. For seeing he hath so appointed, it is so in very deed. THE THIRTENHT CHAPTER BEGINNETH THE exposition of an other text in the sixth of S. john. I Will now leave this matter of Christ'S being in many places as sufficiently treacted of and proved, and return to the sixth chapter of S. john, and entre the exposition of the text there ensuring, which is this. Dixit ergo eye jesus, Amen Amen dico vobis, nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, & biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis. jesus therefore said unto them: Verily, Verily I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood joan. 6. ye shall have no life in you. Whereas the jews through unbelief, thought it an unpossible thing for Christ to give his flesh to be eaten, christ here answering them, declareth it to be possible, and necessary to be done, yea and so necessary, that except we eat his flesh and drink his blood, we shall not have life. For as man concerning his natural life must have two things necessary to life, that is, birth to begin and entre life, and then food to nourish and maintain the same, with out the which it can not be continued: So as concerning the spiritual life man must have accordingly his birth and food: birth to be born and enter into that life, which birth is baptism, which is of such necessity, that as he speaketh hear of the necessity of the food, so speaketh he of the necessity of this birth saying to Nicodemus: Amen, Amen dico tibi, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei. Verily, verily, Joan. 3. I say unto thee: Except a man be born again of water, and the holy Ghost he can not enter into the kingdom of God. Now when man by Baptism is born in to the spiritual life, and hath begun it, he must needs have food to sustain the same, or else he shall not continue life, which food is the body, and blood of christ, a food by christ himself appointed, which if we take not, we can not live. And therefore he saith: Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you. Hitherto the Adversary will agree with me, expounding all that is said in his sense of spiritual eating, and drinking of the flesh and blood of christ, with whom I will thus far agree also, that such as be of mature age, and Corporal eating with out the spiritual eating availeth not. have attained to the years of discretion, except they eat the flesh of christ, and drink his blood spiritually they shall not live. For the corporal eating without the spiritual eating, is not available. But both these together nourish life in man, and make him lusty and strong in God. But that this text extendeth not the necessity therein mentioned, to the corporal eating and drinking of Christ'S flesh and blood also, which this Adversary affirmeth, that is untrue. He would have no other receiving of christ, but the spiritual receiving: because he would have no other presence but the spiritual presence, but that this text speaketh also of the corporal eating and receiving of the real and substantial body of christ in the Sacrament, the connexion and dependence of the Scriptures do prove. For the first saying of christ, which we have already expounded, (that the bread which he would give, is his flesh, etc. speaketh of Christ'S natural flesh to be given in the Sacrament, as is already declared, and sufficiently proved. And this text speaketh of the same flesh, as the connexion well proveth. Wherefore christ here speaketh also of the corporal eating of his flesh in the Sacrament. The necessity of which eating is such, that if we contemn that eating of it, being (as is said) of mature age, and discretion, we shall not have life. But that it may appear, that the Church through out all ages, hath even thus understanded this text, as I do, I will convert me to the order that I have prescribed to myself, to hear the great ancient men, and learned Fathers of both sides of Christ'S Parliament house, both of the greek and of the latin Church. And although it might suffice, for the understanding of all that is here spoken of the Sacrament, for thatthey understood the first text of the same, to prove that therefore the rest which appertaineth to the same matter, must be even so understanded: Yet for the full satisfying of the humble spirited reader, and the like confutation of the arrogant, I will not refuse the pains to ascribe their judgements, both of this text, and of the rest that follow. The first of this company that shall be brought forth to witness, is saint Cyprian, who alleging this same text doth declare how he understandeth Cyprian. serm. de oratione. Do. it, saying thus: Quando ergo dicit in aeternum vivere, si quis ederit de eius pane: ut manifestum est, eos vivere, qui corpus eius attingunt, & Eucharistiam iure communicationis accipiunt: ita contrà timendum est, & orandum ne dum quis abstentus separatur à corpore Christi, procul remaneat à salute, comminante illo & dicente: Nisi ederitis carnem filii hominis, & biberitis sanguinem eius, non babebitis vitam in vobis. Et ideò panem nostrum, id est, Christum dari nobis quotidie perimus, ut qui in Christo manemus, & vivimus, à sanctificatione, & corpore eius non recedamus. Therefore when he saith him to live for ever, whosoever shall eat of his bread: As it is manifest that they do live, which do touch this body and according to the right of partaking do receive the Sacrament: Even so contrary wise it is to be feared and prayed for, lest while any man being accursed, is separated from the body of christ, he may abide and remain far from health, he threatening, and saying: Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you. And therefore we daily desire our bread, that is to say, christ, to be given to us, that we which do abide and live in christ, may not depart from his sanctification and body. Thus moche S. Cyprian? In which saying first he manifestly showeth that this text is to be understanded of the Sacrament. For by express words he saith, that they have life, which by right of partaking do receave-the Eucharist, or Sacrament (as I term it) for that the english tongue hath none apt term for it. And all men use the word (Sacrament) to that signification in common speech. And as we do oftentimes by this term (the Sacrament) understand both the Sacrament, and the thing signified by the Sacrament: So doth saint Cyprian likewise in this place understand and mien both. For as when he had said, that we shall have life by partaking of the Sacrament. Even so saith he, it is to be feared, that when we be separated from the body of christ, that then we shall be far from health. Whereby it is plain that he speaketh not only of the Sacrament, as of the sacramental signs: but he speaketh raither of the Sacrament, as of the thing signified and contained in and under the sacramental signs, which by express words he calleth the body of christ. But that ye may the better credit the matter, not for my saying, but for his, ye shall hear him expound himself, that by this word, Eucharistia, he Cyprian. Li. 3. Epist. 15 meaneth the body of christ, Illi contra evangelii legè, vestram quoque honorificam petitionem, ante actam poenitentiam, ante exomologesin gravissimi atque extremi delicti factam, ante manum ab Episcopo & Clero in poenitentiam impositam, offer pro illis, & Eucharistiam dare, id est, sanctum Domini corpus prophanare audent. They against the law of the gospel, and also your honourable petition, before the penance Eucharist. called the holy body of our Lord by S. Cyprian. was done, before the confession of the most grievous, and extreme fault made, before the hand was put on by the Bishop, and the clergy unto penance, dare offer for them and give the Sacrament, that is, to profane the holy body of our Lord. Thus Cyprian. In these words he plainly interpreteth himself, and showeth that he taketh this word. Eucharistia, for the body of christ, and therewithal teacheth the real presence of Christ'S body to be in the Sacrament. for if it be not in the Sacrament, it can not by receiving of the Sacrament be profaned. This then being preceaved, that saint Cyprian understandeth this text of the Sacrament, I will also call one of the greek church, to give us knowledge how he expoundeth the same, who shallbe Theophilacte, thus he writeth: judaei cùm audivissent de esu carnis illius discredunt. Ideò & verbum incredulitatis dicunt, quomodò. Nam quando cogitationes incredulitatis ingrediuntur animam, ingreditur simul quomodò. Propterea iple volens ostendere quòd non sit impossibile, sed etiam The ophilact. in. 6. Joan. valde necessarium, & non potest haberi vita nisi eius carnem comedamus etc. Oportet igitur nos cùm audiverimus: Nisi comederitis carnem filii hominis, non habebitis vitam: in sumptionibus divinorum mysteriorum indubitatam retinere fidem, & non quaerere, quo pacto? The jews, when they had heard of the eating of Christ'S flesh, they do not believe. And therefore they say the word of unbelief how. For How, the word of incredulity. when the thoughts of incredulity do enter the soul, there entereth withal How. Therefore he willing to show that it was not impossible, but even very necessary, and that other wise life can not be had, except we eat his flesh etc. Therefore we must when we hear: Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man ye shall have no life: in the receiving the Divine mysteries retain an undoubted faith and not ask, How or by what mean. Thus moche Theophilacte. Capite 7. Mark that he would, when we hear this text: Except ye eat the flesh etc. we should have an undoubted faith. what undoubted faith he meaneth, he opened in his saying alleged for the text before declared, where he said that the bread which christ would give, is not a figure of his flesh, but his very flesh. For the bread (saith he) it transformed into the flesh of our Lord. This is that undoubted faith, which Theophilacte would that we should have, when we hear these words, Except ye eat the flesh etc. to believe that in the Sacrament, we must eat the flesh of christ, or else we shall not have life. Nevertheless this necessity is not such, that all that do not receive the holy Sacrament actually, shall not have life: but all that do not in act or purpose being of age agreeable, or do contemn the receit of it actually, they shall not have life. But such as be of mature age, and do of good devotion purpose to receive it, though they do not receive it actually, yet having a godly faith, and not contemning the thing, they shall by God's mercy have life. As Baptism is a sacrament of great necessity, yet all that have obtained life (I mien life everlasting) were not baptized in water according to Christ'S law, but some in blood, and all in purpose, none of them at the least contemning the Sacrament, and therefore being so new born again they have entered into the kingdom of God. But he that is not born a new, neither actually, nor in purpose, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God. Moche goodly matter offereth ytself here, and diverse other authors there be of the ancient time, whose expositions be right plain in this matter. Whereby the diligent Reader may perceive that the Adversaries have not dealt sincerely, which would go about to put forth such a false doctrine, and therewith so feircelie reprove other men for wresting of the scriptures, when they themselves most shamefully wrest them, playing the part of an evil man, who will always be accusing other men, and charging them with faults, because he will seem to be in no fault, but incupable, when he us most vicious, and most worthy reprehension. THE FOURTENTH CHAPTER EXPOUNDETH the same text by saint Augustine, and cyril. OF each side of Christ'S Parliament house, ye have heard testimony, how it was there determined and enacted, that this text should be understanded of Christ'S very body and blood. We will yet proceed to hear some more of the same house, of the which saint Augustinc shall be first. Who upon the same text saith thus, speaking to the jews: Quomodò quidem detur, & quisnam modus sit manducandi istum panem ignoratis. Veruntamen nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, et biberitis eius sanguinem, August. tract. 26. in joan. non habebitis vitam in vobis. Haec non cadaveribus, sed viventibus loquebatur. How it is given, and what is the manner of the eating of this bread ye do not know. Nevertheless except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood ye shall have no life in you. This did he speak not to dead Carkasies, but to living men. Thus saint Augustine. That the jews did not know the manner of the eating of Christ'S flesh in the Sacrament, saint Augustine more plainly, hadling this text declareth. Nisi quis manducaverit carneni meam, non habebit vitam aeternam. Acceperunt illud stultè, carnaliter cogitaverunt, et cogitaverunt quòd praecisurus esset Dominus particulas August in. in Psal. 98 quasdam de corpore suo, et daturus illis. Except a man eat my flesh, he shall have no life. They took it, saith saint Augustine, foolishly, carnally they thought it, and they thought that our lord would cut certain pieces from his body and give them. This he. Now the jews thus grossly understanding christ had no pleasure in Christ'S doctrine: But if they had understanded that he by his divine and almighty power might and would give his flesh to be eaten verily in the Sacrament, after an other manner, and not grossly, as in that sort or manner as he walked and lived upon the earth, than the words of christ would have been to them lively and pleasant, but they took them foolishly (saith saint Augustine) and carnally. So that he understandeth this saying of christ, of the eating of the flesh of christ in the Sacrament, which is one of the things, that we seek to prove, uless as it hath been contrarily taught of the Adversaries. But they perchance will say, that though saint Augustine do understand August. de Doct. Christ. li. 3 cap. 16. this text of the Sacrament, yet he doth not thereby teach the real presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament but raither the contrary. For alleging this text in a certain place he saith that it is a figurative speech. Si autem slagitium, aut facinus jubere, aut utilitatem & beneficentiam videtur vetare, figurata locutio est. Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, & biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis, facinus, vel flagitium videtur jubere: figura ergo est, praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum, & suaviter, atque utiliter in memoria recondendum, quòd pro nobis caro eius crucifixa & vulnerata sit. If the scripture seem to command any evil deed or great offence, or to forbid any profit or well doing, it is a figurative speech. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you, It seemeth to command an evil deed or offence, wherefore it is a figure, commanding to communicate the passion of christ, and swetelie, and profitably to keep in memoric, that Christ'S flesh was crucified and wounded for us. This is saint Augustine's saying, who (as the Adversaries say) plainly affirmeth that this saying of christ: Except ye eat the flesh etc. is a figurative speech, which so being, than the flesh of christ (say they) is but figuratively eaten in the Sacrament This argument have the heretics of our time borrowed of Berengarius and Sacramentaries doctrine an old heresy new scoured. his disciples, as also they did theresy it self, which of a good time lay all rusty and unknown, until the Devil raised up these his furbyshers, who have newly scoured this heresy, and the arguments thereto appertaining, and have set them forth to deceive the people withal. But as the argument was invented and made by the heretics of that time, so was it answered and solved by the good catholic Fahers at that same time. Whose answers, and solutions be such as they wipe away all the strength that was thought to be in that argument. Among the which we will only for this present bring forth the answer, which was made by Guitmundus. who lived in the year of our Lord 1060, and solved this argument Guitmund. lib. 2. thus: Ait beatus Augustinus quòd Dominus videtur facinus, vel flagitium jubere, non quia facinus aut slagitium inberet, iubendo manducari carnem suam. Sed videtur (inquit) jubere: illis videlicet, qui putaverunt quòd hoc iubendo, necessariò etiam se iuberet occidi, & membratim conscindi, atque ita demuncarnem eius crudan, vel coctammanducari. Proinde ergo figura est (inquit) in hac locutione. Hic iam adgaudet fortassis umbraticus, hic iam obstrepit. Noli praeposterè umbratice, noli praecipitanter gloriari. Cuius reifigura dicatur hic esse patienter & diligenter advert. Figura ergo est (ait August.) praecipiens. Quid praecipiens? quid figurans? hoc enim figurat quod praecipit. Passioni Domini (inquit) communicandum, et suaviter atque utiliter in memoria recondendum, quòd pro nobis caro eius crucifixa, & unlnerata sit. Deo gratias. Quicquid igitur illud est, quod Augustinus hic figuranappellat, (Nam quid figuram dicat, in his eius verbis agnosci non difficilè potest) non utique corporis Domini, sed crucifixtonis eias, & vulnerationis, hoc est occisionis, nostraeue communicationis cum ea, id est ut imitemur Christum, & communicemus passioni eius compatiendo, manifestissimè figuram esse demonstrat: Paulo quoque Apostolo concordante, qui ait, Quotiescunque panem hunc manducabitis, & calicem Domini bibetis, mortem Domini annunciabitis donec veniat. Saint Augustine saith, that hour Lord seemeth to bid an eveldede, or a great offence, not that he bidding his flesh to be eaten, did bid Objection of the Sacramentaries. any evil deed to be done or great offence, but that he seemed to bid, that is to say, to them which thought that he bidding this, did necessarily bid his flesh to be slain, and to be cut one member from an other, and so at the last his flesh either raw or sodden to be eaten. Therefore (saith he) there is a figure in this saying. Here now peradventure the shadow Answer. man (meaning the heretic) doth rejoice, here now he maketh his noise. Rejoice thou not, shadow teacher, out of order, rejoice not to hastily. Of what thing it is said to be a figure patiently and diligently take heed. It is a figure (saith saint Augustine) commanding, what commanding? or what figuring? (For it doth figure that, that it doth command) that we, saith he, should partake the passion of our Lord, and swetelie and profitably keep in memory, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. God bethanked. What soever it be then that saint Augustine here calleth the Sacrament a figure not of Christ'S body but of his death. figure (for what he doth call the figure in these his words it is not so hard to be known) it is not the figure of the body of our Lord, but of his crucifying and wounding, that is, of his death, and of hour communicating with the same, that is to say, that we should follow christ, and communicate his passion, suffering with him, that doth he most manifestly show to be a figure, Paul also the Apostle agreeing with him, who saith, As often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye shall show forth the death of our Lord until he come. Thus far Guitmundus. In this answer (which although it be long, yet I thought it necessary to bring it not truncatelie, but wholly to satisfy the Reader) ye may perceane that this Author manifestly proveth that saint Augustine saith not that the flesh and blood of christ be figuratively in the Sacrament (which the Adversary chiefly pretendeth and seeketh) But saint Augustine saith, that this saying of Ghryste (Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man etc.) is a figurative speech (For the eating and drinking of Christ'S flesh and blood in the Sacrament is a figure of Christ'S passion and blood shedding for us) and a sign for the continuance of the thing in our memory, and also for the moving of us to take our crosses, and to suffer with christ. Which thing yet this Author both more plainly, and briefly doth set forth in that that followeth, saying: Quòd si quaeramus, quid hic figuram Augustinus dixerit, nihil hic utique tam congruè videtur occurrere, quàm id quod paulò superius Guitmund. Jbidem. Doctor idem iam dixerat, id est celebratio corporis, & sanguinis Domini. Quas obres stultè, & insipientissimè Berengariani librum de Doctrina Christiana nobis obijciunt, cùm cibus altaris Domini, nusquam ibi figura, nusquam ibi signum dicatur. Et quicquid illud sit, quod & signum ibi vel figura dicitur, non utique figura corporis & sanguinis Domini, sed passionis Domini, & nostrae communicationis cum ea, certissimè demonstratur. If we ask what saint Augustine here calleth the figure, there is nothing here that is perceived so agreeable to occur, as that which a little before the Berengarians foolishly objected S. Aug. So do the Sacramentaries now. same doctor had now said, that is, the celebration of the body and blood of our Lord. For which cause the Berengarians foolislie, and most unwisely do object the book of the Christian doctrine to us, seeing that the meat of the Altar of our Lord in no place there is called a figure, in no place there is called a sign. And what soever there is called a figure or a sign it is most certainly showed, not to be a figure of the body and blood of our Lord, but of the passion of our Lord, and of our communicating with the same. Thus moche Guitmundus. I need not to note here to you any thing, where every thing is so plain, neither after my rude manner to travail to say any more for answering this argument, where the answer of this learned man is so full, that it hath fully and perfectly answered the Adversaries, and that by the same saint Augustine whom they objected, and out of the same book, out of the which the objection was taken. Yet raither to confirm the saying of this learned man, then to open and declare that the hath said, and that the Adversary may perceive, that it was not the mind of saint Augustine, to make the Sacrament a bare figure void of the real presence of Christ'S body and blood, I will ascribe a saying of the same saint Augustine, which seemeth to allude to this his saying here. This it is. Quamuis horribilius videatur humanam carnem manducare, quàm perimere, & humae Aug. count adverse. legis & Prop. ca 9 num sanguinem potare, quàm sundere: nos tamen mediatorem Dei & hominum hominem jesum Christum carnem suam nobis manducandam, bibendumue sanguinem dantem, fideli cord, & ore suscipimus. Although it may seem to be more horrible to eat the flesh of man, then to kill a man, and to drink the blood of man, then to shed it: yet we for all that do receive the mediator of God and men jesus christ, giving us his flesh to be eaten with a faithful heart and mouth, and his blood to be drunken. Thus saint Augustine. Remember now (gentle Reader) the rule of saint Augustine before given for the understanding of the scriptures, and confer this his saying, with that other, and ye shall perceive, that the figurative speech, that he speaketh of there, is not such as should take away the presence of Christ'S body and blood in the Sacrament, and leave but a bare figure, a sign, or a token of that body and blood, as the Adversary would have it. For where he saith there, that christ, willing us to eat his flesh, and drink his blood, seemeth to command an evil deed to be done, and therefore to be a figurative speech: here he saith, that though it seem to be an horrible fact, to eat the flesh of man and drink his blood: yet do we with faithful heart, and mouth eat the flesh and drink the blood of the mediator of God and man, which is the man jesus christ. Ye see that though it seem to be an horrible fact so to do: yet saint Augustine here maketh not the figurative speech such, as to take away the real presence of the body and blood of christ from the Sacrament: but Chrystesbodie and blood in the Sacr. to be received both with heart and mouth that we should receive the body and blood of christ, and that not only with a faithful heart, which serveth for the spiritual receipt of Christ'S body and blood, but also with a faithful mouth, which argueth a corporal receipt of the body of christ, as the Proclaimer knoweth right well. And therefore I dare say, this saying of saint Augustine pincheth him even by the conscience. I say then with Guitmundus, let not the Adversary triumph to moche upon his figurative speech, as once I heard master Horn do in a sermon by him made in the University of Cambridge, where after the Master Horns signration. manner of such his likes, he abused the figurative speech, and placed it there where it should not be placed. For saint Augustine did not so place this figurative speech, as thereby to displace the body and blood of christ from the Sacrament, which we must receive with a faithful heart and mouth: but he placed his figurative speech, as Guitmundus noted to you, that is, in the sweet and devout remembrance of Christ'S death and passion, and in the crucifying, and mortifying of our flesh with all his lust and concupiscence. If than the Adversary be desirous to have figures in the Sacrament, let him not devise soche a figure as neither christ nor his holy members did acknowledge: but let him take such and in such place as by them be appointed, which because the Adversary shall not lack, let him understand that there be many. This holy Sacrament is (as is said) a figure of Christ'S death and passion: The Sacrament is a figure in diverse respects, but not only a figure. it is a figure teaching us, that as christ was crucified for our sins, so should we crucify sin in our own bodies. It is a figure of the mystical body of christ, the Church. The forms of bread and wine, be figures of Christ'S body and blood verily being under the same forms. Finally because the words of christ (Except ye eat my flesh, and drink my blood) in gross understanding after the sound of the letter, as the jews did take it, do import that we should (as S. Augustine saith) eat his flesh raw, sodden, or roasted by lumps and pieces, as we do flesh from the shambles, after which manner we do not, nor may not eat it, therefore it is a figurative speech, that we must eat it, even the same flesh, and the same blood in substance, after a spiritual manner, that is under the forms of the Sacrament invisibly, and thus it is a figure also. And because one thing is received not in his own form in fensible manner, but in the form of an otther thing, in this respect it is figuratively eaten. Thus ye perceive how the saying of christ is a figurative speech, and that by conference with S. Augustine's own saying. Ye see also that the Sacrament is a figure of many things, and yet so as the real presence of Christ'S body is not taken away from the same, But is so there that we must (as S. Augustine saith) receive it with hour mouth, which can not be but verily, and really. And now I leave this objection as fully answered, and turn me to the process of the matter, noting this to you for the same, that where it is declared, that S. Augustine saith that the saying of christ is a figurative speech, he understandeth this alleged text of the Sacrament, and of the very real presence of the same flesh and blood, as the words of christ do pourporte, spiritually (as is before said) understanded. It were not a little to be marveled, that so famous a man, so highly learned, so constant in faith, who, as ye have already heard, and more shall, hath so plainly, so manifestly, without all obscurity, taught the very real presence of Christ'S blessed body and blood in the Sacrament, should in this place forget his faith, forget his learning, leave his constancy, and teach a contrary doctrine, that christ should be there but as in a figugure or sign. No, God be praised, as he is a strong pillar of Christ'S Church: So he will stand constantly and strongly in the same, and will not be drawn into the company of the malignant Church, which God hateth: but remain in the catholic Church, which God loveth. S. Augustine thus being declared, for the better understanding of this scripture, I will hear one other, who shall open unto us how he also understandeth the same. This shall be Cyrille, whose saying is this: Non poterat enim aliter corruptiblis haec naetura corporis ad incorruptibilitatem & vitam traduci, nisi cyril in. 15. Joan. naturalis vitae corpus ciconiungeretur. Non credis mihi haec dicenti? Christo te obsecro sidem praebe dicenti: Amen amen (in quit) dico vobis, nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, & biberitis sanguinem eius, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Audis apertè clamantem non habituros nos vitam nisi sanguinem eius biberimus, & carnem manducaverimus. In vobis ipsis dicit, id est, in corpore vestro. vita autem iure ipsa vitae caro intelligi potest. The corruptible nature of this body, can not otherwise be brought to incorruptibility and life, except the body of natural life should be conjoined to it. Dost The receipt of Christ'S body maketh our bodies immortal. though not believe me saying these things? I beseech thee believe christ saying. Verily verily I say. unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you. Thowe hearest him plainly saying, that we shall not have life except we drink his blood, and eat his flesh, He saith in yourselves, that is, in your body. That same flesh of life by right may be understanded life. In this saying cyril needeth no expositor, who so plainly teacheth, that this corruptible body could not attain to incorruptibility and life, except the body of natural life should be conjoined to it. what is the body of natural life he teacheth afterward, when he said: the flesh of christ may Chrysts flesh called life, as being the flesh of God, who is life. of right be called life, because it is the flesh of life, that is, of God, who is the very life of his own nature, by whom all other things, in the which he hath put a living soul, do live. But he naturally liveth, that is, of his own nature, not by life powered into him, as by him it is powered into us, but of himself. Therefore cyril calleth the body of christ, the body of natural life, because it is the body of God, who is natural life. Now note that he saith, that this body of natural life, which is the body of christ, must be joined to our corruptible nature, which joining Christ'S body is joined to us by corparall receipt not by spiritual. is not but by the corporal receipt of that body, and not by the spiritual receipt, which joineth not the body of christ to our corruptible nature. Therefore cyril proveth by this text, that of very necessity we must receive the very flesh and blood of christ verily, and really, as that it may be joined to this our corruptible body, that it by the other may have life and incorruptibility. Wherefore they that take away the one and leave us but the other, do us wrong. Hear therefore what the same cyril saith in this same chapter: Non negamus nos recta fide charitateue syncera Chrysto spiritualiter coniungi, sed nullam nobis In 15. Joan A plain place of S. cyril for the proclaimer. coniunctionis rationem secundùm carnem cum illo esse, id profectò pernegamus, idue à divinis scriptures, omnino alienum dicimus. Quis enim dubitavit etiam sic Christum vitem esse, nos verò palmites, qui vitam inde nobis acquirimus? Audi Paulum dicentem, quia omnes unum corpus sumus in Christo, quia etsi multi sumus, unum tamen sumus in eo, omnes enim de uno pane participamus. An fortassis putat ignotam nobis mysticae benedictionis virtutem, quae cum in nobis fiat, nun corporaliter quoque facit, communicatione carnis Christi, Christum in nobis habitare? Cur enim membra fidelium membra sunt Christi? Nescitis (in quit) quia membra fidelium, membra sunt Christi? Membraigitur Christi, meretricis faciam membra? Absit. We do not deny (saith cyril) We are joined to christ two ways corporally and spiritually. that we, by right faith, and sincere charity, spiritually be conjoined to christ, but that we have no manner of conjunction with him after the flesh, that truly we utterly deny, and say that that is altogether contrary to the scriptures of God. For who hath doubted christ even so to be the vine, and us to be the branches, which from thence get life. Hear Paul saying that we be all one body in christ. For although we be many, yet we be one in him. For all we do partake of one bread. Or peraduentuture doth he think that the power of the mystical benediction is unknoto us? the which when it is done in us, doth it not make, by the partaking of Christ'S flesh, christ corporally to dwell in us? Wherefore be the members of the faithful, the members of christ? know ye not (saith he) that your members be the members of christ? shall I then make the members of christ the members of an cost? God forbid. Thus moche cyril. In the which saying, ye perceive, he teacheth that we be joined to christ both spiritually and corporally: Spiritually, by faith, and charity: Corporally by the partaking of Christ'S flesh in the Sacrament, by the which (as cyril saith) christ abideth in us corporally, by the which saying, the doctrine of the Adversary is quite overthrown, who would have no other receit of Christ'S body, but a spiritual receipt, and detesteth the corporal receipt. S. cyril de nieth that we receive Chrysts body only spiritually. But ye have heard S. cyril earnestly denying it and constantly affirming it to be against the scriptures, that christ should not be joined to us corporally, which corporal conjunction is by the partaking of Christ'S flesh, not in the mystery of his incarnation (as some have feigned) for them christ took our flesh, but in the mystery of the Sacrament, which cyril calleth the mystical benediction, where we take Christ'S flesh. In the incarnation christ took our flesh, and by it was joined to us: in the Sacrament we take Christ'S flesh, and be joined to him. In the incarnation he christ by his incarn. joined to us We by the Sacra. joined to him. took our flesh, and the miseries of the same, sin only excepted, in the Sacrament we take his flesh, and the merits of the same, his singular exaltation excepted. In the incarnation he did take: in the Sacrament he doth give. Which both, that is, the taking of our flesh to him, and the giving of his flesh to us, Chryfostome speaking in the person of christ very well and briefly declareth, saying: Vester ego frater esse volui, et communicavi carnem propter vos, & sanguinem. Home l. 45. in 6. joan. Et per quae vobis coniunctus sum, ea rursus vobis exhibui. I would be you brother, and for you I took flesh and blood, and by what things I was conjoined to you, those have I again given to you. Thus Chrysostom. And thus ye may perceive the false doctrine of these naughty men, and there with their bold shamelessnes, that where the sayings of the learned fathers so clearly deny their only spiritual manner of the conjoining of christ to us, and avouch the corporal joining by the scriptures, and say that these men's sainges be against the scriptures: yet they will perversedlie and arrogantly proceed to maintain their heresy, and give no place eitherto the fathers, or to the scriptures. I can not cease to marvel that they will persist so obstinately against so plain a matter, so plainly uttered and taught by this holy and learned Father S. cyril. Wherefore, reader, weigh, and consider well this that is here spoken, and if thou have stand in faith persever, and give thanks: if thou have erred, return, and seek mercy. christ casteth none away that come to him. THE fifteenth CHAPTER CONTINVETH the exposition of the same text by Leo and Euthymius. THat right holy man Leo, the Pope, who was elected unto that office, in the year of our Lord 443. so that he was above a thousand years a gone, whose virtue and holiness was such, that not only of the Synod of Chalcedon, where were gathered 630. bishops, he was highly commended: but also of Platina, who would speak no more to the commendation of pope's, then truth would bear him. This holy Father saith thus: Hanc confessionem, Dilectissimi, toto cord promentes, impia baereticorum commenta respuite, ut jejunia vestra, & eleemosinae nullius erroris contagio polluantur. Lee ser. 6. de i●iu. septmensis. Tunc enim & sacrificij munda est oblatio, & misericordiaesancta largitio, quando hi qui ista dependunt, quid operentur, intelligunt. Nam dicente Domino. Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, & biberitis cius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Sic sanctae mensae communicare debetis, ut nihil prorsus de veritate corporis Christi, & sanguinis ambigatis. Hoc enim ore sumitur, quod side creditur, & frustra ab illis Amen respondetur, à quibus contra id, quod accipitur, disputatur. This confession, most well beloved, uttering forth with all your heart, forsake the wicked commentes of heretics, Aplain place of Leo for M. jewel. that your fastings and allmesses be not desiled with the contagion of error. For than is both the oblation of the sacrifice clean, and the giving of alms holy, when they that do these things, understand what they do. For when our Lord saith. Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you. Ye should so communicate of the holy table, that ye should nothing at all doubt of the verity of the body and blood of christ. For that is taken and received by mouth, which is believed in faith. And in vain is Amen answered of them, of whom, against that, that is received, The mouth receiveth, that faith believeth. argument is made. Thus much Leo. Who (as ye may perceive) so certainly took this text to be understanded of the Sacrament, and of the very presence of Christ'S body in the same, that he useth it for an authority to prove the same, and saith, that for asmuch as our Lord did say it, we should nothing at all doubt of the verity of Christ'S body and blood. Whereby this also may be gathered, that he using this as an authority against heretics, did use it as a scripture received, and so understanded throughout all the catholic, Church, which I say, he used against heretics, not against them in the matter of the Sacrament (for there were no such in those times, but against Eutyches and his disciples, which most pestilentlie taught, that the nature of man, which the Son of God did take of the virgin, was turned Eutiches his heresy. into that nature of God. And so destroyed the conjunction of the two natures in that one person of christ. Against the which heresy this holy man brought this sentence of scripture, as a sentence received of all men for the verity of Christ'S flesh in the Sacrament, therewith to prove, that uless as the very flesh of the manhood of christ was in the Sacrament, christ had still the very nature of man in him. Thus ye may perceive, that the truth of this matter of the Sacrament that is to say, that Christ'S very body and blood be really in the Sacrament, Real presence so certainly believed that ancient fathers used it for authority in confuting of heresies. was in those days so clear without doubt and controversy, so substantially believed, that it was reputed esteemed, and accounted an authority sufficient to confute the heresy of Eutyches, and to defend and maintain the true catholic faith, that in christ was both the natures of God and man. Now if the very flesh and blood of christ were not truly, verily, and really in the Sacrament, the matter of the Sacrament, could prove nothing against this heresy, but raither make with it. But forsomuch as there is the very flesh of christ, it proveth very well, that the very nature of man is in christ, directly against the heresy of Eutyches. This alone, in my opinion, might suffice to reduce men from error, considering that this was a truth thus received a thousand years agone, in the which time we be well assured that the Church was without error in this matter, and men so zealous in the truth of the catholic faith, that an heresy did not so soon appear and show it self, but it was forthwith impugned, as to the learned it is well known. But this matter of the Sacrament was never yet impugned, of any catholic writer, that hath lived since christ (as the learned also do know) wherefore it ought to be taken as an undoubted truth. But omitting to make any further prooff hereof by this author, I will, according to my order prescribed, join unto him Euthymius a greek author, who in his exposition of this text giveth us thus to understand it: saying: Nisi comederetis carnem filii hominis, & biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis Euth. in 6. Joan. vitam in vobis. Illi quidem hoc impossibile iudicabant, ipse verò omnino possibile ostendit, neque id tantùm, sed necessarium, quod etiam fecit ad Nicodemum. Addit autem & de sanguine, significans de pane ac poculo, quae, ut dictum est, daturus erat Discipulis in ultima coena. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you. They (meaning the jews) thought this unpossible: but he (meaning christ) declared it altogether to be possible, and not that only, but also necessary. Which thing he also did to Nicodemus. He speaketh also of his blood, signifying that he speaketh of the bread and the cup, which he would give (as it is said) to his Disciples in his last supper. Thus Euthymius. I have thought good in this exposition first to note to you, that this author (notwithstanding the wicked wresting of the Adversary) understandeth this scripture with the other holy Fathers, of the Sacrament. For by plain words he saith, that our Saviour speaketh here of the bread and cup, that he would give in the last supper. And signifying that he forgatt not what he had said in the same matter before, referreth himself to that, that he had before said, saying Sicut dictum est, as it is already said. For before he said that christ is called bread two ways, that is, after his deity, and after his humanity. Therefore after he had spoken of the christ called bread two ways. bread which is his deitic, now in this place he speaketh of the bread which is his humanity, of the which bread he said not: which I do give you, but I will give you: for he would give it in his last supper, but when? when he took the bread, and after thanks given, broke it, and gave it to his Disciples, saying. Take, eat, This is my body. And therefore it is without all scruple or doubt, that seeing christ speaketh here of the bread and cup, that he would give in his last Supper, therefore these words be spoken of the Sacrament. Neither may the Adversary here caville upon these words, bread and wine, that this author doth mien that in the Sacrament is nothing but bread and wine, as figures of the body and blood of christ. For so far wide was this from his meening, that he plainly denieth the substance of the Sacrament to be a figure, sign or token of the body and blood of christ, but the very body and blood of christ, as shall better and more at large appear by this same authors exposition upon the xxvi. of Matthew, in the lviii. chap. of this book. Euthimius denieth that, which the Sacramentaries affirm, and affirmeth, that they deny. So then this is first certain, that this sixth chapter of S. john is by this author understanded of the Sacrament, which is one thing that is denied by the Adversaries. So likewise this author denying the substance of the Sacrament to be a figure or sign of the body and blood of christ, but the very real and substantial body and blood of christ (for if the sign or figure be taken away, the very substance must needs be in place) the other part that the Adversaries deny, is by this author affirmed, and what by the Adversaries is affirmed, by this Author it is denied. Thus (gentle Reader) thou mayst perceive the doctrine of the Adversaries to be directly contrary to the doctrine of the holy Fathers. Which thing when I consider in the Proclaimer, me seemeth to see before me him, upon whom this curse of God is fallen: Woe be unto them, that call evil good, and good evil, which make darkness light, and light darkness, which make sour sweet, and sweet sour. Woe be unto them, that are wise in their own seight, Esay 5. and think themselves to have understanding. For the Proclaimer and his complices, teaching obedience to the catholic Church to be evil, and disobedience to the same to be good, truth to be darkness, and falsehood to be light: penitent life to be sour, and sensual life to be sweet, are they not under this curse? Doth not the Proclaimer take the second curse upon him also, thinking himself wise in his own conceit? Doth not he think himself wise and to have understanding, that contemneth all the learned men that have been this thousand year? Standeth not he in his own conceit, that stoutly derideth, skoffeth mocketh, and wickedly abuseth the learning not of one or two, but of many, not of such as be obscure, but of such as be famous, and have been of the Christian church reputed and esteemed as learned? And finally is not he accursed that saith heresy is truth, and truth heresy? that truth is darkness, and heresy light? his own fantasies truths, and the truths of the Father's fantasies? that saith yea, when they say nay, and nay, when they say yea. But whether go I. Though grief would yet again carry me away, I will stay here, and return to my matter. THE sixteenth CHAPTER ENDETH THE EXposition of this text in hand by the Ephesine Council. Having sufficiently proved by the sentences and judgements of diverse learned and holy Fathers, that the saying of our Saviour christ in the sixth chapter of S. john: Nisi manducaver. etc. Except ye eat the flesh, etc. is to be understanded of the Sacrament: now to knit up and end my process of the same text, I thought good to allege the epistle of the Ephesine Council sent to Nestorius, in the which this text being alleged, it may be perceived by the judge meant of cc. By shops, both greeks and latins, how the said text is to be understanded. Which as Leo did allege against Eutiches, So do these Fathers expound the same against Nestorius. As Eutyches denied the nature of man to Nestorius and Eutiches, their heresies. remain in christ: So did Nestorius deny the nature of God to be incarnate. Eutyches said that he was but one person, for that he was only God, and not man: Nestorius said that both the natures of God and man remained distinctly, as to several persons, the Godhead not incarnated, the manhood not deitated, as Gregory Nazianzen termeth it, and so implied he that christ born of the virgin, was only man and not God. Against the which blasphemous heresy, the Council sent him the epistle before said, and in the same they writ thus: Necessariò & hoc adijcimus, annunciantes Exepist. Ephes. Concilijad Nestorium. enim sicut secundùm carnem, mortem unigeniti filii Dei, id est, jesu Christi, & re surrectionem eius, & in coelis ascensionem pariter confitentes, incruentam pariter celebramus in ecclesiis sacrificij servitutem: sic & ad mysticas benedictiones accedimus, & sanctificamur, participes sancti corporis, & preciosi sanguinis Christi, omnium nostrûm Redempto riseffecti: non ut communem carnem percipientes (quod absit) nec ut viri sanctificati, & verbo coniuncti secundùm dignitatis unitatem, aut sicut divinam possidentis habitationem, sed verè vivificatricem, & ipsius verbi propriam factam, Vita enim naturaliter existens ut Deus, quia propriae carni unitus est, vivificatricem eam professus est. Et ideò quamuis dicat ad nos, Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, & biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis: non tamen eam ut hominis unius ex nobis existimare debernus. Quomodò enim secundùm naturam svam, vivificatrix esse caro hominis poterit? Sed ut verè propriam eius sactan, qui propter nos et filius hominis factus est, & vocatus. necessarily therefore this also we put to, showing forth the death after the flesh of the only begotten some ne of God, that is of jesus christ, and confessing also the resurrection and ascension of him into the heavens, we do celebrate in the churches an unbloody service of Sacrifice. So also do we come unto the mystical benedictions, and be sanctified, being made partakers of the holy body and precious Ephesine Councellun derstandeth this text: Except ye eat &c. of the Sacrament and so did Nestorius also. blood of christ the Redeemer of us all not taking it as common flesh (which God forbid) neither as of a sanctified man, and joined to the Son of God, after the unity of dignity, or as possessing the divine habitation, but truly quickening or giving life, and made the proper flesh of the Son of God. For being naturally life as God, because he is united to his own proper flesh, he hath professed it to be giving life. And therefore although he saith to us: Verily verily I say to you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood ye shall have no life in you. Yet we should not esteem it as of a man that is one of us, for how can the flesh of man after his own nature be a quickening flesh, or giving life, but as made his own proper flesh, who for us was made the Son of man, and so called. Thus the Council. Do ye not here see, how that this holy Council, which is one of the four famous general councils, would that we should not take this text of S. john, as Nestorius did, to be spoken of the flesh of christ, as of the flesh of a pure man, but of the flesh of christ, as the very own proper flesh of God, and that it so taken and eaten doth give life, being able so to do, not for that it is of the nature of man, but because it is the flesh of God. Now may it not be said that this is to be understanded spunallie. For Nestorius that said that christ was but a very man, and ground himself much upon this text: Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man. and concluded there fore that he was but the Son of man, did not take the matter so finely that the flesh of christ was in the Sacrament but merely spiritually, who had conceived so gross an opinion of christ, that he was but a bare man naturally. And therefore the Council, who took the same scriptures to improve that, that Nestorius seemed, to himself to have proved, must needs use the same sense of the scripture, as touching the substance of the thing that is in disputation Real presence avouched by the Ephesine Council. or else they should nothing prove against him. For if Nestorius spoke of the very flesh of christ, and the Council of the spiritual flesh of christ, what could they conclude against him, not speaking of the same thing that the other spoke of. And therefore undoubtedlien they spoke of the very real flesh of christ, which is the own propre flesh of God. Which thing also the A plain saying of a Council for M. words of the Council do prove where it is said: We come to the mystical benedictions, being made partakers of the holy body and precious blood of christ the Redeemer of us all, receiving it not as common flesh, but as the flesh truly giving life. It maketh also for this understanding not a little that cyril being precedent of the Council, who (as before ye heard) doth plainly affirm, that we do not only by faith and charity, spiritually receive the flesh of christ, but also verily and really, would not now, nor did not speak of the spiritual receiving only, which only receiving of christ spiritually and not otherwise in the Sacrament he did earnestly deny, and strongly improve by the scriptures. And therefore it is most evident that this text now in hand was understanded by that Council of the Sacrament, as being the very real body and blood of christ, which if we receive not, we have no life. To this holy Council I think it unsemlie to join any one particular man. Wherefore to end here the exposition of this said text, I will only add to it being an holy multitude, the practice of an other holy multitude even the ancient Church, who so straightly, and yet directilie for the substance of the thing, did take this text to be understanded of the very real and The church of Africa understanding the vi. of S. John of the Sacr. ministered it to infants. substantial flesh and blood of christ in the Sacrament, that they thought it a matter of necessity to minister the same to infants, as without receipt whereof they thought they could not be saved. The practice whereof we find to have endured in the African Church from the time of S. Cyprian until the time of S. Augustine at the least. By which it is manifest that the Church than understood this scripture of the Sacrament, and yet not of the bare Sacrament only, but of the very flesh and blood of christ there really to be received, and not of it spiritually to be received, for that they well knew, that there lacked in those infants that knowledge, which necessarily is required to the spiritual receiving of Christ'S body, and therefore they did not receive it spiritually, but sacramentally. And though this practice of the communicating of infants grounded upon this understanding of this scripture, was ceased, yet that the Church did still retain that understanding, this well proveth, that Petrus Dresensis persuading jacobellus de Praga to minister the Sacrament under both kinds, used this text here expounded, as being understanded of the Sacrament, by the common consent of the Church, for his argument, which text when jacobellus had weighed, and considered how it had been always understanded in the Church, he began to persuade the people, that they aught of necessity, if they would have everlasting life, to receive the Sacrament under both kinds, as under which they should both eat his flesh and drink his blood: of which matter more large disputation shall be made in the end of this book wherefore I think it not meet here to trouble the reader with all, but to refer him thither, thinking it sufficient for this place to advertise him, that all the heretofore alleged upon this text, and all these holy fathers in the Ephesine Council representing the Church, and the Church in the time of S. Cyprian, and so to S. Augustine, and from him to the time of Petrus Dresensis and jacobellus, and after their time, in the time of such as have written upon the gospels, until the time of Luther did understand this text, of the flesh and blood of christ in the Sacrament, as their works do well testify. But thus moche may I here well say, that it pitieth me to see how the people suffer themselves to be deluded of these new inventors of disordres, and by them both to be drawn from true faith, and also to break the usual order of the Church, that where our Saviour christ said by plain words: Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you. Which text (as ye have heard) is fully proved to be meant of Christ'S very body and blood in the Sacrament, yet being inveigled by Both flesh and blood was before under one kind, now neither of both under two kinds. th'adversaries doctrine hardly believe this meaning of the Catholic Fathers to be true, and therefore where the Adversaries maliciously persuade them, that the ministers of the Church deceived them, in giving them the Sacrament but under one kind, they are contented to incline and yield unto them. And so where before they did under one kind, receive the very flesh and blood of christ, they are now contented under two kinds to receive neither flesh nor blood. THE SEVENTENTH CHAPTER EXPOUNDETH THE next text following in the sixth of S. john by saint Augustine and cyril. Now will I proceed to the text following in S. john, which, for asmuch as it is not much discrepant from that before, but as it were an affirmative sequel of the same, I will not trouble the reader with long treacting upon it, but briefly show the meaning thereof, and haste me to other that contain more matter, not so plainly spoken of before, as this hath been. The text is: Qui manducat meam carnem, & bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam aeternam. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life. As the abstaining from the eating of the flesh and blood of christ, causeth lack Food of Christ'S flesh cause of immortality. of life: So is it consequent that the feeding on the flesh and blood of christ causeth the having of life. As the meat is, such is the effect and operation of it. If a man eat corruptible meat, it will for a while maintain, but it will not preserve from corruption. If a man feed on mortal things, it can not preserve from mortality, but fuffer him to be mortal: So if a man feed on spiritual things, and digest them well, it will make a man spiritual. If a man feed of immortal things, it will bring the like effect, and make a man immortal. For every food leaveth his effect or operation of nature in the thing that feedeth. If then we feed on christ, who is life, he will leave his effect in us, which is life. And for so much as he is the eternal and immortal life, he will work in us according to his nature, that we shall have eternal and immortal life. And therefore he saith: Qui manducat meam carnem & bibit meum sanguinem habet vitam aeternam. He that Hom. 46. in joan. eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life, he saith not life only, but eternal life. And (as chrysostom saith) Cùm dixisset si quis manducaverit ex hoc pane non morietur inaeternum, & credibile esset eos dicturos, quemadmodum superius, Abraham mortuus est, & Prophetae mortui sunt, & quomodò tu dicis, non gustabit mortem inaeternum? Resurrectionem ponit, per quam soluit quaestionem, quòd non morietur in fine. When he had said: whosoever shall eat of this bread he shall not die for ever: and it was credible that they would have said, as they did before, Abraham is dead and the Prophets be dead, and how dost though say he shall not taste death? He putteth the resurrection by the which he solueth the question that he shall not die in the end. And therefore he saith: Et egoresuscitabo eum in novissimo die. And I will raise him up in the last day. But I will leave my exposition to see the minds of the doctors upon this scripture. S. Augustine writeth thus: Hanc non habet, qui istum panem non manducat, nec istum sanguinem bibit. Nam temporalem vitam sine illo habere homines Tract 26. in joan. possunt, aeternam verò non possunt. Qui ergo non manducat eius carnem, nec bibit eius sanguinem non habet in se vitam, & qui manducat eius carnem, & bibit eius sanguinem, habet vitam aeternam. Ad utrunque autem respondit, quòd dixit vitam aeternam. Non ita est in hac esca, quam sustentandae huius corporis vitae causa sumimus. Nam qui eam non sumpserit, non vinet. Nec tamen qui eam sumpserit, vivet. Fieri enim potest, ut senio vel morbo, vel ali quo casu, plurimi qui eam sumpserint moriantur: in hoc verò cibo & potu, id est, corpore & sanguine Domini non ita est. Name & qui eum non sumit, non habet vitam: & qui eum sumit habet vitam, & hanc utique aeternam. He hath not this life, that eateth not this bread, nor drinketh this blood, For without that meat, men may have the temporal life, but the eternal life they can not have. He therefore that doth not eat his flesh, nor drink his blood, hath no life in him. And he that doth eat his flesh and drink his blood, hath life everlasting. He hath answered to both in that he hath said (everlasting) It is not so in this meat, which we do take to sustain the life of this body. For he that doth not take it shall not live, neither for all that shall he live that hath taken it. For it may be that many with age, disease or some other chance even of them that have taken it may die. In this meat and drink, that is to say, in the body and blood of our Lord, it is not so. For both he that doth not take it, hath not life, and he that doth take it hath life, yea and that eternal. This is saint Augustine's mind upon this text Which although it doth speak of the Sacrament, yet some perchance will object and say, that S. Augustine Ibidem. immediately expoundeth himself to speak of the mystical body of christ, which is his Church, and not of the body of christ in the Sacrament. For thus he saith: Hunc iraque cibum & potum societatem vult intelligi corporis & membrorum suorum, quod est Ecclesia in praedestinatis, & vocatis, & iustificatis, & glorificatis, sanctis & fidelibus eius. Quorum primum iam factum est: secundum & tertium, & factum est, & fit, id est, vocatio & justificatio: quartum verò nunc in spe est, in re autem futurum est, id est, glorificatio. This meat and drink therefore he will to be understanded the society or fellowship of the body and his membres, which is the holy church in the predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified saints, and his faithful. Of the which the first us now done, that is to say: predestination. The second and the third, is both done, and is in doing, and shall be done, that is vocation, and justification: The fourth is now in hope, but in deed to come, that is glorification. This is the sentence of S. Augustine, which in deed doth make plain mention of the body mystical of christ, and expoundeth the meat that is spoken of to be the folowshippe of the body and the members, which is his Church. But what though S. Augustin in this place doth expound it of the mystical body of christ, is that a good argument that it is not to be expounded of the holy Sacrament? and of the very flesh there in contained? S. Paul saith that Abraham had two Sons the one by a bond maiden, the other by a free woman, which things (saith he) are spoken by an allegory. For these are two testaments. Now is it for me to say that they were not two children in deed, but two Testaments, or by cause S. Paul saith they are spoken allegorycallie, therefore they are not spoken historically, or literally? Do ye not know that saint Augustine himself saith, that the scripture is fertile and full of goodly senses? Therefore though S. Augustine here expoundeth it thus: Yet in other places he expoundeth diverse sentences of this same chapter of the very body, and real flesh of christ in the Sacrament. Wherefore this is to be considered that S. Augustine in his treactises upon the sixth of S. john, knowing the people to whom he spoke, then to be sound S. Augustine's chief intent in his treactises upon the sixth of S. John. in the faith of the Sacrament, and that there was no controversy in all the Church of that matter, by the which he was occasioned to speak directly, difinitivelie, and more plainly of the same: he framed himself to speak of that, that needed, as of the manners, conversation, and living of the people, and not of that, that needed not, as to instruct them of the due faith to be had about this mystery. For they knew right well what it was. And therefore he did not go about to instruct them quid sumerent, sed quàm bene sumerent, what they did receive, but how well they should receive it. And therefore the most part of his doing was here to move them that as they did according to their faith receive the body of christ sacramentally: So also according to their duty with godly devotion, holy conversation, and spiritual meditation they might receive him spiritually without the which manner of receipt, the other was nothing profitable, but raither hurtful and damnable. And therefore in the end of the sixth of S. john showing his purpose to be (as I have said) and that the people should perceive, that as he knew, that they did believe well: so also they might receive well, he concludeth the whole matter thus: Hoc ergo totum ad hoc nobis valeat, dilectissimi, ut carnem Christi & sanguinem Christi non edamus tantùm in sacramento (quod & multi mali) sed usque ad spiritus participationem manducemus, & bibamus, ut in Domini corpore tanquam membra maneamus, ut eius spiritu vegetemur, & non scandalizemur, etiamsi multi modò nobiscum manducant & bibunt temporaliter sacramenta, qui habebunt in fine aeterna tormenta. All this therefore (most well-beloved) let it avail to this end, The flesh of christ eaten in the Sacr. of evil men. that we eat not the flesh and blood of christ only in the Sacrament (which also many evil men do) but let us eat and drink to the participation or partaking of the spirit, that we may abide in the body of our Lord as members, that we may be made lusty and strong by his spirit, and not be slandered, though many do eat and drink with us temporally the Sacraments, which in the end shall have eternal torments. Thus S. Augustin. Here may ye clearly perceive the scope of S. Augustine's treatises upon S. August. doth acknowledge both spiritual and corporalreceaving. S. john, that he would the people should not only receive the flesh and blood of christ in the Sacrament, sacramentally: but also by the partaking of the spirit, spiritually. In which his conclusion, as ye may perceive, that he teacheth two manner of receivings: so would he both to be understanded in Christ'S words, and neither of them to be banished as a thing not intended or meant by christ. whereby ye may perceive the great folly of the Adversaries, that because saint Augustine doth exhort us to the spiritual receiving of Christ'S body and blood, therefore we must contemn the sacramental receiving thereof: And yet saint Augustin would we should do both, and teacheth aswell the one as the other. But there doing herein is moche like to their doing in the matter of justification, that because saint Paul did so moche extol faith to the Romans, therefore they contemned the works of charity set forth to the Corinthians. The effect whereof hath well appeared in their practice: For not only Luther did condemn saint james epistle for the fetting forth of works: but also he and his sequaces have maliciously separated, cut of, and divided Luther condemned S. James epist themselves from the unity of Christ'S Church, and fellowship with it. And then being so separated, have without all measure and end, blasphemed, railed at, and reviled the same, and odiblie and cruelly persecuted it, which was towards them friendly and blameless. But God kindle in them that be living the fire of his low, that by it they may return to unity, which by malice have made lamentable division, not only among the people, but between God and many a soul. And, Reader, behold thou the truth now laid before thy face, and see that now taught of S. Augustin, that before though havest seen taught by Chrysostom, and Cyril. chrysostom said: autem non solùm per dilectionem, sed reipsa in ipsam carnem convertamur, per cibum id essicitur, quem nobis largitus est. That we should not only by love, but in very deed be turned in to that flesh that is brought to pass by the meat, which he hath granted us, Where note both our turning into christ by love, which is the spiritual receiving, and our turning into his flesh in very deed, which is by the corporal receiving. cyril saith: Non negamus nos rectafide charitateue sincera Christo spiritualiter Iu. 15. Joan. Corporal receiving avouched aswell as spiritual. coniungi: Sed nullam nobis coniunctionis rationem secùndum carnem cum illo esse, id profectò pernegamus We do not deny, that we be conjoined to christ spiritually by right faith and sincere charity: But that we haw no manner of conjunction with him after the flesh, that we earnestly deny. Note here a spiritual joining of us to christ, which is by spiritual receiving, and a carnal joining of us to his flesh, which is by corporal receiving. Now compare S. Augustine here to these, who saith that we may not only eat the flesh, and drink the blood of christ in the Sacrament (which is the corporal receiving) but we must eat it even unto the participation of the spirit, which is the spiritual receiving, And thus thou seest an uniform doctrine, that we must both receive christ in the Sacrament really, and also by faith spiritually. And therefore, thou Christian, suffer not thyself to be rob of the one, seeing that the exceeding love of christ, as a pledge of the same, hath to thy endless comfort left thee both. And now what S. cyril saith agreeably to S. Augustin upon this text let us hear: Manet enim immaculata utraque natura, & unus ex utrisque Christus est, sed inefabiliter, & ultrà quàm possit mens humana intelligere. Verbum humanitati In. 15. joan. coniunctum, totam in seipsum ita reduxit, ut indigentia vitae possit vinificare, Sic interitum à natura expulit, & mortem, quae peccato plurimum poterat, destruxit. Quare qui carnem Christi manducat, vitam habet aeternam. Habet enim haec caro Dei Verbum, quod naturaliter vita est. Propterea dicit, & ego resuscitabo eum in novissimo die. Ego enim dixit, id est, corpus meum quod comedetur, resuscitabo eum. Non enim alius ipse quàm caro sua. Non id dico, quia natura non sit alius, sed quia post incarnationem in duos se dividi filios minimè patitur. Ego igitur (inquit) qui homo factus sum per meam carnem in novissimo die comedentes resuscitabo. Both the natures (saith he) abide inviolated, and of them both there is one christ, but unspeakably, and beionde, that man's mind can understand. The Son of God conjoined to the manhood hath so reduced it wholly into himself, that it is able to give life to things lacking Christ'S body received in the Sacr. shall raise our bodies to immortal life. life. So hath it expelled destruction from the nature of man, and death, which by sin was very strong, it hath destroyed. Wherefore he that eateth the flesh of christ hath everlasting life. For this flesh hath the Son of God, which is naturally life: Therefore he sayeth: and I will raise him up in the last day. He said I: that is to say, my body that shall be eaten will raise him up. He is none other than his flesh. I do not say that he is none other in nature, but because after the incarnation he suffereth not himself to be divided into two sons. Therefore he saith: I, which am made man by my flesh will raise them up in the last day, which do eat me. Thus far S. cyril. Although it be much worthy to be noted, how he declareth the flesh of christ to be able to give life, Yet because I would not digress so moche, to the grief of the reader, from the matter in hand, This only I note, that he maketh all this process to prove that Christ'S flesh that was joined to the Son of God in unity of person had power and did give life (as in the fourteenth chapter more at large appeareth) to the intent, that he would thereby open the truth of this saying of christ: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood shall have eternal life. Which saying of christ must be understanded of the same flesh, which he hath proved to give life, which is the very flesh of the Son of God, or else all his process were vain. For if the probation be of the very natural flesh of christ, and the scritpture be under standed of the spiritual flesh, what serveth the probation, and all the process of the natural flesh? but that the scripture is to be understanded of the very flesh of christ. he declareth in the next saying And I will raise him in the last day, I, saith he, that is to say, my body that shall be eaten will raise him up. Now the very real body of christ shall raise up the faithful at the last day, wherefore that same body is eaten. For it is all one body that is eaten of the faithful, and that shall raise up the faithful. Why the body of christ shall raise up our bodies, he giveth a reason in the fourteenth chapter upon the sixth of S. john. Oportuit enim certè, ut non solùm anima per spiritum sanctum, in beatam vitam ascenderet: verùm etiam ut rude ciril. in. 6. joan ca 14 Cause and manner of our raising to immortality declared. hoc & terrestre corpus, cognato sibi gustu, tactu, & cibo, ad immortalitatem reduceretur. Truly it must so have been, that not only the soul, by the holy Ghost should asscend into the blessed life, but also that this rude and earthly body by a like natured taste, touching, and meat, should be reduced to immortality. Where note that as our spirit is brought to the blessed life by the Spirit of God: so is our dodie reduced to immortality by his body. Note further how it is done (cognato cibo) with a like natured meat, and such there is none, that is of like nature to us, that can reduce us to immortality, but the very body of christ Therefore it is the very body of christ that is this our meat, which meat who so doth eat, as it becometh him to eat, shall have eternal life. THE eighteenth CHAPTER BEGINNETH the exposition of the next text in the sixth chap. of S. john by Origen and S. Ambrose. NOW followeth in S. john the second determinative sentence of the substance of this matter of the Sacrament. Caro mea verè est cibus, & sanguis meus verè est potus. My flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drink. Hour Saviour christ speaking moche of the bread which his father gave, as that: Non Moses dedit vobis panem, sed Pater meus dat vobis Joan. 6. panem de coelo verum Not Moses gave you bread from heaven but my father giveth you from heaven the true bread. and that: Panis Dei est, qui de caelo descendit & dat vitam mundo. It is the bread of God that cometh from heaven, and giveth life to the world: yet had he not determined, who was this bread, but at the last he determined saying: Ego sum panis vivus, qui de coelo descendi. I am the living bread, which descended from heaven. So that as here in these sainges he determined, speaking of the bread of his Godhead that he was that bread which he hitherto spoke of, which bread was already presently given: So speaking of a bread that he would give in the Sacrament, determined what it was saying, that it was his flesh, which flesh although he said he would give, and had spoken moche of the eating of it: yet he determined not what that flesh was until now. But now he saith it is venlie meat. Where note that our Saviour determining this thing, hath chosen raither to say. Caro mea vère est cibus. My flesh is verily meat, by the adverb, then Thaeduerbe verè what force it hath and why christ chose to speak by it. to say, Caro mea verus est cibus My flesh is the very meat: by the adjective, For the adverb hath a more force, and more fully expresseth the thing that it signifieth, than doth the adjective. As if I should say: Pium hoc opus operatus est. He hath wrought this godly work. It hath not so full and perfect sense, as if I say: Hoc opus piè operatus est. He hath wrought this work godly. For in the former sentence spoken by the adjective, there is but one thing determined, that is, that the work was good, but not the doing. but in the other both the work and the doing is determined to be good. For if the work be godly done, both the work, and the doing of the work is godly. But if I faith: he hath done a godly work: though the work be signified to be godly: yet the doing may be ungodly. As, the Pharaseis did give alms, which was a godly work, but because it was done to ostentation, the doing of it was not godly. Over and above this, an adverb put to a verb doth fulfil the signification of the verb. Wherefore put to a verb substantive it doth fulfil the signification of the same and more fully doth signify the substance of the thing that is ruled by the verb, as, Hic est verus homo, This is a true man, doth not signify so much the substance, as to say: Hic est verè homo. This is truly or verily a man. This doth fully express the nature or substance of a man. So likewise the adverb here put to the verb substantive, doth more fully declare the Substance of the thing. As though he might say: My flesh is meat not by a metaphor, similitude, or figure: but it is verylic meat, that is, substantially meat, which so feedeth us, that (as Chrysostom saith) reipsa convertimur in carnem Christi. in very deed we are turned into the flesh of christ. But we will hear the ancients of Christ'S house upon this text also, whether it be thus to be understanded or no, And first Origen, who saith thus: Lex Dei iam non in figuris, & in imaginibus, sicut prius: sed in ipsa specie veritatls dgnoscitur. Et quae prius in enigmate designabantur, nunc in specie & veritate complentus. The Law of God is not now known in figures, and images (as before, In Numer. homel. 7. but in plain truth. And such things as before were described or showed in a dark manner, now are they fulfiled in plain manner and truth. And what the things be, he after rehearseth of the which some be these: Antea in enigmate fuit Baptismus in nube, & in mari: nunc autem in specie regeneratio est in aqua & Spiritu sancto. Tunc in enigmate erat Manna cibus: nunc autem in specie caro Verbi Dei est verus cibus, sicut ipse dicit: Caro mea verè est cibus, & sanguis meus verè est potus. Before baptism was in a dark manner, in the cloud, and in the sea: Now regeneration is in plain manner, in the water and the holy Ghost. Then Manna was meat in a dark manner, but now the flesh The flesh of christ meat in plain manner. of the Son of God is very meat in a plain manner, As he himself saith: My flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed. Thus Origen. Now weigh with me (gentle Reader) that Origen saith that the Gospel hath not things in ymageiss and figures, and shadows, as the Law before had The Gospel hath not the figures but the very things. but such things as were there described by figures, in the time of the Gospel are known in plain truth, So that the Gospel walketh not in figures, but in the truth of things figured. Whereby Origen concludeth, that the flesh of christ figured by Manna, that was meat to the jews, is now not figuratively, but verily the true meat of the christians. And for his authority useth hour text now in handling, saying thus: As he saith (meaning christ) My flesh is meat etc. By which manner of his declaration is it not most plain that this is no figurative speech. But that he understandeth Christ'S saying as a plain assertion of a truth, without any figure, and that they be, the very things in deed, as the words do plainly signify? it is most certain. Perchance the Adversaries will say we take the flesh of christ, as christ speaketh here to be verily meat, spiritually to be received in spirit, but not really to be receaceaved of the body. This answer containeth two parts. one, that we do receive christ but spiritually: the other, that we do not receive him really, and therefore we must receive him in a figure. Which both be directly against Origen. For the first, Origen saith, that the jews had baptism spiritually, they also The Sacramentaries. only spirituull receiving impugned by Origen. did feed on christ spiritually, and drank his blood spiritually, if we feed of christ none other wise, wherein then doth the new law excel the old? What hath the Sacraments of the christians, more than the figures of the jews? But of this more at large in the third book For the second, if we do not receive christ really, than (as it is said) we must needs receive him under a figure. But Origen saith that the law of the gospels not known now by figures and images, but by the very truth. In the law of Moses' christ was eaten in the figure Manna, Now (saith he) the flesh of the Son of God is eaten in very plain manner. What is that, but that it is eaten, really, verily, truly, and not in figure? If the flesh of the Son of God, be eaten with us in a figure, why doth he say, it is eaten in plain and open truth, and make such difference betwixt the Laws? Why did he not raither say, that it is in both laws eaten in figure? But if ye mark him well, he appointeth figures to the old law, and denieth figures in the new law, and so teacheth that the flesh of christ is verily eaten in the Sacrament. Whereby is rejected the wicked saying of this Adversary proclaimer, that we receive christ none other wise in the Sacrament than the jews did in Manna, saving that they received Manna as the figure of christ to come, and we our bread as the figure of christ that is comed. For Origen saith that we do not receive christ in a figure. for the lame of God is not now in figures and images, but in verity. And thus be the figures of the Auersaries denied. Further if we have not, and eat not christ really, but in a figure of bread: then was the Law of Moses' moche more excellent, than the new in that respect. For Manna which came from heaven so miraculously, and had so many wonders about it, as the scripture doth declare, was by all means, and without all comparison more excellent figure then a poour little morsel of artisiciall bread. Which hath no excellency by miracle or wonder, but is a plain common usual thing. All which vain considerations are nothing but untreuths, whereby the law of the Gospel should raither be abased, then duly magnified. Wherefore the singular inventions of private men left, I will credit the word of christ, and his holy inspired men declaring the same, that the flesh of christ is very meat in deed, feeding our souls spiritullie. whereby we are not inferior to the jews. And is received also corpotallie for our incorporation to christ, whereby we excel the jews. And now that we have heard this great ancient thus understanding S. Ambrose commended this text of the very flesh of christ, not figuratively but verily and truly, we will now hear also holy S. Ambrose Bishop of Milan, the master of S. Augustin in Christ'S faith, whose fame, learning, and holiness is known to all christendom, whose ancienty is great, for he lived about the year of our lord 380. and therefore above eleven hundreth years agone. Whom I thus now commend to thee, Reader, partly for that he is not in this order as yet alleged, partly that his sentence may the raither move thee to credit the truth Thus he saith: Sicut verus est Dei filius Dominus noster jesus Christus, non quemadmodum homines per gratiam, sed quasi filius ex substantia Patris: Ita vera li. 9 de Sacra ca 1. A plain place of S. Amb. for the Proclaimer. caro (sicut ipse dixit) quam accipimus, & verus est potus. As our Lord jesus christ is the very Son of God, not as men by grace but as a Son of the substance of the Father: Even so it is very flesh (as he himself saith) which we do receive, and very drink. Thus he▪ Mark well this saying, and then shall ye well perceive the understanding and meaning of this scripture, that it neither suffereth it self to be understanded of the figure of the flesh of christ, neither of the spiritual As christ it the very Son of the Father, so is his very in flesh the Sacr. flesh of christ only. But of the very substantial flesh of christ. For he maketh it by similitude plain, that as christ is the very Son of God, even of the substance of the Father, Even so is it very flesh that we receive. which is thus much to say: As christ is the very Son, of God: So is this verily flesh that we do receive. And as he is the Son of the substance of the Father: So is this flesh which we receive of the substance of Christ'S flesh. By which words of saint Ambrose the fond fancies of these fantastical men be taken away. For here is not allowed the figure of Christ'S flesh, but the thing in deed. not a spiritual receiving of christ only, but a real and spiritual receiving of the substantial flesh of christ. And thus ye may see the truth of the faith to be had in this matter, uttered plainly without any dark manner of speech, and so strongly set forth that it can not be drawn to any other understanding. And therefore I may boldly challenge this scripture from the heretics, which so evidently refuseth the figure, and so plainly teacheth the real and substantial presence of christ in the Sacrament. THE NINETENTH CHAPTER proceedeth upon the same text by Eusebius Emis. and S. Augustine. Now that ye have heard two ancients understanding this text now in hand, we will hear one other couple, of each side of Christ'S Parliament house one, as the other were, and these agreeing in one mind, as the other did, which shall be Eusebius Emisenus, and saint Augustin. Of the which Eusebius being the elder shall show his mind, who in his time was a great learned man, as saint Hieron witnesseth, and wrote many works, as against the jews, and also against the gentiles, and upon the Gospels, and the epistles of S. Paul also. This man being so profowndly learned, so ancient in time (as living about the year of our Lord. 344. so famous in constancy of faith, and holy in living, is worthy of credit. In a certain homely alleging this text he showeth the same to be understanded thus: Quia corpus assumptum ablaturus erat ab oculis, & illaturus sideribus, necessarium erat, ut in die coenae sacramentum nobis corporis & sanguinis consecraret, ut coleretur Euseb. Emisen. homil. spasch. iugiter per mysterium, quod semel offerebatur in precium, ut quia quotidiana & indesessa currebat pro omnium salute redemptio, perpetua esset redemptionis oblatio, & perennis victima illa viveret in memoria, & semper praesens esset in gratia, vera, unica, & perfecta hostia, fide aestimanda, non specie, neque exteriori censenda visu sed interiori affectu. unde coelestis consirmat authoritas, quia caro mea verè est cibus, & sanguis meus verè est potus. Because he would take away his assumpted body from our eyes, and bring it up into the heavens, it was necessary, that in the day of his Supper he should consecrate unto us the Sacrament of his body and of his blood, that it might continually be woorshiped in mystery, that once for us was offered in price, that because the daily and incessant redemption did run for the health of all men, the oblation of the same redemption should be perpetual, and that perpetual sacrifice should live in memory, and always be present in grace. A true, one only, and perfect sacrifice, to be esteemed by faith, and not by outward form, nor to be judged by the outward seight, but by the inward affect. Wherefore the heavenly authority consirmeth saying: that my flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drink. Thus Eusebius. In this sentence it is first to be considered, that this author, declaring the cause of the institution of the Sacrament, and of the continuance of the same: and also instructing us how we should esteem it, believing there to be another manner of thing, then there doth appear in outward seight, teacheth us by the allegation of this scripture, that it is the very flesh and blood of Christ which we must esteem by faith, and judge by our inward affect. And therefore he saith not, that christ doth say, but that the authority of christ confirmeth it so to be, wherefore this is without all controversy, that this scripture now in hand is by this author understanded of the Sacrament. But here the Adversaries do triumph, as allwais they do when any author Objection of the Sacramentaries out of Eusebius. speaketh any word, that may by any wresting be drawn to their understanding, though in very deed he meant nothing less. First, they say, that this author doth no affirm that christ did consecrate his body and blood, but did consecrate the Sacrament of his body and blood. And after saith again, speaking of the sacrifice of Christ'S body upon the Cross, that the everlasting sacrifice should live in memory, and always be present in grace. But note (say they) that he doth not say that that he is present in body, but in grace. But stay a while (Reader) and be not troubled with these their notes. For ye shall see immediately that these notes shall be the notes of their confusion, Answer. and declaration of their false doctrine. For God be praised, though this authorment, yea and did set forth the true faith of christ by this that is already alleged, which yet might be perverted by mysunderstanding of the malicious, who have perverted even the very plain words of christ: Yet adjoining immediately to this sentence more of this matter, he addeth words so plain, that they will neither suffer themselves, neither the words which the Adversaries have gone about to wrest, to be so understanded as the Adversaries would have them. His words immediately adjoined to the sentence of christ by him alleged, be these. Recedat ergo omne infidelitatis ambiguum, quandoquidem, qui autor est muneris, ipse est testis veritatis. Nam invisibilis sacerdos visibiles Eusebins' ibid. creaturas in substantiam corporis & sanguinis sui verbo suo, secreta potestate convertit. Let therefore all doubt of infidelity go away, for truly he that is the author of the gift: he also is the witness of the truth. For the invisible priest by a secret power, with his word doth convert or turn the visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood: Thus he. What can the Adversaries now say? Do ye not hear what this authourment by the sainges, which the Adversaries would wrest and pervert to The presence plainly au●ached by Euseb. against M. jewel. their wicked understanding? Did not he as well there as here (though not with so plain words) teach the truth of this matter, that Christ'S body and blood is in the Sacrament? Do ye not now perceane that he alleged the text of S. john, to declare that the flesh of christ was to be esteemed by faith. But I would the Adversaries, and all that be doubtful of the presence of Christ'S blessed body and blood in the Sacrament, would regard and follow the counsel of this ancient father, to let all doubt of infidelity depart from them. Which counsel if they well weigh, was given for the believing of a weightier and greater matter of faith, then to believe that the bread may be or is the figure of Christ'S body. A Christian man shall do no great matter to believe such a thing, which shall be no higher above reason nor no more repugnant thereto then that is. But the author speaking these words upon the saying of christ, which is our text now in hand, meant a greater matter to be believed, which reason can not attain to, which is, that the flesh and blood of christ in the Sacrament (which things are esteemed by faith there to be, though not so to be judged by the outward seight) are verily meat and drink. And to show us by whom this great matter is wrought he addeth: Qui author est muneris, ipse est testis veritatis. He that is author of the gift, he is the witness of the truth. christ is the witness of the truth, wherefore he is Bread and wine turned not into Sacramental bread and wine but in to the body and blood of christ. the author of the gift, that is of the Sacrament. And yet that he would certify the weak believer, he teacheth by what means the author doth work this miraculous gift and work, saying: invisibilis sacerdos, etc. The invisible priest doth turn, the visible creatures (of bread and wine) into the substance of his body and blood. Note that the bread and wine be turned, not to be a sacramental bread, as the Adversaries would gloze it, but into the substance of the body and blood of christ. O marvelous God what be they that will stick still in the filthy mire of detestable heresy, when they hear the truth so plainly, so simply, so expressly spoken and uttered, as they be not able to against say it, and that not of one of this time, neither of the time since the heresy against this Sacrament began, but of one being above a thousand years agone, when the Church was in most godly and quiet peace in this matter. Open your eyes and see and behold your filthiness, and in time seek to get out of it. Now that this author being on the one side of Christ'S Parliament house, hath so manifestly declared this our text to be understanded of the very real and substantial flesh of our Saviour christ in the Sacrament, to be our very meat: we will hear the other, which is S. Augustine, who upon the same Tractatu 26. in joan. text saith thus: Cùm enim cibo & potu id appetant homines, ut non esuriant, neque sitiant, hoc veraciter non praestat nisi iste cibus & potus, qui eos à quibus sumitur immortales & incorruptibiles facit, id est, societas ipsa sanctorum, ubi pax erit, & unitas plena atque perfecta. Propterea quip, sicut etiam ante nos intellexerunt homines Dei, Dominus jesus Christus corpus & sanguinem suum in eyes rebus commendavit, quae ad unum aliquid rediguntur ex multis. Namue aliud in unum ex multis granis conficitur & constat: Aliud in unum ex multis acinis confluit. forasmuch as by meat and drink men do this desire, that they should neither hunger, neither thirst: this doth nothing truly give, but that meat and drink, which maketh them of whom it is received immortal and incorruptible, that is, the fellowship of saints, where shall be peace and unity full and perfect. Therefore truly (as also before us the men of God have understanded this) our Lord jesus christ hath commended his body and blood in those things, which to one certain thing be brought of many. For the one is made into one of many grains, and so consisteth: the other cometh into one of many grapes. Thus he. Three things in the Sacrament to be considered. If ye call to remembrance what was said of a certain author upon this text: The bread which I will give, etc. It will help you well to understand S. Augustin here. It was said there that in the Sacrament be three things: The first is the sacrament only, which doth signify or is the sign of an holy thing, and that is the form of bread. The second is that that is signified and contained, which is the very body of christ. The third is signified but not contained, which is the mystical body of christ, that is, the company of all his elect joined to christ the head by faith and charity, for the which thing this sacrament is called the sacrament of unity, because many be made one, and joined in unity: So it is called the sacrament of love, because it signieth that by love this unity should be brought to pass. Now forsomuch as these three things be in the Sacrament, a man may speak of each of them severally, and yet when he speaketh but of one, he denieth not the other. So S. Augustin here speaking of the society of Saints, speaketh of the third thing of the Sacrament, but denieth not the other. For by the learning of the Adversaries: the Sacrament is as well a sacrament of Christ'S body broken upon the Cross, as it is of the unity of Christ'S body mystical. And that ye may perceive that S. Augustin excludeth not the body and blood of christ from the Sacrament but raither includeth it, note, he said that our Lord jesus christ commended his body and blood in these things, which be made one of many, that by the bread made of many grains, now turned into one body of christ, and by the wine made of many grapes, now turned into the blood of christ, all we (as S. Paul saith) eating of this one bread, and drinking of this one cup, might be one body in christ, and each of us one an others members. That S. Augustin denieth not the very presence of christ in the Sacrament (though here upon S. john he speaketh much of the effect of the same, the consideration whereof we have declared in the exposition of the last text before this) it doth appear in a great number of places, of the which many have been already alleged, and more by God's help shall be. As this: Hoc est quod dicimus, quod modis omnibus approbare contendimus, sacrificium Ecclesiae August. lisentem. Pros. duobus modis confici, duobus constare: visibili elementorum specie, & invisibili Domini nostri jesu Christi carne & sanguine, & sacramento, & re sacramenti, id est, corpore Christi. Sicut Christi persona constat ex Deo & homine, cum ipse Christus verus sit Deus. & verus sit homo. quia omnis res illarum rerum naturam & veritatem in se continet ex quibus conficitur: Conficitur autem sacrificium Ecclesiae duobus, sacramento, & re sacramenti: id est, corpore Christi. Est ergo sacramentum, & res sacramenti. This is it, which we say, which by all means we labour to Sacrifice of the Church consisteth of the visible forms of breadand wine and the invisible flesh and blood of christ. approve, that the Sacrifice of the Church is made by two means, and consists of two things, of the visible form of the Elements, and the invisible flesh and blood of our Lord jesus christ, the Sacrament, and the thing of the Sacrament, that is to say, the body of christ. As the person of christ is of God and man, for as much as he is very God and very man For every thing doth contain in it the nature and truth of those, things, of the which it is made. The Sacrifice of the church is made of two things: of the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament, that is, the body of christ. Thus far S. Augustin. Doth he not here in this sentence teach the presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, yes, if ye note well, he teacheth three things by express words, S. August. teacheth three thiuges in one sentence against the Sacramentaries. which the adversaries deinie, that is, that the Church hath a Sacrifice, that therein is a sacrament, which he expoundeth to be the forms of the Elements, that is, of bread and vine, that there is also present the very body and blood of christ, which he calleth the thing of the Sacrament because it is the thing that the Sacrament doth signify. And because men should not cavil saying that the body and blood of christ be not verily present, but signified: He declareth by the similitude of Chrysts person, that as verily as christ being God and man hath both the nature of God and the nature of mam: So verily hath the sacrifice of the Sacrament, that is, the outward forms of bread and wine, and the body and blood of christ. Now if the Adversaries will say, that in the Sacrifice of the Church, there is not really either the forms of bread and wine or the very body and blood of christ: then must they likewise say that in the person of christ, there is not really, either the nature of man or the nature of God, which both are to detestable to be spoken of the mouth of a christian man. And so truly is the other also. And yet not contented with this similitude, which is abundantly sufficient, he proceedeth to prove the same by this saying Every thing (saith he) containeth in it the nature and truth of the things that it is made of. The Sacrifice of the Church is made of the Sacrament and the body and blood of christ. Wherefore S. Augustine thus concludeth upon this reason: Est igitur sacramentum, & res sacramenti corpus Christi. There is therefore the Sacrament, and the thing of the Sacrament, the body of christ. In these words I suppose S. Augustin hath so plainly expressed and declared his faith in this matter, that it can not suffer any other opinion justly to be conceived of him. For if we that have lived, and live in this time of pestilent heresy, would against this heresy of the Sacrament, study to devise, to speak or write the plainest words that might impugn this heresy, and declare fully our faith, we can no more faith nor by better and plainer words do the same, than saint Augustin hath here doen. Wherefore what so ever he did speak or write to any party or parties according to the disposition, and condition of them, sometime speaking of the mystical body of christ signified by this sacrament, sometime only of the spiritual receiving of christ, sometime darkly for the manner of the audience: yet be well assured his faith can not be otherwise for the presence then here is declared, for somuch as these words can bear no other sense nor meaning than they in the outward face do show. Therefore, Reader, be not carried away by the false commentes that naughty men make of S. Augustins' words. For though he speak sometime obscurely, as it may appear to have a doubtful understanding, as before we end this chapter of S. john thou shalt hear: yet for so much as saint Augustin had but one faith, which is so plainly here professed and settfurth, be well assured that he never varieth or goeth from and against this. But I tarry to long upon this, seeing there be diverse couples more to be heard upon this text. THE twentieth CHAP. proceedeth upon the same text by saint Hilary and Euthymius. Saint Hilary is a great ancient of Christ'S house living about S. Hilarye commended. the 360 year after christ, and not only ancient, but also right excellent in learning, and famously constant in faith. His excellency in learning is not only testified by saint Hierom, who saith he wrote many learned works, but also by Rufinus, who saith he was accounted the great light in his time to all France, and Italy. His constancy in faith is well declared, that notwithstanding the Emperors and Princes, ad many bishops were the favourers of the heresy of the Arians: yet he neither moved with the favour of mighty and great men, neither feared with their punishment, or banishment, did constantly resist the said heresy, and also wrote learned books against it. This author writteh thus: Li. 8. de Trinita●s. Quae scripta sunt legamus, & quae legerimus intelligamus, & tunc perfectae fidei fungemur officio. De naturali in nobis Christi veritate quae discimus, nisi ab eo discimus, stultè atque impiè discimus. ipse enim ait: Caro mea verè est esca; & sanguis meus verè est potus. Qui edit carnem meam, & bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet, & ego in eo. De veritate carnis, & sanguinis non est relictus ambigendi locus. Nunc enim & ipsius Domini professione, & fide nostra verè caro est, et verè sanguis est. Et haec accepta atque bausta id efficiunt, ut et nos in Christo, et Christus in nobis sit. Let us read those things that be written, and such things as we read let us understand. and then shall we perfectly do the office of our faith. Soche things as we learn of the natural Of the verity of Christ'S flesh and blood in the Sacr. there is no doubt verity of christ in us, except we learn of him, we learn foolishly and ungodly. For he doth say: My flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drink He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him. Of the verity of the flesh and bood there is no place left to doubt. For now both by the plain speaking of our Lord himself: and by our faith it is verily flesh, and verily blood. And these taken and drunken do bring it to pass, that both we be in christ, and christ in us. Thus he. Among many goodly notes to be gathered in this saying, three things will I briefly note. The first is, that this our text is understanded of the Sacrament, but not of the Sacrament as of a bare figure, but as containing the thing that it doth signify, which thing is the body and blood of christ And this matter appeareth so plain, so evident and so certain to this great learned and holy man, that by the instruction that faith gave him to understand this scripture, he said that of the verity of Chrystis flesh and blood there A plain saying for M. jewel. is no place to doubt. And why was there no place left to doubt? He showeth the cause: For now (saith he) by the suing of our Lord, and our faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. O this was a blessed simplicity, a godly obedience, that curiously would not ask with the jews, how it should be flesh and blood, and how his flesh and blood should be meat, but reverently captivating his understanding to the obsequy of christ saith: by cause christ did say, that his flesh was verily meat, there is no place of doubt left, but that it is flesh in deed, and blood in deed. And in this saying it is not to be over slipped, that he faith: that by the saying of our Lord and our faith: So that he putteth our faith to the saying of christ, Faith how it is requisite in the Sacrament not that our faith is a worker with the saying of christ to work the substance of the thing: but that as by the saying of christ, the thing in it self is most certainly true: so by faith believing and accepting it, it is certain also to us. For as christ hath died for the sins of the whole world, which in it self is most certain: So yet to all it is not so certain, but to such as by faith believe and accept it. And so it is also certain to us. Wherefore though to S. Hilary by the faith that he gave to Christ'S word it was very flesh and very blood: yet to heretics that have not such faith as Hilary had, it is not the flesh and blood of christ, not that it is not so in deed, but unto them it is as though it were not so. How much then may they be abashed at this saying of S. Hilary, who declareth that by his faith he believed it to be the very flesh and blood of christ, and they like shameless obstinate men leaving the faith that S. Hilary had, and cleaving to their own invented imaginations and natural reason, say they can not believe it. But God give them a better mind. The second note is, that this very flesh and very blood is taken of us, and droken Flesh and blood of christ verily eaten and drunken in the Sacr. of us, whlche doth teach us the corporal receiving of christ in the Sacrament, corporal I say in two respects, that both we receive his very real and substantial dodie, and that we with our body and into our body receive that same self blessed body. So it is a corporal receipt in respect of the thing received, and of the receiver also, This thing the same S. Hilary in the same book doth open more at large, when he saith: Si enim verè verbum caro factum est, & nos verè verbum carnem Hilar ibid. cibo Dominico sumimus, quomodò non naturaliter in nobis manner existimandus est, qui & vaturam carnis nostrae iam inseparabilem sibi natus assumpsit, & naturam carnis: fuae, ad naturam aeternitatis sub sacramento nobis communicandae carnis admiscuit, If the word were verily made flesh, and we receive the word made very flesh in our christ naturally in us by receipt of the Sacra. lords meat, how is it to be thought that he doth not naturally abide in us, who being born man hath both taken the nature of our flesh upon him now inseparably, and also under the Sacrament of his flesh to be communicated unto us, hath admixed the nature of his flesh to the nature of the eternity? Thus he. In the which saying what would we wish to be more plainly spoken, than that the Son of God was made flesh, and that same Son of God A plain place of S. Hilar. for the Proclaimer. being made flesh, we receive in the lords meat? Neither may that gloze here be heard that we receive him verily in the Sacrament but spiritually, For that which followeth in the text will not bear that gloze. Which is when he saith: How is he to be thought not naturally to abide in us? Mark well these words how can christ naturally abide in us, but by the receipt of his natural flesh and body? The spiritual receiving worketh not a natural abiding, but each of them agreeably, the spiritual receiving maketh a spiritual abiding, and the corporal receiving of his natural body maketh a natural abiding of christ in us. Wherefore if he be naturally abiding in us by the receipt of his flesh in the Sacrament, that receipt is agreeably of his very natural and real flesh into our natural bodies, and then it must needs be that we receive Christ'S body really in the Sacrament. The third note is, that christ thus received worketh in us this effect, that we thereby be in christ, and christ in us, of the which manner of being, the text which followeth in saint john, will give us occasion to speak more. Wherefore we will differ it till we come thither. And now will we come to Euthymius who in few words saith thus: Caromea verè est cibus. verus est cibus sive aptissimus, utpote animam, quae proprijssima hominis In. 6. Joan. My fleshies verily meat: is no parabolical or figurative speech. pars est, nutriens. Et similiter de sanguine. Aut hoc dixit confirmans, quod non enigmaticè neque parabolicè loqueretur. My flesh is meat in deed. It is the very or most aptest meat, as which nourisheth the soul, which is the most propriest or wourthiest part of a man. And likewise of the blood, Orells he said thus confirming that he did speak neither obscurely, nor parabolicallie. Thus Euthymius. Dost though not perceive (reader) that one spirit was in the mouth of all these holy and ancient Fathers? do they not agree in sentence? Mark well how this Ancient Father expoundeth this text, removing and denying the figure, whereby he declareth himself to understand this text of the very real flesh of christ, as Hilary doth. it is (saith he) no parabolical speech: it is no figurative speech, but it is a plain speech signifying no other ways then the words sound, that is the very flesh and the very blood, not the figure of them. Which manner of exposition thou shalt see (Reader) in other that do follow, especially in chrysostom and Theophilact. Wherefore coming to them remember this, and confer them together, and thou shalt find good matter, and agreeable to the truth of this assertion. THE ONE AND TVENTETH CHAPTER CONTInueth the same exposition by chrysostom and Lira. Whereas ye have hitherto heard the sentences of the Fathers and ancients of the higher house upon this text now in hand: Hereafter for the better declaration of the consonant doctrine of this truth in all times, and for the more confusion of the Adversaries who so maliciously have depraved the writers of the later time: I will as before is promised join to some of the elder sort, some of the younger. Of the which the first couple shall be chrysostom and Lira, the one a Graecian Homil. 40. in Joan. christ in the sixth of S. John spoke not para bolicallie or obscurely. and of the higher house, the other a latin and of the lower house (as ye have heard) chrysostom upon this text saith thus: Quid autem signat: Caro mea verè est cibus, & sanguis meus verè est potus? Aut quòd is est verus cibus, qui saluat animam: aut ut eos in praedictis confirmet, ne obscurè locutum in parabolis arbitrarentur. What meaneth this saying: My flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drink Either that this is the true meat that saveth the soul, or else that he might confirm them lest they should think that he had spoken obscurely in parables Where note that chrysostom saith, that christ did speak these words in plain speech, and not darkly in paraboles. Which saying wonderfully confuteth the Adversaries. For if christ did not speak parabolicallie, than he meant that the words should signify no other thing then in their proper signification they do signify, and then must it needs be that christ spoke here of his very flesh and of his very blood with out all obscurity or dark manner of speech by figures, tropes, similitudes or paraboles, which the Adversaries would here ensparse. My flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed, is no obscure speech, nor no figurative speech (saith chrysostom) let the Adversaries then wrest and wring, and pervert the scriptures as they list, I will credit holy Chrysostom and the church that he lived in before any of the Adversaries, and their malignant church, which they live A a plain saying of Chrysost. for M. jewel. in. If the Proclaimer will not say that this is a plain saying when there is no parbole in it: I know not what he will say is plain, these words being of themselves so plain. Now whether the exposition of Lira, who was of the latin Church, and of the later days, be consonant and agreeable to chrysostom or not let us hear. upon the same text he saith: Hic ostenditur buius Sacramenti veritas. Christus enim frequenter parabolicè Discipulis loquebatur. Et ideo, ne crederent quòd caro eius cotinere Lira in 6. joann. tur in hoc sacramento Eucharistiae tantummodò sicut in signo, ideo hoc removet dicens: Caromea verè est cibus, quia hic sumitur realiter, & non figuratiuè. Et eodem modo est de sanguine sub specie vini, & ideo subdit: Et sanguis meus verè est potus. Dicitur ctiam caro Christi verè cibus, & sanguis eius verè potus, quia reficiunt animam, quae est immortalis. Cibus autem corporalis tantùm reficit corpus quod est corruptibile. Here is showed (saith Lira) the verity of this Sacrament. For christ oftentimes did speak to his disciples parabolicallie. And therefore least they should believe, that this flesh were contained in this Sacrament only as in a figure: he removeth that, saying: my flesh is verily meat. For it is here received really, and not The flesh of christ in the Saeaten really, not figurat. figuratively. And after the same manner is it of the blood, under the form of wine. The flesh of christ is also called meat in deed and his blood drink in deed, because they refresh the soul, which is immortal. But corporal meat refresheth only the body, which is corruptible. Thus he. Remember. Reader, the exposition of chrysostom, wherein he said two things: The one that christ saith, that his flesh is verily meat, because it faveth the soul: The other that christ so said, because he would confirm them in the foresaid things that he did not speak in paraboles. And now confer this author to him, and see if he speak any other thing, but even the same two things that Chrysostom did. For where chrysostom saith, that it is the true meat that saveth the soul: This author saith, that the body of christ is called verily meat, and his blood verily drink, because they refresh the soul, which is immortal. chrysostom saith, that christ would show himself not to speak now in paraboles: This author more at large saith, that because christ did often speak parabolicallie, least they should think or believe, that his flesh were contained in the Sacrament, as in a sign only, therefore he removeth that, saying, that this flesh is verily meat, because it is received really, and not figuratively. Thus ye see agreement between these authors, and one truth spoken here a most by one manner of words of him that did write above a thousand years agone, and of him that did write not fully three hundreth years agone. Whereby ye may perceive that the same doctrine hath been continued and taught in these latter years by writers of late time. which was received and taught in the church in ancient time, as touching th'exposition of this scripture we have in hand. THE TVO AND TVENTETH CHAP. CONTInueth yet th'exposition of the same text by S. cyril, and Dionise AS in the chapter last before ye heard one couple far distant in time of their lives, but consonant in sound of their faith: So shall ye in this chapter hear an other couple, the one very ancient, the other of later time, likewise agreeably declaring their faith and opening the right sense of our text now yet in hand. This couple shall be cyril and Dionise the Carthusian. the one of the greek church, the other of the latin church, as they before alleged were. S. cyril saith thus: Vmbram & figuram nosti? Disce ipsam rei veritatem. Caro enim mea (inquit) verè est cibus, & sanguis meus verè est potus. Rursus distinguit inter Li. 4. ca 16. in Joan. mysticam benedictionem, & Manna, aquarum fluenta ex lapide, & calicis sancti communicationem, ne magis Mannae miraculum admirentur, sed ipsum potius suscipiant, qui caelestis panis est, & aeternae vitae largitor. Mannae namque alimentum non aeternam vitam, sed breve famis remedium attulit. Non erat ergo ille verus cibus. Sanctum verò Christi corpus ad immortalitatem, & vitam aeternam nutriens cibus est. Aqua etiam illa è petra ad momentum sitim corporalem levabat, nec quicquam adferebat pretereà. Non erat ergo potus ille verus, sed verus potus est sanguis Christi quo radicitus mors evertitur, & destruitur. Non enim hominis simpliciter sanguis est, sed eius, qui naturali vitae coniunctus, vita effectus est. have though known the shadow and the figure? Learn the very truth of the thing My flesh (saith he) is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed. He doth again make a distinction betwixt the mystical benediction, and Manna: the streams of waters out of the rock, and the partaking of the holy cup: least they should more esteem the miracle of Manna, but Figures of the old Law, and verity of the new, be as the shadow and the thing shadowed. raither should receive him, the which is the heavenly bread and the giver of eternal life. For the food Manna did not bring eternal life: but a short remedy of hunger. but the holy boodie of christ is a meat nourishing to immortality and eternal life. That water also out of the stone, did for a little while ease the bodily thirst: but the trae drink is the blood of jesus christ, by the which death is turned up by the roots and destroyed. It is not the blood of a bare man, but of him, who being conjoined to the natural life is made life. Thus far saint cyril. Do ye not perceive in these words that he speaketh as much and the very same in sense, though not in words that Chrysostom did? He had treacted before of the paschal lamb, and thereby moved the jews, to consider the Shadows of Moses' law, whereby being instructed, they should be the readier to understand, these mysteries of the new testament, and therefore saith: Havest though known the figure, learn also the very truth of the thing. what is that? My flesh is meat in, deed and my blood is drink in deed. Mark then (Reader) the figures were the paschal lamb, Manna, and the water flowing out of the stone: The verity (saith he) that these figures did prefigurate, is that truth that christ uttered, saying: My flesh is meat in deed. If this be the verity, than it is not a figure: if it be no figure, than christ speaking it, spoke neither parabole, nor figure, as the last couple hath also taught. And in this ye perceive again the confutation of the Adversaries, that this is spoken of Christ'S very flesh in the Sacrament, and that it is no figurative speech as they would feign it to be: but a speech teaching the thing to be really and verily present, But that I be not to tedious in tarrying to long upon every author, I will say no more of this man's testimony at this present, both for the cause alleged, and also that through all the sixth chapter of saint john, and almost through all the gospel of saint john, he is not only plentiful inmaking mention of this matter, but also as plain as he is plentiful. And that know the adversaries right well. Therefore we will hear what Dionise who is joined to him doth say: Thus I teade there: Caro mea verè est cibus, & sanguis meus verè est potus. Hoc ait salvator, ne putaretur parabolicè loqui Dionys. Carthus in joan. 6. solito more, ita quòd carnem suam diceret panem; quia significaretur per panem, & esset sub forma panis solùm sicut in signo: vel propter aliquam proprietatem cum pane cibus diceretur, quomodò dicit Apostolus: Petra erat Christus, quoniam figuravit Christum. Et Esaias: Verè foenum est populus, propter convenientiam quandam. Et infrà ait de seipso salvator: Ego sum vitis vera. Ad insinuandum ergo quòd caro sua sit verè & substantialiter sub specie panis, veraciterue sumatur à communicante: Sanguis quoque ipsius verè sub specie vini contineatur, & recipiatur, adiecit: Caro mea, id est, corpus (sumitur enim nunc earo, non prout ossa excludit, pro toto corpore, neruos, venas, & ossa habente) verè est cibus, animae non corporis, quia non visibiliter, nec corporaliter sumitur, quamuis verum corpus sumatur. My flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drink. Thus said our Saviour least he should be thought after his customable manner to speak parabolicallie, so that he should call his flesh bread, because it should be signified by the bread, and should be under the form of bread only as in a sign. Or that it should be called meat, for some property that it hath with bread. Even as the Apostle doth say: The stone was christ, because it figured christ. And isaiah: Truly the people The very flesh of christ under the form of bread, and his very blood under the form of vine. is grass, for a certain agreement to the same. And in the gospel our Saviour saith of himself: I am the true vine. To insinuate therefore unto us, that his flesh is verily and substantially under the form of bread, and that it is truly received of the communicant, and his blood also is contained in deed under the form of wine, and is received, he added: My flesh: that is to say, my body (For flesh is now here taken, not as it doth exclude the bones, but for the whole dodie, having, sinews, veins and bones) is verily meat, of the soul, not of the body. For it is not taken or received visibly, nor corporally, although the very body be received. Thus moche Dionise. Although I need not here to note any thing, where every sentence, and piece of the same is so plainly laid forth to our understanding: yet I have thought it good not to overpass to advertise thee (reader) that this author, though he speak thus plain: yet he dissenteth not from the ancients before alleged, namely Chrysostom and cyril. For as they said that this saying of christ is no parable, nor figure nor dark speech: but containing the verity, and the very thing in deed, that by figures was perfigurated: So this author drawing by the same line saith, that where christ was accustomed to speak parabolicallie: yet to give us to understand that it was neither figure nor parabole that he spoke of here, but that it was his flesh verily and substantially, that is under the form of bread and his blood in very deed, that is under the form of wine. He said, my flesh (which is here taken for the whole body) this whole body is verily meat. secondarily, where some of them said, it was very meat because it saved the soul: Some other said it was the meat of the soul, because it brought to the soul immortality, and everlasting life: so this Author also saith, that it is the meat of the soul, not of the body. Thus in these points ye see no dissension betwixt the Authors of ancient time, and the Authors of the later time. If ye object that chrysostom did use no such words as this Author doth. For chrysostom, though he said that it was the very meat that saved the soul: yet he did not say that this very meat was under the forms of bread and wine, as this man doth. Is this, trow you, abhorring from the sainges of the ancient Fathers, though Chrysostom doth not here speak it by express words as this Author doth? Doth not chrysostom say that this is no parabolical speech? whereby what doth he else insinuate, but that there is the thing even as it is spoken of christ: which is the very flesh the very meat of the faithful? If this flesh be verily there, as most certainly it is, and we do see but the form of bread, than it is there under the form of bread. But to declare unto you that this manner ofspeache and words is not of late usage, or of late or new invention, hark what saint Augustin saith. Caro eius est, quam forma panis opertam in Sacramento accipimus: & sanguis Lib. sent. Prosp. A plain place for M. Juell. eius est, quem sub vini specie & sapore potamus. It is the flesh of him, which we receive, covered in the Sacrament under form of bread. And it is the blood of him, which we drink under the form and taste of wine. Do ye not hear in these words of Saint Augustine, the same form of words, used by Dionise? Do ye not hear the form of bread and Forms of bread and wine a speech known to S. Augu. wine? Do ye not hear that Christ'S flesh is under the one, and his blood under the other? Why then do ye stick still in the mire? Why do ye not frame yourselves to be obedient to the faith of Crystes Church? Or do ye think that ye alone have the true faith, which the Church had not in the time of saint Augustine? Why do ye persevere, deceiving the simple, and unlearned, feeding them with lies in stead of truth, with heresy in stead of faith, and with Schism in stead of unity of God's religion. Say not now (as it hath been your common slander) that these late writers were full of corrupt doctrine. For ye see yet that they teach no other doctrine in this matter then the ancient Fathers did. And yet in this saying of saint Augustine, there is one thing worthy of note, that where the Adversaries travailed to impugn this doctrine of Christ'S being in the Sacrament under the forms of bread and wine, by the alteration or change of the signification of this word, species, Species and forma used both in one signification. saying that the word doth signify the nature or kind of a thing, and not the outwaade form: Let them here weigh well and consider saint Augustine's manner of speech, who taketh here this word, species, applied to the wine, in the same signification that he taketh, forma, applied to the bread. But this word, forma, is taken for the outward form, wherefore this word, species, must needs be so likewise. And here also I would wish the unlearned that have erred in this matter that they would be advertised by this good Father and learned man Dionise, that they will not abuse these sentences of the scripture: Petra erat Christus. &, verè foenum est populus: The stone was christ. and, Truly the people is grass: to the maintenance of their error, that because these be spoken figuratively, therefore this also: Caro verè est cibus: My flesh is meat in very deed. Is spoken figuratively. For if ye will so, then might ye make these sentences: Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi. if art christ the Son of the living God: Et verè filius Dei erat iste, And truly this man was the Son of God: ye might, I say, make these sentences, figurative speeches, and so consequently subvert the sense of holy scripture and all our faith. Therefore understand by this Author, that they be figurative speeches, or speeches so used for some agreableness of the things compared together, and do not overtwartly turn that to impugn the truth, that is brought in example for the declaration of the truth, as I heard a Reader do in Cambridge, who being willing to please the world he lived in, began to impugn the presence of christ in the Sacrament, and the Mass. School arguments made for the opening of truth, produced of a Protestant to confirm a false doctrine. And to make his matter good in appearance, he induced many arguments and delighted himself very moche in them, as by which his matter was much confirmed and strengthened, as he thought. In the hearing of the arguments, methought they were such as I had read, wherefore the lecture being ended, I repaired to my study, and supposing I had read them in Dunce, I took him in hand, and turned, and found them. Which as Dunce had moved against the truth, to be solved for the better declaration and opening of the truth: So did this man bring them in against the truth, to confirm his false doctrine. So that such argument as Dunce framed for an argument of impugnation: this reader used it as an argument of confirmation. And so I fear verily, that many seek good Authors, and what they find in them to impugn falsehood, with that do they defend and fortify the same. Wherefore, reader, do not the like here, that what this Author bringeth in for a better and further declaration of the truth, if take it to impugn the truth. I thought it good also not to omit that this Author saith that we receive in the Sacrament the very real, and whole body of christ, with veins, sinews, and bones, for that I have heard some of the jewish Capharnaites ask, what do we receive Christ'S body bones and all? How can it come whole in to my mouth? Ah thou man of little faith, why dost though doubt, because though imaginest with the Capharnaites no other presence, but after the gross corporal The presence of Christ's body in the Sac. no more impossible than many other his works, which some as impossible to natural knowledge. manner But thou errest fowllie. He is there spiritually, and yet verily, and really, and no more to be thought impossiblie to thee, than that that body was born of a virgin: then that it walked upon the sea: then that it was transfigurated on the mount: then that it rose from death life: then that it passed out of the grave the monument being still fast shut and close: then that it entered into the Apostles the doors being shut: then that it ascended into heaven: all which facts if if measure by natural knowledge, they will seem as unpossible as the other. For natural knowledge wondereth and saith: how could the body of christ being a perfect body. Having flesh and bones pass out of the sepulchre, the sepulchre not being opened but still closed and shut? how could that body having (as is said) flesh and bones, enter into the disciples the doors still being shut? So doth it also say: How can a man receive the whole body of christ with his mouth? But as these two former things be made possible to thee by faith, let this third so be also. For if thou believe them because the scripture teacheth thee: believe the scripture and the holy Fathers also which teach thee, that this body of christ is so present, and so received. And if it be present, it must needs be that same body that was born, that was crucified. But not as it was born and crucified. That same body in substance, not the same in quality and condition. But yet the very same whole body. So did Chrystome teach that we should take In 10. 1 Co. Hom. 24. it saying thus: Et quando id propositum videris, dic tecum, propter hoc corpus non amplius terra & cinis ego sum, hoc corpus crucifixum, verberatum, morte victum non est. Hoc idem corpus cruentatum, lancea vulneratum, fontes sanguinis & aquae, universo orbisalutares scaturivit. When thou (saith Chrysostom speaking of the Sacrament) seist that thing set forth, say with thyself, for this body I am no more earth and ashes. This body crucified and beaten, was not overcomed with death. This same very body bloodied and wounded with a spear, hath let run out fountains of water and blood wholesome to all the world. Thus he. Note, Reader, that Chrysostom willeth you, when ye see the Sacrament The same body is in the Sacr. that was crucified. set forth, to say with yourself. This body being crucified, was not overcomed with death. This same very body wounded with a spear, sent wholesome streanies of water and blood to the world. Whereby ye are taught, that the same body is in the Sacrament, that was crucified. And therefore are ye not willed to say at the seight of the Sacrament: This is a sign, figure or token of the body, that was crucified: but this is the self same body, and none other. For christ hath but one body, and that same one body is in the Sacrament substantially, wholly and perfectly. And therefore as that christ was incarnate we know, and by whose work it was done we know, but the manner how that flesh was wrought we know not: That christ did rise from death, and that his soul was in Hell we know, but how it came to his body again we know not, yet by whom it was done we know: So, that Christ'S body is in the Sacrament we know, and by whom it is wrought that it is there we know, but how it is there, more than is said, we know not. Now if ye will not believe his body to be in the Sacrament, because ye know not how it is there, how will ye believe that Christ'S soul returned to his body, seeing ye know not how, it came ther. christ made the water wine in Cana Galilaeae, But how we know not. Joan. 2. For he spoke no extern word, neither did any extern fact toward the turning of it appear more than that he did bid the ministers to draw, and give the steward. The five loans, and two fishes the seven loans and the few fishes we know to be multiplied, and by whom, but how, whether by Ibid. 6. Matt. 15. putting to of an other substance, or they themselves were increased, or otherwise, we know not. That Lazarus was dead, and so certenlie, that he being four Joan. 11. days in the grave did stink, we know: but how the soul came to that putrisieng body, and from whence, and how that stinking body was made hole and sweet, we know not, but by whom it was done we know. Therefore the manner of these and many more being wrought by the divine power, for so much as the scripture saith that they were done (though the manner of the doing be unknown) we believe them: So uless as the scripture saith that the flesh of christ is meat in deed and that we must eat it, if we will have life: Let us believe it, though we know not how it is so made, nor can comprehend how such a body should enter into a We may not be curious in the works of God. man's mouth. Let us not be curious in searching the wonderful works of God. If he did say it, it is knowledge enough for a Christian man to believe that it is so. I tarry to long here, but the Christian charity I bear to them that have erred, that they may be reduced, and stayed, hath thus carried me. THE THREE AND twentieth CHAPTER endeth the exposition of this text by Theophilact. and Beda. THe last couple, which shall be brought forth for the expounding and understanding of this text of S. john, shall be Theophilact. and Beda. Whom I will briefly, allege because I would be gone from this to other in same chapter. Theophilacte saith thus: Non enim nudi hominis caro est quae manducatur, sed Dei, & quae deificare valet, utpote contemperata Deitati. Ista etia vere est cibus, eò quòd non ad parvum tempus duret, neque corrumpatur sicut corruptibilis cibus: sed aeternae vitae sit subsidium. Similiter et potus sanguinis Domini verè est potus quiae In 6. Joan. non ad tempus sufficit siti sed semper absque siti conseruat, nec indigere permittit bibentem sicut et ad Samaritanam dicebat: Qui bibit ex aqua, quam ego dabo, non sitiet. Nam quisquis grattam sancti Spiritus per sumptionem divinorum mysteriorum susceperit, neque famem spiritualem, neque sitim patietur qualem incredult. It is not the flesh of a bare man, which is eaten, but of God, and which is able to make us as it were Gods, as contemperated to the Godhead. This flesh also is meat in very deed, because it endureth not for a little while, neither is it corrupted as the corruptible meat, but it is the help of eternal life, likewise also the drink of the blood of our Lord is drink in deed, because it sufficeth the thirst not for a time, but always it conserveth from thirst, and suffereth not the drinker to lack, as he said to the Samaritane: He that drinketh of the water which I shall give him, he shall not thirst, so as do the unbelievers. Thus moche Theophilacte. I shall not need to travail here to show that he understandeth this text of the Sacrament. For that is all ready made so manifest, that it can not be denied. And for the presence I will not trouble the reader to make any farther proof or declaration here, seeing it may be well perceived, by that that is already said, what this Authors meaning is in this matter. I will therefore pass him thus over, and come to Beda, who briefly writeth thus: Dixerat superiùs, Qui manducat meam carnem, & bibit meum sanguinem habet vitam aeternam. Et ut ostenderet quanta distantia sit inter corporalem cibum, & spirituale In Joan. mysterinm corporis & sanguinis sui, adiecit: Caro mea verè est cibus, & sanguis meus verè est potus. He had said before he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life. And to the intent he might show how great difference is between the corporal meat, and the spiritual mystery of his body and blood, he added: My flesh is meat in deed and my blood is drink in deed. Thus Beda. That this Author understandeth this text of the Sacrament, it can not be obscure to any man, seeing that he so plainly saith, that christ to show the difference of corporal meat, and spiritual mystery of his body and blood added this saying: My flesh is meat etc. And let no man take occasion to maintain his error against the presence How the Sacr. is a mysterte, and what a mysterte is of christ in the Sacrament, because he calleth it the mystery of Christ'S body and blood. For a mystery is that covertly containeth a thing not by senses or common knowledge to be perceived. So this mystery containeth the very body of christ as a thing secretly hidden from the senses, as Eusebius saith: Non exteriori censenda visu, sed interiori affectu. Not to be judged by outward seight, but by inward affect, that is by faith. Hom. 5. Pasch. Wherefore Wherefore it is very well called a mystery, for that it containeth the very body and christ, which the senses can not perceive. eaten, and drunk, they become Apostaties, and forsakers of Christ'S religion do they abide in christ, or christ in them? But there is in deed a certain manner of eating that flesh, and of drinking that blood, after the which manner he that eateth, and drinketh, dwelleth in christ, and christ in him. Thus far S. Augustin. Do ye not here see two manners of eating of the flesh of christ, and Two manners of eating the flesh of christ. drinking of his blood, the one to eat and drink them verily, which if it be done with a feigned heart, or when they have so done, they forsake Christ'S faith (as many of late years have done and do in this matter of the Sacrament) they, though they have received Christ'S very flesh and blood in the Sacrament: yet christ doth not dwell in them. Then there is an other manner of eating Christ'S body (saith S. Augustin) which is a spiritual manner of receiving by true and right faith, and fervent charity. And he that eateth Christ'S flesh after this manner, he hath christ dwelling in him. But (as it is before said) he that eateth Christ'S flesh spiritually, hath christ dwelling in him spiritually: But he that eateth Christ'S very flesh in the Sacrament with perfect faith, and godly charity, he hath christ dwelling in him both naturally (as S. Hilary saith) and also spiritually (as S. Augustin saith) So that the one of these denieth not the other, neither is any of them by any catholic writers denied, but they be both raither wished, yea required, and commanded. And both these manners of receiving jointly used of the faithful christian do augment the benefit very moche. And here I wish the Reader, diligently to note that S. Augustin saith that evil men do eat the flesh of christ, which invincible proveth the real and substantial flesh of christ in the Sacrament. For otherwise the evil man can not eat the flesh of christ. Thus ye see to what purpose I have joined these two holy learned Fathers together though they be both of the latin Church, that ye may Two ways of dwelling in christ, that is spiritually and naturally. perceive the abiding and dwelling of christ in us to be not only spiritual by faith and charity, but also natural by the receiving of Christ'S very flesh in the Sacrament. And that th'one of these manners is not to be only affirmed as a truth, and tother denied as an error, but both to be received and believed as a treu catholic doctrine avouched and taught by holy Fathers, which expownde this text of saint john now in hand both to mien te natural abiding of christ in us, as saint Hilary hath here done, and also the spiritual abiding, as saint Augustin expounded it. THE FIVE AND twentieth CHAPTER proceedeth in the exposition of the same by Chrysostom and saint Gregory. chrysostom very briefly expoundeth this text on this wise. Qui manducat meam carnem, & bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet, & Hom. 45. in Joan. ego in eo. Quod dicit, ut cumipso se admisceri ostendat. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. Which he saith, that he might show himself to be mingled with him. What he meeneth by this (mingled) if ye remember what is alleged of him before, that shall ye soon perceive, and understand therewith that Chrisostom according to our two manners of receiving, maketh mention of two manners of being in christ, saying thus: autem non solùm per dilectionem, sed reipsa in illam carnem convertamur, per cibum id efsicitur, quem nobis largitus est. That Jbid. we should (saith Chrysostom) not only by love, but in very deed be turned into his flesh, that is done by the meat which he hath granted us. Where note that he teacheth, that we be turned into christ two manner of ways: by love, which is the spiritual manner, by the which we be spiritually Two manners of being or dwelling in Chryst. in christ, even dwelling in him (as saint john saith) Deus charitas est & qui manet in charitate in Deo manet, & Deus in co. God is charity, and he that dwelleth in charity, dwelleth in God, and God in him: And also in very deed, when we worthily eat his flesh, which is our heavenly meat, by which meat (saith Chrysostom) it is brought to effect, and that not by an imagination, but in very deed. Thus ye perceive that these be two sundry effects, to dwell in christ spiritually, and to dwell in him in very deed (as Chrysostom saith) or naturally (as S. Hilary saith) which two sundry effects, have two sundry causes: which be to eat Christ'S flesh spiritually, and to eat it really, or in very deed. So that ye may perceive, that this is not an horrible matter, as the Proclaimer with blasphemous exclamation pretendeth it to be, when so many ancient Fathers so plainly speak of it. But now come we to S. Gregory joined with Chrysostom who upon job saith thus: Natus Dominus in praesepi ponitur, ut significaretur, quòd sancta animalia, Greg. in Job cap. 6. quae ieiuna diu apud legem inventa sunt, incarnationis eius foeno satiarentur. Praesepe natus implevit, qui eibum semetipsum mortalium mentibus praebuit, dicens: Qui comedit carnem, & bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet, & ego in eo. Hour Lord being born is laid in the manger that it should be signified, that the holy beasts, which long under the law were found fasting, should be filled with the hey of his incarnation. Being borne he filled the manger, who gave himself meat to the minds of the mortal, saying: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. Thus S. Gregory. In this sentence ye hear that christ gave himself meat to mortal men, and that according to our text: he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood etc. Which text as ye have heard of other fathers before alleged, is to be understanded of the eating of Christ'S flesh in the Sacrament. But if the Adversary reclaim and say, that S. Gregory saith christ gave Objection out of S. Gregory answered. himself meat to the minds of the faithful, and that therefore he meaneth not of any corporal receipt for the mind taketh none such. Thereto I say that truth it is, that saint Gregory saith that christ giveth himself meat, to the minds of the mortal: but I pray you, how take ye the mind here? do ye not take it for the soul? and do not all the holy writers say, that the flesh of christ in the Sacraemmt is the meat of the soul? doth not Chrysostom say, that it is verus cibus qui saluat animam. It is the very meat in deed that saveth the soul? Why then, what do ye win by this that ye say, it is the meat of the soul, seeing that the holy Fathers have so plainly testified, that the very substantial body of christ being in very deed received in the blessed Sacrament is the meat of the soul? What then doth S. Gregory help your cause, seeing he saith none otherwise than they which have overthrown your cause? And that you shall perceive, that he agreeth with the rest acknowledging two manner of receipts of Christ'S body and blood as they do, ye shall hear him open himself. Quid namque sit sanguis agni, non iam audiendo; sed bibendo Greg. in Homil. Pasch. dedicistis, qui super utrumque postem ponitur, quando non solùm ore corporis, sed etiam ore cordis hauritur. For what the blood of the lamb is, ye have not only learned by hearing, but also in drinking. Which blood is put on both the posts when it is not only drunken with the mouth of the body, but also with the mouth of the heart. See ye not here S. Gregory when he saith, the blood of the lamb is Christ'S blood drok with mouth of body and mouth of heart. drunk both with the mouth of the body and with the mouth of the heart? Doth he not plainly distinct and dissever, these two receipts, as the receipt of the blood of the lamb with the mouth of the body to be the corparall receipt, and with the mouth of the heart to be the spiritual receipt, which although they be distincted receipts: yet he wished them in this homely to be joined together, for than we shall be sure to have the blood upon both our posts to our more safeguard against the destroyer. It may be but upon one post for as he saith not moche after: Qui sic Redemptoris sui sanguinem sumit ut imitari passionem eius necdum velit, in uno post sanguinem posuit. He that doth so receive the blood of his Redeemer, that as yet, he will not follow his passion, he hath put the blood upon one post. Thus we understand by S. Gregory not only two manner of receipts of Christ'S flesh and blood, but also we be taught by him that they may concur, and be both done at once. And also that the corporal receipt may be without the spiritual, as also the spiritual may be without the corporal. THE SIX AND twentieth CHAPTER CONTInueth this expositon by S. cyril and Lyra. TO add yet more witnesses how this text is to be taken, S. cyril expoundeth it in this wise: Qui manducat meam carnem, & bibit meum In joan. cap. 15. sangumem, in me manet & ego in eo. unde considerandum est, quòd non habitudme solùm quae per charitat em intelligitur, Christum nobis inesse, verùm etiam participatione naturali. Nam quemadmodum si quis igne liquefactam ceram, alij cerae similiter liquefactae ita miscuerit, ut unum quid ex utrisque factum videatur: Sic communicatione corporis & sanguinis Christi, ipse in nobis est, & nos in ipso. Non poterat enim aliter corruptibilis haec natura corporis, ad incorruptibilitatem, & vitam traduci, nisi naturalis vitae corpus ei coniungeretur. Hour Saviour christ saith. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh Two ways of Christ'S being in us: that is spiritually, and naturally. my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. Whereupon (saith cyril) it is to be considered, that not only by inward disposition, which is understanded by charity, christ to be in us: but also by natural participation. For as if any man would mengle wax that is melted by the fire, with other wax that is likewise melted, so that of both there may be perceived to be made one: So by the parta king of the body and blood of christ, he is in us, and we in him. For this corruptible nature of the body, could not otherwise be brought to incorruptiblitie and life, except the body of natural life should be conjoined to it. Thus cyril. What can the Adversaries say to this Author? is there no other receipt of Chrysts body, but a spiritual receipt? yes, this ancient father, as the other ancient fathers have done before, saith, that christ is not in us only by charity, whereby he understandeth the spiritual manner, but also by natural participation, that is, by the eating and drinking of natural flesh and blood. And that this should not be taken for a fantasy he saith that Christ'S flesh is so in us, and we in him, as two waxes melted and put together be made one. So also (as S. Hilary saith before) as God the Sun, and God the Father be one in substance: So we by this receipt of christ be one with him, and by him also joined to the godhead. I need not to note then to you that cyril understandeth this text of the blessed Sacrament, where the words wholly found A plain place of S. cyril for the procls. to that purpose. The real presence also is sufficiently taught, when he saith that we do partake the natural flesh and blood of christ, whose natural flesh is not nor can be received, but where it is really present. The effect of of this also proveth the receipt, because we be not only in mind affection, and soul joined to christ: but also by our natural flesh, receiving his natural flesh. This sentence alone truly, if a man hath not sold himself over to he Devil, to be blinded, is sufficient to move and stir any heart to accept the the true catholic faith. But if men will not see what shall we say? who is blinder than he that will not see? God yet illumine their hearts, that they call not darkness light, and light darkness. To proceed in our matter, to this ancient Father of the higher house shall be joined Lira ne of the lower house to show his understanding of this text. Thus he saith writing upon it: Hic probat quoddam suppositum. Dixerat enim, quòd manducatio dat vitam. Istud probat hic, quia illud, per qnod aliquis vniture principio vivificativo, illud dat vitam. Hoc patet in vita corporali etc. Here Lyra in 6. joan. he proveth a thing supposed. For he had said, that the eating of this flesh giveth life. This he proveth here. For that by the which a man is united to the principle that maketh things to live, giveth life. This appeareth in the corporal life. By this Sacrament, a man is united to christ, who is the beginning of the spiritual life. And this is it that is said: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. that is to say, he is united to me. This Author ꝓceadeth as you have heard him begin, where he taught that Christ'S flesh was so verily meat, that it was in the Sacrament not as in a sign, but really and in very deed. To the which flesh of christ (saith he) we be united by the Sacrament, that is by the receiving of the Sacrament wherein being really Christ'S very flesh we be united to the same. For if it be not there, we cannot be united to it by the Sacrament. For an union is the making of two things or more, one, which things must be present so to be united. Wherefore the body of christ is really in the Sacrament or else there can be no union. What manner of union is wrought by the Sacrament S. Hilary hath taught us, that it is a natural union, that is, an union of Christ'S natural flesh and substance, and of our natural flesh and substance, which both by this Sacrrment be made one, so that christ dwelleth in us, and we in him. If any of the Adversaries would take occasion to object (as they will do as well upon a word, as a whole sentence) that this Author saith, that christ is the beginning of the spiritual life, wherefore we be joined to him spiritually, for the having of that spiritual life, and not corporal life: it is very manifest, I say, that we live not corporally by the Sacrament but this corporal life is maintained by other food. But the life that we have by the receipt of christ in the Sacrament is the eternal life, which is called the spsial life, as distincted from the corporal and temporal life. Temporalem vitam sine illo habere homines possunt, aeternam verò omnino non possunt. Men may have (saith S. Augu.) the temporal life without the Sacrament but the eternal life by no means can they have. For this meat suffereth the temporal death to come to us, but (as Chrysostom saith) it expelleth death, meaning the eternal death Of the which S. August. saith. Quantum pertinet ad mortem istam visibilem et corporalem, nunquid nos non morimur, qui manducamus panem de caelo de scendentem? Sic sunt mortui et illi, quemadmodum et nos sumus morituri. Quantum attinet, ut dixi, ad mortem huius corporis visibilem atque carnalem. Quantunattinet Aug. tract. n Joan. 26. ad mortem illam de qua terret Dns quia mortui sunt patres istorum. Manducavit Manna et Moses, manducavit Manna et Aaron, manducauit Manna et Phinees, manducaverant ibi multi, qui Dno placuerunt et mortui non sunt. For so much as doth pertain to this visible and corporal death do not we die, which do eat the bread descending from heaven? So also be they dead, even as we also shall die. for so much as pertaineth to the visible and corporal death of this body, as I have said, for so much as pertaineth to that death from the which our Lord doth fear us, that the fathers of these be dead, Moses also did eat Manna, and Aaron did eat Manna, and Phynees did eat Manna, many did eat there which have pleased God and be not dead, Thus moche S. Augustine. In all which sainges ye perceive that by the receipt of christ in the Sacrament, we have life, not corporal and temporal, but eternal. Neither by it do we eschape temporal and corporal death but eternal death, So that you see the eternal life, set against visible, corporal, and temporal life, as a spiritual life, which spiritual and eternal life is by faith and holy conversation answerably begun in this life, in hour inward man, and in our bodies by the receipt of Christ'S living flesh (as he himself saith) Ego resuscitabo eum in novissimo die. I will raise him in the last day. Ego (saith cyril) id est corpus meum quod comedetur, resuscitabo eum. I, that is, my body, which shall be eaten, shall raise him up in the last day. And again he saith: Ego ergo, qui homo factus sum, per meam carnem in novissimo die comedentes resuscitabo, I therefore Christ'S body, shall raise our bodies, (saith S. cyril in the person of christ) who am made man, by my flesh will raise the eaters of the same in the last day. So that christ is he by whom, being united unto him we shall have that eternal and spiritual life, that knoweth neither corruption nor end. THE SEVEN AND twentieth CHAP. ABIdeth in the same exposition by Theophilact, and Rupertus Tuicien. THeophilacte upon the text now in hand saith thus: Hoc loco discimus Sacramentum Communionis. Nam qui edit, & bibit carnem & sanguinem In 6. Joan. Domini, in ipso manet Domino, & Dominus in ipso. Contemperatioenim fit nova, & super rationem, ita ut sit Deus in nobis, & nos in Deo. Non audis terribilem auditum? Non Deum nudum manducamus, tangi enim nequit, & incorporeus est, & neque occulis, neque manibus apprehendi potest. Iterum nudi hominis caro nihil prodesse potest. Sed quia Deus univit sibi carnem secundùm ineffabilem contemperationem, vivisica est & caro, non quòd in Dei naturam transierit (absit) sed ad similitudinem candentis ferri, quod & ferrum manet, & ignis ostendit operationem: sic ergo & Domini caro manens, caro vivisica est, sicut Dei caro. In this place we learn the Sacrament of Communion. For he that eateth and drinketh the flesh and blood of our Lord, dwelleth in the same our Lord, and our Lord in him. For there is a new contemparation Not God alone, spiritually but the flesh of Christ verily and also corporally receaeved in the Sacr. made, and that above reason, so that God should be in us, and we in him. Dost though not hear a terrible hearing? We do not eat bare God, for he can not be touched, and is without body, and can neither with eyes, nor with hands be apprehended. Again the flesh of a bare man nothing profiteth, but God hath united to himself this flesh after an unspeakable contemperation, it is flesh causing life, as the flesh of God, not that it is gone into the nature of God (God forbid) but to the likeness of fiery Iron, which still remaineth Iron, and showeth the operation of fire: So therefore the flesh of our Lord also, remaining still flesh, is quickening or causing to live, as the flesh of God. Thus moche Theophil. The flesh of christ giveth life and yet remaineth still natural flesh. Who in the first front of his sentence testifieth by express words, that this text is to be understanded of the Sacrament. For he saith: that in this place we learn the Sacrament of Communion. In the rest he travaileth to set forth the excellency of Christ'S flesh, proving that it is able to give life, for that it being unspeakably contemperated with the Godhead, as Iron is with fire which hath the operation of fire, and yet is still very natural Iron: So the flesh of christ hath the power to give life as the flesh of God: and yet it remaineth still very natural flesh. All which process why hath he made, but to declare to us, that the flesh of christ being received of us (for that thereby christ dwelleth in us, and we in him) we have that in us, which is able to give us life, because (being the flesh of God) it hath such power. And so he doth not only testify, this scripture to speak of the Sacrament, but also he testifieth the very flesh of christ, that is joined to the Godhead, to be there present, and so received and eaten to give life. Of the which matter he hath so manifestly already upon the scriptures before alleged spoken his faith that it can not here be called in question whether it be so understanded of him in this place or no. Wherefore I leave this author as one most plainly showing himself, and for the further exposition of the text I will hear the testimony of Rupertus who making a conference betwixt the godly assured and certain promise of christ, and the wicked and false promise of the serpent to our Mother Eve, saith thus: Quamto enim suavior est haec vox (Qui mandacat meam carnem, & bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet & ego in illo) illectione illa, qua Serpens susurravit: Comedite, & eritis sicutdij? Rupertus Tuicien. qui vtique de suo non dabat, sed rapinam facere suadebat. Hic autem non qualecunque suum sed suam carnem, & suum sanguinem dat. In illis qui non credunt, & non credentes, ore tamen, Sacramentum percipiunt, cibus & potus iste operatur judicium. How much more pleasant is this voice (He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him) than that enticement, which the serpent whispered. Eat and ye shall be as Gods? Who yet gave nothing of his own, but moved them to do robbery. But this (meaning christ) giveth not every manner thing of his, but even his flesh and his blood. In them that believe not, and yet not believing, with their mouth receive the Sacrament, this meat and drink unto them worketh judgement. Thus Rupertus. As in other, so in this author ye may perceive, that he understandeth this scripture (as the rest do) of the Sacrament. For he saith that they which without faith receive the Sacrament, receive it to judgement. Which saying as it delighteth me, and rejoiceth me, for that I see such concord, consent, and agreement among the Fathers, and Christ'S Parliament house, all affirming and teaching, against the false persuasion of the Adversary, that this sixth chapter of S. john is understanded of the blessed Sacrament: So it grieveth me to see the why spering of the serpent so far to have prevailed upon the Sons of Adam, that they crediting him in his ministers, and without due faith receiving the Sacrament, receive their judgement to condemnation, as this author also saith. As for the presence of christ in the Sacrament, there is none that is familiarly acquainted with this author, but knoweth that the confesseth Rupertus most plainly avoucheth the presence. and avoucheth the very real presence of christ in the Sacrament not only in this place, when he saith, that christ giveth us no small thing of his, but he giveth us his flesh and his blood: But also upon this chapter in many places. Of the which for the better credit to be given by the reader, I will here bring in one, and hereafter diverse other shall be brought forth. Thus he saith: Proinde cunctis figurarum vel similitudinum Li. 6. comment. in evang joan. nebulis amotis, non corpus quodlibet, non corpus Christi quod est Ecclesia, sed illud corpus Domini, quod pro nobis traditum est, nos manducare, & illum sanguinem, qui pro nobis fusus est in remissionem peccatorum, nos bibere, indubitanter credimus. Et quod fecit ipse, hoc idem in commemorationem ipsius scimus, et benè scimus nos facere, id est, carnem ipsius manducare, & sanguinem bibere. Therefore all clouds of sigures and similitudes removed, we undoubtedly believe that we receive, not every body, not the body of christ (which is the Church) but the same body of our Lord that was betrayed for us, and that same blood that was shed for us in the remission of Sins. And we know, and know well, that we do even the same very thing in the remembrance of him, that he himself did, that is, that we do eat his flesh, and drink his blood. Thus he. Hath not this Author taught the presence of christ in the Sacrament plainly enough? I Suppose he hath spoken so plain that he shall be shent for his labour, and get little good will of the Proclaimer, but hatred (For veritas odium parit, truth causeth hatred) and so shall be cast out as a man not worthy to be heard, and yet a man aswell learned, and aswell esteemed, as the Proclaimer, and not yesterday born, but one that lived almost five hundredth years agone. Well in this his plain manner of writing, and testifying of the faith that was in the Church in those days let us examine him, what he doth say, that Rupertus his saying conserred with other more ancient fathers other Fathers have not said before. First he saith that we must remove, all clouds of figures and similitudes, as touching the substance of the Sacrament. So that the substance of the Sacrament is not a figure or a similitude of the body of christ, but the very body of christ it self. Hath not Origen and chrysostom said as much before, and diverse other? And when this Author removeth figures from the Sacrament, doth not he then both impugn the cloudy doctrine, and the obscure shadows of the adversaries figures, signs, and tokens, and teacheth that the very substance of Christ'S body and blood is present in the Sacrament? He saith that we receive no other body in the Sacrament, but that body of christ, that was betrayed forus, and that same blood that was shed for us: The like words speaketh chrysostom, as before is alleged more than once or twice, and hereafter more shall be. Thus than we may conclude that this Author both understandeth the sixth of saint john of the Sacrament, and that also in it he confesseth without figure the very body of christ. THE EIGHT AND TVENTETH CHAP. ENdeth the exposition of this text by Haymo, and Euthymius. SVfficient testimony being produced for the right and rtue understanding of this text, I have determined now to end the same with this one only couple more, whom I will briefly allege and overpass. The first of these shall be Haymo, who alleging this scripture declareth well how it is to be understanded. For speaking of the Haim. in. 10. 1. Cor. flesh and body of christ, he saith thus: Sicut illa caro corpus Christi est, it a iste panis transit in corpus Christi. Nec sunt duo corpora, sed unum corpus. Divinitatis enim plemtudo, quae fuit in illo replet & istum panem, & ipsa divinitas Verbi quae implet coelum et terram, & omnia quae in eyes sunt, ipsa replet corpus Christi, quod à multis sacerdotibus per universis The God head of the Son filleth the body of christ sanctisied by the priests orbem sanctificatur. Et facit unum Christi corpus esse. Et sicut ille panis & sanguis in corpus Christi transeunt: ita omnes qui in Eccle sia dignè comedunt illud, unum corpus Christi sunt, sicut & ipse dicit: Qui manducat carnem meam, & bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet, & ego in eo. As that flesh is the body of christ; even so this bread passeth in to the body of christ. Neither be they two bodies, but one body. For the plenitude or fullness of the Godhead that was in him, doth also fill this bread, and the same Godhead of the Son of God, which doth sil heaven and earth and all things that be in them, the same doth fill the body of christ, which is sanctified of many priests through all the world, and makety it to be one body of Christ. And as that bread and blood do pass into the body of christ: Even so all that do worthily in the Church eat it, they are one body of christ, as he himself saith: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him, Thus far Haymo. I do marvel how the Adversary could have the face to deny this, the sixth of S. john to be understanded of the Sacrament, seeing that such a number with so great consent do not only in general words say that it is understanded of the Sacrament, but do also expound every sentence particularly, as hitherto (gentle Reader) though mayst perceive even to this author. Who when he had declared the whole matter of the Sacrament, as first how the body of christ should be in the Sacrament, which, he saith, is by that that the bread passeth into the body of christ, which is done by the turning of the substance of the bread into the substance of the body of christ: unto this he addeth and teacheth by whom this marvelous work is wrought and done, saying: that it is done by the power of the Godhead, even the same that was fully in christ: even the same that filleth both heaven and earth, that same is fully, saith he, in the body of christ, which is sanctified of many priests. And here note, Reader, against the carnal disputers that although he say, that the body of christ be consecrated of many priests through the whole The body of christ consecrated of many priests is but one body. world: yet he saith not that they be many bodies of christ, but only one body. And showeth also how that is brought to pass, and who is the worker of it. The Godhead (saith he) that is fully in christ, maketh this to be one body. Thus when he had showed how great a thing the Sacrament is in it self, than he beginneth to show what it is toward us, and what it worketh in us if we receive it worthily. As the bread (saith he) is become the body of christ: So all they that worthily eat the same are the body of Chryst. And to prove this, he allegeth the saying of christ, which we have in hand: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. So then in this discourse it is easily perceived, that he teacheth the bread to be turned into the body of christ, that the body of christ is in the Sacrament, and not alone, but with the Godhead in it, and so perfect God and man: that though the body of christ be consecrated of many priests: yet by the power of the Godhead it is wrought, to whom nothing is unpossible. Finally that we receiving this body of christ in the Sacrament, according to Christ'S saying, we may dwell in christ, and he in us. And thus it is manifest that this Author understandeth this text of the Sacrament. Now this being plain, we will briefly hear his yoke fellow, whom for this time we make Euthymius. Thus writeth he. Si (inquit) de uno corpore, & In Matth. 26. sanguine omnes fideles participamus, omnes unum sumus per ipsam horum mysteriorum participationem, & in Christo omnes, & Christus in omnibus. Qui edit (inquit) meam carnem, & bibit meum sangumem, in me manet, & ego in eo. Verbum siquidem per assumptionem The flesh that the Son of God took by in carn. is united to us by the Sacra. carni vuitum est, haec rursus caro unitur nobis per participationem. If all we (saith Euthymius) do partake of one body, and one blood, all we are one by participation of these mysteries and we be all in christ, and christ in us all. He (saith christ) that eateth my body, and drinketh, my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. For truly the Son of God by taking of flesh upon him, is united to the flesh: Again this flesh is united to us by participation. Thus Euthym. This sentence is but short, but it is effectuous. But hasting to end the exposition of this text, I will note here but one thing, leaving the rest to the diligent reader to consider. The thing that I note, is that this Author saith that the flesh, which the Son of God by assumption did unite to Aplain proof of the presence against the proclaimer: him, that flesh again is united to us by participation. Wherein I note that the same flesh that was united to the Son of God, the very same and none other is united to us. The very natural flesh was united to the Godhead. Wherefore the very natural flesh of christ is united to us by participation. That it is the same flesh, this Author well showeth when he speaking of the flesh united to the Godhead saith: Haec rursus caro: This flesh again: not this flesh spiritually, but this flesh that was united to the Godhead, which was natural flesh. The mean how this flesh is united to us he saith is by participation. Where do we participate it? in the Sacrament. Then this flesh is in the Sacrament. THE NINE AND twentieth CHAP. expoundeth the next text that followeth in the sixth of S. john, by saint Augustin and saint Cyirill. THe text that followeth in the sixth of S. john is this: Sicut misit me vivens Pater, & ego vino propter Patrens. Et qui manducat me, & ipse vivet propter me. As the living Father sent me, and I live for the Father: Even so he joan. 6. that eateth me shall live by the means of me. Not minding to tarry upon this, as to declare how we eating christ do live by him, for that this is (I trust) sufficiently declared already, I will no more now travail but to show that, that yet was not declared, namely how christ liveth by the Father, Which matter S. Augustine doth so well open that it satisfieth me: and so, I trust, it will do the Reader. Thus he saith upon the same text: In qua sententia, si rectè accipiuntur haec verba, ita dixit: Sicut me misit vivens Pater, & ego vivo propter Patrem: & qui manducat me, & ipse vivet propter me. Ac si diceret ut ego vivam propter Patrem, id est, ad illum tanquam Aug. tranc 26 in joan. ad maiorem vitam meam referam, exmanitio mea fecit, in qua me misit: ut autem quisquam vivat propter me, participatio facit, qua manducat me. Ego it aque humiliatus vivo propter Patrem: ille erectus vivit propter me. Si autem ita dictum est, Vivo propter Patrem, quia ipse de illo, non ille de ipso est, sine detrimento aequalitatis dictum est: Nec tamen dicendo, Et qui manducat me, ipse vivet propter me, eandem suam, & nostram aequalitatem significavit, sed gratiam Mediatoris ostendit. In which sentence, if these words be rightly taken, thus he said: As the living Father sent me, and I live for the Father: Even so he that eatethme, liveth by the means of me. As though he should say, that I live for the Father, that is, that I refer my life to him as to a greater, the abasing or demission of myself made it, in the which he sent me. But that any man liveth by me, the participation maketh it, in the which he eateth me. I therefore humbled do live for the Father: and he exalted liveth by the means of me. If it be so said, I live for the Father, because the Son is of the Father, and not the Father of the Son: it is said without detriment of the equality. Neither yet saying: and he that eateth me, liveth by the means of me, hath he signified his equality and owrs to be all one, but he hath showed the grace of the Mediator. Thusfarre S. Augustin. In whose sentence ye see how the saying of christ may be uprightly understanded, either of his Godhead, or of his manhood. Of his Godhead it may be said, I live for the Father, not that the Son, whoys born equal to the Father, and is from ever with the Father, being one in nature and substance with the Father, is made better than he was by the Father, but he liveth for the Father, as being of the Father, born of the Father, and yet not after the Father in time, neither less or inferior to the Father in deity, who is equal God with God the Father, born from ever before all times. Of his manhood it is also understanded, who being a creature, was inferior to the Father, and therefore in that respect said: Pater maior me est, The Father is greater than 1 who being so was bettered by the Father, and lived by the Father the fountain of all life in all living creatures. And that I break not the order that I have hitherto observed, I will join to saint Augustine being of the one side of Christ'S Parliament house, saint cyril an ancient of the other side of the house, who saith thus: In 6. Joan. cap. 18. Sicut misit me Pater, & ego vivo propter Patrem, & qui manducat me, vivet propter me. Cùm missum se dicit Filius, nihil aliud quàm incarnatum se, vult significare. Consuevit autem Christus quae vim excedunt humanam, ea Patri tribue re. Humiliavit enim seipsum factus homo, & ideo convenientem homini mensuram non recusat. Pater (inquit) qui manet in me ipse facit opera. Patri ergo etiam incarnationis operationem, quae vim excedit humanam, ut solet, accommodat. Hoc ergo est quod dicit: Quemadmodum ego factus sum homo voluntate Patris, & vivo propter Patrem. quia scilicet è vita, quae secundùm essentiam est, naturaliter, emanavi, & genitoris naturam ad ungucm conseruo, ut & ego naturaliter vita sim: ita qui manducat meam carnem ipse vivet propter me, totus ad me reformatus, qui vitasum, & vivisicare possum. Se verò manducari dicit, cùm sua caro manducatur, quia Verbum caro factum est, non naturarum confusione, sed ineffabili illo unionis modo. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live for the Father: Even so he that eateth me, shall live by the means of me. When the Son saith that he is sent, he will nothing else signify, but himself to be incarnated Christ useth to attribute to the Father saith things as exce●… man's power. For christ hath used to attribute such things as exceed the power of man, to the Father. He hath humbled himself being made man, and therefore he doth not refuse the measure convenient to man. Therefore the work of the incarnation, which passeth the power of man, he doth (as he was woute) apply it to the Father. This is it therefore that he saith Even as I am made man by the will of the Father, and do live for the Father, because I have flowed out naturally of that life, which is of very nature, and I do conserve the nature of my Father in every point. so that I am also naturally life: Even so he that eateth my flesh, he christ is eaten when 〈◊〉 is eaten. shall live by me altogether reform unto me who am life, and am able to make to live. He saith himself to be eaten, when his flesh is eaten. For the word is made flesh not by confusion of natures, but by an unspeakable manner of union. Thus far S. cyril. As the text doth speak of two manner of lives, that is of the life of christ by the Father, and of the life of us by christ: So doth this author declare, both that christ flowing from the nature of the Father, who is life himself, and having and being the same very nature: is life himself, and liveth by the Father, and also that we eating him, for so much as he is the very life, shall live by him. Where note that cyril saith that christ saith himself to be eaten, when his flesh is eaten. whereby he signifieth to us that the flesh of christ is verily eaten. For if it were spoken of the spiritual eating of belief, he would not transfer it from the Godhead, to the which most properly it doth appertain, that we should believe in it, and refer it to the flesh of christ only, or so apply it to it, as by it to come to whole christ. As a man may say, I am whole when either hand, or head or some member, or part of the body is made whole, which is properly made whole in deed, or as a man may say, I do see, I do hear, when properly the eye doth see, and the ear doth hear, or the soul raither doth see and hear by the eye and ear: So christ (as cyril saith) doth say himself to be eaten, when his flesh is eaten, to whom it appertaineth properly to be eaten, and not to the God head. For (as Theophilacte saith) Deum nudum non manducamus, tangi enim nequit, & In. 6. joan, incorporeus est, & neque oculis neque manibus apprehendi potest. We do not eat bare God, for he can not be touched, and he hath no body, neither can he be apprehended with eyes nor hands, So then as the spiritull eating of As to the Godhead to be believed: So to the flesh it properly appertaineth to be, eaten. christ by belief most properly doth appertain to the Godhead, and by it is applied to the whole person of christ: So to the flesh of christ it appertaineth most properly to be verily and really eaten, and by it (for so much as the Godhead is inseparably annexed to it, (as cyril saith (non enim abest unigenitus, the only begotten son of God is not absent from it) we do say that whole christ is eaten, even as of christ we do learn, who (as cyril hath noted) doth say: Qui manducat me, he that doth eat me, not dividing the Godhead from the manhood, but me, that is whole christ. Being thus then, made manifest, that by this text also christ taught us the eating of his very flesh, which can not otherwise be then in the Sacrament, whereby it is consequent that this text is to be understanded of the Sacrament: I will proceed to seek the understanding of other texts following. THE THIRTETH CHAP. BEGINNETH EXPOSITION of the next text by saint Ambrose and Chrysostom. IT followeth in the sixth chapter of saint john: Hic est panis qui de caelo descendit, non sicut manducaverunt patres vestri Manna in deserto, & mortui sunt. Qui manducat hunc panem vivet in aeternum. This is the bread that camme down from heaven, not as yower Fathers did eat Manna and are dead. He that eateth of this joan. 6. bread, shall live ever. Hour saviour christ, who began to declare this great mystery to the jews, and notwithstanding their murmuring, did open to them not only, that it was possible, that his flesh should be eaten, but also necessary, and now in the last sentence as in other before he had made mention of the same, and had declared the benefit, and great commodity that should ensue to them that would eat his flesh, namely that they should have life everlasting: Now as it were after a disputation he maketh a conclusion or determination of the matter, saying: This is the bread that came from heaven. The jews (as in the beginning of this sixth chapter, it doth appear) although they had seen the great miracle of our Saviour christ wrought in the multiplying of the bread, and in feeding so great a multitude so few loaves, that then they could say, this is the very Prophet, which should come into the world, whereby they meant Messiah, and therefore would then have made him a king: yet shortly after like an unthankful and unmindful people of that notable fact done in the presence of so many, worthy truly never to have been forgotten, forgetting this great wonder, required to see some notable sign at Christ'S hand, as though they had never seen any, and therefore said: Quod tu facis signum, ut videamus & credamus? What sign showest though, that we may see and believe? And then to make their brag Joan 6. they said: Patres nostri manducanerunt Manna in deserto, sicut scriptum est: Panem de caelo dedit eyes. Hour fathers have eaten Manna in the wilderness, as it is written he gave them bread from heaven to eat. To determine directly against them, and that they should perceive, that Manna was but a figure of this very bread, that came from heaven (For Manna gave not life to the eaters of it, but this bread doth) therefore he said Effect of the Sacrament everlasting life. Not as yower fathers did eat Manna and be dead, but he that eateth of this bread shall live ever. He well declareth what death their fathers died, who did eat Manna, that is the everlasting death, not all that did eat Manna died that death but their fathers in unbelief. And as they through unbelief died an everlasting death: so they that shall eat this bread with true belief shall live an everlasting life. But it shall be to the purpose to hear the holy Fathers how they understand this text▪ of the which the first couple shall be saint Ambrose and Chrysostom. Saint Ambrose saith thus: Revera mirabile li. 8. the initiand. est quòd Manna Deus plueret patribus, & quotidiano coeli pascebantur alimento. unde dictum est: Panem Angelorum manducavit homo. Sed tamen illum panem qui manducaverunt in deserto mortui sunt. Ista autem esca, quam accipis, iste panis vivus, qui de caelo descendit vitae aeternae substantiam administrat. Et quicunque panem hunc manducaverit, non morietur in aeternum. & corpus Christi est. Truly it is marvelous that God did rain Manna to the fathers, and that they were fed with the daily food from heaven. Wherefore it is said: Man hath eaten the bread of Angels. but for all that they that have eaten that bread in desert, are dead. This meat that thou takest, this bread of life, that came down from heaven, doth ministre the substance of everlasting life, and who soever shall eat this bread, he shall not die for ever, and it is he body of christ. Thus far he. What this bread is that descended from heaven, and what the profit and benefit of it is, saint Ambrose hath in this his saying declared, the bread is the body of christ (saith he) which body is the meat that the faithful doth take, and the benefit of this so taken is everlasting life. Wherefore saint Ambrose being so plain, I will bring in his yoke follow chrysostom, who hath (according to the counsel of saint Paul) not carried the yoke with the unfaithful, but with the faithful, which is the yoke of christ, which, as he himself saith, is sweet. Thus he saith: Dicit ergo: Qui manducat carnem meam in morte non peribit, neque damnabitur. Sed non de communi dicit resurrectione (siquidem omnes resurgent) sed de clara illa & gloriosa quae 2. Cor. 6. Math. 11. Homiti. 46 in joan. praemium meretur. Patres vestri manducaverunt Manna in deserto, & mortui sunt. Qui manducat hunc panem, vivet in aeternum. Frequenter idem repetit, ut auditorum animis imprimatur. Vltima enim haec erat doctrina, ut resurrectionis, & vitae aeternae fidem confirmaret. Quocirca post vitae aeternae promissionem resurrectionem proponit, postquam illam futuram ostendit, & hoc unde constat? à scriptures, ad qua● eos semper relegat, ut inde erudiantur. Cùm autem dare vitam mundo dicit, in aemulationem eos adducit, utsi aliorum bono moventur, nolint ipsi excludi. Frequenter autem Mannae meminit, & differentiam conferendo ad fidem allicit. Nam si possibile fuit ut quadraginta annos sine messibus & frumento, & aliis ad victum necessarijs viverent, longè magis nunc cùm ad mato●… venerint. Nam si in illis figuris sine labore expositum colligebant: nunc profectò magis, ubi nulla mors, & verae vitae fruitio. Vitae autem ubique meminit. Nam eius trahunur cupiditate, & nihil suavius quàm non mori. Etenim in veteri Testamento longa vita, & multi dies promittebantur: Nunc verò non simpliciter vitae longitudo, sed vita sine fine promittitur He saith therefore, he that eateth my flesh, shall not perish in death, neither shall be damned. But he doth not speak of the common resurrection (for all shall rise) but of that clear, and glorious, which deserveth reward. Yower fathers have eaten Manna in the wilderness, and be dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. he doth often repeat the same, that it might be ymprinted in the minds of thearers. This was the last doctrine, that he might confirm the faith of the resurrection, and everlasting life: wherefore after the promiss of eternal life, he proveth the resurrection, after he had showed that it was to come. And from whence doth his appear? by the scriptures, unto the which he doth always send them, that from thence they might be taught. When he saith it to give life to the world, he bringeth them to follow, that if they be moved with the profit or commodity of other, they would not be excluded. Often he maketh mention of Manna, and conferiring the difference, allureth them to faith. For if it were We cometo greater things in the Sacr▪ then the Jews did in Mamna. possible that they should live forty years without harvests, and other necessares to their living: much more now when they are comed to greater things. For if in these figures they did gather without labour the thing settfurth, or made ready to their hands, now truly much more, where is no death, and the fruition of true life. Of life he maketh mention every where. For we be drawn with desire thereof, and nothing is more pleasant, than not to die. For in the old Testament long life, and many days were promised: Now not simply length of life, but life without end is promised: Thus he. Albeit Chrysostom in this sentence maketh no great mention of the Sacrament in open and express words: yet following the sense in the beginning of this part of this chapter, which by his judgement is of the Sacrament, if it be well considered he saith sufficiently: as also where he saith that if it were possible for the jews to live forty year without harvest or corn much more now when we be commed to greater things. Manna was a great miracle as saint Ambrose saith, and if they did well receive it, they did Mamna and the Sacrament compared. receive spiritually christ. Then if our Sacrament be (as the Sacramentaries say) a piece of bread, which is no like thing to Manna, the one being from heaven by miracle, the other by common course from the hand of the artificer without any miracle or wonder, and in the receipt of it christ spiritually received, as in the receipt of Manna, how then be we comed to greater things than the figure of Manna was, seeing that in both christ is received but spiritually. And Manna is from heaven by God, the bread from the earth by the baker. Wherefore by these words of chrysostom that we be comed to greater things, is signified to us that the Sacrament containeth a worthier thing, and a thing of greater miracle, than Manna was, which also was a miraculous thing, which thing contained in the Sacrament is the very body of christ, of the which Manna was the figure, of the which more shall be said in the third book. But here to be short if the real presence of Christ'S body be not in the Sacrament, then is Manna a worthier and greater thing than it by all means, as by that, that is already said it may appear. And so shall chrysostom be reproved of an untruth for that we are not comed to greater things, But I shall sooner refuse the sainges of these adversaries, than I will the sainges of chrysostom, and so I trust, will the wise reader. THE ONE AND thirtieth CHAP. proceedeth in the the exposition of the same text by S. Hierom and S. cyril. LEt us hear the testimony of an other couple for the understanding of this text. S. Hierom saith: Si ergo panis, qui de coelo descendit, corpus Hieron. ad Hedibiq. 2 est Domini, & vinum qùod Discipulis dedit sanguis illius est novi Testamenti, qui pro multis effusus est, in remissionem peccatorum, iudaicas fabulas repellamus, & ascendamus cum Domino coenaculum magnum stratum, atque mundatum, & accipiamus ab eo sursum calicem novi Testamenti, ibiue cum eo Pascha celebrantes, inebriemur ab eo, vino sobrietatis. Non enim est regnum Dei esca, & potus, sed justicia & gaudium, & pax in Spiritu sancto. Nec Moyses dedit nobis panem verum, sed Dominus jesus, ipse conviva, & conuivium, ipse comedens, & qui comeditur. If therefore the bread that descended from heaven, be the body of our Lord, and the wine that he gave to his Disciples be his blood of the new Testament, which was shed for The bread that descended from heaven is the body of our Lord. many in remission of sins, let us repel and cast from us judaical fables, and let us ascend with our Lord in to the great parlour paved and made clean, and let us from above take of him, the cup of the new Testament, and there celebrating with him the passover, let us be satisfied of him, with the wine of sobriety. For the kingdom of God is not meat, and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the holy Ghost. Neither did Moses give us the true bread, but our Lord jesus, he is the feaster, and he is the feast, he is he that eateth, and is eaten. Thus far S. Hierom. By these words we are after the understanding of S. Hierom, fully christ is the feast and the feester. instructed what the bread is, that our Saviour christ speaketh of when he said: This is the bread that descended from heaven. It is (saith S. Hierom) the body of our Lord, and the wine is the blood that was shed for many in the remission of sins. By the which words he doth not only teach us, that this scripture is to be understanded of the Sacrament, but by the same also he hath testified with other holy Fathers the presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament. For in the beginning he said, that the bread that descended from heaven is the body of our Lord, and to show us where he meant it to be, in the end he saith, that not Moses did give the true bread, but our Lord jesus, he is the feaster and the feast, he is he that doth eat, and is eaten. Whereby he well showeth that that bread is the body of our Lord, which is in that holy feast, where our saviour christ is the feaster, and he himself also is the meat and drink of the feast, and so the whole feast. In the which as he doth in his members, being the head of them, eat the blessed meat of that holy feast: So it is even he, even his very dodie, and blood that is there eaten and drunken. Wherefore soch a noble feaster being present, and so holy meat being there eaten, the Church right well with goodly concord, and consent singeth: O sacrum conuivium, in quo Christus sumitur. O holy feast in the which christ is received. But the prolixity of this matter, if it should be worthily followed, calleth me back, and moveth to stay and hear the other that is joined to saint Hierom, which is S. cyril, who saith thus: Non enim prudenter, quae ad breve tempus sufficiunt, hoc nomine appellabuntur, nec panis erat ex Deo, quem maiores judaeorum comederunt, & mortui sunt. Name side coelo & ex Deo fuisset, liberasset à morte participantes. Contrà verò corpus Christi, panis de coelo est, quia aeternam comedentibus vitam largitur Those things which for a short time suffice shall not wisely be called by this name. Neither that bread, which the elders of the jews did eat, and be dead, was of God. For if it had been from heaven and of God, it had delivered the partakers of it from death. Contrary wise the body of christ is the bread from heaven, For it granteth the eaters eternal life. As S. Hierom said that the body of Christ'S is the bread that descended from heaven: So by like words saith S. cyril here. And that we should know what he meaneth, he applieth the figure of it eaten by the elders of the jews, which did not give life, which was Manna, unto the body of christ, which being eaten doth give life eternal. Wherefore Manna being a figure of Christ'S body eaten in the Sacrament, it must needs follow that he understandeth this scripture of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, of the which no man that hath red cyril can doubt, whose whole process is so plain in the matter. THE TWO AND THIRTETH CHAP. ENDETH THE exposition of this text by saint Augustin and Theoph. Now let us hear as briefly one couple more and then we shall leave this text. S. Augustin saith thus: Hic est panis, qui de coelo descendit, ut illum man ducando vivamus, quia aeternam vitam ex nobis habere non possumus. Non sicut (inquit) manducaverunt patres vestri Tract. 26. in Joan. Manna & mortui sunt. Qui manducat hunc panem vivet in aetenum. Quòd ergo illi mortui sunt, ita vult intelligi, ut non vivant in aeternum. Nan temporaliter profectò, & high moriuntur, qui Christum manducant, sed viwnt in aeternum, quia Christus est vita aeterna. This is the bread that descended from heaven, that we eating him may live. For we can not of ourselves have eternal life. Not (saith he) as yower Fathers have eaten Manna, and are dead, he that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. That they then be dead, thus he would it should be understanded, that they live not for ever. For temporallie these truly shall also die, which do eat christ, but they live for ever. For christ is eternal life. Thus far he. What gloss the Adversaries do here upon S. Augustins' saying invent, I leave them to their the same invention. But forsomuch as christ himself and S. Augustin expounding Christ'S saying, doth apply the figure of Manna and the eating of it to this bread that came from heaven, and Manna by all the Father's judgements is the figure of the holy Sacrament, it is manifest that therefore this scripture is to be understanded of the Sacrament. Which Theophilact, who at this present is joined with S. Augustin, will In 6. joan. by express words declare. Patres vestri comederunt Manna in solitudine. Hoc saepe & multum versat in ore, ut persuadeat hominibus. Nan si possibile fuit quadraginta annis sine mess, & sement pasci homines, & conseruari illorum vitam, multòmagis nunc conseruabitnaturam spiritualem meliori pane Dominus, carne sua, quae absque semine viri ex virgine constituta est. Yower fathers have eaten Manna in the wilderness. This (saith Theophilact) often and much he speaketh, that he might persuade men. For if it were possible men to be fed, and their lives to be conserved forty years, without sowing or harvest, moche more now shall our lord with a better bread, that is, his flesh, which without the seed of man is made of a virgin conserve our spiritual life. Thus he. Observe, as is before noted, that the application of the figure argueth the thing figured here to be spoken of, which thing is the Sacrament. And for the verity of the same, if this author had nothing spoken here expressly: yet that which he hath hitherto upon this part of the sixth of S. john already declared, would and may sufficiently show his mind upon this. But, God be praised, he doth very plainly here also open the matter. For Our lord feedeth us with a bread which is his flesh. A plain saying for the Procla. when he had said that our Lord would feed us with a better bread, expounding it, that is (saith he) his flesh. And that he would not make it an imaginary flesh, he saith that he feedeth us with the same flesh, which without the seed of man was born of the Virgin, Which manner of speech is so plain that I cannot but marvel that men will suffer themselves to be seduced, and led away by vain men, when soche ancient Fathers do teach them in such sort, that they have nothing to keep themselves from the truth, but self will, and malice. THE THREE AND THIRTETH CHAP. proceedeth to the next text in the sixth of saint john. HItherto our Saviourchryst speaking of this great mystery of the eating and drinking of his flesh and blood, doth here now make an end of the same. And therefore, saith the Evangelist to declare the same: Hec dixit in Sinagoga docens in Cpharnaum. These things said he in the synagogue as he taught in Capharnaum. Joan. 6. But for asmuch as many hearning this doctrine of christ were not edified, but offended therewith, as many of our faint christians are, whose manner of incredulity, and hardness of belief, with Christ'S proceeding to Sacramentaries of our time are Capharnaites. reform the same, as the Evangelist setteth it forth, our Capharnaites, through unbelief of that that christ spoke to the better declaration of his doctrine, have taken to the more occasion of their doubt, eroure, and ruin, seeing that they would so take his words to turn them against himself, and with them to impugn that truth that he hath taught, and left in his Church to remain and continue until he come: we shall by his grace take these scriptures from them, and by like process, as heretofore is used show the true understanding of them, that all men may perceive that these Adversaries have raither sought occasion to be raither enemies of God's truth than favourers of the same. which name they much usurp, clothing themselves with sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are very wolves. Heretics call their. fantasies gods word and their lies, truth. outwardly they ever cry God's word, when in deed they utter their inventions ground upon affection, raither to please the people's fantasies, then fulfil God's pleasure. So they cry the truth, the truth, when they in very deed set forth lies, and heresy to impugn and destroy the truth. And as they that misliked the doctrine of christ were of his Disciples: So these now that mislike the same doctrine were of his Disciples, but now abierunt retro post Satanam, they are gone back after Satan. And as the disciples said when they heard this doctrine: Durus est hic sermo, quis potest eum audire? This is an hard saying, who can abide the hearing of it: So these men say that it is an hard saying, and they can not abide the hearing of it. But as saint Augustin said by the Disciples, which first spoke these words: Aug in Psal. 98. So may it be said by their disciples, who in these days do follow them: Ipsi erant duri non sermo. They were hard, and not the word. But as he saith in an other place: Si Discipuli durum habuerunt istum sermonem, quid inimici? If the Disciples counted this word hard, what do the enemies? If those that did know and follow christ of late days do account it an hard saying, that we say according to Christ'S doctrine, that we do eat his very flesh in the Sacrament, what may the jews; and Infideles do? But if christ did labour to abduce the jews from the figures and shadows, and adduce them to the very thing and truth: moche more they that have professed christ, should be brought from figures, and learn to know the truth of figures, which is now in the new testament. Which was Christ'S purpose, though they leapt back, as Theophilact saith speaking of the process of Christ'S doctrine as concerning this mystery: Quod lucrum ex his verbis? imò plurimum, & maximum. Theophilact in 6. Joan. Nam quoniam memores erant subinde cibi corporalis, ostendens eis quia omnia illa figura erant, & umbrai Quae autem ab ipso nunc introducuntur, veritas sunt. eius gratia haec dicit, & spiritualis cibi recordatur, ut faciat eos à sensibilibus aliquantum remergere, contemnereue figuras & umbras, & accurrere ad veritatem. Sed illi cùm nibil possent intelligere, quod supra sensum est, meliores non fiunt, sed magis resiliunt, & dicunt: Durus est hic sermo, hoc est asper, & qui suscipi nequeat. Quis enin cùm carnalis sit, posset suscipere spiritualem cibum, & panem qui de coelo descenda, & carnem, quae comeditur, etc. Nam quia carnem audierant, putabant quòd eos cogeret carnis & sanguinis fieri devoratores: quia autem nos spiritualiter intelligimus, neque carnium voratores sumus, imò sanctificamur per talem cibum. What advantage or gain of these words? very moche and great. For for that they were often mindful of bodily meat, christ showing that all those things were but a figure, and a shadow: but such things as by him were brought in were the truth, for this cause he said these things, and remembreth the spiritual meat, that he might make them somewhat return from sensible things, and to contemn figures, and shadows. But they Carnal men understanding nothing above thersensies leap back from the understanding of the Sacr. when they can understand nothing that is above the senses they are made never the better, but they leap and say: This saying is hard, that is, unpleasant to sensual knowledge, and which can not be received For what is he who when he is carnal, can receive spiritual meat and the bread, that descended from heaven, and the flesh which is eaten? for because they had heard him say (flesh) they thought that he would compel them to be devourers of flesh and blood. But because we understand the spiritual meat, we are not the devourers of flesh, but raither we are sanctified by such meat. Thus much Theoph. Who giving a cause why this doctrine of christ seemed hard to them saith, it was because they could not understand any thing, that was above Carnal understanding the knowledge of the senses: Even so our sensual and carnal men understanding not how Christ'S very body should be in the Sacrament, unless it should occupy the place of a body, neither be eaten unless it should be felt with our teeth, as other flesh, and such like after the gross knowledge of the senses, they leap back and say: it can not be done, it is a thing unpossible, and who can abide to hear it? But if they would (as Theophilact saith) understand above the senses that there is the very real body of christ, which is yet a spiritual meat, and not take it so grosslie and carnally, but yet verily and spiritually, they should not be gross devourers of flesh, but yet eat the very flesh of christ, not with teeth piercing and hurting that, which is living impassiblie, and yet with the mouth receiving that flesh faithfully. THE FOUR AND THIRTETH CHAP. BEGINneth the exposition of this text: Si ergo videritis, etc. by saint Augusten and saint cyril. Hour Saviour perceiving some of his own Disciples, and other who heard him so plainly speaking of the eating and drinking of his flesh and blood, to be offended, because they fancied that he would have them grossly to devour his flesh, and drink his blood, to lead and bring them from this there gross understanding he said: doth this offended you. Si ergo videritis filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius? What Joan. 6. and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up thither where he was before? Or we entre to show the exposition of this text, as to know to what purpose, or wherefore christ spoke these words to the jews, and how he doth answer their in credulity to his words, or dissolve their error: this is to be examined, how christ doth say that the Son of man shall ascend where he was before. It is known to all that profess christ, being of discretion, that christ as man was born of the Virgin in earth, and was never in heaven before he spoke these words. How then doth he say, that the Son of man shall ascend where he was before? As I have learned of S. Augustine how to dissolve this doubt: So do I Aug. tract 27. in joan think it meet that ye do, for that his authority is great, and his sayings be weighty, In this matter thus he reasoneth. Illud non negligenter praetereundum est, quod ait: Si ergo videritis filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius? filius hominis Christus ex virgine Maria. Ergo filius hominis hic coepit esse in terra, ubi carnem assumpsit ex terra. unde propheticè dictum erat: Veritas de terra orta est. Quid ergo sibi vult quod ait: Cùm videritis filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius? Nulla est quaestio si ita, dixisset: Si videritis filium Dei ascendentem ubi erat prius: Cum verò, filium hominis, dixit, ascendentem ubi erat prius, nunquid filius hominis in coelo erat, priusquàm in terra esse coepit? Hic quidem dixit ubi erat prius, quasi tunc non ibi esset quando haec loquebatur. Alio autem loco ait: Nemo ascendit in coelum, nisi qui descendit de coelo, filius hominis, qui est in coelo Non dixit (erat) sed filius (inquit) hominis, qui est in coelo. In terra loquebatur, & in coelo se esse dicebat. Quò pertinet nisi ut intelligamus, quod etiam pristino sermone commendavi charitati vestrae, unam personam esse Christu, Deum & hominem, non duas, ne fides nostra non sit Trinitas sed Quaternitas. Christus ergo unus est. Verbum, anima & caro, unus Christus, filius Dei, & filius hominis unus Christus. filius Deisemper: filius hominis ex tempore. tamen unus Christus secundùm unitatem personae in coelo erat, quando in terra loquebatur. Sic erat filius hominis in coelo, quemadmodum filius Dei erat in terra, filius Dei in terra in suscepta carne: filius hominis in coelo in unitate personae. That is not negligently to be overpassed that he saith: What and if ye see the Son of man ascending where he was before? The Son of man, christ of the Virgin Marie. Therefore the Son of man began How christ the Sun of man was in heaven when he spoke in earth. here in earth, where he took flesh of the earth. Wherefore it was spoken by the Prophet: Truth shall spring out of the earth. What meaneth then that he saith, when you shall see the Son of man ascend where he was before? There were no question if he had said: What if you shall see the Son of God ascend up where he was before? but when he said the Son of man to ascend where he was before, was the Son of man in heaven, before he begun to be in earth? Here he said, where he was before, as though he were not then there, when he spoke these words. In an other place he saith. No man ascendeth up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. He did not say (which was) but the Son (saith he) of man which is in heaven. He spoke in the earth, and he said he was in heaven. To what powrpose it is, but that we may understand, which I have already declared to your charity, that christ God and man is one person, not two, lest our faith be not a trinity, but a quaternity? christ therefore is one. The Son of God, the soul, and the flesh one christ. The Son of God, and the Son of man one christ. christ the Son of God ever: the Son of man in time: Yet for all that one christ after the unity of person was in heaven, when he spoke in earth. The Son of man was so in heaven, as the Son of God was in earth. The Son of God was in the earth in the received flesh: the Son of man was in heaven in the unity of person. Thus far saint Augustine. Although this sentence be somewhat long. yet if ye weigh it well, it shall not repentyow of the reading of it. For in it ye may see the doubt fully dissolved for the being of christ the Son of man in heaven, who then presently spoke in earth: and how he was before in heaven, who was born in time in the earth. Now this doubt being dissolved, let us seek the understanding of the scripture why Christ made mention of his ascension in the vi. of S. John. we have to expownde, which in a great part we shall do, if we know wherefore christ here made mention of his ascension into heaven, seeing he was now in setting forth how his body should be eaten in earth. The cause why he maketh here mention of his ascension is declared by the same S. Augustine, who upon this text saith thus: Quid est hoc? Hinc soluis illos, quos noverat. Hinc aperuit unde fuerant scandalizati, hinc planè si intelligerent. Illi enim putabant eum erogaturum corpus suum: Ille autem dixit ascensurum se in coelum utique integrum. Cùm Tract. 27. in joan. videritis filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius, certè vel tūe videbitis, quia non eo modo quo putatis, erogat corpus suum. Certè vel tunc intelligetis, quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus. What if you see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? what is this (saith S. Augustine.) By this he solved them, whom he had known. By this he hath opened whereby they were offended, by this plainly if theywold understand. For they thought that he would deal forth his body, but he saith that he would ascend into heaven, and that whole. When ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before, certainly even then shall ye see, that not after that manner that ye think, he giveth out his body, certainly even then shall ye understand, that his grace is not consumed by morsels. Do ye not here see the cause, why christ spoke of his ascension? S. Augustin hath opened it unto you. They thought that christ would have given his body in lumps or pieces among them. Therefore to pluck them from that gross and carnal understanding, he telleth them before that he will leave no part nor piece of his body behind, but he will wholly ascend into heaven with an whole body. But let not now the Adversary, neither the weak man take any occasion of error, where none is justly given, that because S. Augustin saith that the Disciples thought that he would give his body among them, and christ said, he would ascend up whole, that therefore by no means christ giveth his body unto us in the Sacrament. For if by no means, than he giveth it not spiritually neither, and so were the doctrine of the Adversaries overthrown. But that he giveth not his very real body in the Sacrament, although the Adversaries would have it so only to be understanded: yet it doth not so mean but, as S. Augustin saith, non eo modo, quo putatis, erogat corpus suum, not after such manner as you think he giveth out his body. So that he denieth not the giving out of Christ'S body, but the manner of the giving out of his body. And what manner doth he deny? that manner that the gross Disciples thought, which manner S. Augustin more plainly declareth in an other place saying: Tunc autem, quando Dominus hoc commendans, de carne sua locutus erat, & dixerat: Nisi quis manducaverit carnem meam non habebit in se vitam aeternam, scandalizati In Psalm. 98. sunt quidam ex septuaginta, & dixerunt: Durus est hic sermo. Quis potest eum intelligere? & recesserunt ab eo, & ampliùs cum eo non ambulaverunt. Durum illis visum est quod ait: Nisi quis manducaverit carnem meam, non habebit vitam aeternam. Acceperunt illud stultè, carnaliter illud cogitaverunt, & putaverunt, quia praecisurus esset Dominus particulas quasdam de corpore suo, & daturus illis, & dixerunt: Durus est hic sermo. Then, saith S. Augustin, when our Lord setting forth this had spoken of his flesh, and had said: Except a man eat my flesh, he shall not have Capharnaites how they understood christ carnally. in himself life everlasting. Certain of the seventy Disciples were offended and said: This is an hard saying. Who can understand it? And they went from him, and walked no more with him. It seemed hard to them, that he said: Except a man eat my flesh, he shall not have in himself life everlasting. They took it foolishly, carnally they thought it. And they thought that our Lord would cut certain pieces from his body and give to them, and they said: This an hard saying. Thus S Augustin. Here ye perceive after what manner the Disciples thought that christ would give them his body to eat, and this manner doth saint Augustin deny, not the manner that the Christian faith teacheth but only that manner, that the gross Disciples thought, and therefore S. Augustin saith: Non co modo quo putatis, not after that manner, that you think, so that S. Augustine 2. Arg. detu● th' not the giving forth of christ 〈…〉 really but thegrosse manner conceived of the Disciples. Objection out of S. Aug. answered. in this place doth neither deny the giving out of Christ'S body verily, and really, to be received: nor yet the manner convenient to the giving out of the same, which now the catholic Church throughout the world useth: Wherefore let neither the weak man waver for this, neither the Adversary triumph thinking his heresy to be confirmed, and himself to have gotten the victory. Ne ante victoriam canat triumphum, Lest he make a triumph before the victory. But yet the Adversaries will say that S. Augustin doth not teach here the presence of Christ'S body really, but spiritually, that is by grace, for he saith plainly that then when the Son of man is ascended up where he was before, we shall perceive that his grace is not consumed with morsels. Where he teacheth the presence of christ by grace, not by real presence. This reason or argument is as good here as it is in some other places of S. Augustins' works, where because he speaketh of the spiritual receiving of christ, therefore ye will clean expel the real receiving of his body. And thus might some other Heretic contrary, take some other place of S. Augustin, where he speaketh of the real presence, and thereby contend against you that there is no spiritual presence. But an upright reader shall, as is before said, find in S. Augusten both manners of the presence of christ in the Sacrament, that is a real presence, and a spiritual presence, and agreeably thereunto, a real receiving of the same body, and a spiritual. But that the reader may perceive that this is true that I have said, that S. Augustin teacheth the real presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, hearken how saint Augustin taught as it were the young Aug. serm. ad Neoph. Aplain place of S. Aug for M. . scholars in the faith of christ in this matter. Thus he taught them: Hoc accipite in pane quod pependit in cruce. Hoc accipite in chalice, quod effusum est de latere Christi. Erit enim illi mors, non vita, qui mendacem putaverit Christum. Take ye this in the bread, that did hang on the cross. Take this in the chalice, that was shed out of the side of christ. He shall have death not life that thinketh christ a Lyar. What is there to be thought here but that S. Augustine teaching young scholars would speak in plain words, and plain sentence, that the young learners might perceive the thing to be as it is spoken, and not use to them obscure figures, and tropes? For in these do not they understand what is to be believed. If therefore christ were in the Sacrament but as in a figure, than would saint Augustin have taught these young ones thus: Take ye, this bread, as a sign, token or figure of Christ'S body, and when ye see it broken, remember that Christ'S body was broken upon the Cross for you. And likewise, take this wine as a sign, or token of Christ'S blood shed for you upon the Cross. But understand that it is not in very deed the body and blood of christ, but signs and tokens of them. This were a manner of speech meet to teach young ones, if the truth of the thing were agreeable, but because the truth is not so, therefore S. Augustin taught them by such plain speech, as the truth would bear, that is, that they would take in the Sacrament that body that hanged upon the Cross, and in the cup that blood that was shed out of Christ'S side. Yea and that they should so take he addeth a commination that they should christ is made a liar when his word is not believed take death and not life, which think christ a liar. Why? What said christ? Take eat, this is my body. He than that doth not believe christ herein, but saith it is not his body, but a figure of his body: he is the Adversary of christ, the reprover of christ. And he maketh christ a liar, as S. Augustin saith and therefore shall have death and not life. In time therefore take heed if thou be'st in error, thou cannest not make christ a liar, but thou thyself shalt be found a liar. And therefore thou shalt not be admitted to the blessed company of the master of the truth: but to the cursed and damnable company of the Father of lies. Repent thee therefore of thine heresy, and embrace the truth, that by it thou mayst attain to the true life. Now to this learned Father shall be joined S. cyril, who saith thus: Ca 22. sup. 6. joann. Ex imperitia multi qui Christum sequebantur, verba ipsius non capientes, pertur babantur. Nam cùm audissent: Amen, amen dico vobis, Nisi comederitis carnem filii hominis, & biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis: Ad immanes ferarum mores vocari se à Christo arbitrabantur, incitariue ut vellent crudas hominis carnes manducare, & sanguinem bibere, quae vel auditu horribilia sunt, nondum enim mysterij huius formam & dispensationem pulcherrimam cognoverant. Illud etiam adhoc cogitabant: Quomodò caro huius hominis, aternan nobis vitam largietur? aut quomodò ad immortalitatem adducere poterit? Quae cùm intelligeret is, cuius oculis omnia nuda sunt, atque aperta, alia eos re mirabili ad fidem impellit. Frustra (inquit) o vos, propter verba mea conturbamini. Quòd si credere non vultis vitam vobis à meo corpore dari, quid facietis, quando in coelum me volare conspicietis? Non enim ascensurum me solummodò profiteon, ne rursus quomodò id fieri possit quaeratis, sed oculis etiam ita fieri vestris cernetis. Quid ergo hoc videntes, dicetis: Anon erit hoc magnum Capharnaites how they understood Chryst. Joan. 6. vestrae dementiae argumentum? Si enim putatis carnem meam vitam vobis afferre non posse, quomodò tanquam volucris in coelum ascendet? quomodò per aëra volabit: hoc enim similiter generi humano impossibile est. Quod si praeter naturam caro mea in coelum conscendet, quid probibet ne similiter praeter naturam vivificet? For lack of knowledge many that did follow christ not understanding his words were troubled. For when they heard: verily verily Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you. They thought themselves to be called of christ to the cruel manners of wild beasts, and to be moved that they should eat the raw flesh of a man, and drink his blood, which things are horrible even to hear. They had not yet known the goodly form and dispensation of this mystery. Moreover also they thought: How should the flesh of this man grant us eternal life? or how can it bring us to immortality? Which things when he did understand, unto whose eyes all things are naked and open, with an other marvelous thing he driveth them to the faith. O you (saith he) vainly are ye troubled for my words. For if ye will Christ'S flesh besiae nature ascendedin to heaven: beside nature it giveth life in the Sacra. not believe life to be given you of my body, what will ye do when ye shall see me fly up into heaven? I do not say that I will only ascend into heaven, lest you ask again how that may be done: but ye shall even so see it with your eyes. What therefore will ye say seeing this? shall it not be a great argument of your madness? If ye think that my flesh can not bring life unto you, how shall it as a slieng thing ascend into heaven? how shall it fly by the air, for this likewise is unpossible to mankind? Then if my flesh shall go up into heaven beside nature, what doth let that it likewise beside nature may not give life. Thus moche S. cyril. You may in this goodly and lively exposition perceive two vain thoughts, that the gross Disciples had, one that they should after the cruel manner of wildes' beasts, eat the raw flesh of christ, as it were tearing it, or cutting Two vain thoughts of the Capharn. it out by pieces, and so Christ'S blessed flesh, as other things that be eaten, to be consumed. The other vain thought was how that flesh, which they accounted but as the flesh of a natural man only, and not as the flesh of God joined to the Godhead in unity of person, and therefore supposed it to be a mortal, and a corruptible flesh, how (I say) that mortal and corruptible flesh could give unto them immortality, and incorruption. Now to answer both these vain thoughts, and to reform them, christ said: what yfye see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? By which one saying he answereth both their thoughts, and teacheth as concerning the first, that where they thought, that his body should be cut or torn in pieces, that they had an evil understanding. For it should ascend up into heaven, and that whole, as S. Augustine said. And that they might the better believe it, they should see it, as S. cyril here saith. The other vain thought is also answered in that he saith his body shall ascend up to heaven, which ascension is above the order of nature. Thereby instructing them, that as his body above the course of nature should ascend: So it above the course of nature should give life. How the flesh of christ should give life S. cyril heretofore hath declared upon the sainges of christ, that it is by the eating of Christ'S flesh. And therefore he said of the power of Christ'S flesh: Non verbo solùm verumetiam tactu mortuos excitabat, ut ostenderet corpus quoque suum vivificare posse. Quodsi solo tactu suo corrupta redintegrantur: quomodo In 6. Joan cap. 14. non vivemus, qui carnem illam & gustamus & manducamus? Reformabit enim omnino adimmortalitatem suam participes sui. Ne velis iudaicè quomodò quaerere, sed recordare quamuis aqua naturaliter frigidior sit: adventu tamen ignis frigiditatis suae oblita, aestuat. christ did not with his word only, but also with his touching he did raze dead men, that he might show, that his body also could give life. If then with his only touching corrupted things are made sound again, how shall not we live, which taste and eat that flesh? He will without all doubt reform the partakers of him to this immortality. Neither do though after the jews manner ask, how: but remember that though the water naturally be cold: yet by the coming of the fire to it, having forgotten her coldness, waxeth hot. So that by S. cyril here you may perceive that the flesh of christ, which the unbelieving Disciples did think could not give life, doth give life to them, that receive and eat it. Let not the Adversaries now cast in their common gloze, that cyril speaketh of the spiritual receiving and eating of Christ'S flesh For he teacheth more than in one place, that we are joined to christ not only spiritually, but also after the flesh, by the eating of the same very flesh. And to this purpose also tendeth this his disputation in this sentence last alleged, that he would prove the flesh of christ to give life by the corporal touching of it, and therefore it giveth life to us that corporally do taste and eat the same. And therefore let not the sacramentary ask, how, For as christ ascended above the course of nature of man: So he giveth himself in the Sacrament to be eaten above the order and course of the nature of man. And now ye may perceive, where the Adversaries have abused this scripture to prove that there is no real presence of christ in the Sacrament, by cause they say that christ by this text minded only to pluck the Disciples from their gross thought of the carnal eating of him, to a spiritual manner of eating, and therefore here is no real flesh to be eaten. Whereupon they The Sacramentaries sift the Sacra. so fine that they leave nothing but the bran for themselves. charge us, not only with the name, but also with the gross error of the Cpharanaites, that we (like as they did) do go far wide from the true meaning of the scripture. But they are so busy in charging us with the gross carnality of the Capharnaites, and so curious in sifting of their spiritualytie, which they sift so long and so finely, that they let all the fine flower of Christ'S heavenly bread fall from them, and keep nothing but the bare bran of the signifying sign in their own hand, which in deed is the gross bread they feed on. For, as ye have heard, neither S. Augustin, nor S. cyril do so expound it that there is no real presence of christ in the Sacrament, but that Christ'S mind was only to remove the carnal and gross manner of eating which the Capharnaites had conceived, of the which manner both these fathers have made mention. But as for the manner of our eating, is no such gross and beastly manner, as christ would remove from the Capharnaites, but it is such a manner as is both real, and yet spiritual, taught unto us by our Saviour christ himiself, and testified by his holy Church and set forth by the holy Fathers of the same, as you may perceive by S. Austen and S. cyril, who although they reprove the manner of the Capharnaites: yet they commend to us the manner used and received in the Church. THE FIVE AND THIRTETH CHAP. proceedeth in the exposition of the same text, and endeth it by Euth. and Petrus Cliniacen. Now having heard one couple of the elder house expounding this text: we will hear one couple more only, expound the same, and In 6. joan. so end it, and pass to the next. Euthymius expounding this scriptute writeth thus: Si ergo videritis filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius, quid dicetis? Loquitur de futura sui in coelum assumptione. Ascendentem, quoad humanitatem: ubi prius erat, quoad divinitatem. Qui enim potest hanc carnem reddere coelestem, potest utique ipsam cibum hominum efficere. What if ye see the Son of As easiefor christ to make his flesh meat in the Sa. as to make it to ascend. man ascend up where he was before, what will ye say? saith Enthymius He speaketh of the assumption of himself in to heaven, to come. what if ye see him ascending? Ascending up, as touching his humanity, where he was before, as touching his deity. For he that can make his flesh heavenly, can also make the same meat of men. Note I pray you, that this author by the possibility of the work of christ to make his flesh heavenly concludeth the possibility to make the same the meat of men, not grosslie after the rude fantasy of the Capharnaites, but verily and really after the pleasure of christ. And that this author meaneth of the real flesh of christ to be the meat Argument of the ascension used by christ Jo. vi is vain to prove the spiritual eating, but good to prove the real eating of his flesh. of men, it do the most evidenlie appear by his argument deduced wpon the possibility of christ in making his flesh heavenly. For if he had spoken of Christ'S flesh to be eaten spiritually, there needed no such argument upon possibility to be made upon his very real flesh. For the flesh of christ was spiritually the meat of the holy fathers in the old law. Wherefore that needed not to be proved possible, which so many years had been in use: but that was needful to be proved to be possible, which before was not in use, which was that the very flesh of christ should be eaten of men really. If the saying and meaning of christ had been, that the jews should have eaten his flesh spiritually only, as the Adversaries would have it, this argument of his ascension should not have needed, but he might have said to them: As I gave yower father's Manna from heaven, that they eating it should also spiritually eat me in a figure that I was then to come: So now ye shall eat a piece of bread, and drink a cup of wine, in a figure, and for the remembrance of me, that I am comed, and have suffered for you. This manner of eating of Christ'S flesh as it was used of the good and believing jews, and well known to them both in Manna, and in the paschal lamb: So if Christ'S meaning had been to no further matter of eating his flesh but in such sort, they would never have stayed, and sticked so moche at it. But he meant the receipt of his flesh in deed. And therefore he very well bringheth the possibility of two works upon one thing, namely that it is as possible for christ to make his flesh the meat of men, as it was to make the flesh which was earthly now to be heavenly, And so this Author concludeth that the flesh of christ is as really eaten of men, as it is made heavenly of christ: But christ hath made it heavenly. wherefore he maketh it to be eaten really. Of this scripture Petrus Cluniacensis maketh a very goodly exposition paraphrasticallie: Si videritis filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius. Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro non prodest quicquam, hoc est, quia me hominem, inter homines videtis, Petrus Cluniacen. nihil de me adhuc, quod ad hoc Sacramentum spectat, plusquam de alio homine sentire potestis. Et i leò carnaliter sapientes velut per frusta concisam carnem meam me vobis velle dare creditis. Sed postquam in coelum ascendero, postquam hanc carnem, de qua agitur, adhuc mortalem, in Deum glorificavero, tunc intelligetis, quia Spiritus est qui vivificat, hoc est spiritualliter intellecta, accepta vivificant. Caro autem non prodest quicquam, quia carnaliter intellecta mortificant. Dabo enim carnem meam hominibus, non more cadaverum detruncandam, minuendam, consumendam, quia sic accepta caro mea non prodesset quicquam, sed dabo eam absque dolore dividendam, absque imminutione partiendam, absque consumptione comedendam, quia Spiritus est. qui vivificat, & quia sic accepta, & intellecta caro mea vitam non mortalem, sed aeternam percipientibus donat. What if ye see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, that is, because ye see me a man among men, ye can nothing more understand of me (for so much as appertaineth to the Sacrament) than ye can of an other man. And therefore understanding This is the manner of our Sacrament aries. carnally, ye believe that I will give my flesh to you, as cut in lumps or pieces, but after that I ascend into heaven, after that I shall glorify this flesh, of the which we now speak, being yet mortal, into God: than ye shall understand, that it is the Siprit that quickeneth, that is, that these my words spiritually taken do quicken, but the flesh prositteh nothing. For This is the faith of all catholics carnally understanded they kill. I will give my flesh unto men, not after the manner of dead carcases to be cut in pieces one from an other, to be diminished, to be consumed, For my flesh so taken should not profit any thing, But I will give it without grief to be divided, without diminution to be parted, without consumption to be eaten. For it is the Spirit that quickeneth. And my flesh so taken and understanded, it giveth to the receivers, not mortal life, but eternal. Thus far Petrus Cluniacen. In this Author as in the other before, ye see that expowndeh he not this why Christ made mention of his ascension John. vi. saying of christ of his ascension into heaven, that the real presence of his body should not be in the Sacrament: but only christ made mention of his ascension to pull them from that gross manner of eating of his flesh, that they thought he would give them lumps or pieces of that his visible flesh in carnal and gross manner, as a man would give a piece of beof or mutton to one to eat. And that his body so eaten should be dead, and so finally consumed, and therefore, it self as they thought being mortal, they marveled how it should make the eaters of it ymmortall, and how it being eaten and so consumed, and ended should make the eaters of it continue for ever and to have none end. To reform this their vain and gross imagination, he told them of his ascension. But for his presence in the Sacrament, as the holy Church believeth and teacheth, his very body in visible form is ascended, and yet the same very body in substance is present invisibly in the Sacrament, and is wholly received of every receiver. Which manner this author doth very well seetfurth when he said in the person of christ: I will give my flesh to men not after the manner of dead carcases to be cut in pieces, to be diminished, to be consumed (for my flesh so taken should nothing profit) but I will give my flesh without grief to be divided, without diminution to be part, dwith out consumption to be eaten. Thus ye may perceive that though the gross manner of the unbelieving disciples be reprehended: yet the faithful manner of the believing Christians is approved, and thereby also as the wresting of this scripture is espied: So is their heresy by the same (truly now declared and expounded) rejected and refused. Wherefore I will now leave this scripture and go to the next. THE SIX AND THIRTTETH CHAP. treateth of the next text by S. Austen and Chrysostom. SPiritus est qui vivificat, caro non prodest quicquam. it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profitteth nothing. This text the Adversaries have not a little Joan. 6. triumphed on, and have made it so familiar, that boys and girls, could blatter this against Christ'S presence in the Sacrament. The flesh profiteth nothing. My saying therefore left apart, I will lay the sainges and expositions of the Fathers before the reader, and then shall ye see whether these wicked schoolmasters have not well taught their wicked scholars, and young imps, to blaspheme Christ'S blessed flesh, saying that it profiteth nothing, and also how well they wrist the scripture, and violently pluck it and tear it, as it were, from the native sense. The first couple to show us the exposition of this text, shall be S. Augustine and Chrysostom. S. Augustine saith thus: Quid est quod adiungit: Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro non prodest quicquam? Dicamus ei (patitur enim nos non contradicentes, sed nosce cupientes) Tract. 27. in Joan. O Domine magister bone, quomodò caro non prodest quicquam, cùm tu dixeris, Nisi quis manducaverit carnem meam, & biberit sanguinem meum, non habebit in se vitam? An vita non prodest quicquam? & propter quid sumus, quod sumus, nisi ut habeamus vitam aeternam, quam tua carne promittis? Quid est ergo, Non prodest quicquam? Caro non prodest quicquam, sed quomodò illi intellexerunt. Carnem quip sic intellexerunt, quomodò in cadavere dilaniatur, aut in macello venditur, non quomodò spiritu vegetatur. Promptè sic dictum est: Caro non prodest quicquam, quomodò dictum est: Scientia inflat. I am ergo debemus odisse scientiam? Absit. Et quid est, Scientia inslat? sola sine charitate. Ideo adtunxit: Charitas verò aedificat. Add ergo scientiae charitatem, & utilis erit scientia, non per se, sed per charitatem. Sic & nunc, Caro non prodest quicquam, sed sola caro. Accedat Spiritus ad carnem quomodò accedit charitas ad scientiam, & prodest plurimùm. Namsi caro nihil prodesset, Verbum caro non fieret, ut habitaret in nobis. Si per carnem multu nobis profuit Christus, quomodò caro nihil prodet? Sed per carnem spiritus aliquid pro salute nostra egit. Caro vas suit, quod habebat attend, non quod erat. Apostoli missi sunt, nunquid caro ipsorum nihil nobis prosuit? Si caro Apostolorum nobis profuit, caro Domini nihil potuit prodesse? unde enim ad nos sonus verbi, nisi per vocem carnis? unde filius? unde conscriptio? Ista omnia opera carnis sunt, sed agitant Spiritu tanquam organum suum. Spiritus ergo est qui vivificat. Caro non prodest quicqua. Sicut illi intellexerunt carnem: non sic ego do ad manducandum carnem meam. A long sentence of S. Augustine, but as profittable and pleasant, as it is long, which I bring wholly that the reader should not be defrauded of the right meaning of S. Augustine upon this scripture, and that the Adversaries should not have occasion to reprehend that in us, that so often they have offended in, namely to bring in a sentence of an Author truncately so much as apparently would serve for their poupose, but not so much as would truly open the right meaning of the Author in that matter. In this sentence thus alleged ye shall perceive the full mind of S. Augustin, for so moche as he thought necessary to be said for the explication of Christ'S mind in this scripture. Thus may S. Augustine's words Spirit how it quickeneth, and flesh how it profiteth nothing. be englished: What is it then that he adjoineth: It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh prositeth nothing? Let us say unto him, he suffereth us, not against saying, but desiring to know: O Lord, good master, how doth the flesh profit nothing, seeing thou have said: Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall have no life in him? Doth not life profit any thing? And for what be we, that we be, but that we may have eternal life, which thou promisest by thy flesh? What is it then that the flesh profiteth nothing? The flesh profitteth nothing, but as they understood it. They did so understand the flesh, as it is torn in the dead karkas, or as it is sold in the shambles, not as it is quickened with the spirit. Therefore it is so said: the flesh profitteth nothing, as it is said: that science doth puff up or make proud. Shall we now therefore hate science? God forbid. And what is it: Science doth puff up? Alone without charity. Therefore he adjoined: Charity edifieth. Add therefore to science charity, and science shall be profitable, not by it self, but by charity. So also now the flesh profitteth nothing, but the flesh alone, let the spirit come to the flesh, as charity cometh to science, and it profiteth very moche. For if the flesh should profit nothing, the word should not have been made flesh, that he might dwell among us. If christ by the flesh hath profitted us moche, how doth the flesh profit nothing? But the spirit by the flesh hath done somewhat for our health. The flesh was the vessel, what it had attend, not what it was: The Apostles were sent, did not their flesh profit? if the flesh of the Apostles did profit us, could the flesh of our Lord nothing profit? From whence came the sound of the word to us, but by the voice of the flesh: from whence the style? from whence the writing? All these works be of the flesh, but the Spirit moving it as his organ. Therefore it is the Spirit that doth quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. As they do understand the flesh: So do not I give my flesh to be eaten. Thus far S. Augustine. Now weigh, gentle Reader. whether the flesh of christ doth profit any thing or no. Now weigh also whether this scripture doth any one jot The presence of Christ's flesh in the Sacr. after the catholic faith. speak or make against Christ'S blessed flesh in the Sacrament. The catholic faith teacheth not that the flesh of christ is given in the Sacrament as pieces or lumps of flesh betorn out of a dead karkas, neither that the flesh of christ is there as it is in the shambles, nor that it is a pure natural flesh without the spirit, not the flesh of a person that is only man, for so understanded as they did understand it, saith S. Augustine, it profiteth nothing. But the flesh of christ of the good catholics is believed to be in the Sacrament, not as the flesh of a pure man, but as the flesh of God: not divided from the Godhead, but inseparably evermore conjoined to the same, not grossly as in the shambles but spiritually, and yet verily and really, as a divine flesh in mystery, not torn as out of a dead karkas by pieces to be given abroad to the people, but (as Petrus Cluniacensis saith) it is parted, every man without diminution every one receiving whole christ. Neither it is eaten, that thereby it is consumed, but it is eaten and yet ever remaineth (as the Church saith) Nec sumptus, absumitur. neither being received it is consumed. This is the catholic faith against the which this scripture doth nothing The flesh of christ received as the flesh of God profiteth much. speak, but raither with it, For as S. Augustine saith: The flesh of christ taken as it is quickened with the Spirit, that is, with the Godhead, and as the flesh of God, it profiteth moche, which flesh is so taken of the faithful. And therefore the Sacramentaries may be ashamed and moche repent of their wicked blasphemy, wherewith they have blasphemed the true catholic faith of christ, calling it the gross and vain imaginations of the Capharnaites, with such like impieties: seeing that the faith is pure, perfect and agreeable to gods word, and nothing agreeing with the vanities of these gross men. After whose gross manner as the flesh prositeth nothing: So after that manner christ doth not give his flesh, as S. Augustine christ giveth his flesh in substance verily, but not in rude manner grossly. in the person of christ concludeth his exposition, saying: Sicut illi intellexerunt carnem, non sic ego do ad manducandum carnem meam. As they did understand the flesh, so do not I give my flesh to be eaten. In the which words saint Augustin doth insinuate to us that christ doth give us the same his flesh to eat, but not after that manner For the substance is not here denied of the thing that is given, but the manner, which he signifieth plainly when saith: As they did understand flesh: so do I not give my flesh. of the which this followeth well: I do give my flesh, but not as they understand it. The like we ice in common speech, as when we say: we be no such men as you take us to be: we grant the substance of the thing, that we be men: but saying (no such men) we deny but the condition or manner of the thing, and not the thing it self. So he saying: I do not give my flesh as they did understand, the manner only is denied, but the thing is raither admitted, and affirmed. I am compelled to leave S. Augustine, lest I should be to tedious to the reader, and turn, me to his yockfelowe in this place, Chrysostom, who handling this scripture saith thus: Quid igitur caro non prodest quicquam? Chrysost. hom. 46. in Joannem. Non de ipsa carne dicit, absit, sed de his qui carnaliter accipiunt, quae dicuntur. Quid dutem est carnaliter intelligere? simpliciter ut res dicuntur, neque aliud quippiam excogitare. Non enim ita iudicanda sunt quae videntur, sed mysteria omnia interioribus oculis consideranda, hoc est, spiritualiter. Qui non manducat meam carnem, & bibit meum sanguinem, non habet vitam in semetispo. Quomodò nihil prodest caro, sine qua nemo potest vivere? Vide quòd ea particula, Caro non prodest quicquam, non de ipsa carne, sed de carnali auditione dictum est. What then? Doth the flesh profit nothing? He speaketh it not of that flesh (God forbid) but of these that carnally take these things, Caro non prod. is not spoken of the flesh of christ, as being the flesh of God. that be spoken. But what is it to understand carnally? Plainly as the things be spoken, neither to think any other thing. Not so are things that be seen to be judged: But all mysteries are to be considered with the inward eyes. that is spiritually He that doth not eat my flesh, and drink my blood, hath no life in himself. How doth the flesh profit nothing without the which no man can live? See, that that particle (the flesh profiteth nothing) is not spoken of that flesh, but of the carnal hearing. Thus Chrysostom, He needeth no expositor to open and expound his exposition. For at the first seight he maketh it manifest, that this saying of christ: The flesh profiteth nothing, is not to be understanded of the flesh of christ. Non de ipsa carne dictum est. it is not spoken of that flesh of christ, saieh he. And in the end of his saying again he saith: Vide quòd ipsa particula, Caro non prodest quicquam, non de ipsa carne dictum est. See that, that particle (the flesh profiteth nothing) is not spoken of that flesh, meaning the flesh of christ. What ungodly schoolmasters and impudent be these that teach their ungodly disciples so to understand this scripture, as two of the most famous Fathers of Christ'S Church understand it (as ye hear) to the plain contrary. They say the flesh of christ is not in the Sacrament, for the flesh profiteth nothing: But that the flesh of christ is in the Sacrament, and so being received doth profit both these Fathers and other also, have, and shall hereafter testify against them. Therefore I will not trouble thee, Reader, with any longer inveighing against them, more than ordinary process by me intended shall inveigh. Which I trust shall be such, that every author that shall be brought, shall impugn their wicked doctrine, and maintain the true faith of Chrysts catholic Church, I will therefore proceed to induce more witnesses. THE SEVEN AND THIRTETH CHAP. proceedeth upon the same text by Theophilact and S. Bernard. THeophilact giveth a brief testimony of his understanding of this text, writing thus: Spiritus est qui vivificat: Caro non prodest quicquam. Quoniam (ut saepe diximus) carnaliter exponentes ea quae dicebantur à Christo, offendebatur, dicit quia spiritualiter intelligenda sunt, quae dicuntur à me, hoc est prodesse. Caro autem, hoc est, carnaliterilla exponere, nihil prodest. Sed offendiculi occasio fit. Sic ergo illi qui carnaliter audiebant, quae à Christo dicebantur, offendebantur. It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. For that (as we have often said) that they expounding those things carnally which were said of christ, were offended, he said that they are spiritually to be understanded, that be said of me, that is to profit. But the flesh, that is carnally to expound, doth nothing profit, but is made occasion of offence or flaunder. So they that carnally did hear those things, which were spoken of christ were offended. Thus Theophilact. In which words ye see nothing spoken against the flesh of christ in the Sacrament. He bendeth not himself to expownde this scripture against it, as Christ'S enemies have done: but he bendeth himself to expound it So as Christ'S very mind may be opened unto us. Which was to teach the Capharnaites spiritually to understand Christ'S words, which he spoke of the eating and drinking of his flesh and blood. Which words if they were understanded spiritually they did profit. If they were understanded carnally, they did not profit. But he doth not say that Christ'S Objection of the Sacramentaries for the spiritual eating. flesh in the Sacrament profiteth nothing. But here will the Sacramentaries object and say, this is the thing that we would, that Christ'S words should be taken spiritually, that the eating which christ speaketh of, should be taken not for a corporal ot carnal eating, but for a spiritual eating, which is (believing) and his flesh not for that carnal flesh of his natural body, but for his spiritual flesh, that is for the merit, benefit, virtue or grace that cometh to us by his natural flesh. And therefore the papists (as they term them) understanding these words of christ carnally, as to say, that they do eat Christ'S very flesh really in the Sacrament, are very Capharnaites, and the flesh profiteth them nothing. Ye say very well, and ye seem in your own conceit to have madea strong argument. But weigh well the author that ye have ground your Thanswer to the former object. argument upon. It is Theophilact, who saith that Christ'S words must be understanded spiritually. And even so say all the Catholics, whom it liketh you to call Papists and Capharnaites. And what is the spiritual understanding of Christ'S words by Theophilact? that we should only believe christ to have died, and shed his blood for us? and that we be partakers of the merit of the same? Call to mind how he expounded these words of christ: Panis quem ego dabo caro mea est. The bread that I will give is my flesh: and there shall ye perceive the understanding of Christ'S words, that he meaneth of. He saith there these words. Take heed that the bread which is eaten of us in the mysteries is not only a figure of our lords body, but the very flesh of our Lord. For he did not say, The bread that I will give is a figure of my flesh, but it is my flesh. And how it cometh to pass that this bread should be the very flesh of christ, and by whom it is so compassed and wrought, the same Theophilact forthwith Spiritual underctanding what it is. declareth. That bread (saith he) is transformed with the secret words by the mystical benediction, and the coming of the holy Ghost, into the flesh of our Lord. This is the spiritual understanding of Theophilact, which is in deed a spiritual understanding. For if that be spiritual that is wrought by the work of the Spirit of God, and that is above the reason of man, and is not with in the compass of sensual knowledge, but is apprehended and known only by faith, then is this a spiritual understanding. That it is wrought by the Spirit of God, this Author doth testify, that it is above natural reason, it is manifest. For there is no natural mean used in the doing of it. That it is not within the compass and the knowledge of the senses, this Author also doth their show. And how (saith he) is it, that it doth not appear flesh to us, but bread? That we should not (saith he) abhor from the eating of it. For if it should have appeared flesh, we should have had no pleasure to the Communion. But now our Lord condescending to our infirmity, the mystical meat appeareth such, as we have been otherwise accustonmed withal. This flesh then of christ is not seen of us. And so truly is it not perceived of any sense. And therefore for somuch as it is perceived by no sense, but that faith is of hearing, in that respect it may also be called spiritual. What Serm. adin fances. is known in the Sacrament by senses and what aught to be known by faith S. Augustin also teacheth saying: Quod videtis in altari panis & calix est, quod etiam oculi vestri renuntiant. Quod autem fides postulat instruenda, panis est corpus, calix est sanguis. Potest animo cuiuspiam cogitatio talis suboriri. Dominus jesus Christus novimus unde carnem acceperit, de Virgin Maria scilicet, nutritus est, crevit, sepultus est, resurrexit, coelum ascendit, illuc levauit corpus suum, unde venturus est judicare vivos & mortuos. Ibi est modò sedens ad dextram Patris, quomodò ergo panis corpus eius? vel quod habet calix, quomodò est sanguis eius? Ista ideo, fratres, dicuntur sacramenta, quia in eyes aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur. Quod videtur speciem habet corporalem, quod intelligitur sructum habet spiritualem. That ye do see in the altar, it is bread and the cup, which also your eyes do she we you, but that faith requireth to be instructed, the bread is the body, and the cup is the blood. But in the mind of some A plain saying of S. August. for the Proclaimer. body such a thought may rise. We know from whence our Lord jesus christ hath taken flesh, that is, of the virgin Marie, he was nourished, he did grow, he was buried, he did rise, he hath ascended into heaven, thither he hath lifted up his body from whence it shall come to judge the quick and the dead. There is he now sitting at the right hand of the Father. How then is the bread his body? or that the chalice hath, how is it his blood? brethren, therefore these things be called Sacraments, because there is one thing seen in them, and an other understanded. That which is seen hath a corporal form that which is understanded hath a spiritual fruit or profit. Thus far saint Augustine. In the which words S. Augustin doth plainly open what is judged to be in the Sacrament by the judgement of the senses, and what by Senses and faith judge diver self. the judgement of faith. The eyes judge it bread, and a cup of wine, but faith judgeth that, that the eyes have judged bread, to be the hody of Christ and that, that by the senseis is judged wine, to be the blood of christ. Then if the body of christ be not known in the Sacrament by any other knowledge, then by the knowledge of the faith, than it is no carnal knowledge, but a spiritual knowledge: if so, than we understand Christ'S words spiritually and not as the Capharnaites carnally (as the Sacramentaries do slanderously charge us) but like lowly subjects unto our master christ, striving against our natural knowledge, and though even by faith we cannot comprehend the whole mystery: yet for that he hath said it we believe it so to be, as Algerus weary well to this purpose saith. Dum in mysterio, quod non est apparet, quod est occultatur, fidei lucta proponitur, ut meritum augeatur. Dum contra hoc quod videtur, credens quod non videtur, de credita intus veritate, de suprata exteriùs falsitate, duplicem assequitur gratiam. Algerus li. 2 ca 3. Caetera enim Christi miracula, cùm sint infidelibus in signum ut convertantur, hoc solùm sidelibus datur ad meritum, ut illo erudiantur, In illis enim quae Deus in extrinseca materia secit, roboratur fides. In hoc autem solo quod ex seipso facit, fides exercitatur, ut victa, et invicta faciliùs coronetur. Victa, inquam, ne comprehendat, sed invicta, ne diffidat, dum exteriores quidem sensus obiecta panis, & vini speciem, colore, odour, & sapore, ipsum quod fuerat mentiendo, panem & vinum quod non est nituntur instruere. Interior autem intellectus ipsum quod est, corpus scilicet Christi contemplans vec comprehendere sufficiens, non tamen desistit credere. While in the my sterie that that is not appeareth, that that is, is hidden, battle unto faith is propounded, that merit may be increased, while that against it that is seen, believing it that is not seen of the believed inwardly verity, of the overcomed outward falsity, she getteth double grace. For other miracles of christ, where they be to the unfaithful for a sign, that they may convert, this alone is given to the faithful to merit, that by it they may be taught. In those miracles, that God did make in an outward matter, faith is strenghtned. In this alone that he maketh of himself, faith is exercised, Faith overcomed and not over comed in the mystery of the Sacr. that being overcomed, and unovercomed, she may be more easily crowned. I say overcomed that she can not comprehend, unovercomed, that she distrust not, while the outward senseis by the forms of bread and wine objected, the colour, the savour and the taste, falsely saying to be it that it was, do labour to affirm it bread and wine, which it is not. But the inward understanding, beholding it, that it is, that is to say, the body of christ, neither being able to comprehend it, ceaseth not yet to believe. Thus far Algerus. Thus far be we from the Capharnaites that where they rested within the compass of carnal knowledge and understanding, we fly to the height of faith's crudition, and so leaving carnal knowledge, meet for the senseis, we accept, and cleave to that is spiritual, according to the instruction of faith. Therefore seeing that nothing is taught of the catholic Church, or believed, as concerning Chrysts very body in the Sacrament, that cometh under natural knowledge, either of reason, or of the senses: what blind malice is there in the Adversaries to call us carnal Capharnaites, who judged of christ no otherwise then by natural reason and senses? If they will say, that we be carnal, because we believe Christ'S divine flesh miraculously by the divine Cpharnaites judged only by reason and senses. power to be in the Sacrament, and verily to be received of the faithful: then may they call us carnal because we believe the same flesh to be united to the Godhead in unity of person, and now to be exalted above all creatures, and to be at the right hand of God the Father. For what more carnality is it to believe the body of christ to the in the Sacrament, then to believe the same body, to be at the right hand of God the Father? For as the power of God worketh the one: So it worketh the other. And as by the scriptures we be certified of the one: So be we thereby also certified To believe Christ'S flesh to be in the Sacr. is a spiritual faith. of the other. And therefore as all faith concerning Christ'S body, as his incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension, is spiritual and not carnal, though it be about Christ'S flesh: So is the faith believing the same flesh to be in the Sacrament, a spiritual faith. And the believers in that respect, be like wise spiritual, and not carnal. And Albeit it were necessary of this to have said more, for that the Adversaries have much delighted themselves with their spirituality, and have much slattered themselves to be by this their heresy right spiritual, when in deed they be thereby very carnal (heresy being a work of the stesh) and have thought themselves with this alone clean to abolish the name of the catholic Church, and the memory of the same from the earth, the contrary effect whereof they have seen: yet for that I see the matter so to fall out that this rude book will excead the quantity and proportion by me intended to the more trouble of the reader, and for that I have been longer upon Theophilact than I minded. I will briefly touch his yockefelowe S. bernard and so end this chapter. Thus writeth S. bernard. Quis non illic vehementer cupiat pasci, & propter pacem, & propter adipem, & propter satietatem? Nihil ibi sormidatur, nihil fastiditur, nihil deficit. Bernard. serm. 33 in Cant. Tuta habitatio Paradisus: dulce pabulum, verbum: opulentia multa, nimis aeternitas. Habeo & ego verbum, sed in carne: & mihi apponitur veritas, sed in Sacramento. Angelus ex adipe frumenti saginatur, & nudo saturatur grano: me oportet interim quodam sacramenti cortice esse contentum, carnis fursure, literae palea, velamine fidei. Et haec talia sunt, quae gustata adferunt mortem, si non primitijs Spiritus quantulumcunque accipiant condimentum. Prorsus mors mihi in olla, nisi ex prophetae farinula dulcoretur. Denique absque Spiritu, & Sacramentum ad in dicium sumitur, & caro non prodest quicquam, & litera occidit, & fides mortua est: sed Spiritus est qui vivificat, ut vivam in eyes. Who desireth not earnestly there to be fed, both for peace, and for the fat, and for satiety? There is nothing feared, nothing loathed, nothing lacking. There is Paradise a saif habitation: the word, a sweet food: eternity, great abundance. I also have the word, but in the flesh: and the verity is set before me, but The verity of Christ's flesh is set forth before us in the Sacr. in the Sacrament. The Angel is fed of the fat of the qwheat, and is filled or satisfied with the open corn in seight. In the mean while I must be contented with a certain bark of the Sacrament, with the bran of the flesh, with the chaff of the letter, with the veil or covering of faith, and these things be such that being tasted they bring death, if of the first fruits of the spirit they take not some manner of seasoning, my death is surely in the pot except it be made sweet with the Prophets meal. Lastly without the Spirit the Sacrament also is taken to condemnation: and the flesh profiteth nothing at all: and the letter killeth: and faith is dead: but it is the spirit, that giveth life, that I may live in them. Thus moche S. bernard. Who in this chapter, showing the great difference betwixt this present life and the blessed life to come, openeth the commodities of the one, and the incommodities of the other: the perfection of the one, and the imperfection of the other, among which to our purpose he saith: that Paradise is a saif habitation, There the Son of God is the sweet food. Whereunto comparing the state of this life, he saith: I also have the word the Son of God, but in the flesh: the verity is settfurth before me, but in the Sacrament. Here first note that the verity is settfurth in the Sacrament, and not a bare figure: and yet this Sacrament, though it hath the verity yet if it be received without the Spirit, it is (saith saint Bernard) received to condemnation. Spirit taken two manner of ways. For the flesh prositeth nothing. But it is the Spirit that giveth life. The spirit, as before ye have been taught of Chrysostom and cyril, is taken two manner of ways: either for a spiritual understanding in believing, and thereby understanding the very flesh of christ to be verily in the Sacrament, not after a gross manner to be cut out to us in Lumps (as the Capharnaites understood it) but spiritually, and yet verily, unspeakably, and yet credibly by the work of God's power even very whole christ: or else for the flesh of christ as a divine or godly flesh united to the spirit, which is the Godhead, and so becomed now spiritual, and quickening, able to give life, for that it is the flesh not of a sole man, but the flesh of God. Now, saith S. Bernard, the verity is in the Sacrament, the very flesh of christ is there received, but if it be received without the spirit (as is declared) the flesh alone profiteth nothing, if ye join the spirit to the flesh (as saint Augustin willeth you) the flesh prositeth moche. For to take the flesh alone, and so to understand carnally, the flesh profiteth nothing. Thus may ye perceive how holy bernard with the rest agreeth, that he placeth not so the spirit, that he expelleth the flesh of christ from the Sacrament, as the Adversary doth, but he joineth the verity of the flesh and the spirit together, and so stand they in moche amity, and do greatly profit the believers. THE EIGHT AND THIRTETH CAAP. ENdeth the exposition of this text by Euthymius and Lyra. Now fearing with prolixity to be tedious, I will briefly hear the testimony of one couple more expounding this text now in hand, and so end the same. Euthymius writeth thus: Spiritus est qui vivificat. Spiritum nunc vocat intellectum spiritualem eorum quae dicta sunt. Similiter & carnem, Euthy. in ● joan. Intelligere ea carnaliter. Non enim de carne ipsius quae vivificat, nunc sermo est. Ait ergo: Haec spiritualiter intelligere vitam prabet, quam suprà dixi: carnaliter verò intelligere, non prodest quicquam. It is the spirit that quickeneth. He calleth the Spirit now the spiritual understanding of those things that be spoken. Likewise the flesh carnally to understand. For now he speaketh not of his flesh that quickeneth. He saith therefore to understand these things spiritually, it giveth life, which I spoke of before. But carnally to understand them it profiteth nothing. I shall not need to note the words of this Author, for all the authors yet alleged draw so justly by one line, that almost they speak all one manner of words, even from the first to the last, aswell the later writers, as the most ancient. For this man with Chrysostom and Augustine saith: that this scripture: the flesh profiteth nothing: is not spoken of the flesh of christ, which doth quicken: but of carnal understanding, of the which ye have not a few times heard. He saith also that these words, the Spirits doth quicken: are to be understanded of spiritual understanding of the words of christ spoken of this mystery, what the spiritual understanding of Christ'S words be, this author hath showed throuhoute this process. But briefly upon these words of christ: My flesh is meat indeed: This (saith he) christ said, confirming that he neither spoke in dark manner of speech, neither in parables. Then (as there was declared, aswell upon christ as also upon this Author) if there be no dark manner of speech nor parable in those words of christ: then we eat Christ'S very flesh really, and not in a figure, which yet so taken and understanded, is spiritually taken and understanded after this Author, and other, which likewise have understanded it, as before appeareth. And the like shall you perceive in the Author that followeth, who is Lyra, who for an exposition of this scripture writeth thus: Spiritus est qui vivificat. Quia dixerat carnem suam esse cibum necessarium ad salutem, & ipsi intelligebant hoc, acsi daretur in propria specie, sicut laniatur, vel venditur in macello, quod est horribile, ideo tollit hunc intellectum, dicens: Spiritus est qui vivificat, quasi dicat: Lyra in 6. joan. Verba quae dixi spiritualem habent sensum, & sic vivificant. Caro autem non prodest quicquam, quia caro Christi manducata eo modo quo intelligebant, non esset utilis, sed magis horribilis. It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth, nothing. For because he had said, that his flesh is a necessary meat to salvation, and they did understand it, as though it should be given in his own form, as it is cut and sold in the Shambles, which is horrible, therefore he taketh away that understanding, saying: It is the spirit that quickeneth, as who should say: The words that I have spoken have a spiritual sense, and so they quicken, but flesh profiteth nothing, for the flesh of christ eaten after that manner, that they did understand, should not be profitable, but raither horrible. Thus Lyra. In this exposition ye do also see the gross manner of the Capharnaites, who (as ye have heard) thought the flesh of christ should be given unto them, as it is cut or sold in the shambles, in his own proper form and manner, that is as very pieces of flesh both in seight and substance, to be refused. For this manner of understanding is gross and carnal, and therefore these words must have saith this Author a spiritual sense. What spiritual sense also this Author understandeth of Christ'S words, it appeareth well in the exposition of these words of christ: My flesh is meat in deed, etc. Where this Author saith, as before is alleged that by this text was showed the verity of the Sacrament. For christ did often speak to his Disciples in Parables, and therefore lest it should be believed that his flesh should be contained in the Sacrament only as in a sign, therefore to remove this, he saith: My flesh is meat in deed, for here it is taken really, and not figuratively. Mark that he saith really, and yet he accounteth this a spiritual undetstanding, as it is in deed, as before is declared, though the adversaries sifting it so finely until they make it nothing, say that we be carnal, carnally understanding the words of christ. But God bring them from their carnal heresy. THE NINE AND THIRTETH CHAP. BEginneth the exposition of the next text by saint Augustin, and cyril. Now we come to the last scripture that treateth of this matter in the sixth of saint john, which being appendent, hath almost the same understanding that the last scripture before hath. Verba quae ego locutus sum vobis, spiritus & vita sunt. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. I will not detain the reader, but even forthwith hear the Fathers expound this scripture. And first S. Augustin, who writeth thus: Quid est spiritus & vita sunt? Spiritualliter intelligenda sunt. Intellexisti spiritualliter? Spiritus & vita sunt. Intellexisti carnaliter? etiam sic illa spiritus & vita sunt, sed tibi non sunt. What is it: The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life? They are spiritually to be understanded. have though understanded them spiritually? They are spirit and life. have though understanded them carnally? Even so also are they spirit and life, but to thee they be not. Thus he. What S. Augustine meaneth by carnal understanding ye have heard more than once by his own words alleged. that is, to understand that we should eat the flesh of christ in the very form and manner of flesh cut out to us in morsels or pieces, as flesh is cut out and sold in the shambles. And not only so, but to take it as the flesh of an only natural man and not as the flesh of the Son of God, and to be of that weak and base degree, that it should be mortal, and consumptible, not able to give life everlasting to them that should worthily eat it, neither for ever to endure, and continue and never to have end. This (if you have marked the sainges of S. Augustine, Chrysostom, and cyril) is to understand christ carnally Which manner of understanding there is no good Christian hath. But these words of them are understanded spiritually. And what is the spiritual understanding of this process of christ, for the eating of his flesh, it hath been by many places of S. Augustin alleged, Sup. ca 22 declared. But at this present to be short, these his words may declare. Caro eius est etc. It is his flesh, which we take covered under the form of bread, and his blood, which we do drink under the form, and taste of wine. This is the spiritual understanding of S. Augustin, Spiritual understanding of the Sacrament as concerning the substance of the Sacrament, although there be an other manner of spiritual understanding, which both he and all the holy Fathers, and all good catholic men do believe, receive, and approve, and do not deny this spiritual manner, but both must be joined, and concur in every good Christian man, if time and condition will serve, as before is said. Now what S. cyril saith, whom here we place with S. Augustine, Let us hear: Verba quae ego locutus sum vobis, spiritus & vita sunt. Totum corpus suum vivifica spiritus virtute plenum esse ostendit. Spiritum enim hic ipsam carnem suam nuncupavit, non quia carnis naturam amiserit, & in spiritum Ca 24. in 6. Joan. mutata sit. sed quia summè cum eo coniuncta, totam vivificandi vim hausit. Nec indecenter hoc dictum quisquam existimet. Nam qui Domino conglutinatur, unus cum eo spiritus est. Quomodò igitur caro sua una cum eo non appllabitur? Huiusmodi ergo est, quod dicitur: Putatis me dixisse vivificum natura sui esse terrestre, & mortale hoc corpus, ego verò de spiritu & vita locutus sum. Non enim natura carnis secundùm se vivificare potest, sed virtus ipsius spiritus, vivificantem carnem reddidit. Verba ergo quae locutus sum, id est, èa quae locutus sum vobis, suntspiritus & vita, qua ipsa etiam caro mea vivit, & vivifica est. The words, which I have spoken unto you are spirit and life. He showeth all his whole body to be full of the quickening The very flesh of christ called spirit. power of the spirit. For he calleth here the spirit his very flesh, not that it hath leftof the nature of flesh, and is changed into a spirit: but because being excellently conjoined with him, it hath taken the whole power to quicken. Neither let any man think this, to be spoken undecentlie. For he that is surely joined to our Lord, is one spirit with him, how then shall not his flesh be called one with our Lord? It is therefore after this sashion that is said: ye think me to have said, this mortal and earthly body of the own nature to be quicking or giving life. but I have spoken of spirit and life. For the nature of the flesh it self can not give life. But the power of the Spirit, hath made the flesh giving life. The words therefore that I have spoken, that is, the things that I have spoken unto you, are spirit and life, by the which the same my flesh also doth live, and is quickening. Thus far S. cyril. In which words, it is easy to be perceived that where S. Augustine before expounding these words of christ, said, that they are to be understanded spiritually, this author, as it were expounding him and the words of christ, saith, that so they are to be expounded spiritually, not by an exposition of a singular imagined spiritual manner of understanding, that shall be so spiritual that it shall utterly deny Christ'S flesh, but the very real and natural flesh of christ, for that it is so inteirlie joined to the God head, which cyril here calleth the Spirit, it is such a spiritual flesh that it may be called also the Spirit, as S. Hierom also for like consideration, and for that it is so exalted, calleth it the divine flesh. So that S. cyril understandeth christ, that where he said, the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life: it is thus to be understanded, that the flesh of christ is spirit and life. And therefore the Aduersays seem to be carnal and gross, that where the Sacramentaries are Capharnaites. see holy Fathers understand the very flesh of christ to be a spiritual flesh for considerations above specified, they maliciously and despitefully to the great derogation of so high a mystery, call us Capharnaites, as though we should receive nothing but carnal flesh, the flesh of an only bare natural man, and not the flesh of christ, which being inseparably joined to the God head, and therefore the very flesh of God, end wed with the power of the same Godhead to give life, is called both Spirit and life, and so is both very The flesh of christ is both natural and spiritual. natural, and yet spiritual flesh. And therefore the catholic people receive Christ'S very real flesh spiritually, because it is a spiritual flesh, and also by cause it is known with a spiritual knowledge, not with the knowledge of natural reason, nor with the knowledge of carnal senses, but with the spiritual knowledge of faith, which believeth that in the Sacrament, that reason can not comprehend, nor the senses perceive. And so as, Algerus saith. Etsi sciri non potest: credi potest, quia quod videtur non materiale corpus panis est, sed species corporalis. Quod autem intelligitur Alger li. 2. cap. 3. Christus est, qui omnia quaecunque vult in coelo & in terra potest. Sicue dum exteriorum sensuum testimonio non acquiescit, nec interiori inquisitione comprehendens, de veritate tamen non titubat, fit per Dei gratiam ut in tali suo agone fides nostra exerceatur, exercendo augeatur, augendo perficiatur, perfecta coronetur. Although it can not be known: yet it may be believed, for that that is seen is not the material body of bread, but the form of bread, but that that is understanded is christ, who can do all things that he will in heaven and in earth, and so Conflict of faith with reason and senses. while man doth not agree to the witness of the outward senses, neither by the inward inquisition comprehending, doth not yet doubt of the truth it is done by the grace of God that faith in such her conflict is exercised, in exercising is increased, in increasing is perfected, and being perfect is crowned. Thus Algerus. So far wide then is the catholic faith from carnality in believing and recaving Christ'S very body in the Sacrament under the form of bread (as this author saith) that our faith hath a great battle and conflict with reason and the knowledge of senses, which conflict if we proceed to continue, our faith by such exercise shall be perfected, and in the end by God's mercy for this travail crowned. Therefore that this crown may be obtained God grant all catholic people strongly to continued the fight of this battle, and all Sacramentaries to leave their carnal heresies, and to come to this spiritual faith and battle thereof, that they also with us may be crowned. THE fortieth CHAP. ENDETH THE EXPOsition of this text and so of the process of the sixth of S. john by Euthymius and Lira. Now one couple more and then we end this scripture, and this process of the sixth of saint john. The couple shall be Euthymius, and Lyra. Euthymius saith thus: Verba quae ego loquor In. 6. Joan. vobis spiritus & vita sunt, Spiritualia & vivifica sunt. Oportet namque non simpliciter ea intueri, id est carnaliter intelligere, sed aliud quippiam imaginari, & interrioribus oculis ea aspicere tanqan misteria. Nam hoc est spiritualiter intelligere. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life, that is, they are Spiritual understanding what it is. spiritual and quickening. For we must not simply heholde them, that is, carnally to understand, but imagine some other thing, and with the inward eyes behold these things as mysteries. For this is spiritually to understand. Thus he. Ye may perceive this author still to proceed and continue in one manner of understanding and always declaring one spiritual manner of Christ'S flesh in mystery, where things may not be taken, as they appear simply, but considering that they be mysteries, there must be considered some other thing there to be present, which is to be beholden not with the outward eye, but with the inward eye, which thing is the very body of our Saviour jesus christ by faith there in very deed, as verily to be believed, as the outward form be by the senses verily to be seen. All violent motions (saith he Philosopher) be slack or slow in the beginning, and quick in the ending, so man violently moved to virtuous and godly, deeds goeth slackly and slowly in the beginning, but when he approacheth to the end, he maketh moche speed to come to it. And even so I myself drawing to the end of the exposition of the matter of the Sacrament by the sixth chapter of S. john, make haste to the end, as though both I in the writing and the reader in the reading were violenly carried in this vertevouse work and business, and now as it were with a natural desire run hastily to the end. Wherefore as I have briefly overpassed this last author, so will I his yockelowe, which in this place is Lira. who saith thus: Verba quae ego locutus sum vobis, In 6. Joan. de carne mea manducanda, spiritus & vita sunt. quia spiritualem habent intellectum. nec mirum, quia sunt à Spiritu sancto. Ista tamen spiritualitas non est sic accipienda, quia caro Christi sit in sacramento Eucharistiae tantum modò sicut in signo, ut dixerunt aliqui haeretici, quia est ibi realiter, ut dictum est, sed quia manducatur caro Christi in hoc Sacramento quodd spiritually modo, in quantum species visibiles atteruntur, & comeduntur, & spiritus ex virtute Dei carni unita reficitur. The words which I have spoken unto you, of my flesh to be eaten, they are spirit and life, for they have a spiritual understanding. And no marvel. For, they be of the holy Ghost. This spirituality for all that, is not so to be taken that the flesh of christ is only in the Sacrament as in a sign, as certain heretics did say, for it is there really, as it is said, but because the flesh of christ is eaten after a certain spiritual manner, forsomuch as the visible forms are bruised and eaten, and the spirit by the power of God united to the flesh is refreshed. In this sentence of this author ye see the spiritual manner of the flesh of christ in the Sacrament which the Sacramentaries had devised, plainly rejected, Real presence called spiritual for diverse causes. as heretical, and the right spiritual manner taught, which is, that the flesh of christ is really under the forms of bread and wine, and so received. Which manner of presence, and receipt is called spiritual for diverse causes, of the which this author reciteth diverse. One is, that this presence of christ is wrought by the holy Spirit of God. And therefore as works done .1. by God's Spirit are called spiritual of the worker: so is this being wrought by the holy Spirit, called spiritual. another cause is, that the body of .2. christ, although it be verily present, yet it is not perceived by any corporal knowledge, but only by the spiritual knowledge of faith. Wherefore as all things not attained unto by corporal knowledge but by spiritual, are spiritual: So is this which (as before is said) is by faith believed, but not of natural knowledge comprehended, another cause this author rehearseth. .3. Which is, that our spirit by the virtue and power of God, united to the flesh is refreshed. As the refection where with the body is refreshed is a corporal refection: so the refection of the spirit is a spiritual refection. forasmuch then as our spirit is by this meat refreshed, it is a spiritual refection. And in his last cause this author toucheth an other cause why it is spiritual, though he do not so express it. And that is, by cause the power and spirit of God, (which is the Godhead) is united to this flesh, which divine Spirit so being united, and made one with the flesh in the unity of person, not in the unity of nature, maketh this flesh a spiritual flesh, though never the less it be also the very natural flesh of man. Now, gentle Reader, where the Adversaries would have wrested, and perverted this chapter of S. john, to have not been understanded of the Sacrament whether they were obcecated, and blinded through malice, now judge. Heretics malicious, arrogant and impudent. Whether also they were not arrogant, which contemning the authority of so many noble famous, and ancient Fathers, as ye have heard now faith fully alleged, would seek and proceed most arrogantly to prefer their own vain and false comments and gloss, before the others expositions. Whether also they were not impudent, shameless, yea and clean past shame that so boldie would commend their lies to the people, not only, by their sermons, but also to their continual shame with their pens in their books, as a most substantial and godly truth, when so many godly and ancient witnesses reclaimed by their testimonies, and convinced them to be lies. Wherefore now, Reader, being advertised beware of them, and learn, as ye Doctrine flying the common received understanding of the script. is to be suspectd. have just cause, to mistrust them, and fly from them. And cleave to that company where ye see the ancient truth taught by ancient fathers as here ye have done, And not by proud arrogant will, as the other have done, fly from the truth. Their doctrine is to be suspected that fly from the common understanding of the scripture received in the Church, as it is now to be perceived that these singular men have done by their single sigularitie. As our Saviour christ said to the jews: Si non venissen, & locutus eye non fuissen, peccatum non haberent. Nunc autem excusationem non habent de peccato suo. If I had not joan. ca 15. comed and not spoken unto them, they should have had no sin but now they have no excuse of their sin. If then such as have heard the word of christ teaching them his promise of the giving forth of his very body and blood, and do not believe it, have no excuse to save them from eternal damnation: much more when they have the same word expounded and declared by the holy Church, of the which the holy Ghost is the master, the guide, and leader in to all truth, and yet will persist in perverting the scriptures, and through arrogancy will credit none but themselves, they be not only void of all excuse, but their damnation is greatly increased. Wherefore ye that have erred, stay, and look up in time, behold all the Christian world professing Gods true faith and religion, and come to the same. Lurk not in the corners of darkness, which will bring you to extreme darkness, but come to the light, which christ hath left in his Church, which shall lighten you the way to that light, that ever hath showed and shined, and never was darkened nor shadowed. THE ONE AND fortieth CHAP. BEGINneth the exposition of these words of christ: This is my body, after the mind of the Adversaries. Great and manifold are the malicious inventions and deviseiss of the grand enemy of mankind against the same. Which enemy perceiving man to be in that state to come and enjoy the glory and felicity that he was fallen from, envied him, and subtellie under the countenance or pretente of a commodtie, brought him to a most miserable incommodity: under the colour of their advancement, dignity, and great exaltation, he wrought unto them their dejection, overthrow, and damnation. Ye shall not die (saith the enemy to the woman) but God doth know, that the same day that ye eat thereof your eyes shall be opened, and ye shal● be as Gods knowing good and evil. To which his persuasion and false assertion the woman giving place by to light Gen. 3. credit, seeing also the fruit of the tree to be delectable and pleasant to the eyes, not regarding the certain and most true word of her Lord God, who before had said, that in what day they did eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and Jbid. 2. evil, that they should die the death, she took of the forbidden fruit, and did eat thereof, and gave to her husband, who did eat of it also, and so not believing the word of their Lord God, but transgressing his commandment they were not only expelled out of that pleasant garden of Paradise, but also being fallen under the heavy burden of god's wrath and justice, were now banished from the eternal felicity, and glory of heaven, and made bond to hell and everlasting damnation. Even so the same enemy seeing the Christian people redeemed with Christ'S most precious blood and restored to that felicity and joy, which by his Temptation of our first parents, and of Christians in these days compared. means he had once caused them to lose, and that they were now quiet, and in godly order in the eartlie Paradise of Chrysts Church, he not bearing their happiness in the unity of faith and godly conversation, hath used his like subtlety and craft to make us transgress the commandment of our lord God, as he did our first Parents, to the intent he would cause us to be banished from the inheritance of the glory of God, whereunto by Christ'S blood we are made free. And will ye see how like his subtleties be: Hour first Parents had an order appointed to them what meat they should eat in the Paradise where they lived: The builder of our Paradise hath appointed us what the meat shall be that we shall eat, saying: Take, eat, this is my body. The enemy tempted them to break their order about their meat and food: he tempteth us to break our order about our meat and food. Their meat was the fruit of every tree in Paradise, saving the tree of knowledge of good and evil, God saying: Of every tree that is in the garden thou shalt eat, but as touching the Gen. 2. tree of knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it: Hour meat in the Paradise of Christ'S Church, is his very body and blood he himself saying: Take eat, this is my body. Take, drink, this my blood. The enemy not withstanding gods own saying to our Paretes: In what day soever ye eat of that tree, ye shall die the death, he directly contrary said: Ye shall not die. The same enemy notwithstanding Christ'S own saying: This is my body This is my blood: directly contrary saith: it is not his body, it is not his blood: it is but a piece of bread, but a cup of wine, figures, signs, or tokens of his body, and his blood, and to compass that this his persuasion and assertion may be received, as to our first parents he said: that if there did eat of that fruit they should be as Gods knowing both good and evil, pretending a great commodity: so now he said: Esteem this no better than a piece of bread, and a cup of wine, and not as the body and blood, of christ. For so (foramoch as Christ'S body is in heaven and therefore can not be here) ye shall not commit idolatry which is your great commodity. And as to the furtherance of the temptation of hour Parents the pleasing of their senses in seeing the fruit fair and pleasant, and not regarding the word of their Lord God, did moche provoke them: so in this our temptation he willeth us, not regarding the word of christ our Lord God, to follow the pleasant judgement of our sensies. And for so much as we see nothing but bread and wine, we taste nothing but bread and wine, we feel nothing but bread and wine: Therefore we must believe nothing to be there but bread and wine. By which manner of judgement, we are much provoked the sooner to assent to his temptation. Now if we so assent, and eat of the meat, which the enemy persuadeth us to eat of, and not of the meat which our Lord and God hath appointed, we shall not only be expelled out of this Paradise, of Christ'S Church by the Angel of God: but also being disherited from the inheritance of heaven, which christ our Saviour by his blood hath bought us to, we shall be condemned to that pain that we were once redeemed from, and so eternally become miserable with him, unto whoose words we would give credditte before the words of our Lord God. As now ye perceive how like the temptations be: so may ye perceive how like the reward of the assenting or agreeing to the temptation of the enemy is. If therefore ye will avoid the reward, which is pain eternal, withstand the temptation, which beginneth the thrall. A 'mong many other, two things (methinketh) should with the assistance of Two things which aught to move us to resist the temptations of the Sacramentaries. god's grace, much move you to withstand his wicked temptations in this be half the one is, that as in the first temptation to our first parents he spoke the plain contrary of that God had spoken: so in this his temptacon he speaketh the very contrary to that that christ our Lord God hath spoken. For christ said: This is my body: But Satan saith: it is not his body. Now when any thing is taught, that is manifestly repugnant to the word of our Lord God (who can speak nothing but truth) except we be worse bewitched them the Galathians were, we must needs dame and judge that doctrine to be false coming from Satan the father of lies, untruth and falsehood. And being false, what else is to be done but to withstand and reject it? The other thing that aught to move us to withstand this temptation, is, that Sects of Sacramentaries. Bereng. Wicleff Io. Hus. the words of his doctrine be not consonant nor agreeable. For besides his diverse and contrary spirit, which he breathed into Berengarius, the first public and open impugner of this blessed mystery (as it is said in the preface of this book) into Wiceff, and Hus: he hath in this our time poured out many contrary spitites, and marvelously showed himself the author of dissension, and repugnant doctrine in the same mystery. But for that I might be judged partial in the report of this diverse doctrine, I will not use mie own words but the words of Luther, Satan's chief and first Commissionar in this manner of proceeding, and of Melancthon his right offspring, and defender of his doctrine. Luther in his brief confession, noting the diverse, and repugnant spirittes, that reigned amongst the Sacramentaries, saith in this manner: At the first Eight disaegreing spirittes among the Sacramentaries numbered by Luther. Carolstad. Zwinglius. Oecolamp. Swenckfel. these men were well warned of the holy Ghost; when that upon that one text they divided themselves into seven spirits, each one differing always from the other. First Carolstadius would have the text so, that this is my body, should signify: here sitteth my body. Then Zwinglius saith, that that could not be well said, no, though the Father of heaven had revealed it. Therefore being moved with an other holy spirit of his own thus he turned the text: Take, eat, this signifieth my body. The third, Oecolampadius, brought forth his third holy spirit, which turned that text into an other hue, as thus: Take, eat, this is the token of my body. The fourth, Swenckfeldius, thinking to make his stench to smell as musk brought us forth of his holy spirit this rule: These words, this is my body, must be removed from our seight. For they do let us of the spiritual understanding. The fifth holy spirit, being but excrements of that other, doth thus read that text. Take and eat, that which is delivered for you in this my body. The sixth holy spirit saith, Take and eat, this is my body in remembrance, as though christ had said: Take and eat, this is the monument of my body. The seventh holy spirit, joannes Campanus, bringeth this exposition: Take and eat this is my breadie body, or body of bread. Beside all these, an other spirit flieth joan. Cam about (For the Devil is an holy, and great spirit) which persuadeth men that herein is no article of our faith, and therefore we aught not to contend of this matter, but leave it free to every man to believe herein what he list. Thus far Luther. See ye not by Luther's one words seven, and in th'end of his collection one more to make eight dissonant, and disagreeable doctrines upon these words of christ: This is my body? See ye not Satan divided against Satan? See ye not his ministers playing at cross wasters for the victory? Be persuaded then, that where soche contention, such strife, such Battle is amongst men, springing all out of one Gospel, that in that Gospel is no truth. But we have not yet seen the end. Melanchton the right of spring, and heir of the Lutheran doctrine, was not only intoxicated with a diverse spirit from his Father, and Five sects of Sacramentaries among the Lutherans numbered by Melanct. master Martin Luther, in the end of his life, but also reporteth that among the Lutherans themselves, there were five Sacramentaries sects, or heresies. For some (saith he) be of Helhusius mind some of Sarcerius mind: some other follow the ministers of Breme: and some joachimus Morlinus: other also he allegeth, whose opinion is, that Christ'S body may be in every place. Which sects being five in number, if ye put them to the eight enombred by Luther, they make thirteen. Thus by their own report it is to be perceived that the words of Satan's doctrine be not of one sound, of one agreement, but his spirit Christ'S words wrested to sixteen diverse senses by the Protestants. hath breathed into his disciples upon these few words of christ diverse and and plain repugnant expositions and doctrines. To these thirteen diverse doctrines, if we add and putto the expositions of Luther himself, Melanchton and calvin, which esteemed themselves as the lights of the world, we shall make up sixteen diverse expositions, and doctrines of this matter fettfurth by Satan's disciples. As for Luther, it is evindent that he expounded Christ'S words far unlike to Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, or any of that line, yea unto Berengarius himself For he saith they must be thus understanded: This is my body, that is, this bread is my body. Melanchton in his later days (as it is common to heretics to grow worse and worse) forsook Luther's spirit, and tasted of Zwinglius spirit, Melancth. His mutability. but so as he would in such wise correct him, that he would make him a new spirit. And therefore he would have this sense upon Christ'S words, This is my body, that is, This is a participation of my body, which new interpretation (saith Staphilus) is plainly a new Sacramentaries heresy. Last of all the doctrine of calvin swerveth from all these, teaching that christ is given to us really, but not corporally, as though the sense of Io. Caluine Christ'S words might be: This is my body, that is, This is the very substance of my body, but it is not my bodily substance. Thus about the sense of Christ'S words ye have among these Egyptians seen a marvelous variety, who creeping and groping in their palpable darkness took that for truth, that Satan suffered to come first to their hand, by which mean every one of them uttered that for truth, that in his darkness he had lighted on. But among all note how by Swenckfeldius, Satan would have berieved you not only of this Sacrament, but of all other, and not only of them, but of the scriptures also. This is a miserable progress, this is the right building of Babel, where the tongues of men be confounded, that a man can not understand his neighbour, neither can the catholic understand the protestant, nor the protestant, the protestant. But now returning to my purpose again, I wish that to be perceived in this process which before I spoke of to be noted, the better to withstand Satan in his temptations against the true doctrine and faith, namely that his doctrine is not consonant, nor agreeable in it self, but dissonant and repugnant, some of his disciples teaching that the body of christ is in the Sament with the bread, some that the body of christ is in the Sacrament in and under the bread: other some that the bread is the body of christ: other of the contrary manner denying the presence of christ in the Sacrament, but yet diversly, some of them teaching that the Sacrament is but a sign of the body of christ: other some that the bread is a figure of the body of christ: other that it is the power virtue, or efficacy of the body of christ: other that christ is really exhibited unto us, but not bound nor exclosed in the bread: other (which be the worst sort) teaching that there is neither body nor Sacrament. In which diversity, and contrariety of doctrines, it is easily to be perceived not only how moche dissonant they are from the doctrine and words of christ: but also how far disagreeing they are among themselves. Which fault perceived, I think him more then bewitched that will give credittte to any of them, forsomoche as there is no man but knoweth that in the doctrine of God is concord agreement. And forsomuch as in these other doctrines there is none agreement, but repugnance and contrarities, it is certain that they be not of God. Besides this what proof have any of all these either in the scriptures or holy Fathers, that this saying of christ: This is my body, should be understanded as each of them stoutly seem to avouch, and that after their sundry manners? They be contrary one to an other, yet each of them persuade their disciples that they teach the true word of God. And yet the scriptures of God bear no such contrary sense is. Now therefore, Reader, stay thy self, and choose raither to believe christ, than Satan who goeth about to deceive thee, as he did thy first parents, who through light credit neglecting what God had said, and believing what the serpent said, fell into prevarication and were condemned. Thus moche then being said of Satan's manner of temptation to abduce and lead away men from the faith of christ, and of his sundry and many invented false expositions disagreeng and clean repugnant even amongst themselves, of these words of christ, This is my body: I shall now address myself, first somewhat to say of things appertaining to the true understanding of those words, and afterward open to you he right understanding of the same words by the most ancient and holy Fathers of Christ'S Church, where ye shall perceive not a repugnance, as in Satan's school, but concord and agreement meit for Christ'S school. THE TWO AND fortieth CHAP. BEGINNETH the exposition of the words of christ after the catholic manner with certain proofs of the same. AS ye have heard Satan teaching his scholars with moche contrariety, strife, and repugnance, to expound or raither to expuncte the words of christ and to pervert them, as it hath pleased the same there master to move them, some one way, some another, but never one of them the right way: so shall ye now hear the disciples and scholars of christ, and of his holy spirit, with all agreement, concorand peace expownde you the same words of christ, after the learning of their master, not some one way, and some an other way: but all one way, as it were with one mouth spoken. It shall much commend this goodly amity and concord of this school, if we first in the entry of this declaration shall hear how the chief, and highest scholars of this school do agree in the report of these words of christ whose exposition we seek. The chiefest scholars reporters of these words be the three Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the Apostle Paul. S. Matthew reporteth it thus: jesus took bread and when he had blessed it, he break it, and gave it to the disciples, Mat. 26. and said: Take, eat, this is my body. And he took the cup, and thanked, and gave it them, saying: Drink ye all of this. This is my blood which is of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. S. Mark agreeably testifieth the same thus: jesus took bread, and blessing Mar. 14. he broke it, and gave to them and said. Take, eat, this is my body, and he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he took it to them. And they all drank of it, and he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. S. Luke reporteth it after this manner. And when he had taken bread he gave thanks and broke it, and gave it unto them saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Likewise Luc. 22. also when he had supped he took the cup saying. This cup is the new Testament in my blood, which is shed for you. With this testimony of S. Luke agreeth S. Paul thus: Hour Lord jesus, the same night that he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke 1. Cor. 11. it and said: Take ye and eat, this is my body, which is broken for you. This do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup when supper was done saying: This cup is the new testament in my blood. This do as often as ye drink it in the remembrance of me. Thus ye see first these four high scholars of Christ'S school consonantlie and agreeably reporting the doctrine of their master namely that he took bread and after he had given thanks or blessed it gave it to them, saying take, eat, this ye my Tropes and figures patched to Christ'S words excluded. body. Of the which ye see not one making any one title or mention of tropes figures, or fignifications, which the Aduersurie would patch unto this text to confownde the saying, and meaning of christ, and to shadow his great mercy and love toward us, in leaving unto us so high a mystery, us a pledge of his great love to hour endless consolation and comfort. Where than have they these their tropes, what ground have they for them? In deed they have none. But now to confirm this doctrine of these scholars of christ, S. john a great scholar of the same school doth make an invincible proof. For he reporting the promiss of christ, that he would give unto his Apostles a bread that should be his flesh, even the same flesh that he would give for the life of the world, uttereth the same simply and plainly. Which promiss was fullsilled no else where, but in the last supper when he said. Take, eat, this is my body, wherefore these words, this is my body, are simply and plainly out tropes and figure so to be understanded, as they may answer the pmesse. As for the understanding of these words of the promiss and the rest The sixth of S. John being understanded of the body and blood of christ, the words of the supper must of necessity be so likewise. adjoined to the same in the sixth of S. john, it is already made evident, that they are to be understanded of Christ'S very body and blood. And for that, that process must and is necessarily so understanded, of like necessity must these words of christ be so understanded. For S. Augustine, chrysostom and diverse other testify one thing to be spoken of in the sixth of S. john, and in the last supper. Wherefore as the sixth of S. john speaketh without tropes and signs, of the very body and blood of christ: So also do these words of the supper of christ. It maketh also an evident proof for this purpose that S. Paul, who taught the Corinthians the use of the supper of our Lord, did never teach them that it was but a figure of the body of our Lord, but simply that it was the body of our Lord. The proof of this is easy, for he taught them none otherwise than he wrote to them, He wrote none other meeninge or understanding of the words of christ, but even as they were of christ, spoken, which was without trope or figure, wherefore S. Paul taught them without trope or figure. It is not like that so worthy an Apostle and teacher would in so perilous a matter (where on the one side, if Christ'S presence be not there, Idolatry might by occasion of the words sounding as they do, soon be committed, and on their side, if the presence of Christ'S body as the words do sound, be verily there, negligence in omitting of duty might be admitted, it is not like (I say) that he would leave a matter of weight and peril undeclared and not opened. Wherefore sithen he so taught and wrote the words of christ in no other sense than they were of christ spoken, it doth well follow that they must be so understanded. They were spoken of christ without any trope or figure, wherefore it appeareth that of S. Paul they were understand whithoute trope or figure. That the words of christ are to be understanded without trope or figure The fame among insidests of the christian religion in the primitive Church, proveth the presence. not only the faith of Christ'S Church, which shall be hereafter declared, but also the fame grounded upon the same faith spread throughout among the infidels and heathen in the primitive Church doth well prove it. It is not unknown to such as have travailed in the histories that the christians were much hated and abhorred, for that they were famously reported to eat the flesh of men, and of children. And being so reputed, were with more cruelty sought, and drawn to torments, and martyrdom. Among the which the holy woman and constant Martyr Blandina, said to them that were about her: Multum erratis, o viri, quòd putatis infantum usceribus vesci eos, qui ne brutorum quidem animaliü Euseb. li. 5. cap. 2. Blandina. carnibus utuntur. Ye are deceived, o ye men, that ye think them to eat the bowels of children, which use not to eat the flesh of brute beasts. Attalus also being sore tormented, when he saw the people delighted with the smell Jbid. cap. 3. Attalus. of his flesh being roasted, said unto them. Ecce, hoc est hommes comedere, quod vos facitis, quod à nobis velut occult● inqniritis facinus, quod vos aperta luce committius. This Lo that you do, is to eat men, which as a secret wickedness ye enquiere among us, which ye commit in the open light. Lib. de passione eius quem scripserunt presbyteri & Diacones Achaia. The heathen, as it is supposed, knowing the Christians to assemble, and hearing that in those assembles they did eat the flesh of a man, and not knowing the mystery, suspected that they killed either men or children for that purpose, when in deed they eat the flesh of christ. Who (as saint andrew said) when his veryflesh is eaten of the people, and his blood drunk: yet doth he still remain whole and sound undefiled, and alive. It prooneth well also this fame, that Auerrois the Philosopher saith of the christians: Mundum peragravi, varias sectas inveni, & runquam tam fatuam repperi sectam, sicut est secta Christianorum. Quoniam Deum suum, quem colunt, devorant dentibus. I have walked over the world, I have found diverse sects, and yet did I never find so foolish a sect as the sect of the christians. For they devour with their teeth, whom they honour as God. It was known to all the world, that the Christians honoured christ as their God. Wherefore it is easy to perceive, that the fame was that they received and eat christ. And uless as the heathen reputed christ but as a very man, and were ignorant of that great mystery of the conjunction of the Godhead and manhood in unity of person in christ, they said that the christians did eat the flesh of man. By which voice other some, as in a multude it often happeneth, mysunderstanding it, and taking it absolutely, reported the christians as before is said, that they did eat secretly the flesh of men and children. With this suspicion it is not unlike that the jew was led of whom S. Amphilochius maketh mention: who being desirous to search and know S. Amphil. in vita Basilij. the secret mysteries of the Christians, at the time that S. Basille should go to the holy ministration, feigning himself a Christian, entered among the christians, and when the Sacrament was broken by the hands of S. basil, A jew induced to be a Christian by a miracle of the Sacramit. he saw them a child divided, and when with other he came to the communion, the Sacrament delivered unto him was made flesh, and the cup was full of blood, of which both reserving some token, he went home and showed it to his wife, and for declaration told her what he had seen with his eyes. Whereupon belcuing the mysteries of the christians to be marvelous and wonderful, the next day he came to S. basil, and desired to be baptized, and made a Christian. Thus we may perceive, that the works of God be great and marvelous, who unto this jew but suspecting the Christians to eat flesh and drink blood in their mysteries made it such to him as he suspected it to be and to appear such to his seight as it was covertly to other in very deed. But he saw it with his bodily eye for his instruction, that the true Christian seeth with his faithful eye to his salvation. But to return to our first matter, so great was the fame that the christians did eat man's flesh in their mysteries, that to deliver them from the envy that was conceived, against them for the same justinus the holy martyr was enforced in his apology made unto Antonius Pius to reveil and declare unto him all the whole order of the mysteries of the Christians, and what was their faith therein, which thing was not used in those days to be declared to any profane man and infidel, but always kept secret, so moche as it might be. And yet upon this enforcement this justinus declared the matter so plainly, as no man of his ancienty to such men more plainly, as shortly here after ye shall perceive. As these things then hitherto said do prove by the same that christ is present in the Sacrament, and so consequently that the words of christ, have been and so ought to be understanded in their proper sense without trope or figure: So would I wish them of all Christians in these days to be received. And as by these things we may be moved. So by other reasons we may from the contrary understanding be dissuaded. Among many of which I will bring but one or two, that Rupertus doth make and the first is this. Nun joannes evangelista dicit in Apocalipsi: Si quis apposuerit ad haec, apponet super illum Rupert. li. 6. in Joan. Apoca. 22. Deus plagas scriptas in libro isto. Et si quis diminuerit de verbis prophetiae libri huius, auferet Deus partem eius de ligno vitae, & de civitate sancta, & de ijs quae scripta sunt in libro isto? Nunquid minùs timenda est hic illa maledictio, ut non detrahamus, vel apponamus quidquam verbis dicentis, Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur: Hic est sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur, in remissionem peccatorum? Cùm enim illo dicente: Hoc est corpus meum, nos subauditionem apposuerimus dicentes, figuratiwm, vel per similitudinem dictum: Cùm inquam illo dicente: Hoc est corpus meum, nos dixerimus, hoc signisicat corpus meum, nun multum est quod apponimus, vel prava demutatione detrahimus, & sensum generamus, quem tantus Author Deus & homo nusquam est locutus, nec ascendit unquam in cor eius? Doth not the Evangelist john say in the Apocalypse: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues, that are written in this book. And if any man shall minish of the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life and out of the holy To the words of God may nothing be added nor diminished city, and the things which are written in this book? Is this malediction or curse less to be feared here, that we diminish not or put any thing to the words of him that said: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many in the remission of sins? For when he saith: This is my body: we shall putto an understanding, saying a figurative body, or that it is spoken by a similitude, when I say, he saith. This is my body: we shall say this signifieth my body, is it not much that we putto his words, or by an evil change take from them, and make a sense, which so great an Author God and man, in no place hath spoken, neither at any time did it ascend in to his heart? Thus Rupertus. This is the first reason of this Author, which if it be well weighed, and the thing well considered, how moche we by figures, tropes, and significations, do alter and change, how moche we putto in words and diminish in substance, how the exposition denieth, that the text affirmeth: we have good cause to fear the malediction of God spoken by S. john, who beareth not such expositions denying what he hath said, nor such gloss confownding his text. Wherefore we may well be dissuaded from such expositions, or rather depravations, and the rather that their is no warrant to bear us so to expownde these words of christ, as of the circumstance of the place may be perceived, which this Author useth as an other reason to move us not so to understand Christ'S words of his supper as the Adversary doth expound them. And thus he saith. Cùm obijcit quis suisue scriptitat in sedulis, quod itidem dixerit eadem veritas. Ego sum vitis, tam audacter, quam imperitè in argumentum mendosum illud attrahit, cum statim subsequentia verba dicentist Sicut palmes non potest ferre fructum à semetipso nisi manserit in vite: sic nec vos nisi in me manseritis, manifestè per similitudinem compellant intelligi, praesertim cùm non signanter dixerit: Ego sum haec vitis: sicut signanter dixit, Hoc est corpus meum, hic est sanguis meus, apposita protinus descriptione verae proprietatis, de corpore inquiens, quod pro vobis tradetur, de san guine autem, qui pro multis effundetur. Igitur ne veniant super nos plagae novissimae, neque apponimus, neque diminuimus quicquam divinae definitioni, vel descriptioni, quam incarnatum Verbum ore proprio deproinpsit. Imo quia perfecta charitas foras mittit timorem, non tam plagarum timore, qunm veritatis amore, confitemur, quia panis iste corporeus, postquam signauerit eum Pater, & vinum hoc expressum acinis praesentibus mox ut eodem signo signatum est per manus ecclesiae dicentis: ut nobis corpus & sanguis fiat dilectissimi filii tui, Domini nostri jesu Christi, etc. usque in memoriam mei facietis: corpus & sanguis eius, qui huius traditionis author est, & hoc sacrisicium ipse Christus est, cuius passione ut sacrificium fieret à Deo Patre in veritate signatum est. When one objecteth, and writeth it also in his books even as boldly as unlearned These words I am a vine. joan. 15. are proved by the circumstance to be a similitudi. lie that the same truth (meaning christ) saith also, I am a vine: he draweth it into a false argument, seeing that the words immediately following of him saying thus: As the branch can bear no fruit of himself, except he abide in the vine: So neither can you except ye abide in me: Do manifestly enforce that saying to be unde by a similitude, specially for that he did not with a singular demonstration sat: I am this vine: as with a singular demonstration he said: This is my body, this is my blood: Whereunto forthwith he put the description of the true property of each of them, of the body saying: which shall be delivered for you, of the blood also, which shall be shed for many. Therefore that these later plagues come not upon us, we neither diminish, nor put to any thing to the divine definition or description, which the Son of God incarnate hath spoken or uttered with his own mouth. But raither, because perfect charity casteth our fear, not so much for the fear, as for love of truth we do confess, that this bodily bread, after the Father hath blessed it, and this wine pressed out of these present grapes, as soon as it is blessed by the hands of the church saying: that it may be made to us the body and blood of thy most beloved some jesus christ, and so forth until ye come to these words, ye shall do it in the remembrance of me, that it is the body and blood of him, who is the Author of this tradition, and that this sacrifice is christ himself, by whose passion it was blessed of God the Father in very deed, that it might be made a sacrifice. Thus far he. Two things I think, good gentle Reader, in this reason of this Author to note to thee: The one is that where the Adversary bringeth forth certain places of the scripture, which be understand by tropes: as where christ saith: I am a vine, I am the door, and such like, thereby to prove that these words of christ. This is my body: should so be understand also (which in deed proveth nothing) this Author declareth that the circumstance of these places, doth compel us so to understand them, as in the opening of this text: I am a vine, he hath declared. So this scripture also: I am the door, the words of christ immediately following teach us that they are to be understand by Joan. 10. a similitude, for straight way he saith: By me who soever entereth he shall be saved, and shall go in, and go out, and find food. So that we have Christ'S own warrant Wilful or natural reason is no sufficient warrant always in the court of faith. so to understand them. But to understand the words of Christ'S supper in like manner, view the place, ye shall find no title in the text, to cause it to bear the adversaries sense. So that they have no other warrant but wilful and natural reason, which warrant is not always sufficient and aloweable in the court of faith. Wherefore as these scriptures be to be understanded by a trope, because the circumstance there so teacheth: So are the other words in their proper sense to be understanded, because the circumstance so teacheth. For declaration of which matter, I may divide the second note into two parts. The one is, to note the enunciation of both scriptures. For though christ said, I am a vine: yet he did not particularly take a branch of a vine, and say, I am this vine, or this vine is my body: but used the general word, and said I am a vine. But speaking of the mystery of his body, he did not use that manner of speech, saying, I am bread, which manner of phrase may seem well to bear a trope, if any circumstance had been adjoined to declare and open the same: But leaving the general word of bread, and particularly taking a piece of bread in his hands, and blessing, and giving thanks, said with a particular and special demonstration: This is my body. As these two propositions spoken of an old man. I am a child, and by special demonstration to this child saying: This is my child: have a great difference. The first I am a vine: and this is my body be no like speeches. being spoken by a similitude, for that reason wit understanding and senses being decayed in him, he may say. I am a child, that is, like a child, The other being spoken of his own child, and importing not a similitude, but a natural substance of him in the child: So these propositions: I am a vine, and this is my body: have great difference: The one being spoken by a similitude because christ is like a vine: The other by certain demonstration of substance, for that that christ made demonstration unto was his very substance. The second part of the note is that the circumstance of the scripture rejecting figures, and tropes doth mightily prove the sense of that place to be proper, and not figurative or tropical. For the property (saith he) appear tein●ng to the body (which can not be applied to the figure) is forthwith added, which is that the thing is there, which shanll be delivered for many. And that is in the cup, which shall shed in the remission of sins, which can be nothing else, but the body and blood of christ. Who only gave his body to be crucified, and his blood to be shed for hour redemption. Thus than ye perceive that these words of christ: This is my body: were spoken of him without the putting to of any trope, figure or sign. They This is my body no figurative speech. are left to us written by the three holy Evangelists, whithoute any mention of trope or figure. They were so taught by S. Paul to the Corinthians, and afterward so written. The promiss of christ, wherein he said: The bread, which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world, was plainly whithoute any trope spoken. It is so reported of the Evangelist S. john. It is so expounded of all the ancient doctors, and so showed what the words be, teaching the performance of that promiss. Ye perceive also the fame of the communion of the christians among the infidels to be not by a figure of flesh, but by very flesh in deed. Ye perceive among Chrystians' the belief of the Sacrament, to be the flesh of christ, to be so commonly received and believed, that young babes in those days could speak it. Ye perceive that it is not lawful for us to put to, or to take away from the word of christ. For if we do, we fall into the danger of God's malediction, and other plagues. All these considerations, and many more show unto us that we should take the words of christ, as they be of him spoken: if ye put to any of these words, Signum or figura, Token or figure, is not that put to that christ spoke not? and do ye not so fall into the danger of God's plagues? Over and beside this ye perceive that the circumstance of the scripture refuseth tropes and figures and enforceth to accept the proper sense only. Wherefore Christian Reader, beware of that flattering countenance and deceitful lying of the old serpent Satan: fly the hissing of the vipers: be not carried away with light credit, as our first parents were thereby to credit the devil, and discreditte God. But know the one to be thy enemy, and fear him: know the other to be thy Lord God, thy Saviour and Redeemer, and embrace him, Of the which matter hark farther to the godly saying of Rupertus: Accipe, inquit, & comedite, Hoc est corpus meum. Et alibi Qui manducat carnem meam, & bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet & ego in eo. Cùm haec dicit agnus Dei, oportunè nobis ad memoriam recurrit illud: quod dixit serpens, imo per serpentem Diabolus, hostis bumani generis. Accipite & comedite, & eritis sicut dij. Optimae, & spectabiles valdè propositiones. Ille serpens erat: iste agnus est. Ille vetus peccator, iste anticut creator. Ille spiritu Diaboli falsum sibilans. iste spiritu Dei verum evangelizaus. Ille de ligno non suo raptor optulit: Iste de corpore & sanguine suo largitor dedit. Ille quod non habebat mendaciter promisit, eritis (inquiens) sicut dij: Iste quod habebat, quod semper naturaliter habet, fideliter dedit ut simus dij, dum manet ipse in nobis: Illi tandem nephandissimè creditum est plusquam Deo: Credatur è contrario buic Deo, si non plus, at saltem quantum creditum est illi Diabolo, Creditum est enim, quod illi pomo inesset, quod non videbatur, scilicet vis deos efficiendi: Credatur buic Sacramento inesse quod non videtur, videlicet, veritas carnis & sanguinis, valens efficere nos corporales Vnigenito filio Dei. Hoc enim ratio vel ordo, justitiae exposcit. Accipite ergo (inquit) & comedite. Accipere est fideliter credere, cum gratiarum actione diligere, compatienti affectu corporis huius traditionem, & sanguinis huius effusionem respicere. Hoc fieri non potest, nisi priùs reijciaturid, quod ab illo malè acceptum est. Illud igitur mendacium execrantes, hanc veritatem accipite, approbate, amplectimini, & contra cibum mortis, panem comedite vitae eternae & calicem bibite salutis perpetuae. He saith (meaning christ) take Conference of Christ'S words and the serpents. and eat, this is my body, and in an other place: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. When the lamb of God saith these things it cometh in due time to our memory, that the serpent said, or raither by the serpent, the Devil, the enemy of man kind: Take and eat, and ye shall be as Gods. Goodly and very notable propositions. He was a serpent: this is a lamb. He an old offender: this an ancient creator. He by the spirit of the devil hissing out an untruth: this by the spirit of God preaching a truth. He a theeif gave of the fruit that was not his: This a right giver, gave of his own body and blood. He falsely promised that that he had not, ye shall (saith he) be as Gods: This truly gave that he had, which always naturally he hath, that is, that we may be Gods, forsomoche as he dwelleth in us. Unto him never the less most wickedly was given more credit than to God: Unto this contrary wise let credit be given being God, if not more, yet at the least as much creditte as was given to the Devil. For it was believed, that to be in that apple which was not sein, that is to say, power to make Gods: Let it be believed to be in the Sacrament, that is not seen, that is to say, the verity of the flesh and blood of christ, able to incorporate us to the only begotten Son of God. Thus moche reason, or order of justice doth require. Take therefore, saith he, and eat. To take is faithfully to believe, with thanks giving To take Christ'S body, what it is. to love, with a compatient affection to behold the deliverance of this blood. This can not be done, except that be rejected, that of the enemy was evil received. Detesting therefore that lie, receive, approve, and embrace this truth, and against the meat of death, eat ye the bread of everlasting life, and drink the cup of everlasting salvation. Thus being by this good Father admonished of the true understanding of Christ'S words, I will now make the same plain before thine eyes by the testimony of a number of holy Fathers, to the which, good Reader, I pray thee give good heed. THE THREE AND fortieth CHAP. BEGINNETH to prove the understanding of Christ'S foresaid words not to be figurative by the authority of the Fathers. And first by Alexander and Instinus. FOrsomoche as the misunderstanding of the words of the supper of christ hath and doth maintain great and lamentable contention among such as profess Christ'S name, and the right understanding of the same aught to be the occasion of the restitution of peace, and concord: Let it not grieve thee (gentle Reader) though I tarry somewhat long upon this text, in producing many holy Fathers of Chrysts school. who shall teach us how these words, This is my body, were there taught to be understanded, and thereby shall do us to wit, what is the enacted truth of Christ'S Parliament house, as touching this matter now among Christian men in controverfie. For the plain declaration whereof I shall produce many of the eldest Fathers, and few I trust, that do treact of these words, being of any fame or authority shall be omitted. And for a special note to discern the truth from falsehood, the scholars of christ from the scholars of Satan, and the grave and constant stayed Senators of Christ'S Parliament house, from the light, and vavering whisperers of the Conciliables of Satan: Mark and note well that as in the one and fourteth chap. ye have pceaved, the sects of Satan are merueillouslie dissected, and by great and fowl contention among themselves divided: So shall ye perceive that Christ'S disciples are united all of one mind all of one understanding, all speaking one thing in full peace and perfect concord: Remember that the high scholars and chief noble men of Christ'S Parliament honse (I mien the four evangelists and S. Paul) so agree that among them there is no one title spoken of the adversaries tropes and figures: but every one of them testify the matter plainly, leaving the words in their proper sense. So shall ye see all this noble company of Fathers do. Let us then in Christ'S name hear them utter, what is the enacted truth of the understanding of Christ'S words. Although there are right ancient Fathers, that do very no tablie declare, and testify the presence of Christ'S body and blood in the Sacrament, as Martialis the disciple of christ: Ignatius the disciple of S. john the evangelist, Dionysius Arcopagita, the disciple of S. Paul, with diverse other: yet the eldest that I find after the Evangelists and S. Panle, treacting of the words of christ are Alexander and justinus, of the which although Alexander be the elder: yet for that by him occasion is given to speak of some matter more at large, I shall first produce justinus. This holy martyr, for answer and defence of the christians, who were slandered, that they should eat man's flesh, wrote to the Emperor Antonius Pius, and among other things declareth what is the religion of the christians about the Sacrament, and what faith they were taught to have of it and saith thus: Cùm autem is qui priest gratias egerit, & totus populus approbaverit high qui vocantur apud nos Diacom distribuunt unicuique praesentium, ut participent de pane Justin. Apolog. 2. in quo gratiae actae sunt, & de vino & aqua, & ijs qui non sunt presentes deferunt. Atque hoc alimentum apud nos vocatur Eucharistia. De quo nulli alij participare licitum est, nisi qui credit vera esse, quae docentur à nobis, et qui lavacro in remissionem peccatorum & in regenerationem lotus est. & sic vivit, sicut Christus tradidit. Neque ut communem panem & commune poculum haec suscipimus: sed quemadmodum per verbum Dei incarnatus jesus Christus, Seruator noster, & carnem & sanguinem habuit: Sic & verbi sui oratione, consecratum gratiarum actione alimentum, ex quo caro nostra, & sanguis per transmutationem aluntur, ipsius incarnati jesu Christi & carnem, & sanguinem esse edocti sumus. Apostoli enim in commentarijs suis quae evangelia vocantur, sic ipsis praecipisse tradiderunt. Cùm accepisset panem, gratijs acts, dixisse: Hoc facite in mei commemorationem, Hoc est corpus meum. Et poculum similirer cum accepisset, & gratias egisset, dixisse: Hic est sanguis meus, & solis ipsis impartisse. When the priest hath ended his thanks giving, and all the people have said Amen, they whom we call Deacons distribute to every one then present to be partakers of the bread, wine, and water consecrated, Bread, wine and water consecrated in the primitive church and carry part to them that be absent. And this is the food which among us is called Eucharistia. Whereof it is lawful for no man to be partaker, except he believe those things to be true, that be taught us: And be baptized in the water of regeneration in remission of sins, and so liveth as christ hath taught. For we do not take these as common bread and wine: but like as jesus christ our Saviour incarnated by the word of God had flesh and blood for our salvation, Even so we be taught that the food (wherewith our flesh and blood be nourished by alteration) when it is consecrated by the prayer of his Bread and wine after consecration be the body and blood of Chryst. word to be the flesh and blood of the same jesus incarnated. For the Apostles in those their books, which be called Gospels, teach that jesus did so command them, when he had taken bread, and given thanks said, Do this in my remembrance, This is my body, And likewise taking the cup when he had given thanks, said: This is my blood, and gave them to his Apostles only. Thus much holy justine. In this Author be many things worthy note. But omitting them all I shall only note that, that he is at this time alleged for, namely for the right understanding of Christ'S words in their proper sense, without figure or trope. For the which, note well that he saith, that we be taught that the food (meaning the bread, wine and water) after the consecration is the flesh and blood of jesus incarnate. He saith not that they were taught, that they were signs, tokens or figures of the flesh of jesus, neither that they be only called the flesh of jesus. Ye may then perceive what the teaching and doctrine of the primitive church was: ye may well see, that they were plainly taught that the bread wine and water, be the flesh and blood of our Saviour jesus. And herwith all note how certain this doctrine was. It was as certain, and sure, as the mystery of the incarnation of christ. For (saith this Author) Doctrine of the real presence as certain as the incarnation to the primitive church. Like as jesus christ our Saviour incarnated by the word of God, had flesh and blood for our salvation: Even so we be taught, the bread wine and water, after the consecration, to be the flesh and blood of the same jesus. Weigh this (gentle Reader) and mark these words well that even as we be taught as a principle of our faith, to believe that jesus christ in his incarnation had flesh and blood: even so we be taught the food of the holy Sacrament to be the flesh and blood of the same jesus. But how doth this Author prove that this doctrine was so taught? By this proof. For the Apostles (saith he) in their works, which they call Gospels do teach, that our Lord jesus so commanded them, saying (when he had taken bread and given thanks) do this in the remembrance of me. This is my body. And likewise taking the cup, when he had given thanks said: This is my blood. In this proof of this Author there be two things to be noted. The one against the blasphemous reproach of the Adversaries and this Proclaimer, Real presence plainly avouched by Justinus. which say that it is an invention of the papists to teach Christ'S flesh and blood to be in the Sacrament. But this Author saith, that the Apostles taught that our Saviour jesus did command them so to do. So thar it is his commandment and tradition, an not the papists invention, but if they will account jesus christ for this his so doing to be a papist, Then in deed they may say, it is the invention of a papist. The other note is for the application of the words of christ to the Sacrament. Ye have perceived that we be taught, that the food of the Sacrament is the flesh of jesus christ. Yeperceave also that the same jesus christ so commanded, as the Apostles have taught in their Gospels. But where is that commandment in the Gospels? This is the commandment. Do this in the remembrance of me. This is my body, this my blood. By these words we are commanded to do the thing. By these words we are taught what the thing is. The thing (as this author saith) is the flesh and blood of jesus christ incarnated. And this thing also he saith, we are taught by these words. Wherefore these words are to be understanded of the flesh and blood of jesus christ. Now look well upon the doctrine of christ and his primitive Church: compare them to the doctrines of the catholic Church that now is, and see if they be not agreeable: Try if they be not all one. christ saith, after Doctrine of the primitive church, and the church since and now compared. he had blessed the bread and the wine: This is my body, This is my blood. This Author saith, that they were taught in the primitive Church, that the bread and wine with water, after consecration be the flesh and blood of jesus incarnated: The catholic Church, that hath been, and now is, teacheth that the bread and wine on the Altar after the consecration be the body and blood of christ. Would ye desire any more agreement? would ye desire any better concord? And where the Proclaimer requireth any one ancient Author that teacheth plainly Christ'S very real presence, would he have any plainer speech, A plain place for M. Juell. then that which he impugneth in us? This Author saith that, that we say, and speaketh as plainly as we speak, as by the conference of both a child may perceive. Let the Proclaimer then be a shamed of his rash proclamation, and with mature and sober beliberation and judgement let him agnize the doctrine of the primitive Church, and so shall he confess with us the real presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, which now wickedly he hath impugned. But here is not be overpassed the exceeding craft and untruth of Cranmer, one of the Fathers of this Proclaimer in the corrupting, falsieng, and Cranmer falsifieth and abuseth justin. abusing of this Author justinus. And that it shall not be laid to my charge that I misreport him. I will faithfully ascribe his, words as they be written in his book. Thus he writeth. justinus a great learned man, and an holy Martyr the eldest Author that this day is known to write any treactice upon the Sacraments, and wrote not moche after one hundredth years after Christ'S ascension. He writeth in his Lib. 2. ca 5 second Apology, that the bread, water and wine in this Sacrament are not to be taken as other common meats and drinks be, but they be meats ordained purposely to give thanks to God, and therefore be called Eucharistia, and be called also the body and blood of christ, and that it is lawful for none to eat or drink of them, but that profess christ, and hue according to the same, And yet the same meat and drink (saith he) is changed into our flesh and blood and nourisheth our bodies. These be his very words, and in this manner doth he report justinus. Which report how it agreeth with justinus own words, the reader by conference shall easily perceive. And therefore omitting many falsheades Two false sleights of Crammer noted in th'allegation of justin. and other faults by him here admitted, I will now touch but two, which be intolerable, and done with to much impudency. The one is that he reporteth this Author as though he should say, that the Sacrament is but called the body of christ, where this Author saith no such words But saith plainly, that the bread and wine after the consecration be the flesh and blood of jesus incarnate, and that the people were in his days so taught. The other is, the misplacing of the sentences of the author, to make them serve his purpose. For where justine saith that the food of bread, wine and water, werwith our bodies be nourished, when they be consecrated by the prayer of his word be the flesh and blood of jesus. And so before the consecration of them, he teacheth, that they be creatures meet to nourish our bodies and to that understanding doth so place them. Cranmer, or the Author of that book pleaceth them as creatures meet to nourish us after the consecration, thereby signifying, that they be but creatures of bread, wine and water after the consecration as they were before. But how falsely that is done, not only this translation, but also the translation of Petrus Nannius declareth, which for the better opening of the truth I will here also ascribe: Thus he translateth that part of justinus. Non enim ut quemuis panem, neque ut quemuis potum, ista omnia accipimus, sed quemadmodum per Petrus Nannius verbum Dei incarnatus est jesus Christus salvator noster, & carnem & sanguinem pro nostra salute assumpsu: ita quoque per preces verbi illius, cibum ex quo caro nostra et sanguis per immutationem aluntur cum bedictus fuerit, jesu ipsius incarnati, carnem et sangumendicimus esse. Neither do we take all these things, as every other bread, neither as every other drink. But even as jesus christ our saviour by the word of God was incarnated, and for our health took flesh and blood: even so have we learned that food of the which our flesh and blood by immutation are nourished, when it is blessed by the prayers of his words, to be flesh and bloodo jesus incarnate. In which translation, as in the other ye see, that the nourishment of the food, of bread, wine and water, is put before the consecration, which Cranmer untruely would place after the consecration, for the purpose before said and thereby also to deny transubstantion. But justine to declare the great work of God, wrought in and by the consecration, saith, that it is such food before the consecration as we be nourished with, but when it is consecrated, it is the flesh of jesus incarnated. The like manner of speech useth both S. Ambrose and S. Augustine, saying: Amb. li. 4. de Sac. ca 5 Plain samges for M. Juell. Antequam consecretur panis est, ubi autem verba Christi accesserint, corpus est Christi. Before it be consecrated it is bread, but when the words of christ have comed to it, it is the body of christ. S. Augustine thus: Ante verba Christi quod offertur panis dicitur: ubi Christi verba deprompta fuerint, iam non panis dicitur, sed corpus appellatur. Before the words of christ, that which is offered is Augu. de verbis Do. serm. 8, called bread: but when the words of christ are spoken, it is not now called bread, but it is called the body. Thus Reader, thou mayst see, the sleight of Cranmer and his falsifying of the holy doctors, by him. The like in diverse places of this book shalt though find proved in Oecolampadius, whom Cranmer followed, and also in this Proclaimer who followeth Cranmer. Soche and so good is the quarrel that they maintain, that without falsifying, wresting, or truncating of the holy Fathers their doctrine can have no good show, Whereof thou now being advertised, and in them the matter being well proved, trusting that it will give thee occasion to look ere though leap: I will leave justine, and call in Aleander an holy martyr, who lived not long after christ even in the time of Ignatius and Polycarpus. Thus writeth Alexander. In sacramentorum oblationibus, quae inter missarum solemnia Domino offeruntur, passio Domini miscenda est, ut eius, cuius corpus & sanguis consicitur, passio celebretur, ita ut repulsis opinionibus superstitionum, panis tantùm & Alexand. 1 epist. 1. vinum aqua permixtum in sacrificio offerantur. Non debet enim ut à patribus accepimus & ipsa ratio docet, in chalice Domini aut vinum solum, aut aqua sola offerri, Sed utrumque permixtum, quia utrumque ex latere eius in passione sua profluxisse legitur. Ipsa verò veritas nos instruit, calicem & panem in sacramento offer, quando ait: Accepit jesus panem, & benedixit, deditue Discipulis suis, dicens (Accipite & manducate: Ho est enim corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur. Similiter postquam coenavit accepit calicem, deditue Discipulis suis, dicens: Accipite & bibite exco omnes. Hic est calix sanguinis mei. qui pro vobis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Crimina atque peccata, oblatis ijs Domino sacrificijs delentur. Idcirco & passio eius in iis commemoranda est, qua redempti sumus, & saepius recitanda, & haec Domino offerenda. Talibus hostijs delectabitur, & placabitur Dominus, & peccata dimittet ingentia. Nihil enim in sacrificijs maius esse potest quàm corpus & sanguis Domini. Nec ulla oblatio hac potior est, sed haec omnes praecellit Quae pura conscientia Domino offerenda est, & pura mente sumenda, atque ab omnibus veneranda. Et sicut potior est caeteris, it a potiùs excoli & venerari debet. In the oblations of the Sacraments, which in the solemn doings of the Masses be offered, the passion of our Lord is to be intermeddled, that the Mass. passion of him, whose body and blood is consecrated, may be celebrated, so that, the superstitions of opinions repelled, only bread and wine mixed with water may be offered. For there aught not (as we have received of our Fathers, Neither wine alone nor water alone aught to be offered in the sacrifice and also reason it self doth teach) either wine alone, or water alone to be offered in the cup of our Lord: but both mixed together, because it is red that both in the time of his passion did flow out of his side. The very truth it self doth teach us to offer bread and wine in the Sacrament, when he taking the bread, and blessing it said: Take ye and eat, This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. Likewise when he had supped, he took the cup, and gave it to his disciples, saying: Take ye, and drink ye all of this: For this is the cup of my blood, which shall be shed for you in remission of sins. These sacrifices being offered to our Lord, crimes and offences are wiped away. Therefore his passion also by the which we are redeemed, is in these to be remembered, and often to be recited, and it also is to be offered to our Lord. For with such sacrifices Among all sacrifices none of more estimation than the body and blood of our Lord. our Lord will be delighted, and appeased, and will forgive great sins. Among all sacrifices nothing can be of more estimation than the body and blood of christ. Neither is there any oblation more worthy. But this doth precel all. Which is to be offered to our Lord with a pure conscience, and with a pure mind to be received of all, and woourshipped. And as it is more worthy than other: Even so it aught more worthily to be honoured and woourshipped. Thus far Alexander. Who alleging the words of christ: This is my body. And this is my blood, doth by other his words therewith declare that they are not to be understanded by figure or trope: but in their proper sense. And among many notes, that may here be made, I will take, but three to prove the same. Threenetes plainite unp●gning three articles of the Proclaimer. The first is that he confesseth the presence of Christ'S body, and blood in the Sacrament, for that he agreeably to holy justine, who said that the bread and wine after the consecration be the body and blood of jesus incarnated: He, I say, agreeably saith, that the body and blood of him is in the Mass consecrated. Whose passion is there celebrated. The passion of christ Real presence avouched. is in the Mass celebrated wherefore his body and blood be there consecrated: Who soever confesseth Christ'S body to be consecrated on the altar, confesseth that consecration to be done by these words of christ: This is my body, etc. Wherefore who soever confesseth such consecration, confesseth the words to be underdanded without figure and trope. This Author confesseth such consecration. Wherefore he confesseth such understanding. And here by the way note, that this ancient old Author hath that manner of phrase and speech that the catholic Church at this day useth, namehe when he saith: that the body and blood of Crhyst be consecrated in the Mass, and not the manner of speech of the Adversary, saying that it is made a sacramental bread, a figure, sign, or token of Christ'S body. He hath no such word, no more hath any one of all these fathers, and holy doctors, that shall be alleged in that sense and understanding, that the Adversary most untruly blustereth abroad. And yet every learned catholic man confesseth the Sacrament to be a figure but such a figure as denieth not the real presence of christ. The second note to prove the words of christ to be understand without figure, is that alleging these wooordes, This is my body, This is my blood: Sacrifice propitiatory avouched. immediately he saith: By these sacrifices offered offences and sins be wiped away, by which words calling those things, which christ before spoke of in the words of the Supper, sacrifices, and that such sacrifices, as put away sins, and we have no sacrifice to put away sins, but the Sacrifice of Christ'S body and blood. It is more than manifest, that the understandeth the words of christ in theirpropre sense of the body and blood of christ, and not of the figure of his body, for that is no sacrifice to put away sins. That he calleth the body and blood of christ in the Sacrament of the altar, sacrifices, the words following in the same process do well prove and declare, when he saith: Nihil in sacrificijs maius esse potest, quàm corpus & sanguis Domini. Among the sacrifices there is nothing greater, than the body and blood of our Lord, And that he speaketh this of the sacrifice and oblation of Christ'S body and blood in the Sacrament of the altar, it is made certain by the words that do follow, which be these: Nulla oblatio potior est, sed haec omnes praecellit, quae pura Domino conscientia offerenda est, & purament Sacrament of the altar is a sacrifice. sumenda. There is no oblation worthier than this, but this excelleth all other, which is to be offered to our Lord with a pure conscience, and to be received with a pure mind. Among the christians there is no sacrifice to be offered, and with pure mind to be received, but the sacrifice offered on the altar. And thus of necessity it followeth, that this Author granteth the presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, and that it is a sacrifice, and that the words of Christ'S supper are to be understanded without figure. The third note is, that when he had taught that the sacrifice must be Adoration of the Sacrament avouched. offered with a pure conscience, and received with a pure mind, he teacheth also that it must be woourshipped and honoured, and that with no low degree of worship and honour, but as this sacrifice (saith he) doth precel all: so it is above all to be honoured. By which doctrine it may appear, that if the thing of the sacrifice doth excel all other, and ysabove all other to be honoured, and the only sacrifice of Christ'S body and blood excelleth all other is to be honoured: that then that blessed body and blood are there present to be honoured, where they be offered. They be offered where they be received, they be received in the Sacrament, wherefore they are to be honoured in the Sacrament. Now when all this disputation of this holy Father is granted upon these words of christ: This is my body, this is my blood: it can not be but that these words of christ, must be understanded simply and plainly in their proper sense with out figure or trope. And thus to conclude for these two great seniors of Christ'S school and Parliament house: ye perceive that they use Christ'S words in their proper sense. And also thereupon testify to us the enacted truth of Christ'S very presence in the holy Sacrament, which is the chiefest matter here sought. THE FOUR AND fortieth CHAP. BY occasion of the words of Alexander treateth of the adoration and honouring of Christ'S body in the Sacrament. But occasion being given by this holy Father Alexander to speak of the adoration of Christ'S body in the Sacrament: I can not overpass somewhat more to say of it, to the confutation of the most impudent and blasphemous untruth spoken and uttered by this proclaimers words against adoration recited and confuted. Proclaimer, for thus he saith: christ that best knew, what aught to be done herein, when he ordained, and delivered the Sacrament of his body and blood, gave no commandment, that any man should fall dowen to it, or woourshippe it. S. Paul that took the Sacrament at Christ'S hand, and as he had taken it, delivered it to the Corynthians, never willed adoration or godly honour to be given unto it. The old doctors and holy Fathers of the Church S. Cyprian, S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, S. Hierom, S. Augustine, and others that received the Sacrament at the Apostles hands, and as it may be thought, continued the same in such sort, as they received it, never make mention, in any of all their books of adoring or woourshipping of the Sacrament. It is a very new devise, and as it is well known, came but lately into the Church, oboute three hundredth years past, Honorius then being Bishop of Rome, commanded the Sacrament to be lifted up, and the people reverently ta bow down unto it. After him Vrbanus the fourth appointed an holy feast of Corpus Christi. And granted out large pardons to the keepers of it, that the people should with the better will resort to the Church and keep it holy. This is the greatest antiquity of the whole matter, about three hundredth years ago it was first found out, and put in practice. But christ and his Apostles the holy Fathers in the primitive Church, the Doctors that followed them, and other godly and learned men what soever for the space of a thousand and two hundredth years after Christ'S ascension into heaven, this woourshipping of the Sacrament, was never known nor practised in any place within the whole catholic Church throughout the whole world. Thus much the Proclaimer. When I read these his words, I stayed as one astoined, considering that they could not proceed from any man, but either by ignorance, or else by perverse malice, that wittingly would, all shame set apparte, utter such an untruth as the mean learned, I suppose, of all the catholic Church knoweth it so to be. And the more did I marvel that it was so impudently setforth with a repetition, as therbie with much boldness to avouch the matter. Now for that the Author of the words is not unlearned, I could not ascribe them to ignorance. And considering his calling there should be in him no such perverse malice. But remembering how Macedonius, Nestorius, and diverse such other leaving the doctrine of the catholic Church and the mociou of the spirit of God in the same, and following the doctrine of private men, according to the motion of the spirit of Satan did forget their calling, and perversedlie used themselves: So likewise I perceive this man doth, the more is the pity. But that we may perceive how far wide he is from the truth, we will examen his words. His first argument is that christ never gave commandment to woourshippe the Sacrament. Ergo: it is not to be doen. To this, first I say to him, as to one exercised in schools that an argument of negatives concludeth The ngative argument of the Proclaimer concludeth nothing. nothing. But for more large declaration, to the understanding of the Reader: it is not red in the Gospel, that christ commanded any body to adore him while he here lived in the earth: it is therefore a good argument that he was not to be adored? The three wise men of the east came with their gifts, and offering them, adored the babe christ. They had no commandment of christ so to do, should they not therefore have done it? or did they offend in so doing? diverse that were cured of christ came and adored him, but not commanded of christ so to do. It is not red in the Gospels that the Apostles during their familiar conversation with christ before his passion, that they fell down and adored him. Shall we therefore frame an argument that christ in his mortal state was not to be adored, by cause the Apostles be not read to have adored him? And that Mary Magdalen, the woman of Canaan, and the Leeper that did adore him, did offend? It is a faint kind of argumentation. I will in like manner reason with this disputer in his own kind of disputation: christ gave the Sacrament of his body to his Apostles only, and gave no commandment that all people indifferently should receive the same, as now they do, Wherefore it aught not to be doen. If this argument be good, then is his good. But the truth is, this argument is nought, and so is his, but this disputer knew well what school he was in, he was certain that there was no respondent, that presently would return his argument into his lap. I believe, he would not for shame have made such argument in a school, except it had been to have occupied the time, while he might have studied a better, or else for lack of other kind of arguments, in the matter that he impugneth, as I dare say he do the here, as it well appeareth in the process of his disputation. For the next argument is of like force, but of more untruth, this it is: S. Paul that took the Sacrament at Chrysts hand, an as he had taken it delivered it to the Corynthians never willed adoration or godly honour to be given to it. Leaving this argument, as a thing of no force to conclude that the Author The proclaimers argument out of S. Paul faileth for want of truth. thereof intendeth, let us examen the truth of it. This Proclaimer first alleging Christ'S institution, wherein he saith, christ made no mention of adoration, joineth S, Paul to it, as one receiving of christ no other order then in the ministration of christ was used, and delivered also to the Corynthians no other, nor no more than christ did, which thing how false and untrue it is S. Paul himself shall declare. S. Paul delivered to the Corynthians, that the unworthy receiver shall be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord: christ who to use the words of this Proclaimer, knew best what aught to be done when he instituted this Sacrament, gave no such law. Saint Paul giveth a rule or commandment that, a man must examine himself, and so eat of that bread: christ in the institution gave no such commandment, but raither admitting judas to the receipt of the holy mysteries whose wicked intentes and purposes were not unknown (neither was he ignorant, that he nothing examined himself) seemed to practise the contrary of that S. Paul setteth forth to be observed. Wherefore this disputer referring the manner and all other circumstances of the delivery of the Sacrament by Saint Paul to the Corinthians, to the manner and circumstances of the delivery of the Sacrament by christ in his supper, is foully deceived in his argument: taking therein, as it doth appear, an untruth for a truth, and so deceiving his Auditory, giveth them chaff for good corn. Thus ye may perceive that S. Paul delivered diverse doctrines to the Corynthians concerning the receipt of the holy Sacrament, which christ is not found by the testimony of any of the Evangelists to have delivered to his Apostles, and yet who being a Christian doubteth that it is the doctrine of God, and of our Saviour christ? In this argument this disputer also saith, that S. Paul never willed adoration, or godly honour to be given S. Paul willed adoration to be given to the Sacrament. to the Sacrament, if he speak of the word adoration, I consent unto him, for truth it is that S. Paul hath not these words: Adore the Sacrament. But if he speak of the thing? I descent from him. For that I judge to be untrue. Many things are spoken of in very deed, when the proper vocable appropriated to the same thing to signify it to a man's understanding is not spoken or uttered. As if I say: Plato was a reasonable living creature. Though I apply not the proper vocable of a man to Plato: yet to the understanding I signify as much in deed, as if I had called him a man: So though S. Paul speak not in the delivery of the Sacrament to the Corynthians, of these words, adoration or honour: yet he speaketh of the thing in deed. For when he giveth this rule: Probet seipsum homo. Let a man examen himself, and so let him It is great honour to the Sacrament to examen our selves ere we presume to receive it. eat of that bread, and drink of that cup: Doth he not will us to give most singular honour to the Sacrament? What more honour can be done, then to fee that our faith toward the Sacrament, be firm and stable, void of all sinister opinions, thinking nothing of so great a mystery, but that, that is seemly? How great an honour do we to the Sacrament also, that to receive it, we examen and search our consciences, and what we find filthy, and fowl we purify, cleanse and make clean by earnest contrition, by pure confession and humble penance. S. Augustine saith: Placuit enim Spiritui sancto, ut in honorem tanti Sacramenti in os Christiani prius Dominicum corpus intraret, quam exteri cibi. It hath pleased the holy Ad Jan. Epist. 118. Ghost, that in the honour of so great a Sacrament the body of our Lord should entre the mouth of a Christian before worldly meats. If the holine Ghost doth esteem it as done to the honour of the Sacrament, to receive it If corporal abstinence be to God's honour, much more spiritual abstinence. fasting before all meats: how much more is it to the honour of the Sacrament, that we fasting from all vices, from all horrible sins and crimes come with pure conscience hongring and thirsting righteousness, to receive in the Sacrament the Lord and giver of righteousness? If any honour be done to God by corporal abstinence or fasting, how moche more is done, by spiritual abstinence from sin? But the Adversary will say, that this honour is not done to the Sacrament, but to God, and to his grace received in the receipt of the Sacrament. Whereunto I say, that the very words of S. Paul overthroweth this saying: For S. Paul by express words speaketh of the Sacrament saying: Let a man examen himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. He saith not: Let him examen himself, and so he shall receive the grace of God, and the virtue of the merit of Christ'S passion and death. which is a matter moche and almost generally taught thorowoute all the Gospel. For what is more taught than remission of sins to true penitentes by the virtue of Christ'S passion? But here S. Paul speaketh of the Sacrament by a special manner, and therefore saith: And so let him eat of that b●ead, and drink of that cup. For more manifest proof of this, note, that S. Paul referreth the honour or dishonour, that is done by worthy or unworthy receiving, not 1. Cor. 11. Honour or dishonour done by the receiver is referred to the Sacrament by express words of S. Paul. immediately to the grace of God, or merit of Christ'S passion: But to the Sacrament, and therefore saith: Itaque quicunque manducaverit panem & biberit calicem Domini indignè, reus erit corporis & sanguinis Domini. Who soever therefore shall eat the bread, and drink the cup of our Lord unworthily, he shall be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord, so that the unworthy receiving is referred to the bread and the cup of our Lord. Wherefore it is manifest, that as the worthy or unworthy receiving is referred to the Sacrament: so is the honour or dishonour done by the same referred also to the Sacrament. Wherefore then S. Paul teaching the Christian people to examen themselves, and to prepare themselves that they may be worthy receivers of so worthy a Sacrament, taught them in that to honour the Sacrament. Unto all this, this may be added, that forasmoch as S. Paul, taught the Corynthians and by them all Christian people; the presende of christ in the Sacrament, that he might well teach them to honour him in the Sacrament. For where christ is verily present, there is no danger but the Christian may their honour him. That S. Paul teacheth the presence it shall be made manifest to you in the third book, where the scriptures of S. Paul shall be more at large handled. Wherefore to avoid prolixity I leave to speak any more of them here. But this may be said here, that uless as the words of christ, which we have now in hand do teach us the presence of christ in the Sacrament, that we may also honour christ in the Sacrament. And to conclude against this Proclaimer, ye may perceive by that, that is said, that S. Paul taught us to honour the Sacrament. THE FIVE AND fortieth CHAP. PROVETH BY the same doctors that the Proclaimer nameth, that the Sacrament is to be honoured. AFter this man had abused the scriptures to makesome show of his wicked purpose, he used his like sincerity in naming certain doctors, which doctors (as he saith) never make mention in any of their books of adoring or woourshipping of the Sacrament. To declare the truth of this man, we will first produce them, whom he hath named as making for him, and afterward some other. Among those whom he nameth Chrysostom is one. A marvelous thing to see the impudency or ignorance of this man. He nameth chrysostom as one who in his books maketh no mention of the honouring of christ in the Sacrament, and yet among all the learned Fathers that writ, there is none that maketh more often and more plain mention of that matter than he doth To bring many of his testimonies the condition of this rude book will not suffer, for it would thereby grow to great▪ Wherefore one or two places shall be brought, which shall so clearly open this matter that I believe, Reader, if marvel, that this Proclaimer durst for shame name chrysostom as one that maketh no mention of the honouring of christ in the Sacrament. In one place thus he saith. Cùm autem ille & Spiritum sanctum invocaverit, Chrys. de sacerd. li. 6. sacrisiciumue illud horrore ac reverentia plenissimum perfecerit, communi omnium Domino manibus assiduè pertractato: quaero ex te, quorum illum in ordine collocabimus? Quantam verò ab co integritatem exigemus? quantam religionem? Consideraenim quales manus illas administrantes esse oporteat, qualem linguam, quae verba illa effandat. Denique quae anima, non puriorem, sanctioremue conveniat esse animam, quae tantum illum, tamue dignum spiritum reoeperit. Per id tempus, & Angeli sacerdoti assident, & caelestium potestatum universus ordo elamores excitat, & locus Altari vicinus in illius honorem qui immolatur, Angelorum choris plenus est. Id quod credere abundè licet, vel ex tanto illo sacrificio, quod tum peragitur. Ego verò & commemorantem olim quendam audivi, qui diceret senem quendam virum admirabilem, ac cui revelationum mysteria multa divinitus fuissent detecta, sibi narrasse, se tali olim visione dignum a Deo habitum esse, ac per illud quidem tempus derepentè Angelorum multitudinem conspexisse, quatenus aspectus humanus ferre poterat, fulgentibus vestibus indutorum Altare ipsum circundantium. Denique sic capitc inclinatorum, ut si quis milites, present Rege stantes videat, id quod mihi ipse facilè persuadeo. When he (meaning the priest) hath called upon the holy Ghost, and hath perfected that sacrifice, most full of horror and reverence, when the universal Lord of all things is in his hands handled, I ask of thee, in what order of men shall we place him? how great integrity shall we require of him? how great religion or godliness? Consider also what hands those aught to be, that do ministre: What manner of tongue, that speaketh those words (meaning the words of consecration) last of all that it is meet that that soul be purer and holier than any other soul, that receiveth him so great, Angels attend upon the priest in the time of oblation, and a vision thereof showed to an old man. and so worthy a spirit. At that time the Angels also give attendance to the priest, and all the whole order of the heavenly powers singpraises, and the place nigh to the Altar, in the honour of him, that is then offered in sacrifice is full of Angels; which thing a man may fully believe, for that great sacrifice that then is doen. Truly I also did once hear a certain man reporting that an old woorshippefull man, unto whom many secrets were by God's pleasure revealed, declared unto him, that God did vouchefaif to show him such a vision, and that, at that time, as far as the sieght of man might bear it, he saw suddenly a multitude of Angels clothed in bright garments compassing the Altar about, and afterward so bowing down their heads, as if a man should see soldiers stand when the king is present. Which thing I easily believe. Thus chrysostom. In this saying easy it is to perceive, how honourably he thinketh of the Sacrament, and what honour he thinketh it of. For that the Sacrament, is so honourable, he knoweth not where to place the priest that doth consecrate it. He questioned, what hands they aught to be, that handle the universal The universal Lord of all handled by the priest. Lord of all things: What tongue that aught to be, that speaketh the mighty words of consecration: how pure that soul aught to be, that receiveth so worthy a thing, yea he acknowledgeth the Sacrament to be so honourable, that he saith that the Angels in the time of the ministration of it, do assist the priest, and attend, and for confirmation of this, he bringeth in a vision of an holy man, who saw Angels in bright garments angels honour the Sacram. stand about the Altar, and bowing down their heads to honour the Sacrament. Which thing Chrysostom saith, he did believe. If man for the ministration of the Sacrament be so honourable, if it be such as Angels do honour it, how moche aught man to honour it? That man aught to honour it, the same chrysostom in the order of the Mass by him sethfurth, by his own practice declareth, where we find his prayer, and after his prayer, his rule for the honouring of this Sacrament. Thus we read there: Qni supra unà cum Patre sedes, & hic unà nobiscum invisibiliter Chrys●an Liturg. versaris: Dignare potenti manu tua nobis impartiri impolutum corpus tuum & preciosum sangninem tuum, & per nos toti populo. Deinde sacerdos adorat, & Diaconus in eo, in quo est loco, ter secretò dicentes: Deus propitius esto mihi peccatori. Et populus similiter. Omnes cum pietate & reverentia adorant. if that sittest above with the Father, and also art with us here invisibly, vouchesaif with thy Priest deacon and all the people adored the Sacr. in Chrysaime mighty hand to give unto us thy undefiled body, and thy precious blood, and by us to all the people. This is his prayer. After this prayer he giveth this rule: Then the priest adoreth, and the Deacon also in the place, that he is in thrice, saying: God be merciful unto me sinner: And all the people likewise with godliness and reverence do adore. Perceive ye not in this saying, christ both to be above with his Father, and also here with us? See ye not the rule of chrysostom, that the priest, the Deacon, and all the people did adore before they received the Sacrament? These places might suffice to any man, that is not contentious. But that the Reader may see plenty of matter, to stay him, and to confound the Proclaimer, that so untruly reporteth of the holy Fathers we will hear one place more of Chrysostom which is this: Christus suam carnem dedit Homi l. 24 10. 1. Cor. vobis, ut ea saturemur, quo nos in sui amorem plurimum allexit. Ad eum igitur cum feruore accedamus, & dilectione quàm vehementissima ne gravius subeamus supplicium. Quanto enim maius beneficium accipimus, tanto magis puniemur, quando eo indigni apparebimus. Hoc corpus in praesepireveriti sunt Magi, & viri impij, & barbari, longo itenere confecto, cum timore et tremore plurimo adoraverunt. Imitemur igitur barbaros, nos qui caelorum cives sumus. Illi enim, cùm id praesepe, & tugurium tantùm, neque eorum quidquam, quae tu nunc intueris, viderent, summa accesserunt reverentia & horrore. Tu verò non in praesepi id, sed in Altari, non mulierem, quae in ulnis teneat, sed sacerdotem praesentem, & Spiritum per abundè super proposito diffusum sacrificio vides. Nec simplex, ut illi, corpus vides, sed et eius potentiam & omnem agnoscis administrationem, & nihil eorum quae per ipsum facta suntignoras, & diligenter initiatus es in omnibus. Excitemur, horrescamsque, & maiorem quam barbari illi prae nobis feramus pietatem. christ gave unto us his flesh, that with it we might be fed, whereby he much alleured us into his love. Let us therefore with fervency, and most vehement love, come unto him, least we suffer a more grievous condemnation. The greater benefit we take, the christ hath given us his flesh to feed upon more shall we be punished if we be found unworthy of it. This body did the wise men, and men without God, and barbarous, reverence, and woourshippe. And after they had ended a long journey with moche fear and trembling, did adore it. Let us therefore at the least follow the example of these barbarous, we that be the citizens of the heavens, for they when they saw that manger and cottage only, and did not see any of these things which thou dost now behold, they came with great reverence and horror. But thou seest not that body in the manger, but in the altar, if seest not a woman that holdeth it in her arms, but thou seest the priest present That same body on the altar that was in the manger. and the Spirit plentifully powered upon the proposed sacrifice. Neither dost though see a bare body, as they did, but thou knowest all his power and rule, and though art ignorant of nothing that is done by him. But thou art diligently instructed in all points. Let us be stirred up and fear, and let us declare a more godliness than those barbarous men. Thus moche Chrysostom. Now have we heard three testimonies of Chrysostom. In the first, we were taught his faith as touching the honouring of the Sacrament, which he saith to be so honourable, that not only men, But also Angels do honour it. In the second, he declared the practice or execution of the honouring of the Sacrament, by himself, his ministers, and his people before the receipt of the same Sacrament. In the third he giveth general exhortation to all men to do the same. And thereunto provoketh by the example of the three wise men that came to honour christ at his birth, teaching us that we honour the same body in the altar, that they did in the manger. These places being plain enough let us leave them and hear Saint Ambrose who saith thus, eupownding a verse of the Prophet David. Per seabellum terra intelligitur, per terram autem caro Christi, quam body quoque in mysterijs adoramus, quàm Apostoli in Domino jesu, ut suprà diximus, adorarunt: Neque Amb. despiritu S. li. 3. ca 12. We adore the flesh of christ in the mysteries. enim divisas est Christus, sed unus. By the footstool is understanded the earth: by the earth is understanded the flesh of christ, which now also we adore in the mysteries, which the Apostles (as before we have said) did adore in our Lord jesus: Neither is christ divided, but one. what think you (gentle Reader) doth not Saint Ambrose plainly enough testify, and teach the adoration of christ? who, that ye shall not be carried away with the wicked gloss of heretics, which to rob christ of his honour in the most holy and blessed Sacrament, say that thou must adore christ in heaven, teacheth you by express words that the flesh of christ is to be adored and honoured in the Sacrament, which he calleth the mysteries, where he affirmeth the same flesh to be, that the Apostles did adore in our Lord jesus. Now after S. Ambrose, we will hear S. Augustine, who in diverse places teacheth us to adore christ in the Sacrament. But it shall be best first to lay before you that place of Saint Augustine at the length wholly: and plainly, which this Proclaimer with sleight doth truncately, and by piece meal touch, that it might appear to his readers, and hears that that place of Saint Augustine nothing impugned his doctrine, which in deed doth plainly overthrow it. This is the whole place of Saint Augustine. Adorate scabellum pedum eius, quomam sanctum est. Sed videte fratres, quid nos iubeat adorare. Alio loco scriptura dicit: Coelum mihi sedes est, terra Aug. in Isal. 98. autem scabellum pedum meorum. Ergo terram jubet nos adorare, quia dixit alto loco quod sit scabellum Dei. Et quomodò adorabimus terram, cùm dicat apertè scriptura: Dominum Deum tuum adorabis. Et hic dicit: Adorate scabellum pedum eius? Exponens autem mihi, quid sit scabellum pedum eius, dicit: Terra autem scabellum pedum meorum. Anceps factus fam, timeo adorare terram, ne damnet me qui fecit coelmi & terram. Rursum timeo non adorare scabellum pedum Domini mei, quia Psalmus mihi dicit: Adorate scabellum pedum eius. Quaro quid sit scabellum pedum eius, & dicit mihi scriptura.: Terra scabellum pedum meorum. Fluctuans converto me ad Christum, quia ipsum quaero hic, & invenio, quomodò sine impietate adoretur terra, sine impietate adoretur scabellum pedum eius. Suscepit eium de terrae terram, quia caro de terra est, & de carne Mariae carnem assumpsis. Et quia in ipsa carne hic ambulavit, & ipsam carnem nobis manducandam ad salutem dedi●. Nemo autem carnem illam manducat, nisi priùs adoraverit, inventum est, quemadmodum adoretur tale scabellum pedum Domini, & non solùm non peccemus adorando, sed peccemus non adorando. Adore ye the footstool of his feet, for it is holy. But mark ye brethren what he commandeth us to adore? In an other place the scripture saith: Heaven is my seat, and the earth is my footstool. Then he commandeth us to adore the earth. For he hath said in an other place, that it is the footstool of God. And how shall we adore the earth. seeing the scripture openly saith: Thowe shalt adore thy Lord God. And here saith: Adore his footstool? And expowdding to me what is his footstool, he saith: The earth is my footstool. I am doubtful, I fear to adore the earth least he damn me that made heaven and earth. Again I fear not to adore the footstool of my Lord, because the Psalm saith to me: Adore his footstool. Thus waving up and down, I turn me unto christ (for I seek him here) and I find how without impiety the earth may be adored: how without The flesh born of the Virgin is given us to eat, which we must also adore or else we do offend. impiety his footstool may be adored. For he took earth of earth, for flesh is of the earth, and he took flesh of the flesh of Marie. And because he lived here in the same flesh, and the same flesh he gave us to eat to our salvation, and no man eateth that flesh, eycept he first adore it, it is perceived how such a footstool of our Lord may be adored. And we shall not only not sin in adoring it, but we shall offend in not adoring it. Thus have ye heard S. Augustine at length. If ye have marked, ye may perceive a goodly and pleasant discurse, how he trieth out the footstool of God, and how it may be adored. The footstool of God at the last he findeth to be the flesh of christ the same flesh that he here lived in, the same flesh also that he giveth us to eat: This flesh than is the footstool of God. This footstool is to be adored (saith Saint Augusten) that in heaven it aught to be adored at all times no man doubteth. But uless as the same footstool, the same flesh of christ is given us to be eaten, we must also remember our duty before we receive it, that we adore it, and honourelyt. For if we do not honour it, omitting then our duty we offend saith Saint Augustine. This flesh we receive in the Sacrament, wherefore we must honour it in the Sacrament. If Saint Augustin meant not this adoration to be done to the Sacrament, he would never have spoken of this flesh of christ as eaten in the Sacrament, but as exalted in glory, and sitting at the right hand of the Father. It is an easier way to induce us to honour a thing for that it is in heaven glorified, then for that it is here in earth received. But because this adoration of the Sacrament, was in use among Christians, and gave him light to understand the Prophet David, Therefore he spoke of it. That the adoration was in use, it appeareth in sundry places of the which I shall bring forth one or two. Saint Augustine declaring the godliness of his mother, lying in her Li. 9 confe. cap. 13. death bed, saith thus of her. Illa imminente die resolutionis suae non cogitavit corpus sunm sumptuosè contegi, aut condiri aromatibus, aut monumentum electum concupivit aut curavit sepulchrum paternum. Non ista mandavit nobis, sed tantummodò memoriam sui ad altare tuum fieri desideravit, cui nullius diei praetermissione seruierat, unde sciret dispensari victimam sanctam, qua deletum est Chirographum, quod erat contrarium nobis, qua triumphatus est hostis. She when she perceived the day of her departing to be at hand, she had no care to have her body sumptuously buried, or to be spiced with sweet spices, neither did she covet a special monument, or cared to be buried in her own country. She did not charge us with those things, but she desired, that her memory might be made at thy altar, which she without any days missing had served, from whence she knew that The mother of S. Augu. served the altar daily. holy sacrifice to be dispensed, by the which the obligation that was against us was canceled, whereby the enemy also was overcomed. Thus he. In this that Saint Augustine to the commendation of his mother before God and the world, saith, that she daily did serve the altar, I Altar. would learn of the Proclaimer, what service it was that she did, was it not the service of christ her Lord God, and redeemer that she did: yea truly: And why did she it at the altar, and not in heaven, as the Proclaimer would that we should only do? Because she knew (as Saint Augustine S. August. plain against the Proclaimer. witnesseth) that christ hour sacrifice was from thence dispensed and ministered: So where this Proclaimer denieth the presence of christ in the Sacrament, Saint Augustine confesseth that same christ to be there that canceled the writing that was against us, and so made us free. And where the Proclaimer discommendeth them and crieth out against them that honour christ in the Sacrament, Saint Augustine writeth it to the perpetual commendation and praise of his Godly mother. The Proclaimer would it should never be used. Saint Augustin declareth that his mother daily did use it. And as she, so likewise her doing argueth the use of the like honowringe and serving of christ among and Christian people. Besides this the opinion that many had of the Christian people, who, not knowing the hidden mystery of Christ'S presence in the Sacrament, The fame that the Christians did honour Ceres and Bacchus, Proveth their adoracio of the Sacr. in the Primitive Church. Cont. Fau. li. 2. cap. 13 said that they did honour Ceres and Bacchus, Gods, among the gentiles, doth prove the use of the honouring of christ in the Sacrament. For if the Christians had done no more but eat their bread and drink their wine, such report had not risen of them. But because they were perceived to honour the Sacrament therefore they were so reported. Of this same opinion, fame and report, speaketh Saint Augustin, writing against Faustus, saying: Quomodò ergo comparas panem, & calicem nostrum & parem Religionem dicis errorem longè à veritate discretum: peius desipiens quàm nonnulli, qui nos propter panem & calicem, Cererem & Liberum colere existimant? How dost though compare our bread and wine, and saest error far divided from the truth to be like religion, playing the fool worse than many, which for the bread, and the cup think us to honour Ceres and Bacchus. And again in the same place he saith: Sicut a Cerere & Libero Paganorum Dijs longè absumus, quamuis panis & calicis Sacramentum, quod ita laudastis, ut in eo pares nobis esse volueritis, nostro ritu amplectamur: ita patres nostri longè fu●runt à Saturniacis catenis, etc. As we are far from Ceres and Bacchus, the After the manner of our religion we honour the Sacr. saith S. August. Gods of the Pagans, although after the manner of our religion we honour the Sacrament of bread and wine, which ye have so praised, as in it, ye would be equal to us: Even so our Fathers were far from the bonds of Saturn, although for the time of the Prophecy, they have observed the vacation of the Sabbath. Thus the use of the honouring of the Sacrament in and before the time of Saint Augustine being perceived, we will hear one place more of him, and so for this matter end him. Thus he writeth: Edent pauperes, & saturabuntur. Quid edunt? Quod sciunt fideles. Quomodò saturabuntur? Imitando passiones Domini sui, & non sine causa accipiendo precium suum, etc. Divites quid? Etiam ipsi edunt, sed quomodò In psal. 4●. edunt? Manducaverunt, & adoraverunt omnes divites terrae. Non dixit manducaverunt, & saturati sunt: sed manducaverunt, & adoraverunt. Adorant quidem Deum, sed humanitatem nolunt exhibere fraternam. Manducant illi, & adorant: Manducant isti et saturantur, tamen omnes manducant. The poour shall eat and be satisfied. What eat they? That the faithful do know. How shall they be satisfied? In following the passions of their Lord, and taking their price not in vain. What do the rich? They also eat, but how do they eat? All the rich of the earth have eaten, and have adored. He said not, they have eaten, and be satisfied. But they have eaten and have adored. They do in deed adore God, but they will not show forth brotherly humanity. They do eat, and adore, these do eat and be satisfied: yet all do eat, hitherto he. As the scripture joineth eating and adoring together, saying: They have Eating and adoring both referred to the Sacrament eaten, and adored: So Saint Augustine, expounding the scripture, and declaring that the thing that is eaten, is our price, a thing known to the faithful (which our price, and thing known to the faithful is the body of christ) he joineth also adoration to the same. And so both by the Scripture, and by Saint Augustine, eating and adoring be referred to the Sacrament. Which thing although he doth plainly enough here setforth: yet handling the same scripture in an other place, he doth more plainly open the matter, saying: Neque enim frustra it a distincts sunt, ut de pauperibus suprà diceretur: Ad Honorae tum Epi. 129. Edent pauperes, et saturabuntur. Hic verò: Manducaverunt, et adoraverunt omnes divites terrae. Et ipsi quip adducts sunt ad mensam Christi, et accipiunt de corpore et sanguine etus: sed adorant tantùm, non etiam saturantur, quoniam non imitantur. Manducantes enim pauperem, dedignantur esse pauperes, quia Christus pronobis The poor eat and are satisfied the rich eat and adore only. passus est, relinqnens nobis exemplum, ut sequamur vestigia evis. Neither are they without purpose so distincted, that before of the poour it should be said: The poor shall eat, and shall be satisfied. And here: All the rich of the earth have eaten, and have adored. For they also are brought to the table of christ, and they receive of his body, and his blood. But they do adore only, they are not also satisfied for that they follow not. For they eating the poour man (meaning christ) they disdain to be poour. For christ suffered for us leaving us an example, that we should follow his steps. Among Christian people Saint Augustin findeth two sorts: Some Two sorts of Christian people. that be rich, that is, not leaving worldly affections, but rich in heart, not humble in spirit, not submitting themselves to the sweet yoke of christ, and yet believing, and therefore when they eat poour christ, when they receive of his body and blood they know by faith what they receive, and they adore and honour christ, whom they receive. But they are not satisfied. another sort there be, which be called poour and they contemning, at the least labouriug to suppress worldly affections not being rich in desire of heart, but poour and humble in spirit, taking their cross and so following christ, do walk under his holy yoke. These receiving poour christ, eating of his body and drinking of his blood, they do not only adore, but also they be satisfied, they are filled. For they follow christ, and their conversation declareth that the juice of this food, the grace and virtue of that blessed meat appeareth in their acts, in their deeds, in their livings, that they have well fed and be satisfied. In which two sorts of men, who saith not how Saint Augustine teacheth both the presence of christ in the Sacrament, and the adoration of the same when the Christian people receive him. Thus now ye may perceive, that even of those Authors, which the The authors named by the Proclaimer make against him. Proclaimer did name, as making no mention of adoration or woourshipping of the Sacrament in their books, ye may perceive, I say, that they make soche plain mention of it, as it not only overthroweth his pestilent doctrine, but also giveth him just occasion to rub his forehead for very shame that he should so untruly both speak and write. THE sixth AND fortieth CHAPTER, proveth by other Doctors, that the Sacrament is to be adored. I Have first in his matter of adoration produced some of these Authors, which the Proclaimer named. Now for so much as after the naming of them, by a general term, he spoke the like of other doctors, I shall also allege some of these other, that by them it may appear, that he spoke as untruely of these comprised under his general term, as he did of them, whom he rehearsed by special names. And yet marvel it is that almost any one of them should speak of the adoration of christ in the Sacrament, uless as all they universally and constantly believing christ verily and really to be in the Sacrament, did presuppose, that he should there be adored, they well understanding the scripture giving this commandment. Dominum Deum tuum adorabis. Thy Lord God shalt though adore. By the which as we be commanded to Deut. 6. honour him for that he is God: So have we commandment in the psalm 10 adore his whole person God and man, as Saint Paul to the hebrews teacheth us to understand it. Adorate eum omnes Angeli eius. Adore him all ye his Psal. 96. Heb. 1. Mat. 2. joan. 9 Mat. 15. Luc. 24. Angels. Thus they being taught, and by the doctrine of the Gospel perceiving the same by the three wise men of the east, that came from far countries, to Bethleem, by diverse also that were cured of christ, more over also by the Apostles themselves being with christ in Galilee, to be practised, and put in use, they could not otherwise take it, But where soever by faith they were taught christ to be, their to adore him. For christ is christ wheresoever, or after what manner so ever he be in heaven, or in earth, visible or invisible. Wherefore all the Christian world certainly believing christ to be verily in the Sacrament, did without all scruple adore and honour him in the Sacrament. That the Christian orb did so believe, it shall appear to you by the testimony of diverse in diverse ages. To begin at our age and so to ascend we will first hear Erasmus a man of most fame in this age. Who saith thus. Hactenus cum omnibus Christianis adorani Christum pro me passum, in Euchristia. Nec Frasmus ad Conradun Pellicanu. adli●c video quicquam cur debeam ab hac opinione recedere. Nullis humanis rationibus abduci potero, à concordi sententia Christiani orbis. Plus enim apud me valent illa quinque verba: In principio creavit Deus coelum, & terram: quàm omnia Aristotelis, caeteroruniue Philosophorum argumenta, quibus docent mundum carere iniiio. Quid autem adferunt isti, cur tan impiam tamuè seditiosam sententiam profitear? Rationes stupeae sunt: Semel sustulit carnem ne esset offendiculo. Non admirati sunt, non adoraverunt Apostoli: jubemur esse spirituales, quasi caro sit exhibita officiat spiritui. Caro est sed nullis obnoxia sensibus, & tamen hoc ipsum pignus est divinae erga nos charitatis, solatium est expectationis. Hitherto with all christian men I have in the Erasmus Rot his sentence of adoration. Sacrament adored christ that suffered for me. Neither do I yet see any thing, why I should go from this opinion. With no human reasons can I be said away from the full agreement of the Christian orb. For those five words: In the beginning God created heaven and earth: are of more weight with me, than all Aristotle's and other Philosopher's arguments, with which they teach the world to have no beginning. What do these men bring, why I should profess so wicked and so seditious a doctrine? Their reasons are frivolous. He took away his flesh that it should not be an hindrance to us: The Apostles did not wonder at it, they did not adore it: we are commanded to be spiritual, as though the flesh so given to us, as it is, should hinder us to be spiritual. It is flesh in deed, but not subject to the senses. And yet the same very thing is the pledge of the love of God towards us, and the comfort of our expectation. Thus Erasmus. Ye see now this man's profession, he adored christ in the Sacrament. Ye hear him say that all christian people did the like. Ye see that it was not a private opinion of some one country. But it was the faith and religion of the whole christian world, which can not be deceived in so weighty a matter. Ye see in this Author a constancy (which I wish to be, and would God it were in all christian men) that he would not by men's reasons be led away from that, that was fully agreed upon throughout all and so received. Note with all on the other side what judgement he hath of the Eras. Rot. his judgement of the sacramentary doctrine against adoration. contrary doctrine, which this Proclaimer setteth forth in this behalf. First he saith that he seieth nothing, why he should go from the faith of the catholic Church, as not to adore christ in the Sacrament. secondly he accounteth the doctrine of the Adversary, contrary to this, to be wicked and seditious. The reasons also (saith he) which they make to maintain their doctrine are but vain and frivolous: So that as ye see the doctrine of the Adversary wicked and seditious, not pithy, and weighty, never of all Christian people agreed upon, and received: So may ye see the catholic doctrine godly and of one sort, so substantial, and well ground that all the Christian orb hath rested upon it, and at all times, until the time of Luther and Oecolampadius, hath in all places with great consent and concord accepted it, and approved it, A good number of years, more than four hundreth before Erasmus, was Algerus, who also testifieth that the presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, was received of all the catholic Church, and so believed. Thus writeth he: Idem quod Christus de veritate corporis sui testatur, & Petrus Algerus. & (quia pro alijs loquebatur) cum eo & alij Apostoli. Quid ergo de veritate corporis & sanguinis Christi in Sacramento dici potest certiùs, nisi fortè eam ipsam oculis videre velimus? In quo tamen nec ipse Dominus nobis deesse voluit, sed modicae fidei nostrae per omnia consuluit. Quamuis enim ipsius Christi & tot sanctorum testimonijs & universalis etiam Ecclesiae catholica fide, quae ab initio conversionis suae ita credidit, & ita saluata est, sufficienter astructum sit, quòd vera Christi caro verusue sanguis in mensa Dominica immmoletur, ne quis tamen perversor aliter intelligeret, aut exponeret, facta sunt à Deo congrua huic nostrae fidei miracula quando, vel ubi, vel quibus revelare dignatus est, huius mysterij secreta. Qnae nimirum facta esse non ignorabit, quisquis studiosiùs sanctorum patrum gesta legerit, quae testantur sacramentum corporis & sanguinis Domini, oblata panis & vini specie, carnem & sanguinem naturali sua specie, sicut esse soles, exhibuisse. Cùm ergo praeteriti & praesentes fideles ubique terrarum hoc credant, & astruant, si haec universalis Ecclesiae fides vera ad salutem non extitit: aut nunquam catholica fuit, aut perijt. Sed aut non fuisse, aut perijsse Ecclesiam, nemo catholicus consenserit. Nam cùm Ecclesia, & Prophetia, & Euangelijs instituta sit, ubi est quod Abrahe veritas promisit: In semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes? Itemue ubi est, quòd eadem veritas Apostolis ait: Docete omnes gentes, qui crediderit, saluus erit? Cùm enim onmes gentes ita se credere glorientur, si salutis benedictione carent, utrobique veritas Dei, & in prophena, & in evangelio perichtatur. Even the same that christ did testify of the verity of his body, did Peter testify also, and hicause he spoke for the other Apostles, the other Apostles testify with him. What then can more assuredly be said of the verity of the body and blood of christ in the Sacrament, except we would see the very same flesh with our eyes? In which thing yet our Lord hath not left us, but hath in all points helped our little faith. For although by the testimonies of christ himself, and so many holy men, and also by the catholic faith of the universal Church, which from the beginning of her conversion hath so believed and is so saved, it be sufficiently taught or avouched that the very flesh of christ, and his very blood be sacrificed in our lords table: The universal Church from the beginning of her conversion hath ever believed the presence and sacrifice. least yet any overwhart man should otherwise understand or expound it, there have been done of God certain miracles agreeable to this our faith when, or where, or to whom he hath vouchesaif to reveal the mystery. Which truly to be done no man shall be ignorant, that shall read the works of the holy Fathers, which do testify, that the Sacrament of the body and blood of christ (the forms of bread and wine taken away) to have showed it self flesh and blood in his natural form, as it is wont to be. Seeing then the faithful that be past and goen, and they also that be now living in every place of the world do this believe, and this teach: If this faith of the universal Church be not a true faith to salvation, then either the Church was never catholic, or else it hath or is perished. But that the Church hath not been, or that it hath decayed or perished, no man that is The church never yet perished. catholic will consent. For, forsomuch as the Church was set up both with Prophecies and Gospels, where is that that the truth promised to Abraham: In thy seed shall all nacrons be blessed? Likewise also where is that that the same truth saith to the Apostles: Teach all nations, he that shall believe shall be saved? Forasmoch then as all nations glory, that they so believe, if they arteign not the blessing of salvation, the truth of God in both parts, both in prophecy, and in the Gospel is in danger. Thus far Algerus. By whose testimony ye see that the universal Church professed this faith of the presence of Christ'S body and blood in the Sacrament, which faith was good to salvation, or else we must say that there was never any catholic Church, or else if there were any, that it is decayed, perished and goen. Which may not be said. For Christ'S Church abideth for ever. And as all the Church believed christ in the Sacrament to be present: so no doubt they adored him there, whom they knew there to be present. Before this Author was Paschasius more than two hundredth years. Who reporteth the same faith universally to be professed in the Church of christ until his time of all that truly believed in christ. Thus he writeth. Discant divinis verbis in omnibus acquiescere, & in nullo de ijs dubitare, quia usque in praesens, nemo in ●ijs errasse legitur, nisi qui de Christo erraverit. Quin potiùs admiremur profundissimum Dei consilium, quòd magni consilij Argelus instituit, qui vult omnes saluos fieri homines. Admiremur, & saudemus atque m●elligamus in his, quòd beatus Hilarius intellexit, quo artificio (ut ita loquar) nos Christus in se collegit, vel quo mysterio unum in se nos esse naturaliter voluit, non per concordiam solummodò voluntatis, sed & per naturam carnis suae, & sanguinis. Ideo verum est, quod Ambrosius ait sanctissimus: Quia ipsa eademque caro est, & sanguis quam accipimus & communicamus, quae nata est de Maria, & quae pro nobis pependit in cruce. unde si quis negat hoc ita esse, quia Sacramentum vocatur, erit ei, sicut sanclus Augustmus testatur, mors non vita, qui mendacem putaverit vitam. Et quia Christus suum dicit esse corpus, suumue sangumem, non oportet, etsi carneis non videmus oculis, quod credimus mente dubitare in aliquo. Audivimus quid sanctus Cyrillus cum universis coepiscopis in Epheso congregatis sentiat, Quid Graecia cum ijsdem, quid Aegyptus, & sanctus Hieronymus presbyter. Et ideo quamuis ex hoc quidam ex ignorantia errent: nemo tamen adhuc est in aperto, qui hoc ita esse contradicat, quòd totus orbis credit & confitetur. Quapropter charissime, nihil in hoc dubites mysterio quod veritas-Christus de se largitus est nohis, quia etsi sedet in dextra Patris in caelis, non dedignatur suo sacramento, quotidiè per manus sacerdotis, ut vera hostia non infidèliter sed fideliter immolari. Let them learn to agree to the word of God in all things, and in no one point to doubt. For unto this present, no man is red to have erred, but he that hath erred about the person of christ. But raither let us reverence the deep secrettes of God, which the Angel of great secret hath instituted, who will all men to be saved. Let us honour, and praise, and also understand in these things, that Saint Hilary hath understanded, by what workmanship or cunning (if I may so spcake) christ hath gathered us into him, or by whatmysterie he would us naturally to be one in him, not only by concord of will: but also by the nature of his flesh and blood. Therefore it is true that the most holy Ambrose said, that it is the same Notable proofs of the real presence. very flesh and blood, which we receive and communicate, which was born of Marie, and which hanged for us upon the Cross. Wherefore who soever denieth this so to be because it is called a Sacrament, it shall be to him, as Saint Augustine doth testify, death and not life, that will think life to be a liar. And because christ doth say it to be his body and blood, although we do not see it with our fleshly eyes, that we believe with hour mind, we may not doubt of it in any point. We have heard what S. cyril with all his felowbishoppes gathered together in Ephesus, doth believe: what Grece doth with them: What Egypt, and also Saint Hierom the priest. And therefore although some may err of ignorance: there is no man yet hitherto that openly against saith this so to be, which the world doth believe and confess. Wherefore, dearly beloved, doubt nothing in this mystery, which christ the truth hath of himself granted unto us. For although christ sitteth in heaven, and yet is daily sacrificed by the priest. he sitteth at the right hand of his Father in heaven, he disd m not dathe by the hands of the priest in the Sacrament, as a true sacrifice, not untruely to be sacrificed. Thus far Paschasius. See ye not the faith of the presence of Christ'S body and blood in the Sacrament stand untouched, and not shaken with any heresy against saying it openly until the time of this writer? Perceive ye not Saint Hilary, Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustine, Saint cyril, with all the bishops in the Council at Ephesus, which were four hundredth and eighteen, Saint Hierom also, all Grece and Egypt, and finally that the whole world in this writer's time did so believe, and so confess? The cause why the Proclaimer denieth the Sacrament to be adored, is that he The Proclaimer impugneth adoration of the Sacr. because he believeth not real presence. denieth also Christ'S body and blood to be ther. But if that blindness of heresy taken from his heart, he could by pure and clear faith see that blessed body there, there is no doubt but he would adore it, Even so uless as all the world with godly confession acknowledged Christ'S presence in the Sacrament, even the same that was born of Marie, as Saint Ambrose saith, which christ is of all christians humbly to be adored, and honoured, who can doubt but that they, where they believed him to be, there they honoured him? Before this Author was Leo, more than four hundredth years. For he lived about the year of hour Lord 452. and so more than eleven hundredth years agone: in whose time what the faith of Christ'S Church was in the matter of the blessed Sacrament, ye shall hear him report. Separentur buiu smodi a sanctis membris corporis Christi, neque sibi catholica libertas infidelium Leo Epi. 22 add Costant. jugum patiatur imponi. Extra enim domum diumae gratiae, & extra Sacramentum habendi sunt salutis humanae, qui negantes naturam nostrae carnis in Christo, & evangelio contradicunt & Symbolo reluctantur. Nec sentiunt se in hoc praeruptum sua obcaecatione deduci, ut nec in passionis Dominicae nec in resurrectionis veritate consistant, quiae utrumque in saluatore vacuatur, si in eo nostri generiscaro non creditur? In quibus isti ignorantiae tenehris, in quo hactenus desidiae torpore iacuere, ut nec auditu descerene, nec lectione agnoscerent, quod in Ecclesia Dei in omnium ore tam consonum est? ut nec ab insantium linguis veritas corporis & sanguinis Christi, inter communis Sacramenta fidei taceatur? quia in illa mystica distributione spiritualis alimontae hoc impertitur, hoc sumitur, ut accipientes virtutem caelestis cibi, in caruem ipsius, qui caro nostra factus est, transeamus. Let such manner of men be divided from the holy members of Christ'S body, neither let the catholic liberty suffer the yoke of infidelity to be Eutyches and Diose. their heres. put upon it. They are to be accounted out of the house of God's grace, and out of the Sacrament of man's health, which denying the nature of our flesh in christ, do both speak against the Gospel, and strive against the Symbol. Neither do they perceive themselves through their blindness to be brought into such danger, that they can not abide in the verity, neither of our lords passion, neither of his resurrection. For both these be void in our Saviour, if the flesh of our kind be not believed in him. In what darkness of ignorance, in what sluggishness of sloothe hath these men hitherto lain in, that neither by hearing they could learn, neither by reading they could know, that in the Church of God, in the mouth of all men is so agreeably spoken, that not asmuch as of the tongues of infants, the verity of the body and blood of christ, among the Sacraments of the common faith, is unspoken of? For in that mystical distribution of the spiritual food, this body is given forth, this body is received, that receiving the virtue of that heavenly meat, we may be made his flesh, who was made our flesh, Thus Leo. Of this Author also being both ancient and holy ye perceive it testified Verity of the body and blood of christ st●…en of by the tongues of babes that the verity of the body and blood of christ in the Sacrament was so certainly believed, and so commonly received, that it was not only confested by the mouths of all men, but also it was spoken by the mouths of babes. And here with all note that this Author doth marvel at Eutyches and Dioscorus and their adherentes, how they could deny christ to be a very man, seeing that all Christian people confessed the natural body of christ God and man to be in the Sacrament. For confessing the verity of his body and blood, which things be not of the nature of the godhead, it must needs follow that they confess the nature and body of his manhood, and so christ to be very man. Thus ye may perceive that the presence of Christ'S very body and The real presence so certainly believed that ancient Fathers made argument thereof to confute heresies. blood in those days was reputed, esteemed, and believed, so certain, so sure, and so undoubted a matter of faith, that learned men did use it as a strong argument to confute and convince diverse heresies. For as this Author did use it against the heretics of his time: So did Irenaeus and Hylarius (which were long before him) against the heretics of their times. Which they would never have done, if in their times also the presence of christ in the Sacrament had not been a clear matter out of all controversy, and received of all, aswell heretics, as catholics as a substantial point of their faith, whereupon an argument might be well ground. Now ye have heard the presence of Christ'S body testified to have been received of all the Christian Church, from this our time to the time of Leo and before his time (as by Paschasius it is above reported) to the time of Saint Hilary. And so to the time of Irenaeus, who was the In catolog. script. disciple of Polycarpus (as Saint Hierom witnesseth) which Polycarpus was disciple of Saint john the Evangelist, so near was this man to the Apostles time. This discourse have I made ascending from our time to the primitive Church, to prove by consent of the whole Church the presence of Real presence proved, adoration must needs follow. Christ'S very body and blood in the Sacrament. Which proof being made, it is easy to prove the adoration of christ in the Sacrament. For christ being verily there, adoration must needs follow. Now let this Proclaimer who so blasphemously hath denieth christ to be adored in the Sacrament (which his denial is for that he also denieth christ to be in the Sacrament) Let him, I say, bring such a discourse, to prove by such plain testimony that christ is not in the Sacrament, and I will not only deny to adore the Sacrament, but I will subscribe to him, to deny also the presence, which I know for all his brags he can never do. Wherefore he useth in that kind of wisdom himself wishelie. For what he listeth to deny, he doth deny, and proving nothing of that he should affirm, he driveth the catholic Church to prove that that she affirmeth. A sleight he useth some time (as partly is declared and more hereafter shall) to touch a word or two of an Author wresting them to his purpose, but plain proof, as this is, he maketh none, neither doth he to my remembrance, bring forth three authorities of the doctors in all his sermon whole and full, but mutilated and truncated. THE SEVEN AND fortieth CHAPTER proceedeth in the proof of the adoration of the Sacrament by doctors. AS in the last chapter I have proved the presence of christ in the Sacrament, thereby to infer the adoration of the same: So will I here prove adoration, thereby to infer the presence. For as the presence proved, it is but foolery to deny adoration: So adoration proved, it is but vain to deny the presence. Ye have heard it sufficiently proved by such as the Proclaimer named not to have spoken of it: now we shall bring other, of the which Saint Dionyse the disciple of Saint Paul, as of many learned men he is thought, whom also this Proclaimer allegeth, shall be first. Who declaring the order of the ministration of the holy Sacrament, maketh this prayer to the same. O divinum penitus, sanctumue mysterium, obducta tibi significantium operimenta Dion. Are. Ecclesiast. Hiera 3. part. ca 3. S. Dionyse adored the Sacram. signorum dignanter aperiens, nobis palàm atque apertè lucesce, nostrosque spirituales oculos singulari & aperto tuae lucis fulgore imple. O very godly and holy mystery, opening favourably the coverings of fignifieng figures, wherewith thou art covered, show thyself to us openly and apertly, and fill our spiritual eyes, with the singular, and clear brightness of thy light. The petitions that be here made well weighed and considered; as to desire our spiritual eyes, hour understanding, our mind to be illumined, well clearly and perfectly to see, to believe and understand, the whole secret mystery of the Sacrament: what is it but an adoration, and acknowledging of that thing to be God of whom we desire such things (for such things can no creature give nor graum) and a plain submission of ourselves as to God to obtain that we desire, as only of him, which is one of the chiefest parts of adoration? These kind of petitions made this holy Dionyse unto the Sacrament. For unto it he directed his words, saying: O very godly and holy mystery. It doth very well appear then that he adored the holy Sacrament not as a bare sign figure or token, but as containing very christ God and man under those signs and tokens: Neither can the Proclaimer draw this prayer to christ in heaven. For he is not there in a mystery, but in clear and open vision. But this is directed to christ very present in mystery, which manner is not else where but in the Sacrament. Wherefore this prayer and honour was made and done to the Sacrament. As in Dionyse we find adoration of the Sacrament practised and left to us as an example to follow: So a moche like thing find we reported of Gregory Nazianzen. And this it is: Quid igitur magna, & maximis dignae faciebat anima, & quodnam adversus infirmitatem remedium habebat? jam enim occultum Greg. Naz in epitaph. Gorgoniae sororis: Gorgonia prostrate before the altar calleth on him whom the woourshipped on the altar proditur, quum iam de omnibus alijs desperasset, ad omnium consugit medicum, noctisue captata solitudine, quum illi morbus paruas concessit inducias, ante altare cum side procubutt, ac illum quem super altare venerabatur, magna voce, ac omni invocavit conanime, etue miracula cuncta, quae olim secerat in memoriam reduxit. What then did the soul, both great and worthy of great things: what remedy had she against the sickness? Now the secret thing is opened. When she had despaired of all other, she flieth to him that is the physician of all men, and having the solitariness of the night, when the disease had given her a little respite, she prostrated herself with faith before the altar, and with a great voice and all her might she called upon him whom she woourshipped upon the altar, and unto him she rehearsed all the miracles, that of old time he had doen. Thus Nazianzen, In whom beside other things, this may ye note, that this holy woman lay prostrated before the altar, and called upon him, whom she woourshipped upon the altar. This maketh mightily against the Adversary, who denieth christ any other where, or in any other place to be honoured but in heaven. For his woman did honour him upon the altar, where she lay prostrated as before, christ her Lord God there present. This also is not to be overpassed, that this holy and ancient Author reporteth this fact of this holy woman to her perpetual praise, as did S. Ambrose the fact of his brother Satyrus for the hanging of the Sacramentat his neck, in the which he reposed his hope of his safety, which according to his trust was not frustrated, but had good effect. By the report of Nazianzen we may perceive two things: The one that he being a great learned man, an ancient and catholic Father would praise nothing that was against the true honour of God, and the upprightnesse of the catholic faith. Wherefore we may be assured that to lie prostrate before the altar, and there to call and pray unto him that is woourshipped upon the altar, is no idolatry, nor against the true honour of God (as this Proclaimer, moche to God's dishonour teacheth) but is right good and acceptable honour. The other is that we compare the doctrine and doing of this holy man and of the Proclaimer together: Saint Gregory teacheth christ to be Gre. Nazi. and the Proclaimer compared in their doctrines. honoured upon the altar: This Proclaimer no where but in heaven. Saint Gregory with gravity praised his sister for so honouring of christ: This Proclaimer with mocking and taunting derideth and dispraiseth them that do so honour christ. Saint Gregory by all men's judgements as he was ancient: so is he judged to be catholic and to favour christ, and the catholic Church: This Proclaimer as he is of these days, and but young of age, so dissenting from this holy Father may well be judged the enemy of christ, and his catholic Church. And as we have said of Saint Gregory: So may we say of Saint Ambrose, who commendeth in his brother the great faith, affiance, and trust that he had in the holy Sacrament. For what more honour, what higher honour, can we do to God, then to settle our faith, our hope and our trust in God, acknowledging him one not only able and of power to help us, to deliver and save us from all perils and dangers, that may happen to us, but also assuredly trust that he will so do? Thus Saint Ambrose to the praise of his brother reporteth that he did to the Sacrament, as before is at large declared. seeing then this Proclaimer dispraiseth that that holy Ambrose did praise it is easy to perceive, what is to be thought of him, and which of their doctrines is to be embraced, and which of them is to be followed every good Christian will soen determine. In this matter also is Eusebius Emisenus a goodly witness writing thus. Quia corpus assumptum ablaturus erat ab oculis nostris, & sideribus illaturus necessarium Eus. Emis. Hom. pas. erat, ut nobis in hoc die Sacramentum corporis, & sanguinis consecraret, ut coleretur iugiter per mysterium, quod semel offerebatur in precium. For that he would take away his assumpted body from our eyes and carry it into the heavens, it was necessary that in this day he should consecrate the Sacrament of his body and blood, that it might continually be honoured by mystery, that once was offered for our price. Thus he. Now where the Proclaimer saith, that christ did institute the Sacrament only that it should be received in the remembrance of his death: Eus●b. Em. directly against the Proclaimer. This Author saith that because the visible presence of his body should be taken from us, he did institute the Sacrament that the same his body might continually be honoured by mystery. And forsomuch as it is so, he exhorteth us so to do, saying: Cùm reverendo altari caelestibus cibis satiandus accedis, sacrum Dei tui corpus & sanguinem fide respice, honora, mirare, mente continge, cordis manu suscipe, & maximè haustu interiori assume. When thou comest Euseb. ibi. to the reverend altar to be satisfied with heavenly meats, look with faith upon the body and blood of thy God: Honour it, wonder at it, touch it with thy mind, receive it with the hand of thy heart, and chiefly receive Euseb. biddeth us honour the Sacrament. it with the inward draft. This Author in this his exhortation, first teacheth us what we shall behold by faith, when we come to the reverend altar, the body (saith he) of our God. Whereby he teacheth the presence of our lords body in the Sacrament, which in deed by faith only is there to be seen, and not by senses, except it please God by miracle to some so to reveal it, as we read that sundry times he hath so doen. But let not the Proclaimer walking in his dark mists of his figures, say that christ is in the Sacrament, as in a figure, because this Author saith, that we by faith must behold him, and thereupon triumph that this Author is on his side. For this cavil is avoided by the words that shortly after follow, which be these: Sicut autem quicunque ad fidem Christi veniens ante verba Baptismi, adhuc est in vinculo veteris debiti, ijs verò memoratis mox exuitur omni fece peccati: ita quando benedicendae verbis caelestibus creaturae sacris a taribus imponuntur, antequam inuocatione summi nominis consecrentur, substantia est illic panis & vini, pòst verba autem Christi, corpus & sanguis Christi. As any man coming to the faith of christ before the wooordes of Baptism, is yet in the bands of the old debt, but when the words be spoken is forthwith delivered from all the dregs of sin: Even so when the creatures that are to be blessed with the heavenly words are put upon the holy altars, before they be consecrated by the invocation A plain place for M. Juell. of the most high name, there is the substance of bread and wine: but after the words of christ, the body and blood of christ. Thus Eusebius. This his saying clean dissolveth the cavil of the Adversary. For though before the words of christ it be bread and wine: yet after the words it is the body and blood of christ. Thus the mind of Eusebius being declared that Christ'S body and blood be in the Sacrament after the consecration, it followeth in his exhortation Real presence and adoration plainly avouched by Euso. Emis. (as meit is we should do) Honora, honour it. When by such an ancient holy Father we be moved and advertised to honour the body of our God, and that not only in heaven, but when we come to the reverend altar, where after the words of christ is the body and blood of christ, is it meit (suppose ye) to leave so ancient doctrine, and to cleave to the new-fangled invention of this Proclaimer? After this he saith: mirare, that is marvel or wonder. As who might say, that the body of thy Lord God is in the Sacrament, the senses of man can not perceive it, his imagination can not compass it, his might and power can not work it: his reason can not comprehend it, therefore with reverence and honour marvel and wonder at it. Remember that to God nothing is unpossiblie. Remember the works of God be marvelous: And therefore reverently wonder and say: Tu es Deus qui facis mirabilia. if art the God which dost marvelous things. Now if there were but a figure, but bread and wine, signs and tokens of Figures of things be not marvelous but the blessed Sacram. is merueilouse the body of christ, what needed this Author to advertise every Christian man, and say: Mirare, marvel. There was never man that bid the jews marvel at the paschal lamb, because it was a figure of christ, there was never man bid wonder at Isaac, at joseph, at jonas, at the brazen serpent, and such other because they were figures of christ: but the marvel is here at the ineffable and unspeakable work of God, who above all man's devise maketh present by his almighty power the body and blood of his Son our Saviour christ. This therefore toucheth the wicked saying of Oecolampadius, who thinking very basely of this Sacrament, denieth any miracle to be wrought in it: whose saying how false it is, this Author who willeth us to marvel at it doth declare, for no wise man willeth men to marvel where no thing is to merueilled at. Wherefore in this Sacrament something is wrought where at we may justly marvel, which is in deed the marvelous work of God to make present the body of christ our Saviour. But I see, I stand to long in the alleging of the Fathers, wherefore leaving these ancients, which have taught us the practice of the primitive Church in the adoration of the holy Sacrament, we will among many of the later time, hear but holy Bernardo, to see the agreement of the two times. Christus enim pridie quàm pateretur, Discipulis suis huius sacramenti formam praescripsit, efficaciam exhibuit. Cùm adhuc caenaretur surrexit à caena: Discipulorum pedes Dominus Bernar. de dign. sacer. universorum lavit: Dehinc ad mensam regressus ordinat sacrificium corporis & sanguinis sui. Christus in coena illa munerans & munus, cibans & cibus, conviva & conuivium, offerens & oblatio. Obstupescentes admiramtui, nulli Angelorum, nullis spiritibus supernis, sed hominibus, nec tamen omnibus: sed ordini vestro tantùm mandatam esse tanti sacramenti celebrationem in altari, quod Christus fecit manibus suis in coena Paschali. Quid facis indign? quid facis homo ingrate? Adora devotiùs, & recole frequentiùs in Sacramento altaris salutem mundi pro te passam. christ the day before that he would suffer prescribed to his disciples the form of this Sacrament: he declared the efficacy of it. When they were yet at supper, he rose from the same and being the Lord of all washed the feet of his disciples. After that being returned to the table he ordained the sacrifice christ in his supper, the giver and the gift, the feeder and the food, the seaster and the feast, the offerer and the offering. of his body and blood. In that supper christ was the giver and the gift: the feed: and the food: the feaster and the feast, the offerer and the offering. Wonder ye therefore and marvel, for to none of the Angels, to none of the heavenly spirittes: but to men, neither yet to all men, but only to your order was appointed the celebration of so great a Sacrament in the altar, which Sacrament christ made with his hands in the paschal supper, what dost though, if unworthy man? What dost though, if unthankful man? In the Sacrament of the altar, adore devoutly, remember often the health of the world, that suffered for thee. Of this Saint bernard we may first learn (as he did of the Evangelist Saint john) Christ'S order both in the preparation of his Apostles toward Washing of the Apostles feet what it signifieth. the institution of the holy Sacrament, and also what he himself did in the same institution. He prepared his Apostles toward the institution not only signifying to them by the washing of their feet, that they and all Christians, that will come to this holy mystery, must be pure and clean from all wordly, unclenlie, and eartlie affections: and also humble meek and lowly, not only to God with all submission, being ready to obey his holy commandments, but also by penance for the transgression of any of them, and therewith meek and lowly one to an other. If I (saith he) have washed your feet being your Lord and master, you also aught to wash Joan. 13 one an others feet. For I have given you an example, that as I have done, ye should so do. Thus much done for the preparation of his Apostles and all christians: he returneth to the institution of the Sacrament. In the which what he did S. bernard also declareth. He did (saith he) there institute the sacrifice of his body and blood, and of his body and blood there is no other sacrifice, but the same his body and blood. And that he so did S. bernard teacheth by the words immediately following. For he saith, that in that supper. christ was the giver and the giste: The feeder and the food: The feaster and the feast: The offerer, and the offering. Mark well, gentle Reader, these proper speeches. For as they contain a notable declaration of the truth: So also be they not spoken without imitation of holy ancient doctors. For the first, if christ himself were in his supper, the giver, the feader, the feaster, and the offerer (as most certainly he was) then was he also the thing that was given, he was the food or meat that was eaten, he was the whole feast, he was the oblation. What is christ himself but God and man? Then was christ God and man so given of himself in the last supper. These manner of speeches be used of S. Hierom, S. Ambrose, and S. Augustine. S. Hierom saith thus: Dominus jesus ipse conviva & conuivium, ipse comedens, Hieron. ad Hedib. q 2 Amo orat. Prapar. ad missam. 〈…〉. in psal. 33. conc. 1. & qui comeditur. Hour Lord jesus he is both the feaster, and the feast, he is the eater, and that which is eaten. Saint Ambrose praying to christ saith: Tu es sacerdos & sacrificium, mirabiliter & ineffabiliter constitutus. if art the priest and the sacrifice, wonderfully and unspeakably appointed. Saint Augustin speaking of christ, saith. Ferebatur manibus suis. He was born in his own hands. Then christ bearing himself in his own hands, was both the bearer, and that was born. These I havebroughtin, that the Reader might perceive that S. bernard hath not framed soche manner of speeches of his own invention, but hath taken them of the Farhers by imitation, Which manner of speeches I have the more willingly setforth at large, because they do very well, and godly declare the true catholic faith, they mightily overthrow the heresy of the Adversary they also confirm and comfort the true Christian, notably proving unto us the presence of christ in the Sacrament. This presence of christ by S. bernard so setforth, than he putteth us in christ in the Sac. denoathe to be adored. mind of our duty saying: Adore in the Sacrament, the health of the world that suffered for thee. Observe diligently that he willeth thee to adore christ in the Sacrament, which words be directly against the words of the Proclaimer, who willeth thee not to adore christ in the Sacrament, but only in heaven. Now Reader, where the Proclaimer said, that Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustine, Saint chrysostom made no mention of the adoration of christ in the Sacrament, if havest heard them plentifully testifying the contrary. Where also he said that no other doctors made mention of it, if havest heard diverse declaring the contrary. And not only these doctors: but also though havest heard S. Paul theaching us to honour christ in the Sacrament. Thus thou feast a number of witnesses produced for the declaration of the catholic faith: for the wicked doctrine of the Proclaimer thou feast not one. As I have red this Proclainer in this matter: so have I red Occolampadius the great fownder of this doctrine in this our time, and I assure you that neither in the one or the other of them did I find any authority of scripture or doctor fully and truly alleged for the maintenance of their doctrine. trifling arguments of negatives and untruths they have a sew: other have they none. And here in this matter to conclude I will join this issue with the Proclamer● let him bring but one ancient catholic doctor that by express Jssue joined with the Proclaimer upon adoration. words, shall say as he saith, that christ is not to be adored in the Sacrament, and I will subscribe to him. But I am very sure that he can bring not one. If he can bring none what madness is there in him that so Goliath like revileth the holy catholic Church, and willeth her children to forsake her, not to credit her, not withstanding that she hath moche and good authority that she buildeth upon, but to cleave to him, to follow his fantasies, to credit his bare sainges without all authority? But how much more mad shall these be, that neglecting the godly order of the Church, contemning the religion therein by long times and many hundreth years continued: not weghing the grave and weighty authority of so many holy learned Fathers, shall rashly committee their saith to such one, as bringeth nothing to ground a faith upon, but as is said, negatives, and untruths. For this is the sleight of this man he crieth out upon the Church for the prose of her doctrine, and in the mean while he bloweth out his doctrine without all authority. God open the eyes of all Christian men well to see it, and so to consider it, that they may eschew it. Great occasion is given them so to do when they seeing him avochinge soche an untruth as this is, that none of the doctors make mention of the honouring of christ in the Sacrament, shall see so many as now be alleged, make plain mention of it beside many other not here alleged. If there were no more untreuthesin him butthis (as there be to many) it were enough to advertise one that had regard to God, and to the health of his soul, to look twice ere he leap once. Thus much being said for the admonition of the reader, I will address me to examine the rest of his words. THE EIGHT AND fortieth CHAP. CONsuteth the rest of the proclaimers words before rehearsed against the honouring of christ in the Sacrament. AS the two wicked judges when they had once by their carnal lusts corrpted their judgement, did not spare to testify a wicked untruth against the innocent and godly Suzanna, and that before all the people, and being so entered into shamelessness proceeded to avouch the same before the holy prophet Daniel: So this Proclaimer, when he had corrupted his judgement in the matters of faith, and uttered an untruth against the innocent and godly Suzanna the Church the spouse of christ, and that before a famous people, he so entered into shamelessness, that he proceeded to avouch the same before God by writing to his more condemnation. And now being malicioulie set passeth from untruth to untruth even by yond measure. For to these untreuthes already confuted thus he addeth speaking still against the adoration of christ in the Sacrament. It is (sateth he) a very new devise, and as it is M. Juell. well known, came but late into the Church. About three hundredth years past, Honorius then being Bishop of Rome, commanded the Sacrament to be lifted up, and the people reverently to bow down to it. It is (saith he) a very new devise. If he had spoken of the doctrine, which Luther and Oecolamp. First deniers of adoration of the Sacr. he himself teacheth, that we should not adore christ in the Sacrament, be had spoken a truth: For among all that confessed christ to be God and man, and Christ'S body to be present in the Sacrament, Luther was the first that fondly erred in that point. And among them that denied christ to beverilie and really in the Sacrament, Oecolampadius is the first, that (by the report of the learned) hath in writing setforth, with trifling persuasions, and vain arguments of negatives, the impugnation of the adoration of christ in the Sacrament. Wherefore this his untrue saying against Christ'S honour, and the doctrine and doing of the catholic Church, may truly be turned into his own lap against him and such like blaspemers and depravers, that this his and their doctrine, that christ should not be worshipped in the Sacrament, is a very new devise, and is (as it is well known) but lately comed in. For in deed it came in by Luther and Oecolampadius, who were both late enough and soon enough, yea to soon, but that they were the instruments of Satan, such as God permitted for the punishmet of the sins of the people. But to our purpose, that his saying against the adoration of christ in the Sacrament is untrue, not only the Fathers of the primitive Church before alleged do prove: but also the practice and doing of the thing: As chrysostom in his Mass, Gregory Nazianzen of his sister, S. Ambrose of his brother, S. Augustine of his mother do declare. All which are before alleged, and were above a thousand years agone, so true is this man's saying that it is but a new devise. Whereunto if ye add the commandment of God, to adore christ: and the rule of S. Paul for our examination before we receive, ye shall perceive how far wide this man is from all truth in this matter, and how ancient the adoration of the Sacrament is, and how new the denial of the same is. It is so new I say, that before Luther and Oecolampadius there is none found to have written it: although some infected with the heresy of Berengarius and Wicleff may be thought in corners to have whispered it, as by joannes Rokizana it may be gathered, who writeth thus: Joan. Rokizanatract. de 7. Sacr. cap. 12. Sacerdotes debent verbo & exemplo docere populum ut contremiscant, adorando & colendo, & summum ac vivacem respectum habendo circa haec divinissima, & ineffabilia mysteria. Ex quo patet error dicentium quod corpus Christi, vel Sacramentum, solùm sit nobis datum ad manducandum, & sanguis in chalice solùm ad bibendum, & non ad colendum sive adorandum. Sed patet quod inanis & fatua sit irrisio eoram, qui luminum accensionem coram Dominico corpore in sacramento derident, dicentes: quia Deus est lux, & non egent lumme. Name in veteri lege etiam Domini mandato lucernae sine luminaria in candelabro disposita coram panibus propositionis, qui fuerunt figura tantùm corporis in Sacramento, exardebant, multo magis decens est ut hoc in praesentia tanti sacramenti fiat. Sinempe decens est & honestum (teste Hieronimo ad Riparium) ut lumina ardeant coram corporibus & os●ibus sanctorum; Etsi decens fuit temporibus primorum sanctorum, ut lampades mortuis christianis fidelibus accendantur, ut haec describit Chrysostomus sermone quarto super epistolam ad Hebraeos: multo magis decens honestum, & sanctum est, ut lumina coram tam deifico, et divino corpore Christiaccendantur: The priests aught to teach the people both with example and word, that they in adoring and worshipping and having an high and, lively respect about these most godly and unspeakable mysteries, do fear and tremble. Whereby is manifest the error of them that wickedly say, that the body of christ or the Sacrament was only given to be eaten, and the blood in the cup only to be drunken, and not to be worshipped or adored. But it is manifest that their scorning is vain and foolish, which do mock the lighting of lights before the body of our Lord in the Sacrament saying: that God is light himself, and needeth no other light. For in the old law even by the commandment of our Lord lights that were set in the candlestick did burn before the show breades, which were only a figure of our lords body in the Sacrament: much more is it comely that this be done in the presence of so great a Sacrament. For truly if it be comely and honest (S. Hierom being witness unto Riparius) that lights do burn before the bodies or bones of saints: And if it were comely in the time of the chief holy men, that lamps should burn before the faithful christians that were dead, as Chrysostom describeth these things in his fourth sermon upon the epistle to the hebrews, much more is it comely, honest, and holy that lights should be lighted before so divine and godly body of Christ. Thus much this Author. Who although he were otherways nought himself, yet understanding so me soch secret talk against the honouring of the blessed Sacrament he hath earnestly laboured and learnedly, to extinct the same. So (as before is said) though some have in their corners murmured against the honouring of Greatest antiquity of denial of adoration of the Sacr is but forty years. the Sacrament: yet sure I am that none believing christ, God and man, did openly write that christ was not to be adored in the Sacrament, until the times of Luther and Oecolampadius, none neither catholic nor heretic. And therefore I shall return the words of this Proclaimer truly to him, which he untruely hath published to the world, that this is the greatest antiquity of the whole matter: About forty years agone it was first found out, and put in practice by Luther, and Oecolampadius, that the Sacrament might not be honoured. But christ and his Apostles, the holy Fathers in in the primitive Church, the doctors that followed them, and other learned and godly men, whatsoever for the space of xv. hundreth years and and odd after Christ'S ascension into hcaven, never taught this doctrine, that the holy and blessed body of christ in the Sacrament should not be honoured, neither was it practised within any place within the catholic Church of christ throughout the whole world. And thus now be these words true, which before uttered by the Proclaimer, were very false. And now where he saith that Honorius was the first that commanded the Sacrament to be honoured, in case it were true, as it is already proved Honouring of the Sacr. universaly received but never yet universally denied in the Church. to be false: yet is the doctrine of the honouring of the Sacrament much more ancient than this his doctrine, that wickedly denieth it. For that by his own confession was begun by Honorius three hundreth years agone: This doctrine but about forty years agone. Honorius was never defamed of heresy: Luther and Oecolampadius, defamed and condemned for heretics. The honouring of the Sacrament was received, of the whole Church, and quietly continued those three hundreth years at the least even by this man's own rekning: The contrary doctrine was never yet received of the whole Church, and therefore never one hour quietly continued. Thus much advantage have we upon the words of his own confession. But he saith that Honorius commanded the adoration of the Sacrament, A fond argument of the Proclaimer I grant he did: But what of that? Will he therbie infer, that because he commanded it, that it was never in use before? A very fond kind of argument, And yet, as fond as it is, much used in the School of the doctrine of this Proclaimer, from whence no doubt he hath learned so to dispute. For even in like manner the fleshly sort of them dispute to maintain their shameful abode with their women. It is (say they as this Proclaimer saith) a new devise, it is as new found holy day, that priests should not marry For it was but of late days invented by Vrban and Gregory. Now truth it is, that these Popes made decrees that priests should not marry, but doth this prove that it was never forbidden before? No truly. Decrees against marriage of priests For Silvester long before them made a decree that if a priest did marry after he had received holy orders he should be deprived of his office ten years, but if he disobediently kept his woman, and would not submit himself to the law, he should be condemned for ever: shall we yet now here rest, and say that Silvester was first fownder of this matter, because it is found that he made such a decree? Nay. Calixtus was before him, who made a like decree. Presbyteris, Diaconis, Subdiaconis, & Monachis concubinas habere, seu matrimonium contrahere poenitus interdicimus. Contracta quoque matrimonia ab buiusmodi personis Calixtus. disiungi, & personas ipsas ad poenitentiam debere redigi, juxta sacrorum Canonum defuntionem iudicamus. We utterly forbid: priests, Deacons, Subdeacons and monks to have concubines, or to marry. We judge also the matrimonies contracted of such persons to be dissolved or undone, and the persons themselves to be set to penance, according to the definition of the holy Canons. For this decree some have been angry with Calixtus, and have fathered the prohibition of priests marriages upon him, but yet they have erred. For they might have perceived that he in this his decree referreth the penance of the married priests, Deacons and other, to the holy Canons. So that there was an other decree for that purpose before Calixtus, and that Canon Apost 17. was the decree of the Canon of the Apostles. For such a Canon have they made, which is thus: Ex bis qui coelibes in clerum pervenerunt, jubemus, ut lectores tantùm, & cantores, si velint, nuptias contrahant. Of them that becomed single into the clergy, we command that readers only, and the singing men, if they will, do marry. And an other like, which is this. Qui duxit viduam, aut divortio separatam à viro, aut meretricem, aut ancillam, aut aliquam quae publicis sit mancipata spectaculis, Episcopus, presbyter Canon 18. aut Diaconus, aut demque ex consortio sacerdotali esse non potest. He that hath, married a widow, or a woman divorced from her husband, or an harlot, or a bond maiden, or a any that is accustomed to play in interludes, can neitherbe Bishop, priest, nor Deacon, nor be of the company of the priests. By this brief discourse ye may perceive the Fathers of the later times made decrees of that was in use in the Apostles time, where unto they were enforced, by the wickedness, and licentious life of men in their times, not to make new devices, but to cause the old ancient laws to be observed and kept. There be decrees made in these later days for the fasting of Lent, both Lent fast commanded. by councils and Popes. As for example to produce one. In the eight Council of Tolett, thus we find declared: Illis qui ausu temerario quadragesimae dies contemnunt, nec voracitatis inglwiem frenant, & (quod peius est) Paschalia festa, Concilium Toletan. 1. illicitorum esuum perceptione profanant, ex hoc adeò acerrimè interdicitur, ut quisquis sine inevitabili necessitate atque fragilitate, & evidenter languore seu etiam impossibilitate aetatis diebus quadragesimae esuin carnium praesumpserit attentare. non solùmreus erit resurrectionis Dominicae, verumetiam alienus ab eiusdem diei sancta communione. Et hoc illi cumuletur ad poenam, ut ipsius anni tempore ab omni esu carnium abstineat, quia sacris diebus abstinentiae oblitus est disciplinam. Unto them that presumptuously contemn the days of Lent, neither do refrein the excess of their greadinesse, and that which is worst of all, do profane the Easter solemnities, with the eating of unlawful meats: from hencefurth we straightly command, that whosoever without inevitable necessity and weakness, and evident sickness, great weakensse of age, shall presume in the days of Lent to eat flesh, he shall not only be guilty of the resurrection of our Lord, but shall be also excommunicated from the holy Communion of that same day. And this shall be added to his farther pain, that that year he shall abstain from all eating of flesh, because in the holy time of Lent, he forgot the discipline of abstinence. Thus the Council. In the which Council the fast of Lent is commanded, as ye perceive, but this proveth not that it was but then begun, and that it is a new devise. For S. Hierom, who lived much above two hundredth years Hieron. adversus Montan. before that Council saith thus: Nos quadragesimam secundùm traditionem Apostolorum ieiunamus. We fast the Lent according to the tradition of the Apostles. But this fast of Lent (not withstanding that it is the tradition of the Apostles) hath been in diverse Counsels since the Apostles, and long after their The queen that now is commanded Lent to be fasted and yet it was in use before. time commanded, because in process of time the devotion of the people decayed, as it doth to much in these our days, wherebily the decrees of the Apostles being contemned (as now also they be) it was necessary by a new commandment to revive and confirm the same, and so cause them to be continued which else had been omitted. Even so Honorius perceiving the devotion of the people to be decayed, and their regard of the blessed Sacrament, through the wicked doctrine of Berengarius (which yet, as it may be thought, late smouldering in putrefied and rotten posts and sticks) to be much abated, to revive that that so long had continued, he gave commandment to honour the Sacrament as the like may be done, when the catholic faith shall be resumed in Englond. Thus ye may perceive both how fond and weak the argument of the Proclameries, and therewith how false and untrue. After this it liketh him to dally and solace himself in alleging certain scholastical doctors, as S. Thomas. Dunce, Durande, Holkot and other, not in reproving Mocking and scorning easy kinds of confutation. their learning by learning (which he can not do) but reproving it with mocking and scorning (which is in deed easy to do) The Sum of all that long disputation is only to make the matter appear to the world, that it is a dangerous thing to honour the Sacrament, for that the people can not discern the accidents or the outward forms of the Sacrament, from the body of christ, and therefore may soon commit idolatry in honouring the outward forms in the stead of Christ'S body. It is a woorld to see this man, that when he hath no substantial argument to make against the matter derectlie, he seeketh out dangers to bring himself and the people into more danger. For where it is our duty to honour our saviour christ, wheresoever we know him by faith to be. to avoid his invented danger, he would have us, by omission of our duty, to run into a certain danger, and to avoid such abuse as he imagineth, to take away the thing it self, as Lycurgus did, who seeing wine to be abused, for that men took excessively of it, caused all the vines in the country to be cut dowen, that there should be no wine. So this man for an abuse that he phantasieth, he would take away the thing. By like fantasy he might also move us not to honour christ in heaven. Like Fantasy joined with avarice pulled down all Abbeys in England. But much more it might seem to have moved the Apostles and other that were conversant with christ in the flesh, and believing in him honoured him. What danger were they in that seeing the human body of Christ, and percase not sufficiently discerning the humanity from the deity, nor fully perceiving the unition of these two natures in the unity of person, neither yet well understanding how the body of christ is to be adored, and how it is not, how the deity was in that person of christ, and how to be considered, and yet did adore him? All these points, as it may be gathered by the petition of Philippe, were not well understanded of the Apostles themselves. For when he said: Domine, ostend nobis Patrem, et sufficit nobis, Lord show us the Father, and it is enough for us: it seemeth that he had not that consideration of the Deity, that faith required. And further by the answer of christ, it seemeth that the Apostles didnot yet know christ. For he said: Tanto tempore vobiscum sum, & non cognovistis me? Have I been so long time with you, and have ye not known me? If they that had been so long conversant with christ, and so long traded in the school of christ did not know christ, how did the three wise men of the east, the woman of Chananie, the man born blind restored to his seight, with other which did adore christ without reproach? Did they (trow ye) know christ, seeing the Apostles did not know him? Did they (trow ye) under stand this quiddity of faith, how the flesh and body of christ was to be adored, and how it was not to be adored? And yet were not they in the simplicity of their faith well accepted? And to come nearer to answer this man, do all Christian people, which at this present day adore christ in heaven, understand this quiddity, how the flesh of christ being a creature, may be adored with Godly honour? To adore the Godhead of christ with godly honour, it is a plain matter, but to adore the manhood, to adore the natural flesh of a natural man, to adore a very man with God, I think the Disciples of this Proclaimer, who not understanding how the accidents be founded in the Sacrament, nor how to discern them from the body of christ, that is covered with these accidents, therefore fly from the honouring of christ in the Sacrament, for fear of committing Idolatry, were never so well taught by their master, well to understand these quiddities above mentioned. Will he also therefore, that they not understanding these things, should also fly the honour of christ in heaven? I think verily it will thereto grow at the last as it doth already break out among the calvinists. For doth not Richerus forbid to pray to christ, lest we should honour his humanity with godly honour? Hath he Richerus a Calumist forbiddeth to pray to christ. not said that he is to be accounted an heretic that saith that christ must necessarily be prayed unto? See you not how Satthan goeth about by pretty means to take away christ from you? Among the calvinists, as now among you, he began to take away the adoration of christ in the Sacrament, but now he taketh away the adoration of christ in heaven. Take heed therefore Satan is subtle. He saith that the schoolmen make a doubt of the adoration of the Sacrament, because the unlearned may commit Idolatry, if they happen to Damascen li 4. ra. 3. worship the outward forms or shows of bread, and give honour to that in stead of Christ'S body. Damasen saith, that the flesh of christ, the humanity of christ is not in some consideration to be adored, and if they Phanticall dangers may not draw us from our saith and duty doing. so adore and honore it they commit Idolatry. shall all the unlearned christians therefore, because they may commit Idolatry in adoring Christ'S flesh and body, give over their duties, and cease to honour Christ'S body in heaven? If dangers may withdraw us from the matters of our faith, and the doing of our duty in the same, forsomoche as in many matters of faith, many dangers may happen, many matters of our faith must be omitted and forsaking. Among the dangers that may happen in matters of faith, this man to dissuade his hearers and readers from the faith, bringeth in one other, about the consecration of the holy Sacrament. what (saith he) if it happened the priest not to consecrate? what if he leave out the words of consecration and never speak them? or what if the priest have no mind or intention to consecrate? As this man goeth about to shake the foundation and building of this Sacrament, which is (as S. Dionise saith) the perfection all other Sacraments: So his bothers and likes have gone about to shake the foundation of the sacrament of Baptism. For Brentius saith that baptism is good and may be ministered without the form of the words of Baptism. But it shall be best, that I ascribe his own words, that I be not thought to misreport him. Thus he writeth: Christus non collocavit fundamentum Baptismi super certis literis, sillabis, aut dictionibus, nec alligavit nos ad certa verba (non enim instituit magiam, quae ad certam verborum formam, aut ritus alligata est) sed instituit coelestia sacramenta, Brentius in explicatione Baptismi. quae constant sua ipsius sententia & voluntate, his vel illis verbis significata. Itaque si quis post recitationem Symboli Apostolici in Baptismo diceret ad baptisandum haec verba: Audivi iam ex te confessionem fidei tuae, quòd credas in Deum Patrem omnipotentem creatorem coeli & terrae. Et in Vnigemtum Filium eius Dominum nostrum jesum Christum, & in Spiritum sanctum. In hanc igitur confessionem, & sidem, intingo te in aquam seu perfundo te aqud, ut hoc signaculo certus fias, te insertum esse in jesum Christum, & communionem omnium bonorum. Vade ergo in pace: Hic certè Baptismus verè esset Baptismus. christ hath not settled the foundation of Baptism upon certain letters Berentius impugneth the form of Baptism. syllables, or words. For he hath not instituted magic, that is to say, incantation, sorcery or witchcraft, which is bounden to certain form of words or ceremonies: but he hath instituted heavenly sacraments, which are established by his own will and sentence, signified by these or these words. Therefore if any man after the rehearsal of the Symbol or Creed of the Apostles in Baptism should say these words to him that is to be baptised: I have now heard of thee, the confession of thy faith, that if believest in God the Father almighty maker of heaven and earth: And in his only begotten Son our Lord jesus christ: And in the holy Ghost. Upon this confession therefore and faith, I dip thee in the water, or I wash thee with water, that by this sign thou mayst be made certain, that thou art inserted or engrafted into jesus christ and into the communion of all good things etc. Therefore go thy way in peace. Certainly this Baptism should be verily Baptism. Ye see here how this man rejected the words of Baptism, and accounted it sorcery and superstition to be bound to a certain form of words in the ministration not only of this but of other sacraments. It is lamentable to see the wickedness of these men, how they labour to weaken all the foundation of our faith, and would make us viode of all certainty in the ministration of Christ'S Sacraments. But to return to our Proclaimer and to answer him with his own learning (for Brentius and he be of one religion and doctrine, or else Satan is divided in himself) seeing that to use a prescript form of words in the Sacrament is superstition, and Magic, what needeth he to make any doubt whether those forms (which the holy ancient Fathers call the words of consecration) be used or no? as shove there were danger if they were omitted, where by the learning of his schoolefelowe Brentius, to omit them is raither religion, than danger. For if the words of the form of Baptism may without danger be omitted, why may not the words of consecration without danger be omitted? Thus hitherto I have answered this Proclaimer with the doctrine of his own school, that it may appear to the reader, how wicked and detestable the doctrine is, and how it confowndeth all order, and all certainty of the ministration of sacraments in Christ'S Church, leaving a man so receiving these Sacraments uncertain and doudtfull, whether he hath received either the one Sacrament or the other. I would here rehearse more dangers that might likewise happen in the ministration Protestants admit some two Sacraments, some three some four some never one. of the other sacraments if I knew of what religion this man were. For some of them admit but two Sacramantes, some three, some four some never one, so diverse be they in their opinions, so unstable is the profession of their religion. But contenting myself with these that be rehearsed, fearing that he will admit no more, though the catholic church admit seven: I will now open the doctrine of the catholic Church in these two, for as much as is here to be said. And first for the Sacrament of Baptism, thus teacheth the holy catholic church, that the invocation of the holy Trinity, may not be omitted, as wittnesseth S. basil: Neminem impellat ad errorem, illud Apostoli, quòd nomen Patris, ac sancti Spiritus in baptismatis mentione saepe omittit. Neque ob id puter nominum nomenclaturam non necesse esse observari. Quicunque (inquit) in Christum baptisati estis, Christum induistis. That the Apostle in the mention of baptism doth often omit the name of the Father, and the holy Ghost, let it drive no man to error. Neither for that let him think, that it is not necessary the naming of their names to be observed. And again he saith: Oportet immortalem manner traditionem in vivifica gratia datum. Qui enim liberavit vitam nostram ex corruption, potestatem renovationis nobis dedit. Quae potestas inexplicabilem causam habet, & in mysterio abstrusam, verùm magnam basil. de spiritu. sanct ca 12. Form of Baptism necessarily required in that Sacra. animis salutem adferentem. Quare addere quid, aut detrahere, palàm est elapsus à vitae aeterna. Si igitur separaetio Spiritus in Baptismate à Patre & Filio, periculosa est baptizanti, & inutilis Baptisinum suscipienti, quomodò nobis tutum est à Patre & Filio divellere Spiritum sanctum? Fides & Baptisma duo salutis modi sunt inter se cohaerentes, & inseparabiles. Fides enim perficitur per baptisinum: baptismus verò fundatur per fidem & per eadem nomina utraque res impletur. Sicut enim credimus in patrem, & Filium, & Spiritum sanctum: sic etiam baptizamur in nomine Patris, & filii & Spiritus sancti. The tradition given in the quickening gracemust abide unmoved. He that delivered our life from corruption, gave us the power of renovation, which power hath an inexplicable cause, and hidden in mystery, but yet bringing Jbidem. great health to our souls. Wherefore to put to, any thing, or to pluck away Faith and baptism two insepaerable means of salvation. aniething, it is an open fall from everlasting life. If therefore the separation of the holy Ghost in Baptism from the Father and the Son, is perilouse to the baptizer, and unprofitable to him that receiveth baptism, how can we safely from the Father and the Son divide the holy Ghost? Faith and Baptism be two means of health conjoined together, and inseparable. For faith is perfected by Baptism, and Baptism is founded by faith and by the same names both these things be fulfiled. As we believe in the Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost: so are we baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost Thus far S. basil. Damascen. li. 4 ca 10. Damnascen also saith: Quemadmodum semel completa est Domini mors: sic semel oportet Baptizari juxta Domini verbum: In nomnie Patris, & filii, & Spiritus sancti, instructos confessionem, Patris, & filii, & Spiritus sancti. As the death of our Lord was once done: So must they, that be taught the confession of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, be once baptized according to the word of our Lord: In the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Gste. Thus Damascen. Many other Fathers may be brought, but these two may at this time suffice, which both do declare that not only the confession of the Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost must be had in Baptism: but also over and beside the party to be baptised must be baptised in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost, as by the well weighing of their sainges it shall be easy to perceive. But now by cause Brentius teacheth that the words of the form of Baptism be not necessary, and it may be that this Proclaimer thinketh even This peril I fear falleth upon many in england in these days. the same, and herein some light heads leaving the doctrine of the ancient church will follow Berentius his doctrine, and will not baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, which (as S. basil saith) is perilous to the baptizer, and unprofitable to the baptized, shall we therefore reject and cast away the Sacrament of Baptism, because such perils and dangers may happen in the ministration of it, as this man would that we should Christ'S body and blood in the blessed Sacrament because dangers may happen in the honouring of the same? As for the consecration of the Sacrament, it is taught us also by the catholic Church, that it is done by the power of God working at the due pronunciation of the words of christ, as witness Eusebius Emisenus, chrysostom, and Ambrose with a number of other, What danger to the priest, and what to the people if the woods of Consecration be left unsaied. But this Proclaimer saith, that it is known that some priests have many years left out the words of consecration. It is plain then (say I) that the body of christ is not present in the Sacrament, because the institution is not observed. Then it followeth (as the proclaimer saith) that there is danger. There is danger in deed to the wicked priest, who pretending in outward face to do that, that christ hath appointed, and doth it not indeed. But to the people simply believing the ministre to do that, that to his ministery appertaineth, and perceiving nothing to the contrary, there is no danger to them in doing their duty, though the naughty man the priest do not his duty. And where the Proclaimer saith that it is known that priests have so done: I think if it be so, it is known to him of himself and of his likes, who of perverse minds being corrupted in their faith have committed such impiety in deed to their greater and more grievous damnation, but not to the hurt of the people if they knew it not. And here also to say, I believe that if any catholic priest had been known to this man, so to have done (as he saith) he would without all doubt to the help of his cause (where unto he hath none) have named him. But uless as he speaketh it of himself, and his conspired complices, which secretly Conuenerunt in unum adnersus Dominum, & adversus Christum eius, have conspired against our Lord, and against his anointed, when they durst not utter, what they had wickedly conceived: he is a shamed to name himself to have committed so heinous a fact. If it be not so, it is like to be a feigned matter to supply, when certain and true matter lacketh. But to return to the matter, and to move the same scruple to him, that he moveth against the catholic Church: What if some that ministre the communion after the sort that is now received, do neither speak the words of christ upon the bread (For Richerus a Caluinist rejecteth the words of consecration, as not needful to be spoken, or munbled, as his term is, upon insensible creatures) neither intend to make any sacramental bread: what then do your people receive? If they receive no sacrament (as it is none, if both words and intention be lacking) than they receive no promiss, they receive no remission of sins, nor such other benefits (for the promises be annexed to the sacraments) how are they then deceived? How then is the Sacrament of Christ'S body and blood in due form ministered? How is the death of christ showed forth according to Christ'S mind, which must be showed forth, when we eat that bread and drink that cup, as S. Paul teacheth us: As often as ye shall eat of this bread, and drink of the cup: he saith not bread generally, but this bread, meaning the bread of the Sacrament? Thus if men shall improve the great matters of religion, with why, what, and how, and invented dangers and abuses, your own religion, which you magnify as most sure and good, may be proved unsure and weak. To be short, all his arguments ground upon (if and and) are to no purpose. For if maketh no certain argument. Wherefore leaving them as sufficiently touched, I shall revert to matter of more substance, and proceed in the allegation of the fathers for the exposition of Christ'S words now in hand. THE NINE AND fortieth CHAP. proceedeth in the understanding of Christ'S words by Irenaeus, and Tertullian. Although between justine and Irenaeus, there were some holy Fathers, that have left behind them goodly testimonies, for the proof of Christ'S very presence in the Sacrament: Yet I find Irenaeus li. 4. cap. 32. cont. heres. none that do allege Christ'S words, and thereby give us light to understand them, until we come to Ireneus, who writeth thus: Sed & Discipulis suis dans consilium primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis, non quasi indigenti, sed ut nec ipsi infructuosi, nec ingrati sint, eum qui ex creatura panis est accepit, & gratias egit dicens: Hoc est corpus meum. Et calicem similiter, qui est ex ea creatura quae est secundum nos, suum sanguinem confessus est, & novi testamenti novam docuit oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in universo mundo offert Deo. giving also instruction to his disciples (the author speaketh of christ) Sacrifice of the new Testament instituted and taught by christ in consecration of his body and blood. to offer to God the first fruits of his creatures, not as to one having need, but that they should be neither unfruitful, neither unthankful, he took that bread, which is a creature, and gave thanks saying: This is my body. And the cup likewise, which is a creature as we be, he confessed to be his blood, and of the new Testament, taught a new oblation, which the Church receiving of the Apostles offereth to God in all the world. Thus Irenaeus. who when he had declared how almighty God instituted and appointed sacrifices and oblations in the old testament, as things to be given to him not as to one that needed such things or gifts, but for the exercising of their obedience and faith, in the which God is delighted, not yet that God had any profit, or advantage thereby, but that they doing these things, profit and advantaie might ensue to them from, God, for whose commodities sake God did institute them. So he declareth that in the new Testament also, the people of the same might exercise their faith and obedience, New sacrifice of the new Testament, what it is. and thereby purchase gain and profit, and for benefits received be found thankful, christ also taught his Apostles to offer sacrifice. And what the sacrifice is he teacheth saying that it is his body made of the creature of bread, and his blood, made of the creature of wine. How this thing is brought to pass he showeth when he saith: that christ took the bread, which is a creature and gave thanks saying: This is my body: And likewise the cup, which also is a creature, and confessed it to be his blood. In which words, where he hath expressedly said, that christ confessed it to be his blood, and the like is meant of the bread to be his body: what more plain speech would we desire of any author? If christ confessed it to be his body, Li. 4. the Sacrament c. 6 and his confession is always true, how then standeth the saying of the Adversary that it is not his body? Shall we doubt of the truth of christ? as S. Ambrose saith: Ipse Dominus jesus testificatur nobis, quod corpus suum accipiamus & sanguinem: Nunquid debemus de eius fide, & testificatione dubitare? Hour Lord jesus testifieth unto us, that we receive his body and blood: ought we to doubt of his truth and testimony? Seeing then this author saith, that christ confessed his body and blood Jrenaeus avoucheth both real presence and sacrifice. to be present and that by these words: This is my body. This is my blood: it is plain that he understandeth them in their proper sense, without figure or trope, and so acknowledgeth the very real presence of Christ'S body and blood in the Sacrament. For farther proof whereof, the words that immediately in the same author do follow do make very much, where he saith, Et novi Testamenti, novam docuit oblacionem: And of the new Testament he taught a new oblation. This new oblation of the new Testament, is the body and blood of christ, as before in the first book is declared and proved. And here to the purpose farther to say, if the sacrifice that christ instituted to be the new oblation of the new testament, were but a piece of Sacramental bread, it were no new oblation. For than it were the same that Melchisedech offered, who offered bread and wine in sacrifice as a figure. Wherefore if this sacrifice be but bread and wine, a bare figure, than it is no new oblation. In the levitical law also we find bread and wine offered in the sacrifice. The show bread also was offered in sacrifice. Wherefore of necessity it must be understand of an oblation and sacrifice not heretofore accustomed to be offered, which by that reason may be called a new oblation, which is none other but the very body and blood our Saviour christ. Which although it were figuratively offered before of Melchisedech in material bread and wine: yet now in the new testament, it is offered as never before, not in figure but in very deed, the very body and blood of christ himself, the heavenly bread, and heavenly wine answering the bread and wine of Melchisedech, as the thing the figure. And so it is a new oblation instituted to be offered in the new Testament. Wherefore also christ to show the adaptation of the figure to the thing, and the figure therein to be fulfiled, took bread and wine, and consecrating them into his body and blood, confessed them (as this author saith) to be his body and blood, that the figure might be manifestly showed there to be termined in that heavenly bread and wine, the very thing figurated by that figure. If the malice of the adversary will go about to pervert this plain saying and testimony of his author: saying: that although christ did confess the bread and wine to be his body and blood, yet it followeth not that they were so in deed. This were a marvelous saying, that christ should confess a thing to be in plain manner of speech without any circumstance, leading us to an other sense: and yet in deed not to be so. But that he shall not so wickedly avoid the truth uttered here by this author, he shall hear an other testimony of the same, in the which, as before he said that christ confessed the bread and wine to be his body and blood: so here the author affirmeth them to be the body and blood: Thus he saith Quomodò constabit cum panem in quo gratiae actae sunt, corpus esse Domini sui, & calicem sanguinis eius, si non ipsum fabricatoris mundi filium dicant? etc. Quomodò autem rursum Irenaus' li. 5. cont. Heresy. dicunt carnem in corruptionem devenire, & non percipere vitam, quae à corpore Domini & sanguine alitur? How shall it be manifest, that bread in the which thanks be given, to be the body of their Lord, and the cup of his blood, if A plain saying of Irenaeus for the Proclaimer they say that he is not the son of the maker of the world? etc. And again, how say they the flesh to come into corruption, and not to receive life, which is nourished of the body and blood of our Lord? There be here in this testimony two notes, whereby as the adversary is answered and convinced: so is the truth notably settfurth and confirmed. The first is, that he saith that the bread, in the which thanks are given, is the body of our Lord, and the cup is the cup of his blood. The bread in the which christ gave thinks, was the bread which the Evangelists say that christ took in his hands, and gave thanks saying: This is my body. christ then might very well confeffe it to be his body, seeing (as Irenaeus saith) it is his body. So that of this author we learn it not only to be called and confessed the body of christ, but also to be, and that not in obscure words, but in plain and evident sentence. The other note is, that our flesh is nourished of the body and blood of Our flesh is nourished of the body and blood of our Lord. our Lord. Whereby the error of the Adversary teaching that christ is only spiritually and not really received in the Sacrament is overthrown and found false. For by that spiritual manner our flesh is not nourished, wherefore of necessity the other manner, that is, Christ'S very real body must be in the Sacrament received. It shall help you the better to perceive the mind of this author as concerning the real presence of christ in the Sacrament, if ye do understand wherefore he wrote this, that is here alleged. Understand therefore that by this place last alleged he impugneth two heresies: the one was that christ was not the Son of God that made the world, but that he was a man living in jewrie, who did not only dissolve Two heresies confuted by one argument ground upon the Sacr. the law and the Prophets, but also all the works of that God, that made the world. The other taught that the soul only shall be saved, and live everlastingly, and not the body, for that it being a gross thing, made of the earth, it is not possible, that it should atteing to everlasting life. To confute these two heresies Irenaeus growndeth himself upon the Sacrament, as a matter certain, evident, plain, and known aswell of the heretics, against whom he disputed, as of the true catholic Christians. Now against the first heresy, he proveth christ to be the Son of God by that that they confessed the body of their Lord, to be in the Sacrament. For if he whose body is in the Sacrament were not the Son of him that made the world, but a bare natural man, how could a man of his own power compass that his body should so be? and how could it be the body of their Lord, if he were not the Son of God? So all the weight of this argument standeth and resteth upon the presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament. Now deny the presence with this Proclaimer, and then the argument maketh nothing against the heresy, and so the argument which this holy Father thought to be strong shall be but weak. But who can doubt of the true knowledge of this ancient Father? When he ground his argument upon the presence of christ in the Sacrament, he was sure that his ground was fast and good. If the Sacrament were nothing but a figure, what more proof could be ground upon it then upon any other figure of the old law? The second heresy he also impugneth by the receipt of the body and blood of christ in the Sacrament. For where that heresy denied the body of man to be able or like to attain to life everlasting, this holy man proveth that it shall. For how can it (saith he) but receive life, seeing it is nourished by the body and blood of christ? as though he might cyril in 6. joan. ca 14 have said, as saint cyril saith: Quoniam salvatoris caro Verbo Dei, quod naturaliter vita est, coniuncta, vivifica effecta est, quando eam comedimus tunc vitam habemus in nobis illi coniuncti, quae vivifica effecta est. Because the flesh of our Saviour joined to the Son of God, which is naturally life is made quickening or giving life, when we eat that flesh, then In 15. joan Our corruptible body can not attain to incorrup. and life, except the body of christ be joined to it have we life in us. For (as he saith in an other place: Non poterat aliter corruptibilis haec natura corporis ad incorruptibilitatem & vitam traduci, nisi naturalis vitae corpus ei coniungeretur. This corruptible nature of our body could not otherwise be brought to incorruptibility and life, except the body of natural life should be joined to it. So than ye may now likewise perceive the force of this argument of Irenaeus to consist upon the corporal receipt of the body of christ in the Sacrament, which (as cyril saith) being the flesh of life, and incorruption when it is joined to our corruptible and mortal flesh (which manner of conjunction is by none other mean done, but by the Sacrament) it maketh this natural body of our to be apt to incorruption and life. If in the Sacrament we do not receive the very real body of christ, but a figure of the body, which giveth not life to our bodies, how standeth the argument of Irenaeus? what truth is there in the saying of Cyrillus? how shall these our mortal and coruptible bodies be made immortal and incorruptible, if the flesh of life, the flesh of our Lord christ be not joined to our flesh? The nourishing of our flesh to incorruptibility by the flesh of christ proveth invincibly the real presence. And here note, Reader, that these manner of speeches of these two authors improve the fantasy and error of the Sacramentaries, and invincibly prove the true catholic doctrine of the Church. As touching the false doctrine of the Sacramentaries, where it teacheth that we only receive Christ'S body spiritually, that is, the merit and virtue of Christ'S passion and death, this receipt toucheth not our bodies, this spiritual christ is not joined to our flesh, but this receipt toucheth our souls, this spiritual christ is joined to spirittes. But these authors say that the flesh and body of christ is received and so joined to our flesh and bodies. Which receipt and conjunction proveth invincibly that for as much, as the spiritual receipt is joined only to the soul that there must needs be an other receipt of the real and substantial flesh and body of christ, which may be joined to our substantial flesh and bodies. And so shall the argument of Irenaeus be of great force and strength, against the heretics, against whom he disputed: So is the testimony of cyril true: So is the doctrine of the catholic Church found ancient substantial and well ground: So is the doctrine of the Sacramentaries improved and found false as it is in deed. And where the Proclaimer required but one plain place of any one ancient Plain places and arguments against M. jewel. doctor, he hath now one, not only plain, but also strong and mighty, so overthrowing the green wrought walls of his late invented heresy, that well he may hang up some painted clothes, painted like strong walls, which may deceive simple eyes, and weak seightes, but they shall be in deed but painted clouts. This Irenaeus is not only taken of the catholics to be (as I have said) plain and strong, but also of heretics. For Melancthon against Oecolampadius this proclaimers late fownder, allegeth the same Irenaeus as one most plain and ancient, and there for not to be against said. Thus having brought forth an ancient scholar of Christ'S school, and a grave counseilour in Christ'S Parliament house, who hath declared unto us the true doctrine of Christ'S school, and the enacted and received truth of his Parliament house, that the words of christ teach us the presence of his very body in the Sacrament, and that they are to be understanded in their proper sense: Now followeth Tertullian a man very near the time of Irenaeus, whom the Adversaries seem to make the patron of their figurative doctrine, but it shall be well perceived, that he is against them and favoureth them not. Thus he writeth. Professus itaque Tertullian li. 4. cont. Marc. se concupiscentia concupiscere edere Pascha, ut suum (indignum quip ut quid alienum concupisceret Deus) acceptum panem, & distributum Discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit, dicens: Hoc est corpus meum id est, figura corporis mei. Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. When christ therefore had said, that with desire he desired to eat the Passover, as his owen (for it was christ made the bread his body, saith Tertull. unseemly that God should desire any strange thing) the bread that was taken and distributed to his disciples, he made it his body, saying: This is my body, that is to say, a figure of my body. But it had not been a figure, except it were a body of truth. As Irenaeus against Valentinus: So Tertullian against Martion used his argument taken of the Sacrament. Martion the disciple of Cerdon (whose heresies S. Augustine rehearseth) wickedly taught as his master did, that christ had no August. li. Adverse. Heres. c. 28 Heresy of Martion very true body, when he was here conversant upon the earth, but a fantastical body. Now Tertullian to prove that he had a very true body, bringeth in the institution of the Sacrament, saying, that christ made the bread that he took and distributed to his disciples, his body, saying: This is my body. wherebily as he strongly proveth by Christ'S own fact, who made the bread his body, and by his own word (who said of the same that he had so made: This is my body) that christ had a very body, Which could not well have proved the purpose of Tertullian, if that, that he made his body, and said to be his body, had not been a very body. Even so saying that christ made the bread his body, when he said: This is my body, proveth against the Sacramentaries both the presence of Christ'S very body in the Sacrament, and also that the words of christ are to be taken in their proper sense. But here reclaimeth the Adversary, and saith that not withstanding this that is said, Tertullian addeth and saith that it is a figure of his body. I wish that the Adversary would here join with me, as I will with him, that both of us accept the whole saying of Tertullian, as it is here alleged, and that he whose doctrine repugneth against any part of it, to confess that his doctrine is not good, and he that confesseth the whole, that his doctrine be accepted as sound and good. Let is then open the parts of Tertullian his saying. There be in it two parts: The one is that he saith, that christ made Tertullian opened and delivered from the Sacramentaries. the bread that he took in his hands his body: The other that he saith: This is my body, that it is to say, a figure of mi body. I now require of the Adversary, whether he will receive the first part of Tertulians saying, that christ made the bread his body? Certain I am that neither he, nor any other sacramentary doth grant that. For if christ made the bread his body (as by the testimony of this author it is most certain that he did) then is his very body certenlie and verily in the Sacrament. Which they all deny, as by declaration of the sainges of some of their capitans it shall appear. Zuinglius ad illutris. Germ. principes. Zuinglius writeth thus: Cùm panis & vinum illius amititiae symbolum sint, qua Deus humano generi per filium suum reconciliatus est, illa non aestimamus pro materiae praecio, sed juxta significate rei magnitudinem, ut iam non sit vulgaris panis, sed sacer, nec panis tantùm nomen habeat, sed corporis Christi quoque, imo sit corpus Christi sed appellatione, & significatione, quod recentiores vocant sacramentaliter. forasmuch as bread and wine be the token of the friendship, by the which God by his Son was reconciled to mankind, we weigh not these things for the worthiness of their matter, but according to the greatness of the thing signified: that now it be not common bread, but holy, neither that it have only the name of bread, but also of the body of christ: yea that it be the body of christ, but by name only, and signification, which the youngermen call sacramentally. Thus he. Ye see that this sacramentary, would not have the Sacrament to be esteemed for the substance of it, whereby he denieth the presence of the substance of Christ'S body. In the end he also saith that it is the body of Christ but he correcteth or raither corrupteth himself saying: that it is so by name and signification only, and not by truth, and substance. Oecolampadius also saith thus Barbery's plum quàm Scythica, vel Diomedaea est, in panis in In exposit. verborum coenae. Dom. volucroceu in enigmate ipsam hospitis carnem quaerere. Rusticitas est non observare nec cognoscere in quo hospes benevolentiam suam doceat, & pro spirituali carnalem requirere coenam. It is more than scythicall or diomedicall Barbarousness, in the covering of bread to seek the flesh of christ, it is gross incivility not to regard and know wherein christ teacheth his benevolence, and for a spiritual to require a carnal supper. And here Oecolampadius also denieth that Tertullan affirmeth. For he saith it is a barbarousness or rudeness to seek the flesh of christ in the Sacrament: but Tertullian (whom I often repeat) saying that christ made the bread his body giveth us not a rude, but a godly doctrine to seek the flesh of christ in the Sacrament. Bullinger also saith thus: Commemoratio ac symbolum est corporis veri, non ipsum corpus. It is a remembrance and a token of the very body, not the very body Bullingerus in 2. Act. it self. What need I trouble the reader with the sainges of any more of them, seeing it is certain, that the whole rabble of them, and this Proclaimer also denieth that, that Tertullian saith, and abhorreth to say as he saith, that the bread is made the body of christ. And note well that Tertullian saith not, that it is named or called the body of christ, but in plain express christ named not only, but made the bread his body. words saith, that it is made the body of christ. And now it is plain that the adversary receiveth not this part of Tertullian his saying: but all the catholic church ever hath and doth receive it, confessing it with this man and S. Cyprian, who followed him, and highly embraced him, and S. Ambrose, which both use the like words, that the bread is made the body of christ. Cyprian in this manner: Panis quem Dominus Discipulis edendum porrigebat non essigic, sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est Caro. The bread Cyprian. de coena Dom. that our Lord gave unto his disciples, changed not in outward form, but in nature, by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh. S. Ambrose in this sort: Panis iste, panis est ante verba sacramentorum, ubi accesserit consecratio de pane Amb. li. 4. de Sacr. c. 4 Bread is made the flesh of christ. sit caro Christi. This bread is bread before the words of the Sacraments: but when the consecration is comed to it, of the bread is made the flesh of christ. In all these ye see this manner of speech, that bread is made the flesh or body of christ. Which manner fully excludeth the only figure and includeth the very substantial presence of Christ'S body. Thus much being said of the first part of Tertullian'S saying: Let us also have a few words about the second part. The second part (if you remembrer) is that calleth it a figure of Christ'S body. This part the Adversary (there is no doubt) receiveth though he receive it not well, according to the mind of the author. The catholic also receiveth it, and receiveth it well. For he receiveth it according to the mind of the author. How shall the reader perceive that? Thus shall he perceive it. He that so understandeth a catholic author, that he make him not repugnant to himself, nor to other his likes, he understandeth the author well, The right way to understand a catholic author. and receiveth him well. But he that so understandeth an author that he maketh him contrary, and repugnant to himself, and other learned authors which be his likes, he understandeth the author evil, and receiveth him evil. The catholic receiveth this part of Tertullian, where he saith it is a figure of Christ'S body, and granteth it, and also following Tertullian, teacheth that it is a figure, but so that the presence of Christ'S body be not denied, which the first part (as above is said) teacheth. And therefore though it be a figure: yet not only a figure, but also the body with it. The Adversary receiveth this part of the author understanding it as Oecolampadius The Sacr. a figure but not only a figure. doth. quod panis assumitur in signum tantùm, that the bread is taken for a sign only, denying thereby the presence of the body. And so maketh the author not only repugnant to himself, but also to other holy writers. To himself thus: For where he said, that christ made the bread his body, now understanding by the figure, the Sacrament to be only a figure or sign of Christ'S body and not the body it self, the bread is not made his body. Oecol. de verbiscoen. And so shall the author deny in the second part of his saying, that he thought in the first, which may not be allowed, and therefore he receiveth and understandeth the author evil. And so to other which be ancient as he is, that author should be repugnant, as to S. Ambrose. S. Cyprian, to Irenaeus, justinus, and Alexander which all teach (as before is declared) that the Sacrament of Christ'S body and blood containeth the very body of christ, and is not a bare figure or sign only. For the better understanding of this matter, I wish thee, reader, to perceive that for somuch as to our purpose appertaineth, a figure may be taken two manner of ways. One way as it is a sign or token of a thing absent in deed, A figure may be taken two ways. but present in figure or sign. As a ring given of a man to his loving spouse, is a sign or token of remembrance of him being absent. another way a figure may be taken as of a thing absent in manner and condition such as sometime it hath been in, but present in very deed and substance. As the spouse beholding her very husband, and seeing the scars and tokens of wounds that he suffered for her defence and safeguard, and of his children an hers: is A figure may be of a thing present in substance. brought in remembrance of his loving kindness, and of the dangers sustained for her sake. In which case although the substance of the man be present: yet to his wife he is a figure and token of remembrance of himself absent in condition of a man now in fight, and dangered with sore and deep wounds. For now he is no such man, but whole and sound, and a perfect man. Now where Tertullian saith that the Sacrament is a figure of Christ'S body, it is true after the second manner of acception of a figure. For Christ'S The Sacr. is a figure of a thing present. body now present in the Sacrament, and there by faith certenlie and assuredly seen and beholden, is a figure and a token of remembrance to his spouse the Church of his afflictions, passions, and wounds suffered upon the Cross for her safeguard and delivery, which body although it be substantially present: yet in that manner of a passable, and suffering body it is not now present. Caro carnis, & sanguis sacramentum est sanguivis. utroque invisibiliter August. il. senten. Pros. spirituali & intelligibili signatur Domini jesu Christi corpus visibile & palpabile, plenum gratia omnium virtutum, & divina maiestate. The flesh, saith S. Augustin, is a Sacrament of the flesh, and the blood is a sacrament of the blood. By both which being invisibly spiritual and intelligle is signified the visible and palpable The invisible body of christ in the Sacr. ae figure of the same visible, etc. body of our Lord jesus christ, full of grace and all virtues, and divine majesty. Thus much he. Here do we learn of S. Augustine that the body of christ and blood in the Sacrament being under the forms of bread and wine invisible, spiritual, and intelligible, be figures of the same body visible and palpable. Let not this then seem incredible to thee (gentle Reader) seeing S. Augustine testifieth it by so plain words, and the scriptures also testify unto us that christ was made in the likeness of men: and yet was he nevertheless Philip. 2. a very natural and substantial man, and that he is the very image of the Father, and yet he is of the substance of the Father also. So that as we are taught, that christ is made to the likeness of men, and is also a very man, and is the image of the substance of the Father, and yet of the very substance of the Father also: So we be taught that the Sacrament is a figure and the thing it self also. For we say the body of christ under the form of bread, and his blood under the form of wine, to be a figure of that body that suffered upon the Cross, and of the blood there issuing out of the same body, and divided from it. And yet nevertheless to be the same very body in substance that hanged upon the Cross, and the same blood in substance that ran out of that blessed body. And therefore Tertullian might very well call it a figure as before he called it the body of christ, for it is both. This shall farther appear by two places of S. Augustin, in the which speaking of one thing, he calleth the Sacrament in one the figure of the body of christ: in the other he calleth it or price or Redemption, which is as much to say as the body of christ. Thus he saith speaking of judas the traditour. Cùm Christus eius cogitationes non ignoraret, eum tamen adhibuit and conuivium, in quo sui corporis & sanguinis figuram Discipulis commendavit. When christ was not ignorant of the thoughts of judas: yet he had him Aug. in Psalm. 3. present at the feast, in the which he commended to his Disciples the figure of his body and blood. Here ye perceive that saint Augustine calleth the Sacrament the figure of Christ'S body and blood. In an other place he saith thus: Tollerat ipse Dominus judam, Diabolum, furem, & venditorem suum. Sinit Epist. 162. Judas received the body of christ which is our price. accipere inter innocentes Discipulos, quod norunt fideles, precium nostrum. Hour Lord himself doth suffer judas, a devil, a thief, and his seller, he suffereth him to take among the innocent Disciples, that the faithful know, our price or redemption. Now mark that what in the other sentence he called the figure of Christ'S body, here he calleth it our price or redemption, which is christ himself as saint Paul testifieth: Qui factus est nobis sapientia, & justitia, & sanctificatio & redemptio. Who is made to us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. If the Sacrament be but a bare figure: if it be but bread and wine, it is not then our price, it is not then our redemption as S. Augustine saith it is. By this than it is manifest that the body and blood of christ in the Sacrament being our price and redemption, be the figures of the same body and blood of christ crucified for our redemption. And therefore it may rightly be called both the body of christ, and the figure of the body of christ. Whereunto agreeably saith Theophilact: Attend quòd panis qui à nobis in mysterijs manducatur, non est tantùm figuratio quaedam carnis Domini, sed ipsa caro Domini. Note or take head that the bread, which is eaten of us in the mysteries, In 6. Joan. Bread of the Sacra. very flesh A plain saying for M. Juell. is not only a certain figure of the flesh of our Lord, but the flesh it self of our Lord. Thus by this declaration of saint Augustine and Theophilact ye may clearly see and perceive, the right and true understanding of Tertullian, who according to the Christian and catholic faith taught that christ made the bread his body whereby he convinceth his Adversary Martion. And after to his farther confutation (for that a figure, must needs be a figure os a body) he saith also that it is the figure of Christ'S body, and so confesseth both the very body, and the figure of the body. This understanding of Tertullian must needs be good and upright. For Li. de resur. carnis. A plain saying for the Proclaimer after this manner he agreeth with himself both in this place and other, as where he saith: Caro corpore & sanguine Christi vescitur, ut anima de Deo saginetur. The flesh eateth the body and blood of christ, that the soul may be made fat with God. Where in plain words he saith that man, not by spirit, but by his flesh eateth, not a piece of bread a sign or figure only of Christ'S body, but it eateth Christ'S very body and blood it self. After this understanding also he agreeth with saint Augustine, and Theophilact, and other holy Fathers, as partly ye have before heard, and shall hereafter plentifully hear. And thus understanded he agreeth to be short with the whole catholic Church, which always hath and doth teach the body of christ both to be a figure, and the thing it self in verity. Wherefore neither Tertullian, neither saint Augustine in these places alleged neither against Amantus, be either refused or denied but accepted and embraced. For the Church doth acknowledge as much as they say, and they with the Church do acknowledge the Sacrament to be both. But let the Adversary bring but one ancient author that saith as he doth, that it is figura tantùm. only a figure, and therewith saith as he doth that the real and very body of christ is not in the Sacrament, and then I will say he hath done somewhat. Hitherto all they have done nothing to effect to prove their matter, but only made some cowntenance and appearance No catholic author saith that the Sacr. is only a figure. in words to deceive the people, and to pluck them from the catholic faith. For where their doctrine is that the Sacrament is a figure only, when they read this word (figura) in Tertullian, S. Angustine, or any other author they run away with it, and violently wrest it making their auditory believe, that the author say as they say. And that is false. For the authors say no not one of them that it is only a figure, which is the thing that the Adversary must prove, and that shall he never do. Wherefore Reader, look to thyself, and be not deceived, mark well which part saith as Tertullian saith, and follow that part. Tertullian saith, that the bread is made the body of christ, so saith the cathoiique, so saith the holy Church, but that denieth the Adversary. Tertullian saith that it is a figure of the body of christ, so saith the catholic, so saith the holy Church, so after a manner saith the Adversary, but the manner is such, that though in the word (Figure) it seemeth so to say, and to have agreement with Tertullian: yet in sense it denieth the whole. For neither doth the Adversary agree upon the thing that is the figure, neither doth he say as Tertullian doth say, that it is a figure, but with an exclusuie, that it is a figure only, which as it is more than Tertullian saith: so it is more than is true and thus trusting ye clearly, and fully perceive, who agreeth and who dissenteth from this ancient Father of the primitive Church, I end with him, and proceed to hear other, THE fifth CHAP. ABIDETH IN THE EXposition of the same words by S. Cyprian, and Athanasius. NOt long after Tertullian was S. Cyprian, who being a signior in Christ'S school, and an ancient in his Parliament house, will show us the faith taught and continued in that school, and the truth enacted and received in that Parliament house: Cypry. de coena Dom. vide sup. li. 1. cap. 29. Thus he writeth: Significata olim à tempore Melchisedech prodeunt sacramenta, & filiis Abrahae, facientibus opera eius, summus sacerdos panem profert & vinum Hoc est (inquit) corpus meum etc. The sacraments signified long agone from the time of Melchisedech come now abroad, and the high priest to the child ren of Abraham doing his works, bringeth forth bread and wine. This (saith he) is my body. They had eaten of the same bread after the visible form, but before those words, that common meat was only meat to nourish the body, and ministered the help of the corporal life. But after that our Lord had said: Do this in my remembrance, This is my flesh, and this is my blood: As often as it is done with these words, and this faith, that substantial bread and cup consecrated by the solemn benediction doth profit to the health and life of the whole man, being both a medicen and a sacrifice, to heal infirmities, and to purge iniquities. Thus he. What sense the words of Christ'S supper have, this holy Cyprian doth manifestly declare, who rehearsing them saith: but after that our Lord had said: This do in the remembrance of me: This is my flesh, and this is my blood, that substantial bread and cup consecrated doth profit the whole man, that is, both the body and soul of man, for so moche as it is a medicen to heal the infirmities of them, and a sacrifice to purge their iniquities. In the Sacrament after the words of S. Cyprian saying that the bread and cup after the consccration, is a medicine to heal insir. and a sacrifice to purge iniquit. proveth invincible the real presence of Chrysts body. christ spoken what can be said to be, that profiteth both body and soul, and is a medicen and also a sacrifice, what I say, can there else be that should be these great works but the body and blood of christ? It is that body that is our medicen: it is that body that is our sacrifice. Wherefore S. Cyprian meaning that after the words of our Lord, that body and blood is in the Sacrament, invincibly proveth against the proclaimer the presence of Christ'S body and that the words of our Lord be not to be understand figuratively, but properly in their own sense. And this is not to be overpassed, what difference this author maketh betwixt the condition of the bread before the words of christ spoken, and after the words. Before the words (saith he) it is common meat meet only to nourish the body, but after the words it is, as ye have heard, profitable both for body and soul: This also is to be noted that this author speaking of these great benefits doth not attribute them to faith, nor to the virtue of the passion of christ, Benefits at tributed to the Sacra. nor to the spiritual body of christ, or receipt of that (although all these be necessary for that without them the befits before mentioned can not be obtained) but doth attribute them to the same meat now in the Sacrament after consecration, which before the consecration was corporal meat. Hour faith, the virtue, grace, or merit of Christ'S passion were never corporal meat, wherefore this author speaketh not of them. And therefore we may conclude, that it is the body of christ into whose substance, the substance of bread that before Christ's words was able only to sustain the body now after the words is turned into the substance of christ, which is able to comfort both body and soul, and is become the substantial bread, giving and maintaining our substantial life, which is the everlasting life. Of this place of S. Cyprian, uless as I have more at large spoken in the opening of the figure of Melchisedech, I shall desire the reader, if he would In the first book c. 29. see what may be more said upon it, to resort thither, where, I turst, he shall find matter to the better opening of this place. But yet that it may be fully perceived that S. Cyprian in this place meaneth as is said, that the very body of christ is in the Sacrament, and that such was his faith, and that christ so taught, and his school so learned: we will hear an other testimony of the same S. Cyprian in the same treactice, Cypr. de cae na. Dom. A plain place for M. jewel. that this sentence before alleged is in, which is this. Novae est buius Sacramenti doctrina, & scholae cuangelicae hoc primum magisterium portulerunt, & doctore Christo primum haec mundo innotuit disciplina, ut biberent sanguinem christiani, cuius esum legis antiquae authoritas districtissimen interdicit. Lex quip esum sanguinis probibet: evangelium praecipit ut bibatur. In quibus mandatis hoc maximè discernere debet christiana Religio, quòd sanguis animalium, à sanguine Chricti per omnia differens, temporalis tantum habet vivificationis effectum, & vita corum finem habet sine revocacione constitutum. The doctrine of this Sacrament The law did forbid the eating of blood, the Gospel commandeth it. is new, and the evangelical schools first brought forth this manner of teaching, and christ being the teacher this learning first was known to the world, that Christian men should drink blood, the eating whereof the authority of the old law did most strictly forbid. The Law forbiddeth the eating of blood: The Gospel commandeth that it be drunk. In which commandments this most chiefly aught the Christian religion to discern that the blood of beasts by all means differing from the blood of christ hath only the effect of temporal relief, and the life of them hath an end appointed without revocation. Thus he. I wish the (gentle reader) against the blasphemies of the Adversaries, to weigh well every part of this saying of S. Cyprian. The Adversary saith that the doctrine of the Sacrament, is the Papists device, and their invention: But S. Cyprian teacheth us first that it is a new doctrine, he teacheth us in what school it was first, taught. In the school (saith he) of the Gospel, he teacheth us who was the school master, who was the first teacher of it, christ (faith he) was the first teacher of it, he first did notify it to the world. But if ye ask what is this new doctrine: He saith that it is a new doctrine of the Sacrament that Christian men should drink blood. If ye proceed Doctrine of the real presence how it is called new. and ask whether they must drink very blood: He saith very blood. For it is such blood as the law did forbid to be eaten. And that assuredly was very blood. Wherefore this is very blood. If ye question farther, if the Christians must drink very blood, whose blood must they drink? He answereth, Christ'S blood, as in the comparison of the commandments of the two laws (the old law forbidding blood, the new law commanding blood) it is evident to be seen, that he saith new law commandeth the blood of christ to be drunk. In this than ye may perceive that the doctrine of the presence of Christ'S body and blood in the Sacrament and the real receipt of the same is not the invention or devise of the Papists, but it is as this holy Father and martyr of christ, and therefore a good scholar of christ, saith, who knew Doctrine of the real presence is no new innuention of the Papists. the learning of his master well, it is saith he, the doctrine of christ, it is his ordinance, it is his invention, device, and institution. Wherefore they may bash, and be a shamed, yea they may tremble for fear to see themselves fallen into that impiety, that the jews were, who seeing christ casting out the dumb spirit out of a man, maliciouselie and wickedly ascribed the miraculous work to Belzebub, which was done by the power of God in christ: So they wickedly ascribe this institution of the Sacrament this doctrine of the presence of Christ'S body and blood in the same Luc. 11. (which is the miraculous work of God) to the Papists, at it pleaseth them to term them. But here may ye learn that christ is the first teacher of this doctrine. And this shall we make more evidently to appear to you by the words of this author. And first where he saith, that the doctrine of the Sacrament is new This doth plainly and strongly reject the figure and Tropes of the Aduersaties from the Sacrament. For if the Sacrament be but the figure and not the thing: how is it, or how can it be a new doctrine? To offer bread and wine as figures of christ, we find Melchisedech in the law of nature Gen. 14. Exod. 16. 1. Cor. 10. to have so doen. That the people of the jews did eat Manna, and bread from heaven, and drank the water of the rock, as figures of Christ'S body and blood, it is more manifest, then can be denied. The two tenth deals of fine flower made in cakes, and the wine also that was offered for a drink offering, stinted in Leviticus by the measure of a fourth deal of an hyn were offered as figures of Chrysts body and blood, as Isichius witnesseth, so Li. 6. ca 23 that to have bread and wine, or to eat and drink such things as figures of Christ'S body and blood, it is no new doctrine. It was in the law of nature, it was in the law of Moses. Wherefore it can not be a new doctrine. The new doctrine than is to receive the very thing of these figures verily, really, and presently, which in deed is a new doctrine, never taught to be used and parctised, before christ taught it, yea and commanded it. When and where did he teach it? Before his passion at his last supper, and (as Cyprian termeth it) in the school of the Gospel. Where in the Gospel then find we this new doctrine or commandment? The doctrine we find (as before is declared) in the sixth of S. john. Panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est, quam dabo pro mundi vita. The bread, that I will give you, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. And that which followeth in the same chapter concerning the Sacrament. The commandment we find in the three other Evangelists and in S. Paul. Accipite, & comedite, hoc est corpus meum. Bibite ex hoc omnes. Hic est calix sanguinis mei. Take and eat. This is my body, drink ye all of this, This is the Matth. 26 Mar. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. cup of my blood. Cyprian saith that christ first taught that men should drink blood, and that the school of the Gospel did first set it forth, and also the Gospel did command it. But in all the Gospel we find no such commandment, but this that is now said. Wherefore these words do command us to drink the very blood of christ, and not the only figure of it. Which being so it proveth the very real presence of Christ'S body and blood in the Sacrament, and these commandments in the words of Christ'S supper, to be literal and not tropical. Now followeth Athanasius, whom for that he was not long after Cyprian, I have coupled with the same, as a famous ancient father of the greek church, with an holy famous martyr of the Latin church. Thus writeth Athanasius. Corpus est ergo cui dicit: Sede à dextris meis. Cuius etiam fuit inimicus Diabolus, Athanasius li. de fide ut ●ītatur à Theodoret. Dialogo 2. Inconfusus. cum malis potestatibus, & judaei, & Greci, per quod corpus Pontifex & Apostolus fuit & dictus est, per id quod tradidit nobis mysterium dicens: Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro Vobis frangitur. Et sanguis novi testamenti non veteris, qui pro vobis effunditur etc. It is therefore a body to the which he said: Sit on my right hand, whose enemy was the Devil, with the evil powers and the jews, and the greeks. By which body he both was in deed, and was called an high priest, and an Apostle, by that mystery that he delivered us saying: This is my body, which is broken for you, and the blood of the new Testament, not of the old, which is shed for you. The godhead hath neither body nor blood, but man, which he did take of the virgin Mary. Theodorete, who in his second dialogue laboureth to prove two distincted natures without confufion, that is, the nature of God and the nature of man, each of them full and perfect joined, but not commixed in unity of person in christ hour saviour, allegeth this saying of Athanasius, where in Athanasius touching both natures, doth most abide to prove the nature of man to remain in christ. And to prove that, he proveth that christ had a very man's body, and that by two arguments: The first is that where David in the psalm prophesied that christ should be exalted to sit on the right hand of God the Father, and therefore said: The Lord said to my Lord, suit thou on my right hand. This could not be said but to a body. But christ as God, had neither body nor blood. Wherefore it is spoken to christ as man. The other argument is after this sort christ by that that he delivered unto us the mystery of his body and blood, was in deed, and so also was called an high priest. But in the delivering of this mystery he said This is my body, This is my blood. And the Godhead of christ hath neither body nor blood: Wherefore he spoke by his very manheade which had both body and blood) This is my body: This is my blood. In both these arguments, this is principally intended, to prove christ a very man by that that he had a very body. Now to our purpose in the second argument to prove that he had a body, by that that christ said: This is my body: doth it not prove that this author understandeth christ to have spoken this by his very body? if the should not so do, what should it help his matter that he intendeth to prove, to bring in this saying of christ: This is my body, if it be not spoken of his body? To prove that this auhour, doth so understand this place of christ, as spoken of his very body this maketh it most certain, and it may not be against Scriptures must be alleged in their literal sense in matters of faith said. S. Augustine saith, and it is a rule among all the learned divines, that in the disputation of matters of faith all scriptures must be alleged in their literal sense. forasmuch then as this scripture is alleged in the disputation of an high matter of faith (as ye have heard) it must be taken and understanded in the literal sense. The words are taken to prove that christ had a very body. Wherefore in the literal sense they are spoken, and understand of his very body. Thus ye may perceive that figures signs, tokens, and tropes, are not admitted by this author to give us the true sense and meaning of these words. And thus moche may we here note (as I have before touched) that the belief of the presence of Christ'S very body in the Sacrament was in the ancient church of christ so faithfully received, so generally accepted, so highly esteemed, that the learned Fathers ground their argumetes against heretics upon the matter of the Sacrament, as upon a principle of faith. This have you seen in Irenaeus: This have you seen in Tertullian: This same ye see in Athanasius. Which as it aught to be an occasion of an assured stay, and confirmation of our faith in the same matter in the Sacrament: so wish I that it may be a revocation of the Proclaimer, and all other walking in error with him to the very faith of the Sacrament, that christ may by the mouth of all that profess his name, be in his Sacraments praised and magnified, even according to his holy will and pleasure. THE ONE AND FITITETH CHAP. SHOWETH the mind of Iwencus, and Euseb. Emisen upon the words of Chryst. Among the Latins that do open unto us the understanding of the words of Christ'S supper, the next that I find to S. Cyprian is Jwencus lib. 4. Euangelice histor. Iwencus the priest, a Christian Poet in Spain, who in Verse giveth a notable and a plain understanding of Christ'S words. He is very ancient, he did write a good number of years above xii hundredth years agone. Thus saith he. Haec ubi dicta dedit, palmis sibi frangere panem, Divisumue dehinc tradit sanctumue precatus, Discipulos docuit proprium se tradere corpus. Hinc calicem sumit Dominus, vinoue repletum Gratis sanctificat verbis, potumue ministrat. Edocuitue suum se divisisse cruorem. Atque ait, hic sanguis populi delicta remittet. Hunc potate meum etc. christ delivered to his Apostles his own body. Of these verseiss, this may be the sense in english. When christ had thus said, he took bread in his hands, and when he had given thanks, he divided it to his Disciples, and taught them, that he delivered unto them his own body. And after that our Lord took the cup filled with wine he sanctifieth it with thanks giving, and giveth it to them to drink, and teacheth them that he hath given them his blood, and saith: This blood shall remit the Sins of the people. Drink ye this my blood etc. This Author setting forth the history of the Gospel in verse, and therewith oftentimes giving us with the history the sense and understanding of it, doth even so here. For he doth not only say that christ said, This is my body, but giveth the understanding of it, saying, that christ taught his Apostles that he delivered unto them his own body. In which manner of speech note this also, that he saith not only, that christ delivered them his body: But addeth this word (own) and saith that he taught them, that he delivered to them his own body. Which manner of speech hath such force and strength with it, that as it declareth the catholic saith and giveth great testimony of the same: so it beateth and driveth away the wicked gloze of only figures and signs, invented by the Adversaries to pervert the truth. For what more plain testimony would we desire for the understanding of Christ'S words, then to say, that when christ saith: Take eat, this is my body, that he taught his Apostles, that he gave them his own body? A plain saying for the Procla. Thus may you see that for the catholic faith you have plain testimony, for the heresy of the Adversary, you have not one word. For I assure you of this, as partly before is said, there is not one catholic writer, neither old nor young, from christ to Berengarius that ever taught or wrote that the Sacrament is only a figure or sign of the body of christ. And therefore (Reader) look to thy self, be not carried away from Christ'S faith with only brags and glozing words void of all good proof. But raither settle thyself where thou findest the truth set forth to thee with simplicity and plainness commended with moche proof and authority. But having yet many more witnesses let me hast me to bring him, that is appointed to be this authors yockfelowe, to declare the continuance of the understanding of Christ'S words in the greek church, as the other hath done in the latin church. This is Eusebius Emisenus, who by the supptation of learned men, lived in the same time that Iwencus did. He writeth thus: Recedat omne infidelitatis ambiguum, quoniam quidem qui author est muneris, ipse est etiam testis veritatis. Nam invisibilis sacerdos visibiles creaturas in substantiam corporis & sanguinis sui verbo suo, secreta potestate convertit, ita dicens: Hoc est corpus meum. Et sanctificatione repetita, Accipite, & bibite, ait, Hic est sangnis meus. Let all doubt Euseb. Emis. Homil. 5. Pa. Visible bread and wine turned into the substance of the body and blood of christ of infidelity or unbelief depart. For truly he that is the author of the gift, he also is the witness of the truth. For the invisible priest by his secret power, doth with his word convert or turn the visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood, saying thus: Take and eat, This is my body. and the sanctification repeated: Take and drink (saith he) this is my blood, In this saying of Eusebius there is no such dark manner of speech that the reader need to doubt of the true presence of christ in the Sacrament, or how to understand the words of Christ'S supper, seeing that he so plainly saith, that christ (whom he calleth the invincible priest) with his power and word, saying This is my body, This is my blood, turneth the visible Real presence and transubstantiation plainly avouched by Euseb. Emis. creatures of bread and wine into the substance of his body and blood. If they be turned into the substance of his body and blood, as by the testimony of this author they truly be, than these words Corpus, & sangnis, body and blood, in the sainges of christ do not signify the figures of the body and blood of christ, but the substance of the body and blood of christ, into which substance to make the body and blood verily present, the creatures of bread and wine be turned, and so christ saying, This is my body, this is my blood: it is as much as he had said, This is the substance of my body, this is the substance of my blood. This doctrine is so certain, so sure, and so true, that this author gave exhortation and admonition in the beginning of his saying, that in this matter there should be no doubt, all unbelief should depart, and so faithfully to believe Christ'S words, that forasmoch as he is the author of all truth, and saith: This is my body, This is my blood, undoubtedly so to take it. Beside this doctrine of faith of the presence of Christ'S very substantial body and blood in the Sacrament, this author also teacheth the mean how Transubstantiation treacted of. God worketh it, and saith, that it is done by turning the creatures of bread and wine into the substance of the body and blood of christ, which turning or changing of one substance into an other, as the holy Fathers do diversly term, some of them calling it a conversion or turning, some of them mutation or changing, some communication or translation, some transelementation: some transmutation: so the Church fully and lively to express the thing that is done, and thereby the better to repel the heresies that have risen and encumbered the Church since the time of Berengarius, hath termed it Transubstanciatonn, which term importeth no more in this matter, than transmutation, or transelementation, but it soundeth and openeth the thing that it signifieth more lively, and suffereth notthe heretics to wrest it as they do the other. Which is the cause that many be so grievously offended with the term. But because the Proclaimer doth lightly overpass it I will not tarry long upon it. But in the allegation of the Fathers, as they shall make mention ofit, so shall I breleiflie not it. And yet that the reader shall not think that that matter is so barren, that nothing can be said of it, or being desielrouse to learn should be frustrate of his desire, and expectation. I shall somewhat here say of it, desiring withal that as they do read the doctors that shall be hereafter alleged, they will note in them what they shall find, as thereunto I shall give them occasion in every one that doth speak of this matter. And for that we have taken occasion of this authors words to speak of it, we will first hear what he saith farther of it, that it may fully appear to the reader, that it is not reputed of him as a doubtful matter, but as a certain and substantial sure matter. Wherefore let him understand that to the more full declaration of this that is before Euseb. Emiss. ibid. said, the author immediately addeth this that followeth: Ergo ut ad nutum Domini praecipientis, repentè ex nihilo substiterint alta coelorum, profunda sluctuum, vasta terrarum: ita pari potentia in spiritual 〈◊〉 Sacramentis, verbo praebetur virtus & reiseruit effectus. Quanta itaque, & quàm celebranda vis divinae benedictionis operetur, & quomodò tibi nowm & impossibile videri non debeat, quòd in Christi substantiam terrena & mortalia commutantur, teipsum, qui iam in Christo es regeneratus, interroga. Therefore as at the will of our Lord commanding, suddenly of nothing, the heights of the heavens, the depths of the waters, the greatness of the earth were in substantial being: Even so in the spiritual Sacraments unto the word is given virtue or power, and the effect is brought to pass. Therefore how great and How the bread and wine beturned into the body and blood, etc. notable things, the power of the divine benediction may work, and how it should not seem to thee as new or impossible that earthly and mortal things are commuted or changed into the substance of christ, ask of thyself, who art now regenerate in christ. Thus Eusebius. Who, to prove that, which he had before said, that the visible creatures of bread and wine are turned into the substance of the body and blood ofChryst, bringeth this argument: that asat as the commandment of God his only word, suddenly the heavens, the waters, and the whole world was made of nothing: So by like power he worketh in the Sacrament, to make the substance of his body and blood of the substance of the bread and wine. another argument he bringeth by the change that God maketh of a man in Baptism, that he that was a stranger and a banished man from God, yea and dead before God, suddenly is revived, and of a banished man is made a friend, and of a stranger is made an adoptive Son of God. Whereby he would not have it thought impossible, but that earthly and mortal things, as the bread and wine in the Sacrament, may be and are changed into the substance of christ. In the same homely to this purpose also he maketh this persuasion: Nec dubitet quispiam primarias creaturas nutu divinae potentiae, praesentia summae maiestatis in domiaici Euseb. ibid. corporis posse transire naturam, cùm ipsum hominem videat artificio coelestis misericordiae Christi corpus effectum. Neither let any man doubt that by the commandment of the divine power by the presence of his high majesty, the former creatures (meaning bread and wine) can pass or be changed into the nature of 〈◊〉 of ●… 〈◊〉 and ●…me the body etc. is not to be doubted of the body of our lords body, seeing that he may see man himself by the workmanship of the heavenly mercy, made the body of christ. And there again it followeth immediately: Sicut autem quicunque ad fidem Christi●… eniens ante verba Baptismi adhuc in vinculo est veteris debiti, ijs verò memoratis, mox exaitur omni fece peccati●ta quando benedicendae verbis coelestibus creaturae sacris altaribus imponuntur, antequàm invocacione summi nominis consecrentur, substantia est illic panis & vun, post verba autem Christi, corpus & sanguis Christi. Quid autem mirum est, si ea quae po●…t Eused ibid. verbo creare, verbo possit creata convertere? As any man coming to the faith of christ, before the words of Baptism is yet in the band of the old debt, but as soen as they be spoken forthwith he is delivered from all filth of sin: Even so when the creatures are set upon the holy altars to be blessed with the heavenvly Before the words of christ there is the substance of br●ad after, the body of christ, a plain sam● for M. words, before they be consecrated with the invocation of the most high name, there is the substance of bread and wine: but after the words of christ, the body and blood of christ. What wonder is it, if he that could create these things with his word, can now being created turn them with his word. And he addeth: Imo iam videtur minoris esse miraculi, stid quod ex nihilo agnoscitur condi lisse, ●am conditum in melius valeat commutare. Yea raither it seemeth to be a less miracle, if that, that he is known to have made of nothing, he can now when it is made change it into a better thing. Thus much Eusebius. Whom ye see by diverse goodly examples, and means teaching the presence of Chrysts body in the Sacrament, by the turning or changing of the bread and wine into the substance and nature of the body and blood of christ. But it shall do well to hear some other besides him, what testimony they give in this matter, that thereby the reader may have moreful instruction, Among these we will first hear Gregory Nissen the brother of. Basil, who saith 〈◊〉 Nis●… 〈…〉, thus: Sicut autem qui panem videt, quodammodò corpus videt humanum, quoniam panis incorpore existens corpus evadit: ita divinum illud corpus, panis nutrimentum accipiens, idem quodammcdò erat cum illo cibo (ut diximus) in eius naturam immutato. Quod enim cuiusque carnis propr●im est, id etiam illi convenisse confitemur. Name & corpus illud pane sustentabatur, corpus autem, proptereaquod Deus Verbum in illo habitavit, divinam obtinuit dignitatem. Quamobren rectè nunc etiam Dei verbo sanctificatum panem, in Dei Verbi corpus, credimus immutari. As he that seeth bread, in a manner seeth the body of a man, for bread being in the body becometh a body: Even so that body of God taking the nutriment of bread, was in a manner all one with the same meat that was (as we have said) changed into the nature of his body. For that that is proper to every man, that same do we confess to have appertained to him. For that body also was sustained with bread, but that body, for that God the Son did abide in him, it obtained the dignity of God, wherefore now also do we very well believe the bread sanctified by the word of God, to be changed into the body of the Son of God. Thus he. Let not this eschape thee, reader, without diligent note, that this author Transubst. believed of the ancient fathers. doth not only say that the sanctified bread is changed into the body, of the Son of God, but he saith also (as it were in the person of the wholChurch) that we believe it so to be. wherebily we be advertised that it is a matter offaith, and not a matter of opinion. It is not lawful for every man to think what he list in it, but if he will be among the faithful he must without disceptation humbly accept and embrace what faith commandeth to be believed. But let us also hear S. Ambrose, who writeth thus. Fortè dicas: Aliud video, quo modò tu mihi asseris, quòd Christi corpus accipiam? & hoc superest, ut probemus. Quantis Ambr. de his qui initian. ca 9 igitur utimur exemplis, ut probemus hoc non esse quod natura formavit sed quod benedictio consecravit, maioremue vim esse benedictionis, quàm naturae, quiae benedictione natura ipsa mutatur? Virgam tenebat Moses, proiecit eam, & facta est serpens. Rursus apprehendit caudam serpentis, & in virgae naturam revertitur. Vides igitur prophetica gratia bis mutatam esse naturam serpentis, & virgae. Peradventure thou mayst say: I see an other thing, how dost thou assure me that I take the body of Christ? And this remaineth for us to Benediction what power it hath. prove. How many examples therefore do we use, that we may prove that this is not it that nature hath form, but that the benediction hath consecrated, and that greater is the power of benediction then of nature. For by benediction nature it self is changed. Moses' did hold a Rod, he cast it down, and it was mad a serpent. Again he taketh the tail of the serpent and it returneth into the nature of the rod. Thou seest them by the grace of the prophet the nature of the Serpentand the rod twice to be changed. Hitherto S. Ambr. After which words and diverse other examples brought in to prove nature in the Sacrament by the benediction to be clean changed, he maketh this argument. Quodsi tantum valuit humana benedictio ut naturam converteret, quid dicimus de ipsa consecratione divina, ubi verbae ipsa Domini salvatoris operantur? Nam sacramentum istud quod accipis Christi sermone conficitur. If than the benediction of man Amb. ibid. was of so great power, that it changed nature, what say we of the very consecration of God, where the very words of hour Lord and Saviour do work? For this Sacrament which thou receivest, is consecrated by the word of christ. It were to long to rehearse all the examples and arguments that S. Ambrose maketh to prove this mutation or change that we speak of. Wherefore but one more of him, and then we will hear some other one. Thus he maketh an other argument. De totius mundi operibus legisti, Quiae ipse dixit & facta Amb. ibi. sunt, ipse mandavit & creata sunt. Sermo ergo Christi qui potuit ex nihilo facere, quod non erat, non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare, quod non erant? Thou havest read of he works of all the world: that he said, and they were made, he commanded and they were created. The word of christ then that could of nothing make that that was not, can it not change these things that be into that, that they were not? Non enim minus est novas rebus dare, quàm mutare naturas. It is no less thing to give new natures to things, then to change natures. Thus far S. Ambrose Whom for that it is manifest to what purpose he tendeth, namely to prove the nature of bread and wine after the consecration to be changed into the nature of the body and blood of christ, I will not travail to open him, but leave him to the consideration of the reader, and hear some other. chrysostom saith thus: Non sunt humanae virtutis haec opera. Qui tunc ista in illa caena confecit, ipse nunc quoque operatur, ipse perficit. Ministrorum nos ordinem tenemus Homil 83. in Matth. Qui verò haec sanctificat, & transmutat ipse est. These works be not the works of man's power. He that then in that supper made or consecrated these things, he now also worketh, he perfecteth it, we are in the place of ministers, but it is he that doth sanctify and transmute these things. Thus of Chrysostom we learn also that in the Supper of christ the bread and wine are sanctified and transmuted, and that by the power of christ, who sanctified and transmuted them in that supper, which he did celebrate and keep for the institution of this, forsomuch as he is the doer of this, as he was of that, he is the worker of both. After chrysostom followeth Cyril, and teacheth us the same lesson, saying thus. Vivificatiwm Dei Verbum uniens seipsum propriae carni, fecit eam vivificativam. Nunquid cyril. ad Calosirium igitur, & cùm in nobis vita Dei est, Dei Verbo in nobis existent, vivificatiwm erit nostrum corpus? Sed aliud est secundùm participationis habitudinem nos habere in nobis Dei filium: aliud ipsum fuisse factum carnem, id est, corpus sumptum ex alma Virgine proprium corpus effecisse. Decebat ergo eum nostris quodammodò uniri corporibus, per sacram eius carnem, & preciosum sanguinem, quae accipimus in benedictione vivificativa in pane, & vino. Ne enim horreremus carnem & sanguinem apposita sacris altaribus, condescendens Deus nostris fragilitatibus, insluit oblatis vim vitae, connertens ea in veritatem propriae carnis, ut corpus vitae quasi quoddam semen vivificatiwm inveniatur in nobis. The living Son of God uniting himself to his own flesh, made it also living. Now then uless as the life of God is in us (the Son of God being in us) shall our body also be able to give life? But it is an other thing for us to have the Son of God in us, according to the order of participation: And another thing the same Son of God to have been made flesh, that is to say, to have made the body taken of the pure Virgin, his own body. It was need full that he should be united to our bodies by his holy flesh, and precious blood, which we take in the lively benediction in bread ad wine. For lest we should abhor flesh and blood put upon the holy altars, God condescending to our fragilities, he putteth into the things offered the power or strengt of life, turning them into his very flesh, that the body of life may be found in us as a quickening seed, able to make us to live. Thus moche S. cyril. As of other we have learned that God by his power doth change the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of his body and blood: so do we learn of this holy father the cause why it pleaseth God so todooe. It is (saith he) that God condescending to our weakness, forasmuch as we abhor to eat flesh and drink blood, yet that he would be united unto us by his flesh, and thereby impart life to us in manner convenient for us, as it hath by that it is united to the Son of God, he by his power worketh in the bread and wine so, that he turneth them into his very flesh and blood, that in that manner taking his very flesh and blood, we might have them as the seeds of life, and so grow to life. Thus briefly understanding the mind Euthym, in 26. Matth of Cyril, we go on to Euthymius, who saith in this matter thus: Quemadmodum super naturaliter assumptam carnem deificavit (si ita loqui liceat) ita & haec ineffabiliter transmutat in ipsum vivificum corpus suum, & in ipsum preciosum sanguinem suum, & in gratiam ipsorum. As he supernaturally did deify (if it be leeful so to speak) his assumpted flesh: Even so unspeakably doth he transmute or change those things (meaning the bread and wine) into his very living body, and into his very precious blood, and into the grace of them. Thus ye here also in this author ye see a transmutation of the bread and wine into the very body and very blood of christ, and that as adsuredlie as he deified the flesh that he took of the Virgin. Remig. in. 1. Cor. cap. 10. A much like testimony giveth Remigius saying: Caro quam Verbum Dei Patris assumpsit in utero virginali in unitate suae personae, & panis, qui consecratur in Ecclesia, unum corpus Christi sunt. Sicut enim illa caro corpus Christi est: ita iste panis transit in corpus Christi, nec sunt duo corpora, sed unum corpus. The flesh which the Son of God the Father flesh of the Son of God and the consecrated bread one body. took in the virgens womb in the unity of his person, and the bread which is consecrated in the Church are one body of christ. For as that flesh is the body of christ: so this bread passeth or is changed into the body of christ, and yet they are not two bodies, but one body. Ye see it also in this author testified, that the bread consecrated in the church is the body of christ, ye see also how it is doen. For (saith Remigius) the bread goeth, Plain sainges for M. Juell. passeth or is changed into the body of christ, and that as adsuredlie as the flesh which he took of the virgin was his very body: so is this bread made his very body. If men would have plain speech and plain asseveration of matters of faith, I judge this to be so plainly spoken, that they will not leave any man in doubt, but him that will not be resolved. The like plainness shall ye find in Damascen, who saith thus: Corpus secundùm Damasc. li. 4. ca 14. veritatem coniunctum est diumitati, quod ex sancta virgine corpus est, non quòd ipsum corpus assumptum ex coelo descenderit, sed quòd ipse panis & vinum transmutantur in corpus & sanguinem Dei. Si autem modum requiris, quo pacto id fiat, sat sit tibi audire, quoniam per Spiritum sanctum, quemadmodum ex sancta Deipara, seipso, & in seipso Dominus carnem sustentavit, & nihil amplius cognoscimus, quàm quod verbum Dei verum est, & efficax & omnipotens, modus autem inscrutabilis. That body that is a body born of the holy virgin, is in very deed joined to the Godhead, not that that assumpted body cometh down Bread and wine transmuted into the body and blood of God. from heaven, but that that bread and wine be transmuted into the body and blood of God. If thou require the manner how it is done, let it suffice thee to hear that by the holy Ghost, even as of the holy mother of God our Lord by himself, and in himself did make up a flesh, and we know no more than that the word of God is true, and effectuous, and the manner is inscrutable. Thus much Damascen. This author doth not only testify to us that the very body and blood of christ be in the Sacrament, but also opening the manner how it is done, Things spoken of God must be believed though the manner of doing be unknown. declareth that it should be sufficient for us to understand that the bread and wine be transmuted into the body and blood of christ by the operation of the holy Ghost, and that as adsuredly as the same body was by him framed in the virgens womb. And with this (saith he) should we be contented, knowing that the word of God is true, and omnipotent, and therefore effectuous, adsuredly working that that it saith, though the manner of the doing of it be inscrutable. A testimony not much unlike to this giveth also Theophilact, saying in this manner. Theoph. in 6. Joan. Non enim dixit Dominus: Panis quem ego dabo figura est carnis meae, sed caro mea est. Transformatur enim arcanis verbis panis ille per mysticam benedictionem, & accessionem sancti Spiritus in carnem Domini. Et ne quem conturbet, quòd credendus sit panis caro. Etenim & in carne ambulante Domino, & ex pane alimoniam admittente, panis ille qui manducabatur, in corpus eius mutabatur, & similis fiebat sanctae eius carni, & in augmentum & sustentationem Bread. which christ gave no figure but flesh. conferebat juxta humanum morem. Igitur & nunc panis in carnem Domini mutatur. our Lord did not say, the bread that I will give is a figure of my flesh, but it is my flesh. For it is transformed with the secret words by the mystical benediction, and the coming to of the holy Ghost into the flesh of our lord, and let it not trouble any man that the bread is to be believed flesh. For when hour Lord walked in the flesh, and took sustenance of bread, that bread that he took was changed into his body, and was made like to his holy flesh, and A plain saying for M. Juell. it gave increase and sustentation according to the manner of man's nature. Thersor now also is the bread changed into the flesh of our Lord. agreeably writeth Paschasius, with whom we will end, being certain by the supputation of learned men, that he was an hundreth years before Berengarius, and therefore before any public controversy in this matter of the Sacrament, thus he writeth: Spiritus sanctus, qui hominem Christum in utero Paschasius li. de corp. & sang. Dom. virgins sine semine creavit, etiam ipse panis ac vini substantiam carnem Christi & sanguinem invisibili potentia per sacramenti sui sanctificationem operatur, quamuis nec visu exteriùs, nec gustu saporis comprehendatur. Sed quia spiritualia sunt, fide & intellectu pro certo, sicut veritas praedixit, plenissimè sumuntur. Quòd in veritate corpus & sanguis fiat consecratione mysterij, nemo qui verbis divinis credit, dubitat. The holy Ghost who without seed created the man christ in the womb of the Virgin, he also No man that believeth the words of God doubteth of the body of christ in the Sacr. with his invisible power by the sanctisication of his Sacrament, worketh the Substance of bread and wine into the flesh and blood of christ, although neither by the seight outwardly, neither by the taste of the savour they can be comprehended, but because they be spiritual things, they are by faith and understanding most fully of a surety received, as the truth did before say it. That in very deed the body and blood is made by consecration of the mystery, non man that believeth the words of God doubteth. Having now alleged a good number to testify that the substance of bread and wine be changed or turned into the substance of the body and blood of Christ (which turning of substance into substance the Church calleth transubstantiation) forasmuch Transubstantiation what it is. as they are plain and evident testimonies, not encumbered with dark speeches, as I content myself to produce no more: so, I trust, these may suffice any man, considering how ancient they be, to cause him to settle and fix his faith in the matter of the Sacrament, and not to waver or doubt. In these doctors and authors this is to be considered, that Eusebius, S. Howthe Fathers prove Transubstantiation to be a miraculous work of God Eusc. Emis. Gregory, and saint Ambrose, which be the first, do prove this turning of substances by the great works of Gods might and power. As Eusebius by the creation of the high heavens, the huge and deep waters or sloudes, the great and vast earth, and by the great work of God in changing a man that was detestable and filthy in sin, that was bond to the woeful and miserable bond of damnation, that was a stranger to God, and an enemy, that God maketh him pure and clean from all that filthiness, and setteth him in the state of innocency, delivereth him from the bond, and maketh him free to the kingdom of heaven, and of a stranger and an enemy maketh him a domestical, and a son adoptive. S. Gregory by that work of God that he caused bread and other natural food to be changed into that marvelous body conceived by the S. Gregory holy Ghost, and joined to the Godhead in unity of person, which was not a common body, but the body of God. And for that it hath God abiding in it, it is exalted to the dignity of God, which in deed well weighed is a marvelous work of God. S. Ambrose by the changing of the nature of a rod into a Serpent, and of the nature of the serpent into the rod again, and by a great number of other S. Ambrese works of God. which their manner of teaching giveth us to understand, that this turning or changing wrought by God in the Sacr. is no small work, but such a work, as is and may be accounted among the great works of God, among those works that be myraculouse, that be wonderful, such as man's wit and understanding can not attain unto but by faith, And therefore in the Sacrament is an other manner of work wrought by God, then to make the bread and wine to be signs and tokens of remembrance that christ hath suffered an died for us, for that is not among the miraculous and wonderful works of God. S. cyril in sitting forth this matter findeth, (as it were) a necessity, S. cyril. that this change afore said should be because the flesh of christ, which is able to give life to our natural flesh, might by the receipt of the same in the Sacrament, make hour mortal bodies to live, being once raised up to live everlastingly. Remigius joineth the work of the incarnation with the work of God in transubstantiation. Damascen doth the like, and with all teacheth S. Remig. Damascen. that as the holy Ghost wrought in the womb os the virgin the incarnation of christ, by turning her substance into the substance of christ: so in the Sacrament he worketh the transubstantion by turning the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of Christ'S body Theophil. Paschas. and blood. Theophilact and Paschasius do the like, with other good and necessary instructions. Thus ye may see that as they teach the thing certenlie to be done: so do they ascribe it to the power of God, to the work of the holy Ghost, they so esteem it, so magnify it, that they account it and enombre it among the great and miraculous works of God. As merueilouse and miraculous it is in deed, that the substances of bread and wine should be turned into the substance of the body and blood of the Son of God. But to appoint a thing to be a figure, to be a sign or token of remembrance Appointing of figures is nospeciall miraculous work of God. there needeth not soch special power of God, nor such special work of the holy Ghost. For many things have been appointed to be signs and tokens of remembrance of Gods benefits, which the writers and learned men did never account among the miraculous and wonderful works of God. As the twelve stones which God commanded joshua that people should lay in an heap in remembrance that the twelve Tribes passed under joshua through jordane with dry foot to go to Hiericho. Though this were a token of the remembrence of a miraculous and a wonderful work and benefit joshua. 4. of God done to the people of Israel: yet the laying together of the xii stones was never accounted as a miraculous work of God. To come to things that were figures of christ, as to the Brazen Serpent, Num. 21. joan. 3. which christ applieth to himself, as a figure of himself to be crucified, though it were both a token of the great benefit of God to the people of Israel in relieving them of the plague that he had sent among them, and also a figure of Christ to be crucified, wherebily the faithful should be released of the plague of everlasting damnation: yet this serpent was not of learned men in Christ'S Church magnified and exalted among the great miraculous works of God. The paschal Lamb that was both a token of remembrance to the jews of the benefits that they received in their passage out of Egypt, and also Exod. 12. a figure of christ, and that a notable lively figure: yet is there no christian writer that accounteth the killing or eating of that lamb as a miraculous work of God in it self. To come nearer to the manner, the Catechumeni that is, the newly instructed in Christ's faith, but not baptized, of the which there were a great number in the primitive Church, they received a bread which S. Augustine calleth a Sacrament, and accounteth it an holy meat, yea holier than August. de peccatormerit. & remiss. holy bread used in the primitive Church. other meats, although it be not (saith he) the body of christ. And yet this bread accounteth he not (though it be a Sacrament to them and an holy sign) among the miraculous works of God no more than the Church did the holy bread, which the people received on certain days. Wherefore if the Sacrament were but a sign or token only (as Oecolampadius saith it is) than it should be but as the bread of the Catechumeni the new converted to christ, and as the holy bread of Christian people, which S. Augustine accounteth but as an holy thing, and yet referred it not into the number of the miraculous works of God. No more would these holy and ancient Fathers, which I have alleged, so have esteemed the Sacrament and set it forth by the great works of God as a miraculous work requiring faith, to be believed to contain more than reason can conceive or Figures contain what, reason can conceive, the Sacr. what faith must believe. senseis judge. And therefore the holy fathers have travailed to stay and confirm the faith of the christians by examples of works done miraculously by God's power, accounting this as one of the same kind or sort. This being well weighed and considered by the Fathers in the Lateran Council, where were assembled no small number of learned men as well of the greek church, as of the latin, as the patriarchs of Jerusalem and Constantynople, archbishops 70. Bishops 400. of other Father's 92. with the Ambassadors of the Grecian and Roman Empire, and the Orators of Jerusalem, France, Spain, england, and Cypress, for the declaration and confirmation of the faith in this matter according to the doctrine of the holy Fathers, and to the confutation of the wicked doctrine of Berengarius at that time yet lurking in corners, this Canon was there agreed upon and set Concil. Lateran. cap. 1. de fide cathol. forth. Verum Christi corpus & sanguis in sacramento Altaris sub speciebus panis & vini veraciter continentur, transubstantiatis pane in corpus, & vino in sanguinem potestate divina. The very body and blood of christ are verily and truly contained under the forms of bread and wine in the Sacrament of the altar, the bread and wine being transubstantiated into the body and blood by the power of God, Thus the Council, which was celebrated above three hundreth years agone. Now Reader thou seest the learning and faith of Christ'S Church in this matter of transubstantiation. not only now in these days professed, taught and believed through out all Christendom, but also above three hundreth years agone in the great and general Council Lateran. and so by Fathers testified before and uppewarde until ye come to the primitive church. Wherefore minding here after to touch it more as occasion shall be ministered, I think this for this time sufficient to move any man to have a regard to his faith, that hath not sold himself over to live under heresy disobedience and sin. Now therefore I return to my purpose. THE TWO AND fifth CHAP. OPENETH the minds of Saint basil and Saint Ambrose upon the words of christ Think not (gentle reader) but that there be many left not here alleged, as Optatus, Dionysius Alexandrius, Hilarius, Origen, and other, which give goodly testimony for the verity of Christ'S body in the Sacrament. But here we allege none but such as treacting of these words of christ, This is my body, This is my blood, do give us their doctrine, for the true understanding of them. wherefore the other omitted, this order hath brought us to S. basil in the greek church, and to S. Ambrose in the latin church. S. basil, to whom this question was moved: with what fear, what manner Basil. quaest compend. explic. qu. 172. of faith or assured certainty, and with what affection the body and blood of christ should be received, made this answer: Timorem docet nos Apostolus dicens: Qui edit & bibit indigné judicium sibiipsi edit ac bibit. At verò certitudinis perfectionem inducit fides verborum Domini, qui dixit: Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vohis datur: Hoc facite in meàm commemorationem. The Apostle teachethus the fear, saying: He eateth and drinketh unworthily, he eateth and drinketh unto himself judgement. But the perfection of certitude induceth the faith of the words of our Lord, who said: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in the remembrance of me. Thus much S. basil for answer to the question. For the better understanding of which answer, consider that this question is propounded as of them that were unlearned, and would be simply S. basil how he taught the simple to believe of the Sacrament instructed in the faith of christ, to the instruction of which kind of people S. basil appointed himself in the solution of this question, and other. Wherefore it is to be thought that in this solution he taught the simple and plain truth. Now then teaching them that these words: This is my body, do instruct them what faith they should have in the receipt of the Sacrament, what doth he but teach that these words must be taken as they sound, and so by them to have this faith, that Christ'S very body is in the Sacrament, according as the words do sound? For consider, would this holy man, trow ye, teach the people to ground their faith upon these words, if their faith should not be ground upon them as they lie, but upon this sense: this is a figure of my body? If the faith of the people of the Sacrament aught to be none other, but that it is but a figure of the body, and not the body it self, would he have moved them to believe the words as they be spoken, and not have taught the true sense, that they aught to ground their faith upon in deed? No Christian will so think of so worthy a man, as this was. And therefore ye may perceive that this holieman Ca 25. 37. 44. understood Christ'S words simply in proper sense, and taught therbie the very presence of Christ'S blessed body and blood in the Sacrament, as before is said, and shall be plentifully declared in the third book. S. Ambr. book of Sacr. rejected of Oecolamp. as S. lame epistle by Luther, for their plaintrueth Now followeth S. Ambrose, in whom I find such copy, and such plenty of plain and evident places to open and declare the right and true, understanding of this scripture. This is my body: that as a man coming into a goodly garden garnished, adorned, and pleasantly furnished with all delectable and sweet flowers, can not tell which flower to take first. Even so I beholding S. Ambrose and the plenty of goodly lively places in him, I know not which to take first But because he is so plain in gods truth, and Veritas odium parit, truth causeth hatred: he got himself so moche hatred for this his plain truth, that had not the catholic Church stand his good Mother, he had been cast out of the doors by Oecolampadius, as S. james, epistle had been by Luther, for his plain speaking for god works. But God be praised, as by her both these were approved: so (God aiding) by her they are conserved. A 'mong such plenty therefore as I have said, and as it is well known to them that be learned we will gather a flower or two, for the maintenance of the comfortable sinell of the truth, of the which this shall be the first: Ambr. li. 4 de Sacr. cap. 5. Antequam consecretur panis est, ubi autem verba Christi accesserint, corpus est Christi. Denique audi dicentem: Accipite, & edite ex eo omnes, Hoc est corpus meum. Et ante verba Christi calix est vini & aquae plenus, ubi verba Christi operata fuerint, ibi sanguis efficicitur, qui plebem redemit. Before it is consecrate it is bread, but when the words of christ have comed to it, it is the body of christ, Hear him saying: Plain saings of S. Amb. for the Procla. Take and eat, this is my body. And before the words of christ, it is a cup full of wine and water, but when the words of christ have wrought, there is made the blood that redeemed the people. What can the Adversaries say to this place of S. Ambrose? What can the Proclaimer say, if he follow not his Father Oecolampadius and reject S. Ambrose? Can they for shame say that the words of christ are spoken by a figure, where they be so plainly expounded by this notable Father of the very thing? Do ye not hear that after the words of christ be spoken upon the bread, it is the body of christ, and again that after the working of the words of christ, there is made in the cup the blood that redeemed the people? Here is no figure spoken of. He saith not, that it is a figure of the body, and a figure of the blood, but he said, they be the body and the blood, yea and that so verily, that he saith, it is the blood that redeemed the people. As it is wonderful, so is it pitiful, that men will still remain in blind heresy, when the truth is so simply and plainly uttered, and that of so excellent a Father, that they can not deny it, but maliciously to contain themselves in that miserable state, will refuse the work, and say it is not S. Ambrose work, and yet they know that S. Augustin himself wittnesseth that S. Ambrose wrote such books of the Sacraments, and there be none but these. But it is but a bare shift when they be overcomed of the truth to deny the author, and be not able to prove that they do. But let us return to S. Ambrose, and gather an other of his flowers. Thus he saith in an other place: Tu fortè dicis, meus panis est visitatus. Sed panis Ambros. ibid. li. 4. cap. 4. iste, panis est ante verba sacramentorum, ubi accesserit consecratio, de pane fit caro Christi. though peradventure sayest, my bread is usual or common bread. But this bread before the words of consecration is bread, but when the consecration hath comed unto it, of the bread is made the flesh of christ. And Amb. ibid. again he saith in the same chapter. Sed audi dicentem: Ipse dixit, & facta sunt, ipse mandavit & creata sunt. Ergo tibi ut respondeam, Non erat corpus Christi ante consecrationem. Sed post consecrationem, dico tibï, quòd iam est corpus Christi. Ipse dixit & factum est, ipse mandavit, & creatum est. But hear one saying: He hath said and they were made, he hath commanded and they were created. Therefore that What plainer words can the Proclaimer require. I may answer thee. It was not the body of christ before the consecration, but after the consecration (I say unto thee) that now it is the body of christ. He hath said, and it is made, he hath commanded and it is created. I need not explain S. Ambrose in this place neither. For as the parents of the blind born son said of him: Aetatem habet, ipse pro se loquatur. He hath age, let him speak for himself, so S. Ambrose hath such grace, such learning, and withal such plain speech, that he speaketh sufficiently for himself, and for God's cause, which he openeth, and that there is nothing here to be desired but an humble reader. And if ye will not believe him, yet believe him, to whom he referreth you, that is christ. For he saith: Ipse Ambr. ibid. ca 5. Dominus jesus testificatur nobis, quòd corpus suum accipiamus & sanguinem. Nunquid debemus de eius fide & testificatione dubitare? Hour Lord jesus himself testifieth unto us, that we receive his body and blood, shall we doubt of his truth and testification? Now let us compare the doctrine of S. Ambrose, with the doctrine of the Adversaries. S. Ambrose saith that christ himself doth testify that we S. Ambr. doctrine and the Sacramentaries compared together. receive his body and blood: The Adversaries saith that we do not receive the body and blood of christ, But bread and wine the figures of the body and blood of christ. whom shall we here believe? christ and S. Ambrose, or the Adversaries? The choice aught soen to be made. And therefore it is lamentable to see how Satan hath prevailed, and caused the Adversaries to call that in question and doubt, which christ himself testifieth to be the very truth. If it were not the truth, S. Ambrose, be ye well assured, would not so have reported it. But if christ had testified to us, that we in the Sacrament receive but a figure, S. Ambrose would not have reported that we receive Christ'S body. For as there is great difference between these two things: so be the doctrines greatly different. And S. Ambrose who in these his books laboured to teach the thrueth, and to deliver men from doubt, was not of such gross judgement nor so rude in utterance, but he could well judge between the thing and the figure, and so utter his judgement, that his speech should not sound one thing, and hismening should be an other. for that were not the way to deliver from doubt but raither to bring into doubt, not a way of instruction, but raither a way of destruction. But here to conclude this part, for as much as S. Ambrose saith, that Figure of the Sacrmentaries excluded from Christ'S words. christ hath testified by these words, This is my body, that we in the Sacrament after the words spoken receive his very body, they are not to be understanded with any figure or trope, but simply, and plainly in that sense that they are spoken. Wherefore it may be by this perceived that the adversaries figurative speech hath no place, as they understand it, in this saying of christ. But this is raither to be said that his enterprise in so wresting and abusing of Christ'S words is wicked and detestabele. For if that sense might have been here upon these words placed, who can doubt that S. Ambrose so often rehearsing them, would not in one place or other, have reported the true sense, and said it had been but a sign. But uless as in no place he so doth, but continually and constantly saith, it is the body of christ, let no man doubt of the truth of that that he teacheth, Consecration the term of the Papists used of S. Ambr. seriously. but embracing that let him fly the feigned figures. In these sainges also of S. Ambrose, this is briefly to be touched with a note, that where the Adversary in scorn, when he happeneth to speak of this word (consecration) for the most part addeth (as the Papists tear it) yet ye perceive that it is used of S. Ambrose, and not sknorned. And how so ever it liketh him to dally and trifle with that word, yet S. Ambrose in so weighty a matter doth use the word seriously. And if for that he useth this word, the Adversary will also account him for a papist, I had liefer be a Papist uviht the one, than an heretic with the other. But it is time to call in an other couple. THE THREE AND fifth CHAP. CONTINVeth in the exposition of Christ'S words by Gregory Nissen. and S. Hierom. AS a man permitted to come into a council chamber, and admitted, through special favour, to talk with each of the counselours, and have their senerall advertisements how he shall safely bear himself in the state that he is called unto: or as a man desirous to be resolved in a matter of learning, entereth an assembley of learned men, and gently received heareth their several judgements uttered with great and full agreement, to his full resolution, and contentation, can not be but therewith much delighted: so I trust, the reader being as it were in Gods counsel chamber, or in God's School, and hearing the advertisements and judgements of God's counselours and learned men so severally, and yet so agreeably uttered to his full and perfect resolution, I trust, I say, he is delighted, and the more for that all these with which he hath conference (and yet for a good number shall have) be all very ancient, and with in the compass of six hundreth years after christ. Wherefore let us in God's name proceed with delight and pleasure to hear the other that remain to be conferred with all for they be (as is said) a good number of them both ancient, and learned, and though all be not ancient, yet all learned and approved. Of these ancients that remain the first is Gregory Nissen. the brother of S. basil and therefore in the greek church meet next to follow him. This is his judgement in this matter. Thus he writeth. Qua ex cause panis in co corpore mutatus in divinam virtutem transiit, eadem de causa idem nunc fit. enim illic verbi Greg. Nissen anserm. catathetico de divinis sacram. Dei gratia sanctum efficit illud corpus, cuius firmamentum ex pane constabat, & ipsum etiam quodammodò panis erat: sic panis, ut ait Apostolus, per verbum Dei, & orationem sanctificatur, non quia comeditur, eo progrediens, ut Verbi corpus evadat, sed statim per verbum in corpus mutatur, ut dictum est à Verbo. Hoc est corpus meum. By what cause bread in that body changed passed into the divine virtue, by the same cause that same thing is now doen. For as there the grace of the Son of God made that body, whose substantial nutriment was of bread, and it also in a manner was bread, so also this bread (as the Apostle saith) is sanctified by the word of God and prayer, not tending to this point that because it is eaten it is the body of the Son of God, but that forthwith by the word it is changed into the body, as it was said of the Son, This is my body By this author, who undoubtedly giveth a notable testimony for the verity of the Sacrament, be overthrown three heresies in the same matter. Three heresies overthrown by one saying of Gregor. Nissen. Of the which, Luther or at the least the Lutherans did settfurth one, which was that the Sacrament was the body of christ if it were received, and to him that received it, it was the body of christ, otherwise it was not. Another is set forth both by Luther, and all the Lutherans, and by Oecolampadius and all the Oecolampadians, and by this Proclaimer, which is that the bread and wine be not changed into the substance of the body and blood of christ, of the which we have somewhat at large spoken before. The third is settfurth by Carolstadius, Oecolampadius and their disciples, and also by this Proclaimer, which is that Christ'S substantial body is not verily present in the Sacrament. Against these three, this author teacheth us very good documents according to that, that the catholic Church now teacheth. And now for the first that the Lutherans do teach, where they say that in the Sacrament is the body of christ to him that receiveth the Sacrament, otherwise it is not the body of christ, this author hath direct What warrant have the Lutherans for this words to the contrary, where he saith. Hic panis sanctificatur per verbum Dei, & orationem, non quia comeditur eo progrediens ut verbi corpus evadat. This bread is sanctified by the word of God and prayer, not tending to this point that because it is eaten, therefore it is the body of the Son of God. So that it is not receiving, or not receiving, eating or not eating that causeth the presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, Receiving or notreceaving causeth nor presence, nor absence of Christ'S body in the Sacr. but the power of God with the word of christ, as before is said. The cause of so great a work as to make present the body of christ, dependeth not of so simple and weak cause as the will of man, which it should do if it should depend upon the receit. For if the man would receive it, than were it the body of christ: if he would not receive, it were not the body of christ, so willing and not willing should make body or no body after that fond opinion. But to add somewhat beside the authority of this ancient Father, which is more than sufficient to convince so vain and foolish an heresy, what appearance have they of any scripture or holy writer (For substantial ground in ame of them both they have none) to make some show or counteinance, for the maintenance of their heresy? it is certain that they have none. Now then shall we not condemn them by their own judgement, Lutherans doctrine having no apparent scripture is over thrown by there own argument. wherewith they have travailed in many things to condemn the catholic Church? What is defined, decreed or determined by the Church, if there be not manifest scripture for the same, it is condemned of them, as a tradition of man, and a doctrine of Satan. But this their doctrine hath no manifest scriptures. Wherefore it is a tradition of man, and a doctrine of Satan. Thus as Aman was hanged upon the same gallows that he had made for innocent Mardochaeus: So is their wicked doctrine overthrown with their own judgement, and vanquissed with their own sword. But what shall I occupy the time, and trouble the reader in refelling this fond heresy, seeing (as a little before is declared by Eusebius) that the invisible priest, christ, by his power with his word doth turn the visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood. chrysostom also saith, that the priests be in the place of the ministers of God, but it is christ that doth sanctify, and change the substances of bread and wine. And briefly to say, saint Ambrose in the last chapter, Euthymius, Damascen, and Theophilact in the chapter before, do testify that the work of consecration is done by the power of God, by the accession of the holy Ghost, and by the word of christ spoken by the priest in the person of christ. As it is also testified in the Florentine Concilium. Florent. Council where it is thus declared: Forma huius sacramenti sunt verba salvatoris, quibus hoc conficit Sacramentum. Sacerdos enim in persona Christi loquens hoc conficit Sacramentum. Nam ipsorum verborum virtute substantia panis in corpus Christi, & substantia vini in sanguinem convertuntur. The form of this Sacrament be the words of our Saviour by the which he consecrateth this Sacrament. For the priest speaking in the person of christ doth consecrate this Sacrament. For by the virtue of those words, the substance of bread, is turned into the body of Christ, and the substance of wine Transubstantiation. into his blood. Thus the Council. By which words, as by the words of them also before alleged, it is manifestly declared that the power of the consecration of the body of christ, is not depending of the will of the receiver, but of the power of God, of the work of the holy Ghost, and of the virtue of the words of christ, spoken by the priest in the person of christ. And as this fond heresy seemeth to be mother of that heresy that impugneth reservation: so that, that is before said for the defence of reservation, will also impugn this heresy here now spoken of. Wherefore I refer the reader to that place, where he finding plenty of proof that the Sacrament may be reserved, and being reserved, that it still remaineth the body of christ, this wicked doctrine that teacheth, that it is but the body of christ when it is in use, shallbe overthrown, and proved (as it is) a false and a devilish doctrine. The other heresy which is settfurth both by the Lutherans and the Oecolampadians, is that the substance of bread and wine be still remaining in the Sacrament, and not changed into the body and blood of christ. And yet here by the way understand this, that though they agree in this point, yet here Satan is divided against Satan, and his kingdom also, Division among the Protestants. as kingdom against kingdom. For Luther granteth the presence of Christ'S body: Oecolampadius denieth the presence of Christ'S body, and in this they are more than enemies. But in the other (as is said) they do agree. And as in this they agree among themselves: So in the same they disagree, from the true faith, from the catholic Church, and from Gregory Nissen, whom we have now in hand. For by express words he affirmeth that the substance of the bread is changed into the body of christ. These be his words speaking of the bread before the consecration. Hic panis statim per verbum in corpus mutatur. This bread is by the word forthwith Greg. Niss. in vita Moiseos. changed into the body. Who so listeth may read the like saying of the same author in his book of the life of Moses. Neither doth he here mien of such a change as the Adversary dreameth of, that it is changed to be called the body of christ, which properly is no change, but raither an addition. But this author meeneth of a substantial change as his words do most plainly declare, which he useth to prove this change. For thus he saith: Qua ex causa panis in eo corpore mutatus in divinam virtutem transiit, eadem de causa idem nunc fit. By what cause bread in that body changed, passed into the divine virtue: even so by the same cause the very same thing is now doen. For the better weighing of this saying of the author, consider first, that christ was and is both God and man, consider that the body of man was so joined to the Godhead in unity of person, that christ God and man was one person, one christ. Consider then that this body by this marvelous conjunction is the body of God. Now this body living here upon the earth, although as it lived forty days and forty nights wihout food: so it might have lived forty weeks, and forty months, yet as it was a natural body: So it lived in natural order, and did eat food. This food which by a general term is called bread, although it were but common meat, even such as the Apostles, and other did eat, yet this common bread eaten of christ, was changed in the body of christ into the substance of the body of christ, and became now the substance of his body, and being so it came to be the substance of the body of God. Now saith Gregbrie Nissen by what cause the bread was changed into the body of christ, and became the substance of the body of God, As bread while christ lived was turned into his divine flesh: so now in the Sacr. which (as I take it) he meaneth by these words (divine virtue) even by the same cause, the same thing is now doen. If the same thing be done now then the bread is changed into the substance of the body of God for that is the thing that was done then. Wherefore good reader, note this well, that he saith, the same thing is done now, whereby the dream of the Adversary is dissolved, that the bread is changed but in name. For that was but a cavil, and in deed but a bare shift to avoid the force of the truth. And what the thing is that now is done, this author told when he said: Panis mutatur in corpus per verbum. The bread by the word is changed into the body. Seeing then this ancient Father teacheth us, that in Christ'S body the substance of bread was changed into the substance of that divine body, Transubstantiation a nouched and what it is. and by example of that, teacheth the like to be now done in the Sacrament that as in the one there was a change of one substance into an other: so in this there is a change of one substance into an other, that is, once again to say, of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ'S body and blood: why may not this turning, changing or transmuting of substances into substances be called transubstantiation, seeing it is so in deed? Why, I say, may not the same term by the Church be used lively to express a truth, and to avoid an heresy, as in the time of the Arrians, the Church for the confutation of that heresy, was enforced to use this term (consubstantiality) thereby to declare that God the Son was and is of one substance with God the Father? A new mischief must have a new remedy As the word Constantialitie in the time of Arius: so Transubstantiation in the time of Bereng. was taught by the holy Ghost and for a new sore, a new salve must be found. So as for the Arrians, which was then a new mischief and a new sore in the Church, these terms (consubstantial and consubstancialitie) were by the holy Ghost devised in the same: So when Berengarius began this new mischief and sore against the Sacrament, teaching that there was no change of the substance of bread into the substance of the body of christ, which sore the Church had not felt before, the same Church perceiving that all the terms: that the holy Fathers had used to express this change (as turning, changing, mutation, transmutation, transumption, transelementation) did not suffice, but the Devil would by his ministers dally with them to deceive Christian souls, and impugn the holy Christian faith the Church I say, by the holy Ghost devised to use this term (transubstantion) to declare fully the thing that is done, which is the change of one substance into an other, and so to open the true faith, by the same to defend the faith, and to set it for a salve and a remedy against that sore, and mischief, that the Devil had newly caused to springe. And as in the time of the Arrians, there was no new thing devised in faith, though a new term was set forth: so now no thing is newly devised but only the term, fully to declare, and make us understand that thing that was before. Wherefore the newness of the term should not offend, specially being fetfurth by no particular man, but by a general consent, so that it be not a profane novelty, profanely, abducinge men from an ancient truth to a new invented falsehood and so by a new term, newly commended to us, to supplant us. But a new term to express an old truth hath been in the beginning of the Church, and may also now be well used, as S. Augustine saith: Audite Apostolum salubriter admonentem. Prophanas, inquit, verborum A new term to express anold truth used in the primitive church and may so be now. novitates devita, Multum enim proficiunt ad impietatem, & sermo eorum, ut cancer serpit. Et non ait solùm verborum novitates, sed addit, Prophanas. Sunt eium & doctrinae religionis congruentes verborum novitates. Sicut ipsum nomen Christia●orum, quando dict caeperat, sicut scriptum est (In Antiochia enim primam post ascensionem Domini sic appellati sunt Discipuli, Sicut legitur in Actibus Apostolorum) Et Xenodochia, & Monasteria, postea appellata sunt novis nominibus, res tamen ipsae & ante nomina sua erant, & religionis veritate sirmantur quae etiam contra improbos defenduntur. Aduersus quoque impietatem Arrianorum haereticorum nowm nomen patres (Homoousion) condiderunt, sed non rem novam tali nomine signaverunt, Hoc enim vocatur Homoousion, quod est ego Aug. tract. 96. in joan. & Pater unum sumus, unius videlicet eiusdemque substantiae. Nam si omnis novitas prophana esset, nec à Domino diceretur: mandatum nowm do vobis, nec testamentum appellaret nowm, nec cantaret universa terra canticum nowm. Hear the Apostle holsomlie admonishing: Profane novelties of words (saith he) avoid. They do moche advance impiety, and their word fretteth like a canker. And he doth not Some new words be agreeable to good religion say only novelties of words: but he addeth: Profane. For there be novelties of words also agreeable to the doctrine of religion as the name of christians, when it first began to be spoken of, as it is written (For so first in Antioch after the ascension of our Lord were the Disciples called, at it is red in the Acts of the Apostles) And Hospitals and Monasteries after ward were called with new names, the things themselves for all that were before these their names, and are established with the verity of religion, and are also defended against wicked men. Against the impiety or wickedness also of the Heretics the Arrians, the Fathers made the new term (Homoousion) but by that name they did Homoousion what it signisieth. not signify a new thing. For Homoousion is called the same that this is: I and my Father be one: that is to say, of one and the very same substance. For if every novelty were evil it should not be said of our Lord: I give you a new commandment, neither should his testament be called new, neither should the whole earth sing a new song. Thus much S. Augustin. Wherefore this term of transubstantiation, which the Adversary calleth new, although it hath been in use more than three hundreth years, by the mind of S. Augustine is not to be rejected. But for so much as the thing which it signisieth is ancient, as Homoousion against the Arrians: so this against the Sacramentaries is of all faithful people to be accepted. But what do I tarry so long upon this matter seeing moche is said of it already, and more shall by way of note as occasion shall be given. The third heresy is also by this author refelled, in that he teaching the bread to be changed by these words of christ: This is my body. teacheth both the real presence, and also the words to be understand without figure or trope, as the Adversaries would have them understanded. That he so doth it is easy to be perceived by his own words, which he uttereth in this manner. Panis statim mutatur in corpus, ut dictum est à Verbo: hoc est corpus meum. The bread is forth with changed by the word into the body, as it is said of the Son of God. This is my body. But what needeth to tarry any longer to say more for the opening of this author, where every part of it is so open of it self, that a child may see it? I will therefore leave him, and hear the mind of his yoke fellow, whom we Hieron. ad He did. q. 2. have in this place appointed to be. S. Hieron, who writeth thus: Nos autem audiamus panem, quem Dominus fregit, deditue Discipulis suis esse corpus Domini salvatoris, ipso dicente ad eos: Accipite, & comedite, Hoc est corpus meum: & calicem illum esse, de quo iterum locutus est. Bibite ex hoc omnes: Hic est sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur. Iste est calix, de quo in Propheta legimus: Calicem salutaris accipia: & alibi: Calixtuus The bread which our Lord gave was his body, and the cup his blood. inebrians quàm praeclarus est. Si ergo panis qui de coelo descendit, corpus est Domini, & vinum quod Discipulis dedit sanguis illius est novi testamenti, iudaicas fabulas repellamus, etc. But let us hear that bread which our Lord broke and gave to his Disciples to be the body of our Lord our Saviour, forasmuch as he said unto them Take and eat, This is my body. And the cup to be that of the which again he said: Drink ye all of this. This is my blood of the new Testament, which shall be shed for many This is the cup of the which we read in the Prophet: I will receive the cup of salvation. And in an other place. Thy cup inebriating is very noble. If therefore the bread that descended from heaven is the body of our Lord, and the wine which he gave to his Disciples is his blood of the new Testament, let us repel the jewish fables. Thus much S. Hierom. For the better understanding of this saying, it is to be considered that a certain virtuous woman named Hedibia sent to saint Hierom to be resolved in certain questions. Among the which she desired to be instructed how the saying of christ in S. Matthew, was to be understanded, where he said: I will not from hencefurth drink of this generation of the vine, until that day in which I shall drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father. To the answering whereof he declareth unto her, first, the fond opinion of some that upon that place invented a fable, that christ should reign a thousand years corporally in which time of his reign, he should drink wine and so should be fulfiled his saying, that he would drink no more wine Heresy of the Millenaries. until he drank it in the kingdom of his Father, in the which he should then reign. But saint Hierom well understanding how great and how weighty a matter was spoken of in the place, where from these words were taken, namely of the body and blood of christ, and being grieved that it being so great a work of God, so great a benefit to man, should be intermengled and obscured, with such vain inventions of such fables, he openeth the true sense of the place and moveth the good woman Hedibia that all such fantasies rejected and forsaken, she should regard the words of christ and credit them and that the bread and wine that christ spoke of in that place were no such things as upon which such vain fables should be ground, but they were the body and blood of christ, forasmuch as he that can speak but truth said: This is my body. This is my blood. Now consider with me if christ had given to his Apostles but Bread and wine, S. Hierom his words weighed and conferred with the doctrine of the Protestants as figures of his body and blood, would S. Hieron being required to give the true understanding of the scripture, and he taking upon him so to do, would he (trow ye) have said, Let us understand that the bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples was his body, and that the wine which he gave was his blood except we should believe and understand them, so to be in deed? Were this an opening of the true understanding of the scriptures? Were it not raither an hiding or a darkening of the scriptures, to bid us to believe one thing, and the scripture biddeth an other? He biddeth us believe that it is the body and blood of christ, that christ gave to his Apostles, and the scripture (as the Adverse. saith) biddeth us believe that they be but figures. Wold S. Hieron, being always an enemy to heresy, teach such an heresy? Would not he raither (if the truth had been so) have taught this virtuous woman the truth of the matter that she sought at his hand, and said unto her: This understand, that the bread and wine, which christ gave to his Apostles, were but figures of the body and blood of christ, and not the things themselves? And alleging Christ'S words: This is my body, This is my blood, would he not (if they had been so to be understanded) have said, these words are spoken by a figure, they be figurative speeches, and are thus to be understanded: this is a figure of my body, this is a figure of my blood? To instruct them that Nomention of figurative speech in S. Hierons' words. would learn the true understanding of this scripture (if it were so to be understanded) this were the right way of teaching. But here is no such word: here is no such manner of teaching. And it is to be thought, that S. Hieron was not ignorant how to teach, neither was he ignorant of the truth, that in this place should be taught. Wherefore seeing he knew the truth, and knew how to teach it, and now he was in place to teach and had good occasion, being (as is said) thereunto required, for so much as he willeth us to understand that the bread and wine, which christ gave to this Apostles, were his body and blood, and the cause why we should so understand them is the word of christ, saying: This is my body, This is my blood: Let us think and believe that the truth of this matter is, that his body and blood be present verily in the Sacrament, and that the words of christ are to be understanded without figure simply and plainly as they lie. And that it is the body of christ, the words which S. Hierom useth as the conclusion of the matter, doth also prove. For thus he concludeth: Si ergo panis, qui de caelo descendit etc. If than the bread that descended from heaven be the body of our Lord, and the wine that he gave to his Disciples be his blood of the new testament, let us cast away jewish fables, As who might say, uless as these words of christ speak of no cheering nor banqueting, that the jews do dream shall be in Christ'S worldly kingdom, but they speak of the bread which christ gave to his Apostles, which they say to be his body, and of the wine, which they say to be his blood, therefore let us cast away such vain fables, and cleave to the true understanding of Christ'S words, and believe that the bread and wine be Christ'S body and blood. And therefore looking for no such worldly kingdom, nor kingly palace of christ here upon the earth: Ascendamus cum Domino caenaculum magnum strastum, atque mundatum, & accipiamus ab eo sursum calicem novi testamenti, ibiue cum eo Pascha celebrantes, inebriemur ab eo vino sobrietatis: Let us (saith S. Hierom) go up with our Lord into the great dining chamber already prepared and made clean, and there let us receive of him above, the cup of the new testament, and there with him celebrating the Passover, let us be satisfied with the wine of sobriety. I can not here without sorrow and grief pass these last words of S. Hierom, but note to thee (gentle reader) the malicious doing of the Proclaimer, who impugning the presence of Christ'S body and blood The Proclaemer cutteth of the words of Sain. Hierom, to deceive his auditory. in the Sacrament, travaileth to prove that his wicked doctrine by some of the holy fathers, whom he would wrest to make them say, that christ is only to be adored and honoured in heaven, as wherbie it might appear, that his presence were only ther. Among the which, full evil favoredlie he bringeth in these last words of S. Hierom, cutting them of from the midst of the sentence, and leaving out that that goeth before, which (as ye have heard) maketh altogether against him, and also that that followeth, which (as ye shall hear) doth make against him likewise. And suatcheth truncatelie these few words, and maketh a false show with them as well as he can to deceive his Auditory. Thus it followeth in S. Hierom immediately word for word, Non enim est regnum Dei, cibus & potus, sed justicia, & gaudium, & pax in Spiritu sancto. Nec Moyses dedit Hieron ibid. nobis panem verum, sed Dominus jesus, ipse conviva & convinium. ipse comedens & qui comeditur. Illius bibimus sanguinem, & sine ipso potare non possumus. & quotidie in sacrificiis eius de genimine vitis verae, & viveae Sorec, quae interpretatur electa, rubentia musta calcamus, & nowm ex iis vinum bibimus de regno Patris, ne quaquam in vetustate literae, sed in novitate spiritus cantantes canticum nowm, quod nemo potest cantare nisi in regno Ecclesiae, quod regnum Patris est. For the kingdom of God is not meat and christ is the feaster and the feast whose blood we drink in his sacrifices. drink, but righteousness and joy, and peace in the holy Ghost. Neither did Moses give us the true bread, but our lord jesus, for he is both the feaster; and the feast, he is he that eateth and is eaten. His blood drink we, and without him we can not drink, and daily in his sacrifices of the generation of the true Vine, and of the wine of Sorec, which by interpretation is called chosen, do we press ruddy new wines, and out of these we drink the new wine of the kingdom of the Father, not in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit singing a new song, which no mancan sing, but in the kingdom of the church, which is the kingdom of the Father. Thus moche S. Hierom. Who in refelling of the jewish fables declareth that in the kingdom of christ shall be no matter of wordly cheering. For (saith he) the kingdom of God is not meat and drink. And returning to the right cheer of Christ'S kingdom, he compareth it with the cheer of Moses, and saith that Moses gave us not the true bread, but our Lord jesus. Why did not Moses give the true bread, seeing that the bread that he gave was a miraculous bread, a bread that came from heaven, and the bread that christ gave was no miraculous bread, but it was common usual bread, made here by the hand of man upon earth? If ye say that the bread of christ was a figure of christ: so was the other also, and more lively than this for many causes, which in the third book shall be declared. But if ye will learn the true cause, why our Lord christ gave the true bread, and Moses did not, learn of S. Hierom, who teacheth us that it is Cap. 12. because christ giveth unto us not an only figure of himself, but both the figure and himself also. For in the feast that christ maketh, he is he, that both maketh the feast (as S. Hierom saith) and also the meat of the feast. So then he giveth himself who in deed is the very bread of life, he giveth us the true bread that Moses could not give. For Moses gave the figure of it, but he gave not the thing, And therefore he gave not the true bread. Note then that christ is the feaster, for he biddeth us to the feast, and saith: Take and eat. He is the meat also of the feast, for appoincting the A saying of S. Hierom. opened. meat he saith, This is my body. And thus ye may perceive that S. Hierom joineth with the words of christ: And farther he saith by express words, coming to the point of the drinking of Christ'S wine in the kingdom of his Father: Illius bibimus sanguinem: We drink his blood But where drink we it? In sacrificiis eius: In his sacrifices. How come we by this wine Joan. 15. of his, which is his blood? In sacrificiis eius de geminine vitis verae rubentia musta calcamus, In his sacrifices we press out of the true vine the ruddy new wine. Who is the true vine? christ, who said: Ego sum vitis vera. I am the true wine. How press we out this new ruddy wine out of the generation of this true wine? By speaking the words of christ, as he hath commanded, by which (as S. Ambrose saith) that, that is in the cup, is made the blood that redeemed the people. But in what place must we drink this new wine? Amb. li. 4 de Sa. ca 5 Nowm bibimus vinum in regno Patris: We drink this new wine in the kingdom of the Father. For such as be in this kingdom may be partakers of Christ'S wine drunken in his sacrifices. Other may not. Habemus altar, de quo edere non habent potestatem, qui tabernaculo deseruiunt. We have an altar of which they may not eat that serve the tabernacle. For they sing not a new song, but remain in the old letter. None can sing this new song but they that be in the kingdom of the Church, which is the kingdom of Hcb. 13. the Father, saith S. Hierom. By this than ye may perceive not only the answer of S. Hierom to the question of Hedibia: but also his assertion for the presence of christ in the Sacrament. For he saith not in all this discourse that christ giveth us a figure of the true bread, but the true bread it self. We have not a figure of the meat of christ, but the meat it self: we drink not a figure of Christ'S blood, but we drink his blood, saith S. Hierom. And therefore this Proclaimer did seek to do to much violence to S. Hierom to cut of a piece of him, and showing it to his audience, to make them believe, that S. Hieom was on his side, as he said, when all that is before said, and all that cometh after in S. Hierom reclameth, yea and fighteth against him. Thus ye have heard two great clerks of Christ'S school, and the same also two great seniors of Christ'S Parliament house testifying the enacted truth of the prescnce of christ in the Sacrament, and the understanding of the words of his supper. Weigh them well, and consider them throughlie. THE FOUR AND fifth CHAP. TESTIFIETH the understanding of the same words by Isichius and S. Augustin. ALthough Isichius be in the phrase of words somewhat dark: yet I would not omit him, both for that he is grave, ancient and learned, and his testimony also very effectuous and good. Upon Leviticus writing on this text: Qui levit. 22. comederit de sanctificatis per ignorantiam, addet quintam partem cum eo, quod comedit, & dabit sacerdoti in sanctuarium. He that eateth of the holy things unwittingly, he shall put the fift part thereunto, and give unto the priest, the hallowed thing, thus he saith: Sancta sanctorum sunt propriè Christi mysteria, quia ipsius est corpus de quo Gabriel ad virginem dicebat: Spiritus sanctus superueniet in te, & virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi, ideo quod nascetur Isych. in levit. li. 6. ca 22. ex te sanctum, vocabitur filius Dei. Sed & Esaias, sanctus Dominus, & in altis habitat, in sinu videlicet Patris. Ab hoc enim non solùm alienigenas, & inquilinos, & mercenarios, sacrificio prohibuit, sed nec per ignorantiam percipere praecepit. Per ignorantiam autem percipit, qui virtutem eius, & dignitatem ignorat, qui nescit quia corpus hoc, & sanguis est secundàm veritatem, sed mysteria quidem percipit, nescit autem mysteriorum virtutem. Ad quem Salamon dicit, vel magis Spiritus, qui in eo est: Quando sederis ut comedas cum principe, diligenter attend quae posita sunt ante te. Apertè & ipse compellens, & cogens eum, qui ignorat addere quintan part. Haec enim quinta addita, intelligere nos intellgibiliter divina mysteria facit. Quid sit autem quinta pars, ipse te verba legis latoris docere possunt, ait enim: Addet quintam partem cum eo, quod comedit. Et quomodò eius quod iam comedit, & consumpsit addere quis quintam potest? Neque enim aliud, aut aliunde, sed de ipso, & cum eo, vel sicut lxx, super ipsum jubet addi quintam. Ergo quinta eius super ipsum, sermo est, qui prolatus est ab ipso Christo super Dominicum mysterium. Ipse enim liberat nos ab ignorantia, removetue nos additus, carnale quip piam & terrenum de sanctis arbitrari: sed divinè ea & spiritualiter accipi sancit, quod quinta propriè nominatur, quia qui in nobis est divinus spiritus, & sermo quem tradidit, qui in vobis sunt componit sensus, & non solùm nostrum gustum producit ad mysterium, sed & auditum, & visum, & tactum, & odoratum, ita ut nil in eyes minori rationi, & infirnae menti proximum, de ijs videlicet, quae valdè superna sunt, suspicemur. The most holy things properly are the mysteries of christ. For it is his body, of Receiving of the Sacr. by ignorance what it is. the which Gabriel said to the Virgin: The holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee. Therefore that holy thing, that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And Esaias also: the Lord is holy and dwelleth on the heights, that is to say, in the bosom of the Father. From this Sacrifice he doth not only forbid strangers, and hired servants but he commanded also that it be not received by ignorance. He receiveth it by ignorance, that knoweth not the power and dignity of it, that knoweth not that it is the body and blood in very deed, but receiveth the mysteries, and knoweth not the power of the mysteries. Unto whom Solomon saith or raither the holy Ghost that is in him: When thou sittest to eat with a Prince, diligently attend what things are set before thee: He also compelling and constreigning him that is ignorant to putto the fift part. This fift part putto maketh us easily to understand, the divine and mystical things. What that fift part is, the words of the lawgiver can teach thee for he saith: he shall putto a fift part with that that he hath eaten. How can a man putto a fift part that that he hath eaten and consumed? Neither may he putto any other thing, or had from any other where, but he commandeth a fift part to be putto, of that, and with it, or (as the seventy interpreters say) upon it. Then the fift part of him upon him, is the word which was spoken of christ himself upon our Lord's mystery. That word delivereth us from ignorance, and being putto, causeth us to think no earthly or carnallthing of the holy things, but maketh them to be taken divinely and spiritually. Which thing properly is called the fift part, because the spirit of God that is in us, and the word which he delivered, settleth the wits that be in us, and bringeth stirth to the mystery not only our taste, but also our hearing and seeing and feeling and smellling, so that of these things which be very high, we can not surmise any base or gross matter. Hitherto Isichius. In whom I find many things worthy to be noted, of the which some I shall briefly touch, leaving other to be weighed of the reader. First it The Sacrament a most holy thing and a sacrifice. is certain, that he speaketh here of the body of christ in the Sacrament, which he calleth the most holy thing, and also a sacrifice. As of the holy things sacrificed in the Levicall law, strangers and hirelings might not receive: no more may they that be strangers to christ receive of this holy thing. Besides this, no man might eat of that sacrifice unwittingly or ignorantly: no more aught any to eat of this hour sacrifice ignorantly. Who doth eat of this holy thing ignorantly? He (saith Isichius) that knoweth not the power and dignity of that, that he receiveth, who knowerh not it to be a very body, and blood in very deed. Note well then these words, that the mysteries of christ the Sacrament of christ, is his very body and blood in deed. If it be the body and blood in of christ in deed, where is now the bread and wine that the Adversary so moche talketh of? where be the only figures and signs? As signs oftentimes be tokens of things that be not in deed: so these sainges of the Adversaries be signs of a thing that they would have brought to pass, and yet it is not in deed, For all their talk in this sort of this matter, is but vain, A plain place for the Proclaimer and issue joined with him thereupon. fond, and without ground. Here ye see in this ancient author that we have good ground. For he saith it is the body and blood in very deed. Let the Proclaimer bring one of like ancienty saying that it is not the body and blood in deed, and as before I have joined with him, so will I now again that I will subscribe, If he can not, let him perform his promise and subscribe to the catholic Church. For here is one that by express words saith that the Sacrament is the body and blloode in very deed. whereby the only figure of the Adversaries is excluded. And here may the Proclaimer and all that join with him in this matter see their state, which is the state of ignorance. For he (saith this author) that receiveth this Sacrament, and knoweth not the power and dignity of it, and that it is Protestants not taking the Sacr. to be the body and blood of christ in very deed, receive it by ignorance. the dodie and blood in deed (as the Proclaimer and his complices do) he receiveth it in ignorance. I wish it may please our merciful Lord God to have mercy upon them, and to open their eyes that they may see their own ignorance, and with humility mollify their stony hearts, that vain singularity and pride forsaken, they may humbly receive the commandment of God figuratively spoken, and plainly expounded by this author, that their ignorance may be removed from them. What is the commandment of God that they should do? They must (saith almighty God) putto a fift part upon the holy thing, and that will make them clearly to understand God's mysteries. This fifth part (saith Isichius) is the word that was spoken of christ himself upon the mystery of God. What word that was, it is doubted of neither party, neither of the catholics, neither of the adversaries to be this: This is my body: This is my blood. Ipse liberat nos ab ignoratia: That word (saith Isichius) delivereth us from ignorance. Now remember that the ignorance is, that a man receiveth the Sacrament, Ignorance of the Sacrament what it is, and how it is removed. and knoweth not the power and dignity of it, which power and dignity is, that in it is the body and blood of christ in very deed. This ignorance is removed by this word: This is my body This is my blood. because this word simply without any trope or figure, teacheth that in the Sacrament is the body and blood. join then the words of this author to gother. He said before that the body and blood be in the Sacrament in very deed, and he saith that these words of christ do make us clearly to understand it, wherefore these words are to be understanded as spoken of the body and blood of christ in deed, and not of the figure of them. If ye will yet hear more, and be more fully certified of the truth of this matter, this author, as other did that be already alleged teacheth who is the worker of it, and by what mean it is brought to pass. For proceeding in the exposition of the text, he saith thus: Quicunque ergo sanctificata per ignorantiam comederit, ignorans eorum virtutem (sicut diximus) addet quintam eius super eo, & dabit sacerdoti in sanctnarium. Sanctificationem enim mystici sacrificij, & à sensibilibus ad intelligibilia, translationem sive commutationem, ei, qui verus est sacerdos, videlicet Christo oportet dari, id est, ipsi de eyes miraculum cedere, & imputare. quia pen eius virtutem, & prolatum ab eo verbum, qua videntur, tam sanctificata sunt, quàm cunctum carnis excedunt sensum. Whosover therefore shall eat the holy things by ignorance, not knowing their power (as we have said) he shall putto a fift part of it upon it, and shall give it unto the priest into the Change of sensible things to intelligible in the Sacr. must begeven to Christ sanctuary. For the sanctification of the mystical sacrifice, and the translation or commutation from sensible to intelligible things, must be given to him that is the true priest, that is to say, to christ, that is to give and impute the miracle wrought in these things to him, because by his power, and the word spoken of him the things that are seen, are so sanctified as they pass all the wit of man. Thus he. See ye not here who is the doer of this matter? perceive ye not who worketh this miracle? The doing of all this (saith Isichius) must be referred, and imputed to christ. For he by his power, and the word spoken of Bread and wine so sanctified in the blessed Sacr. as it passeth man's wit. him, sanctifieth the visible bread and wine as it passeth man's wit to know. Let us here then first understand, that if the bread and wine were but made figures of Christ'S body and blood, signifying to us that as these feed the body: so christ feedeth the soul, it were not a matter passing man's wit. But man's wit may well attain to perceive that in soch sort, they may be figures. Wherefore there is a greater matter wrought in the bread and wine then that, which we may perceive by that he saith, that they be sanctified. By which word is not only refelled the wicked saying of Cramner, that bread and wine can not be sanctified, but also there is given a farther matter to consider in the work of christ. Wherefore understand again that this sanctification declareth the mean how this work is brought to pass that is wrought. For by this sanctification there is wrought (as Transubstantiation proved by Isych. the terms of this author be) a translation or a commutation from sensible things to intelligible, that is ftom bread, which is perceived by senses, to the body of christ, which is in this manner not perceived by senses. Which terms import that, that the Church calleth Transubstantiation For when there is a translation commutation or changing of things sensible to things not sensible (which is a change of one thing of one nature or substance, into an other thing of an other nature or substance) what should let that it may not be called Transubstantiation? But what do I tarry in these things fully and esfectuouslie testified by this author. For he hath thought us that Christ'S body and blood be in the Sacrament in very deed: he hath taught us that to be wrought by the translation or commutation of the bread and wine into the same body and blood of christ, he hath taught us that christ is the worker of it by his power, and by the word spoken of him. Finally he teacheth that by the words of christ we are clearly taught the presence of his body in the Sacrament, and so by consequent we are taught, that they be no figurative speeches. Thus moche being said of Isichius, and testified by him: let us also hear August in Psal. 33 contion. S. Augustine, who at this time is joined with him. Thus writeth he in this matter upon the 33 psalm, treacting a story of king David, and applying it to christ. Et ferebatur in manibus suis. Hoc verò, fratres, quomodò posset fieri in homine, quis intelligat? quis enim portatur manibus suis? manibus aliorum potest portari christ bore his body in his own hands, when he said: This is my body. homo, manibus suis nemo portatur. Quomodò intelligatur in ipso David, secùndum literam non invenimus: In Christo autem invenimus, ferebatur Christus in manibus suis, quando commendans ipsum corpus suum ait: Hoc est corpus meum, ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis. And he was carried in his own hands. brethren how this can be done in a man, who can understand? Who is born is his own hands In the hands of an other, a man may be born: in his own hands no man is born. how it may be understand in David himself according to the letter we find not: but in christ we find it. He was born in his own hands, when giving forth the same his body, he said: This is my body. For he did bear that body in his hands, Thus far he, For as much as S. Augustiye by discussion did find that the words, which he treacted of could not be understanded literally in David, even so as it could not be performed in him, that he being but a man should bear his own body in his own hands, no more could it, or can it be performed in any other pure natural man. Therefore enforced to make a farther search he had recourse to christ, who was more than a natural man, and in him at no other time doth he find it performed and fulfiled according to the letter, but when he gave forth his body to his Disciples, saying: This is my body. If then it was at that time fulfilled in him according to the letter, when he said. This is my body. and if then he carried his own body in his hands, than this scripture also must so be understanded, or else what should it make to the purpose? For christ did not carry his body in his own hands, if he carried but the figure of his body- Wherefore the wresting that Oecolampadius maketh upon these words of S. Augustine: Ipse se portabat quodam modo cùm diceret: Hoc est corpus meum. He did bear himself after a certain manner, when he said: This is my body: will not Oecolamp. his wresting of S. Augustin will not stand serve to prove that he did bear himself only in a figure. For if S. Augustine had understand the words of bearing of a man's body in his own hands, to be to bear the figure of his body, he would not have said that he could not find it in David. For who doubteth but that David might have born a figure of himself in his own hand, and so may any other natural man. And christ bore his own figure in his hand when he had the paschal lamb in his hand. And therefore in that manner of understanding, it might be found to be done in David, and in other men. But this manner of bearing was such as could not be done in David, or any other being only a natural man, but only in christ God and man. Who above the power of man by his great divine power could compass that, that man by no means can reach unto. Wherefore having the bread in his hands, and by his almighty The true understanding of S. Augustine power, and word saying: This is my body: he turned that bread into his body, and so in that certain manner after S. Augustine's words and meaning, he did bear his own body in his own hands. And so was this fulfiled in christ according to the letter. And therefore as to the verifieng of the letter, it must needs be that christ carried verily himself self his own hands: so to the verifieng of that act it must needs be, that these words: This is my body: must be understanded in their proper and literal sense. Thus than it is evident, that forsomuch as christ bore him self in his own hands in giving forth the Sacrament to his Apostles, that this very body is born also of his ministers now in the Sacrament given forth to his faithful believers. For (as chrysostom saith) this table of christ now used Chrysost. in 26. Mathom. 83. according to his institution, is nothing inferior to the table that christ himself sat personally at. For as Christ did sanctify that table: so doth he this. And therefore we must otherwise think of this Sacrament, them we do of other things, which do show forth christ to us, to the which the adversary of ten-times doth compare this Sacrament, to abase and diminish the dignity of the same. For although the Apostles by their word and epistles did show forth christ: yet neither the one nor thee, other is called the body of christ but only that that is consecrated by the words of christ in the altar as S. Augustine saith. Potuit Paulus significando praedicare Dominum jesum Christum, aliter per linguam suam, aliter per epistolam, aliter per sacramentum corporis & sanguinis August. de Trin. li. 3. cap. 4. eius. Nec linguam quip eius, nec membranas, nec atramentum, nec significantes sonos lingua editos, nec signa literarum conscripta pelliculis, corpus Christi & sanguinem dicimus, sed illud tantùm, quod ex fructibus terrae acceptum, & prece mystica consecratum; ritè sumimus ad salutem spiritualem in memoriam pronobis Dominicae passionis, quod cùm per manus hominum ad illam visibilem speciem, producitur, non sanctificatur ut sit tam magnum sacramentum, nisi operant invisibiliter Spiritu Dei. Paul might by signifying preach our Lord jesus christ, or else by his tongue, or else by epistle, or else Bread and winearenos sanctified to be so great a Sacrament but by the invisible work of God. by the Sacrament of his body and blood, yet do we call neither his tongue, nor his parchment, nor ink, nor the signifying sounds settfurth by the tongue, nor the marks of the letters written together in skins, the body and blood of christ, but only that, which being taken of the fruits of the earth, and by the mystical prayer consecrated, we receive to our spiritual health in the remembrance of our lords passion suffered for us. Which thing when it is brought by the hands of men to that visible form, it is not sanctified that it may be so great a Sacrament, but by the Spirit of God working invisibly. Hitherto saint Augustin. Of whom ye see that we are taught, that though christ be by diverse means settfurth and preached, as by scriptures, preachings, and by the Sacrament: yet these things be not all of like degree. For there is none of these called the body of christ, but only the bread that is consecrated by the mystical prayer, that is, by the words of christ: This is my body: that only is called the body of christ. Oecolamp. craftily abuseth S. Augustin. Now Oecolampadius would, that because saint Augustin saith, that christ is preached by scripture, word, and Sacrament, that these three be of one sort, no more being in the Sacrament, then in the other two. But note I pray thee (gentle reader) how he abuseth saint Augustin to prove that his wicked saying. Of this place of saint Augustin now alleged he taketh only thus moche: Paul might by signifying preach our Lord jesus christ, otherwise by his tongue, otherwise by epistle, otherwise by the Sacrament of his body and blood. And upon this he growndeth his argument, and would be seen well to have confirmed Not tongue nor writing nor such other showing forth christ be called his body but bread and wine consetrated. his doctrine. But all the rest of saint Augustine's words which follow, which overthrow all his building he craftily left out. For it followeth: Yet do we call neither his tongue, neither his epistle, nor his writings the body of christ: but only we call that the body of christ, that is taken of the fruits of the earth, and is by the mystical prayer consecrated, that do we call the body of christ. All this doth he leave out. Soche was the sincerity of the man in alleging the holy Fathers. So good is the cause that he defended, that the doctors must be mutilated and brought out in piece meal, or else it could not stand. Is it not marvelous, that he could bring this place of saint Augustin, which although the first piece taken alone seemeth somewhat to sound to his purpose: yet the whole taken together is altogether against him? Alas that ever any man would so deceive the people of God, and by such fraud and abuse of the holy writers make them to embrace error in stead of truth, weigh the place throughlie, and you shall perceive how it maintaineth the catholic truth of the presence of Christ'S boin the Sacrament very much. Ye have now heard, that neither the word written, nor the word spoken, though christ be preached by them, be called the body of christ, but only the Sacrament is called the body of christ. And why it is called the body of christ, he declareth: Not because (saith he) by the hands of man it is brought to be a visible form, but because it is sanctified and made so great a Sacrament by the invisible working of the holy Ghost. Note these two points, that S. Augustine saith that the bread is sanctified, and made so great a Sacrament. And again that he saith it is so sanctified and made by the invisible work of the holy Ghost. There is great difference betwixt the sanctification of the Sacrament it self, and the soul of man, that receiveth the Sacrament. Now Oecolampadius and Cranmer say that the Sacraments being dumb Oecolamp. and Cranmer their heresies. creatures receive no sanctification, but only the souls of men. They say also that the holy Ghost worketh not in the things that be the Sacraments, but in the men that receive the Sacraments. This they say because they would avoid the presence of christ in the Sacrament, which is made there present by sanctification of the bread. But against these their sayings S. Augustin saith: that the same bread that is made by the hands of men is sanctified, S. Augustin plain against Oecolamp. and Cranmer. and receiving sanctity, is made so great a Sacrament. Against them also he saith, that the holy Ghost worketh invisibly in the bread. I would now learn of the Adversaries, what S. Augustine meaneth by calling the Sacrament so great a Sacrament, and what work it is that the holy Ghost worketh invisibly in the bread? The works of the holy Ghost be no trifles. It is great and miraculous that he worketh. And what he worketh S. james in his Mass, S. basil also and Chrysostom in their Masses, by their humble prayers do declare. S. james thus: Spiritum tuum sanctissimum demitte nunc Domine in nos, & in haec sancta dona proposita, ut superueniens sancta, & bona, & gloriosa sua praesentia sanctificet, divus jac. in Missa. & efficiat hunc panem corpus sanctum Christi tui, & calicem hunc preciosum sanguinem Christi tui. Send down now (o Lord) thy most holy Spirit upon us, and upon these holy gifts settfurth, that he coming over them, may with his holy good, and glorious presence, sanctify, and make this bread the holy body of thy christ, and this cup the precious blood of thy christ. Thus S. james. S. basil and chrysostom have the like words. See ye not now then how the bread is sanctified? See ye not what is the work of the holy Ghost? Perceive ye not how that S. Augustine upon good cause called the Sacrament, so great a Sacrament? is it not a great Sacrament Bread sanctified contrary to Cranmers' assertion and Oecolamp. in which by work of the holy Ghost is made present the body of christ? To have hidden this truth Oecolampadius by piece meal brought in S. Augustine. But now ye have seen the catholic faith well testified, the falsehood of the Adversaries detected, and (to return to our matter, and to conclude) ye perceive this Sacrament by mystical prayer, which is by Christ'S words, to be consecrated, the effect of which consecration being the body of christ (as is said) the words must needs be taken without figurative sense. Thus, if my judgement fail me not, ye have heard two other noble men of Christ'S school, and Parliament house, very plainly testifying the enacted truth of the understanding of Christ'S words, yea so plainly that it cannot but much confirm the good Christian, and confute the Pheudochristian. But to go forward, I will end with these two, and call other two. THE FIVE AND fifth CHAPTER tarrieth in the exposition of the same words by Chrysostom and Sedulius. NOw among the learned Fathers of the greek church, we are descended to chrysostom, of whom I may say, as besore is said of S. Ambrose, that he is so full of godly testimonies, testisieng to us the true understanding of Christ'S words, that as I know not which of them first to take: so do I marvel that they being so many, the Proclaimer could for shame say, that there is not one ancient doctor that maketh for the catholic faith of the Sacrament. Thus Chrysostom expounding these words of hour Saviour christ in the xxvi of Matthew, saith. Credamus ubique Deo, nec repugnemus ei, etiamsi sensui, & cogitationi nostrae absurdum esse videatur, quod dicitur, superet & sensum, & rationem Chrys. in. 26 Math. hom. 83. nostram sermo, quaeso, ipsius, quod in omnibus, & praecipuè in mysterus faciamus, non illa quae ante nos jacent solummodò aspicientes, sed verba quoque eius tenentes. Nam verbis eius defraudari non possumus, sensus verò noster deceptu facillimus est. Illa falsa esse non possunt, hic soepius ac soepius fallitur. Quoniam ergo ille dixit. Hoc est corpus meum: nulla teneamur ambiguitate, sed credamus, & oculis intellectus id perspiciamus. Let us in God's word even contrary to senses must be believed. every place believe God, and let us not strive against him, although that that he saith, seem to our sense and thought unlikely. Let his word (I beseech you) overcome both our wits and reason, which thing let us do in all things, but chiefly in the mysteries, not only looking on those things, which lie before us, but also regarding his words. For by his words we cannot be deceived our sense is easy to be deceived: they can not be false: this our sense is often and often deceived. Forasmoche them as he hath said: This is my body: Let us be holden with no ambiguity or doubt, but let us believe, and with the eyes of our understanding, let us verily see it. Thus far Chrysostom. In this saying it is to be perceived how he laboureth, that in this matter of the Sacrament we should discredit our senses, and credit Chrysts words. And sorasmoche as he said. This is my body: thouh it pass our reason to comprehend the work of God in making present the body of christ, and our senses can not of themselves atteign to perceive the same body: for neither But it passeth not reason tomake present a figure of his body. our eyes do see it, neither our taste discern it, neither our feeling or other senses perceive it: yet (saith chrysostom) we may not doubt of it, but believe it to be the body of christ because he said it was so. Now consider with me, if the words of christ had an other sense, than they do outwardly purport, as that they should teach us, that it is but a figure of Christ'S body, and not the body it self, would Chrysostom (trow ye) in this his open sermon will the people to believe, and not to doubt of the truth of the words, as they be spoken, and would not raither first utter the true sense and understanding of them if any other were, and then persuade the people of that sense not to doubt? It is an evil manner of teaching to will the people to believe the words of scripture as they lie, and are not so to be understanded, but in a sense much different from that. It is not the Chryso. willeth Christ'S words to be understanded as they be spoken. manner of Chrysostom so to teach, wherefore for so moche as he willeth them not to doubt, but to believe the words as they be spoken (which he doth in that, that he teacheth no other sense) it is manifest that these words are to be understanded in their proper sense without the adversaries figure. And that chrysostom himself did so understand them, this proveth that he in sundry and many places of his works, treating of these words Real presence avouched by Chryso. of christ: This is my body: he never addeth this sense: This is a figure of my body: But ever leaveth them in the sense that they be spoken, and in some place by express words, in some place by plain circumstance, he dcclareth the very presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament. By express words, as where he saith: Qui dixit: Hoc est corpus meum, & rem simul cum verbo consecit. In 14. Marc. hon. 51. He that said: This is my body: He with his word made the the thing also. I wish these few words of Chrysostom to be well marked, that they christ saying. This is my body. with the word made the thing. never fall from memory, but may always be retained as a rule to understand him in all places where he speaketh of the Sacrament of Christ'S body and blood. For if christ with his word made the thing also that he spoke of, and the thing that he spoke of was his body, then with the speaking of his word he made his body. This then being truth (as chrysostom here teacheth) it can not be denied, but that by express words he teacheth the presence of Christ'S very body in the Sacrament. And thus by chrysostom is clearly wiped away the heretical figurative Figure of the Sacramentaries wiped away by Chrysost. understanding of these words of christ: This is my body. For the Adversaries would have it so a figure as of a thing absent. But christ (as chrysostom saith) made the thing together with the word. Wherefore as the word was present: so was the thing present. If the thing be present, than the figure of the Adversaries can not here be admitted. Upon the certainty of which presence, the same chrysostom in the same homely thus taught his people. Quando igitur sacerdotem corpus tibi prebere Plain places of Chrysost for the Pooclamer Chrys. ibi. videris, noli sacerdotis, sed Christi manum ad te porrigiarbitrari. Therefore when thou seest the priest give thee the body, think not the hand of the priest, but the hand of christ to be put forth to thee. And that the people should give full credit to this truth, he useth this persuasion in the same homely: Qui enim maius, idest, animam suam prote posuit, quare dedignabitur suum tibi tradere corpus? Audiamus igitur tam sacerdotes quàm alij, quàm magna, quàm admirabilis res nobis concessa est. Audiamus, oro, & perhorrescamus, carnes suas nobis tradidit, seipsum immolatum nobis proposuit. Quam igitur satisfactionem offeremus, cum tali pabulo nutriti peccemus? cum Agnum comedentes in lupos convertamur? cum ovinis carnibus refecti, ut leones rapiamus? He that hath given a greater thing for thee, that is to say, his life, why will he disdain to deliver his body to thee? Let us therefore hear, both priests and other, how great and wonderful a thing is granted unto us. Let us hear (I pray you) and let us fear. He hath delivered unto us his flesh: himself offered hath he put before us. What satisfaction then shall we offer, that being nourished with such food, do sin? When eating the lamb, we are turned into wolves? when satisfied with sheeps flesh, we ravin as lions? Thus far Chrysostom. Note well this persuasion of his. If christ hath vouched saif to give his life for thee, will he not vouch safe to give his body? he hath given his life for thee, which is a great matter, will he not give thee his body, which is not so great a matter? After that we have considered this persuasion, let us somewhat more deeply weigh this place of Chrysostom, and we shall find it so evident in declaring the presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, that Satan himself Terms to plain for figurative speeches. can not well open his mouth against it, moche less his ministers. For if they will gloze this place of Chrysostom, they must bestow a great number of figures upon it. For here be many plain words and terms, as his body, his flesh a great and a wonderful thing, himself offered settfurth before us: such food, the lamb, the flesh of the sheep, which do declare unto us the presence of Christ'S body. And therefore as is said, they must be darkened with many figures and misty gloss, if they shall be perverted to the adversaries corruption of the truth. And truly it were wonderful that Chrysostom preaching to the people would use so many plain terms, and leave them as sounding in their own signification, when in very deed (as the Adversaries say, and would bear us in hand) they do all signify figuratively. But let us yet a little deapelier consider the whole place, and terms of the same. And first as touching the persuasion, let us weigh the comparison that is made in the same by this author to declare the great love, and mercy of christ towards us, wherein he compareth the life of christ, which he gave for us, to his body which he giveth to us. Now if the Adversary by the body, will understand a figure of the body, how unmeet a comparison will he cause Chrysostom to make, as to compare a bare figure to the life of christ? Or who will think that chrysostom Figures be no wonderful things. would use soche a great matter as the life of christ given for us, to persuade us to believe so small a matter, as that christ giveth us a piece of bread a figure of his body after the sense of the sacramentary? But that it can not bear that sense, the words that follow do well prove. For he saith, that the thing that is given unto us, is a great and a wonderful thing. If it be but a figure it is no great thing. For figures have been since the beginning, and for the most part not esteemed as great things in the respect that they were figures. If the Adversary will say that Chrysostom speaketh of the body of christ spiritually received, which is a great thing: Yet it will not help wonderful what is properly. him to wrest Chrysostom to him. For albeit the body of christ spiritually received be a great thing: yet it is not properly wonderful. For that is properly wonderful that is not in use, but rare, seldom, and almost not seen (as saith) saint Augustine. Now to receive the body of christ spiritually is no rare matter, for it hath been in use from the beginning spunall receipt only of christ is not wonderful. of the world, it was common to the holy Fathers and patriarchs in the law of nature. It was in use among the faithful jews, and so among the faithful christians (though not among the false christians) it is no strange matter, and therefore not a wonderful thing, though a great thing. But to receive Christ'S body both spiritually and really, that is both a great thing and a wonderful thing, wonderful I say, for that it was never in use the body of christ really to be received before christ said: Take, eat, this is my body, at which time he did institute and ordain it so to be received. Before christ did so by his word instite, the world never knew this manner of receipt, it was never in use, never in practice. And therefore it is a wonderful thing, not only for that it exceedeth the compass of reason, and passeth the reach of the senses that a natural body should in such manner be received, but also for that before Christ'S institution it was never in use. But what needeth me to travail so moche in declaring this, when the spunall and real receipt together of Christ'S body is wonderful. author himself openeth what the great and wonderful thing is that he speaketh of hear, saying in the same place: Audiamus oro & perhorrescamus, carnes suas nobis tradidit, seipsum immolatum nobis proposuit. Let us hear, I beseech you, and let us fear, He hath delivered to us his flesh, himself offered hath he set before us. This is the great thing that he spoke of, this is the wonderful thing that is given to us, which he meaneth of, the flesh of christ, christ himself set before us. Which thing that we should well give heed unto, and perceive the greatness and wonderfullnesse of it, he preventeth us with his advertisement saying: Let us hear and fear, which kind of advertisement needed not, if it were but a piece of bread. And note here that chrysostom to the intent the thing might fully be perceived according to the truth, and his meaning in the same, he did not content himself only to say that christ hath delivered unto us his flesh: but he addeth, that christ set himself offered before us, whereby are removed all the Satan's seals can not be hanged to Chrysostom's words. figures and tropes, which the Adversaries to the corruption of the truth, would here have put to. For if chrysostom had said no more, But that christ hath given to us his flesh, then would Satan by his ministers hanged on one of his common seals, as this word, figuratively, or spiritually, and so made it to have appeared, that it is his evidence. But the holy Ghost, being a good schoolmaster, hath taught his scholar Chrysostom so to frame his words, that if the enemy would go about to falsify them by putting to, one of his common seals, yet his falhead should needs appear. For when chrysostom had said, that christ had delivered unto us his flesh, he immediately added, as an exposition of those words, himself hath he setforth before us. By which words the matter is made plain for if christ himself be set before us, then is the bare figure taken away and denied. If he be set before us, then is he not only spiritually received. For spiritual receipt is in us, and not before us. christ by the doctrine of the Adversary is within us, and not in the Sacrament before us: but Chrysostom saith that he is before us, and speaketh of the being of christ in the Sacrament. Wherefore he himself is in the Sacrament before us, and so is excluded the only spiritual manner, which is the other seal of the Adversary, and the real presence is proved which is the doctrine catholic. The farther certainty also of this matter is added when he saith, that we eat the lamb, whereby he meaneth the Lamb, that taketh away the sins of the world, jesus christ, that innocent Lamb figured by the old paschal lamb. Likewise saying, that we eat the flesh of the sheep, he meaneth the flesh of christ, who is he, Qui tanquam ovis ad occisionem ducebatur, & tanquam agnus coram se tondente obmutescebat, & non aperiebat os suum, who as a sheep was led to Esay. 53. be slain, and as a lamb before the shearer did hold his peace, and did not open his mouth. Finally that in this discourse he speaketh of the very real presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, and that we verily and substantially receive it, and be nourished with it, his last words do invincibly prove. Sinners receive the body of christ in the Sacr. not spiritually, but yet really. In which moving a question upon the words before said, he saith: Quam satisfact. etc. what manner of amends, or satisfaction shall we make to him, that being in sin, do receive such food? that being wolves do eat the lamb? that being lions, do ravin the flesh of the sheep? Now certain it is both by the doctrine of the Catholic, and the Protestant, that the sinner eateth not the body of christ spiritually, wherefore it must needs be, that such as being wolves and lions in wickedness of life, and do yet by the doctrine of Chrysostom eat the flesh of the lamb, and devour the flesh of the sheep, forasmoch (as is said) that they do not eat the flesh of christ spiritually, that they eat it in the Sacrament really and substantially, For this is well known to the Adversary that the evil man can not receive Christ'S body but in the Sacrament. But Chrysostom saith that the evil man receiveth the body of christ, Wherefore in the Sacrament. Thus, if my judgement fail me not, Chrysostom hath by express words taught us the real presence of christ in the Sacrament, Now we shall Real presence avonched of Chrysost, by circumstance hear him teach the same by circumstance, but so plainly and evidently that it can not be against said. The circumstance consisteth in the comparison of the paschal Lamb, and in the words of christ the sixth of S. john by which both he proveth these words of christ: This is my body: to be spoken in their proper sense, and to teach us the real presence of christ in the Sacrament. The words be these: Praecipuam eorum solemnitatem dissoluit, & ad aliam mensam horroris plenam eos convocat, dicens: Accipite, & comedite, Chrys. homil. 83. in 16. Math. Hoc est corpus meum. Quomodò igitur turbati non sunt hoc audientes? quia multa & magna de hoc antea audierant. He dissolveth their chief Solemnity, and to an other table full of terribleness he calleth them, saying: This is my body. How then were they not troubled hearing this? because he had spoken many and great things of this before. Thus he. In this saying two things briefly noted, I pass to the next place. The first is, that the other table whereunto christ did call his Apostles was full of terribleness or trembling, which showeth that there was in that table, above the table of the paschal lamb, from the which they were called, some thing that was of such majesty, that it was to be feared, which thing was Table of the old Paschal lamb not terrible as only but a figure the table of christ is terrible and therefore more than a figure. not in the other table. In the other table was the paschal lamb a lively figure of christ our paschal lamb, and in it christ was figuratively eaten. And although it were their chiefest solemnitic: yet Chrysostom doth not call it a fearful table. If then in that solemn table there was the figure of christ, and christ was there figuratively eaten, and yet that table was not terrible or full of horror: then in the table of christ is not only a figure of christ, and christ figuratively eaten, but there is a great matter there that maketh this table to be fearful. What is that? Hoc est corpus meum. This is my body. For Chrysostom saith, that when christ called them to this table he said: This is my body. If these words This is my body, did no more but cause the figure of Christ'S body to be in the table of christ, and so christ to be eaten in a figure as he was in the table of the paschal Lamb, them this table had been no more full of horror than the other. But for so much as by that saying of christ, the table was full of horror, it argueth (as before it is alleged out of chrysostom) that he so saying with the word made also the thing. so that as he spoke the word presently, so the thing, that is, his body was there presently. For the saying of the word, and the making of the thing went jointly together. Whereby then as it doth plainly appear that the body of christ was present in that table: so also doth it appear that the body being made present at the saying of these words: This is my body: that these words are to be taken and understanded in their propose sense. The second note is, that where chrysostom moveth a question, saying: how were not the Apostles troubled when they heard christ say, Take, eat, This is my body? He answereth that they were not troubled because they had heard him speak many and great things of this thing before. Where this us to be noted that christ did not speak moche of this matter but only in the sixth of saint john's Gospel. Now it is already proved that there, christ spoke of his flesh and his blood. Then if he speaketh here of that, he spoke of there, than he saying: This is my body, this is blood, speaketh here of his very flesh and very blood. And so these words must be understanded in their proper sense. And here is to be remembered that the author of Cranmers' book growndeth Cranmers argument agunst the Sacrament an argument (as he supposeth, upon a good ground, but in very deed it is upon the sand) against the Sacrament, saying: that if christ had made his body in the Sacrament it being so great a work, so great a mystery, it should have been declared either by christ himself showing the very thing so to be, or by the Evangelists in process of the story, or of the cirumstance: But for so much as the Gospel saith no more but Sacramentaries deny the vi. of S. john tospeake of the Sacr. that it should appear a matter of no weight. breiflie without all previall disposition to the doing of the thing, and without all circumstance, that he took bread and gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his Disciples, saying: Take, eat, This is my body etc. Therefore (saith he) there is no such thing of belief ther. for about other things to be believed, either christ himself, or the Evangelists do stand in the declaration, as in the matter of the incarnation and birth of christ, of his baptism, of his passion and death, of his resurrection of his ascension and such other. Wherefore (saith he) their is no such great work of faith wrought in the Sacrament. But see how the spirit of error blinded this man, and whether he Cranmers spirit and Chryso stomes compared. led him. If he had been led by the same spirit that Chrysostom was led by, he should have seen that, that Chrysostom did sec. Chrism (as ye have heard) said, that christ had spoken many and great things of this Sacrament before to the Apostles, and therefore now when christ went to the performance of his promiss made before, and in few words said: Take, eate, This is my body: They were mindful of his promiss made before, and of his great instruction given unto them for their belief in that behalf. so that being sufficiently instructed, and therefore readily prepared, when christ spoke the word, and commanded them to eat his body, they were not troubled, for their saith was stayed. So that Chrysostom could see many and great things that christ had spoken of this matter: But this other man blinded with the great mist of heresy, could see nothing, where Chrysostom saw many things, and great things. Therefore you that be yet, or have been seduced, here by this great pillar of that sect be advertised, that if he being a learned man, and yet the wicked spirit so blinded him that where chrysostom said, that christ did speak many and great things of this Sacrament, which yet this learned man could not see one of them, you that be learned see one of your best learned men blinded, and beware in time. But you that be unlearned, of this moche more do you be ware. Foryf the learned be deceived by the Devil and blinded, and led out of the way of truth, moche more the unlearned may be deceived and blinded, as was your first fownder in this our time, Luther by name, who said that the sixth chapter of S. john, was wholly to be set a part, as in which there was no syllable that spoke of the Sacrament. Yet Chrysost. saith christ spoke many and great things of the Sacrament. And in all the Gospel there is noplace that speaketh of it before the supper, but the sixth chapter of S. john. Wherefore Luther gropeth also in the dark and can not see one syllable of S. john's sixth chapter speaking of the Sacrament, which speaketh moche of it. which thing also is by express words testified of S. Augustine, who saith thus speaking of the supper of christ. joannes de corpore & sanguine Domini Aug. li. 3▪ de Conseuse evang. christ spoke of his body and blood plentisullie in the sixth of S. john. hoc loco nibil dixit, sed planè alibi multo uberiùs de iis Dominum locutum esse testatur. john spoke nothing in this place of the body and blood of our Lord, But in an other place he plainly testifieth that our lord very plentifully spoke of these things. Where note briefly by the way that S. augustine saith not, that S. john spoke of the Sacrament of Christ'S body and blood, but of the body and blood of our Lord by express and plain words, and there with signifieth the same body and blood to be spoken of both in the sixth of S. john, and in the other Evangelists, where they treacte of the last supper of christ. And thus ye have perceived the author of that book not only blinded, but also directly saying contrary to chrysostom in these two places jointly alleged, and also to S. Augustine, And therefore once again I wish you to be warned, that seeing the sainges of your chief masters be clean contrary to the sainges of the chief masters of Christ'S Church, beware of them, suspect them, fly far from them. Ye have good cause so to do if you consider the matter well. And now to your farther instruction in this point, and to the more confutation of the adversaie and declaration of the truth, I will crave your patience to hear one other place of the same Chrysostom, wherein ye shall both more plainly perccave both that the vi of john, and also the words of the supper do manifestly speak of the body and blood of christ in the Sacrament. Thus he writeth: Hac de causa desiderio desideravi hoc Pascha vobiscum Chris. homil. 83. in. 26. Math. comedere, qno vos spirituales faciam. Ipsequoque bibit ex●…; ne auditis verbis illis dicerent: Quid igitur sanguinem bibimus, & carnem comedimus? ac ideo perturbarentur. Name & quando prius de iis verba fecit multi solummodò propter verba scandalum passi sunt. Ne igitur tunc quoque id accideret, primus ipse hoc fecit, ut tranquillo animo ad commumcationem mysterioram induceret. For this cause with desire have I desired to eat this passover with you, by the which I may make you spiritual. He also drank of it, lest when they had heard these words they should say, what therefore do we drink blood, and eate flesh? And there for they should be troubled. for when he did first speak of these things also, many alonlie for his words were offended. Lest therefore that also should then happen, he himself first did this thing, that with quiett mind he might induce them to the partaking or communication of the mysteries. Thus moche chrysostom. In which saying I will first note to you for the sixth of S. john, that after I may the more at large open his mind to you for the presence: That christ spoke of his body and blood in the Sacrament joan. 6. christ spoke of his body and blood in the sixth of S. john, these words of this author do teach us where he saith: Quando de iis prius verba fecit, multi solummodò propter verba scandalum pasi sunt. When he first spoke of these things many even alonely for the words were offended. Whereby you may perceive that chrysostom showeth here that christ spoke before of this mystery of his body and blood in that place, where many only were offended for the words. Where that was it is clear to all men that can read the Gospel, that it was there, where they said, Durus est est hic sermo, quis potest eum audire? This is an hard saying, who can abide it? where it is manifest Joan. 6. that they were (according to Chrysostoms' saying) offended only for the words of christ, which made them to say that it was an hard saying. So that where Chrysostom in the other sentence said that christ had spoken great things of this mystery, but opened not in what place, here by circumstance he showeth the certain place. This I thought good first to note, that being joinctlie spoken of after the other, the first might be corfirmed by this, in that that this openeth the place of the speaking of it. And this by that many somewhat be explained in that it declareth, that christ spoke there many and great things which in this place be not so far reported. There seemeth betwixpt these two places of Chrysostom to be a contradiction, the dissolution of which shall bringfurth some good matter meit for Two sainges of Chrysost. conferred and conciled. this place. The contradiction is this: in the first sentence saying: Quomodò igitur turbati non sunt discipuli hoc audientes? how were the disciples not troubled hearing this? he giveth us to understand, that the Apostles were so stayed and confirmed, that when christ spoke to them comaunding them to eat his body, they were not, neither could be troubled. In this sentence he saith thatChryst did first drink of his blood lest they should say: Wherefore then do we drink blood and eat flesh? and therefore should be troubled. Whereby contrariwise he seemeth to insinuate that they were not perfect, but would have been troubled. But these two sainges well weighed, there shall be found no contradiction, but raither strong evident matter for the opening of the truth now declared. Wherefore this is to be noted, that in the first sentence Chrysostom spoke of the faith of the Apostles as concerning this mystery. And as touching their saith they were not troubled at the strange sound of Christ'S words, who bid them take and eat his body and drink his blood, who otherwise if they had not been stayed in faith, being fully instructed, and fully persuaded, they would have been troubled at the hearing of such words, but they were resolved, and therefore would not departed and go back from christ, as other disciples did, but when christ asked them: will you also go away? They answered: Domine ad quem ibimus? verba vitae aeternae habes. Lord to whom shall we go? though havest the words of everlasting life. They had taken a good taste in the words of christ, though they were repugnant to their natural knowledge. Wherefore they subdued their natural The Apostles hearing Chystes words: Take, eat, this is my body were not troubled in faith, knowledge to the heavenly and spiritual knowledge, and so perceived everlasting life in his words. Therefore hearing this new and strange voice, Take, eat, This is my body. Drink, this is my blood, that it was so in deed, as Chrust spoke they believed most certainly. And therefore in faith they were not troubled. For if they had, they would have uttered their doubt with a (Quomodò) how, as they did that were troubled and said: Quomodò potest hic nobis dare carnem suam ad manducandum? How can this fellow give us his flesh to eat? And as our men in these days troubled likewise in faith do show their doubt with a (Quomodò) with an how, ask how can christ be in the Sacrament? with many such like questions. But the Apostles were delivered from this trouble. and therefore (saith Chrysostom) they were not troubled, that is, they were not troubled in faith. That he meaneth they were not troubled in faith, his words do declare, when he asketh, how were not the Apostles troubled hearing these words? So that their trouble should be upon the hearing of Christ'S words. But uless as faith is of hearing, and by hearing christ before they had conceived faith, therefore faith by the hearing of these words, which before by hearing were believed, was not now troubled. Which also this chrysostom saith in his answer giving a cause why they were not troubled. Quia multa & magna de hoc antè disseruerat. Because he had spoken many and great things of this before. so that by the hearing of these many and great things they were now quieted in faith. In the second sentence where he showeth a thing to be done by christ lest they should be troubled, he doth not speak of their trouble in faith, but of their trouble that mighthave happened in the execution of their faith, that is, in the receiving of that body and blood which they believed there to be really present, and as very flesh and very blood to be received. The Apostles believed the real presence of Christ'S body and blood in the Sacr. Wherefore it is to be noted that the Apostles believed in the Sacrament to be not a bare figure, as of thing absent, but they believed the very body and blood of christ really present. The proof of this by Chrysostom is this: If they had believed it to be but a figure, and in very deed bread and wine, then in the receipt of it they would not have been troubled. For unto bread and wine they were accustomed as their usual food. But forasmoch as they believed it to be the very flesh and very blood of christ, the receipt where of being both strange, and to our nature loathsome, and specially the flesh and blood of a man (as Theophilact saith) therefore as they were not troubled in the believing: so that they should not be troubled in christ to induce his Apost. without loathsomeness to eat his flesh, and drink his blood, did first eat and drink them himself. the receiving of it, christ, to induce them by his example, and to remove the loathsomeness of nature abhorring to eat the flesh of man, and to drink his blood, did drink first, ut tranquillo animo (saith Chrysostom) ad communicationem mysteriorum induceret. That he might induce them with a quiet mind to receive the mysteries. Consider with your self, if they had believed it to be but bread, why should they not receive it with quiet mind? if it were wine why should they not drink it quietly. And if they were such things, what needed christ to drink before them, to induce them, and to quiet them? Did they never eat bread before? Did they never drink wine before? Perchance the Adversaries will say that they never eat bread, and drank wine in that sort before. For now they did eat bread, and drink wine as the figures of Christ'S body and blood. Is this a sufficient cause to trouble them? Had they never before eaten any thing as the figure of christ? Had they not even a little before eaten the paschal lamb, a very lively figure of christ? Had they not heard, that Melchisedech did eat and drink bread and wine in the figure of christ? Had they not heard that Manna was eaten, and the water of the rock drunken in the figure of christ? Was this matter so strange to them, that they should be troubled? No, it was not this. but it was for the eating of the flesh, and drinking of the blood of christ, which for that that it was never in use before it was very strange to them, and for that it was against nature it was loathsome, and therefore they might very well have been troubled. That this is the cause chrysostom by plain words declareth saying: christ did drink first of it lest, when they had heard the words of christ, which were these: Eat, This is my body. Drink, This is my blood: they should say, what do we eat flesh and drink blood? and therefore they should be troubled. Note that he saith, that the Apostles would have said, why do we eat flesh Trouble of the Apost. should have been because they knew they should eat very flesh. and drink blood? In the which words he doth plainly express their faith that they believed it to be flesh and blood. And because they did certainly believe it to be flesh and blood, and that they should so have received it, it might have been a cause to trouble them. Therefore Chrysostom addeth: Ac ideo perturbarentur. And therefore they should be troubled. Therefore, that is, because they should eat the flesh, and drink the blood of a man. Fot that is the cause that Chrysostom doth assign, of their trouble. That which followeth also moche helpeth the declaration of this matter, that when christ (saith Chysostom) did speak of these things before many for the words alonely were offended. In that he saith that they were offended for the words alone, he giveth us to understand, that the Apostles should not now have been offended so, but for the doing, that where christ before did speak of the giving of his flesh, now he did both speak of it, and give it in deed. And so in the receipt of it in deed, they should have been offended. But (saith Chrysostom) that that might not happen, he drank first, that they animated, and comforted by his example, might with a quiett mind, neither thinking it strange neither loathsome, receive the mysteries, in the which (as a mystery requireth) was hidden a thing not open to senses, which was the body of jesus christ. Now ye have heard the mind of Chrysostom upon the words of christ, and how he understandeth them you may perceive, and by the same also you may know both how he did believe, and how also the Apostles, who first took this mystery at Christ'S hand, did believe. And now forasmoche as I have tarried long upon Chrysostom (but not without profit to the reader, as I trust) I will with the more expedition breislie, overpass the brief saying of Sedulius, who at this time is joined to Chrysostom, Sedul. in 11 prim. Cor. as his yockefelowe, to testify the true understanding of Christ'S words in the latin church, as chrysostom hath done in the greek church. Thus he saith Accipite, hoc est corpus meum. quasi dixisset Paulus: Cavete ne illud corpus A plain place for M. jewel. indignè comedatis, dum corpus Chisti est. Take, this is my body, as though Paul had said, Beware that ye eat not that body unworthily, forasmohe as it is the body of christ. Thus mochehe. Who expounding the words of christ uttered by S. Paul to the Corinthians doth by express words give us to understand them in their proper sense, as speaking of the very body, and of no figure or trope. For if they were so to be understanded, this learned man taking upon him the office of an expositoure, and so to expownde the words of christ, and the meaning of S. Paul, in the alleging of them, would have taught now that they are to be understanded by a figure, as an expositor aught to do. But forasmohe as he teacheth that they are undestanded of Christ'S body, as in opening S. Paul's mind it doth well appear, it can not otherwise be but the words Sedulius commended. of christ are to be taken simply, as teaching us that christ and S. Paul spoke of the very body and not of the bare figure of it. This man was both learned and ancient, not moche above four hundreth years after christ who as by learning he was not void of good knowledge: so by ancienty he was not void of true faith. Wherefore we must needs confess, that this doctrine is according to the true faith, and so consequently acknowledge that it is the true faith to believe Christ'S very body in the Sacrament. Thus, Reader, if havest heard these two noble men of Christ'S Parliament The Proclaner must subscribe to the catholic doctrine of the Church if he will keep promise. house opening to us the enacted truth of the understanding of Christ'S words, both of them testifying the presence of Christ'S body by the same words, and no one title of the adversaries figures and signs, and that so plainly and evidently, that methinks the Proclaimer shall do me wrong if he subscribe not to this truth, for so much as he hath promised so to do upon the seight of any one plain place in scripture, Council or doctor. Chrysostom, I am sure, is so plain and with all so evident, and strong against the wicked assertion of the Proclaimer, that he shall never be able with all his engines, and false shifts that he had to withstand his force. But if his mouth will not for pride confess the truth, his conscience, I doubt not, accuseth him as confounded. THE SIX AND fifth CHAP. ABIDETH, in the exposition of the same words by Theophilus and Leo. NOw (gentle Reader) coming towards the end of these famous and noble men of Christ'S higher house, of Parliament, I mien of such as were within six hundreth years after christ, I trust thou wilt not faint to proceed and see the end. And to thy more ease, I also, as a man travailing in journey and coming toward the end, being desirous of the same taketh courage to him, and maketh the more hast to attain his desire: Even so I now drawing to the end, will be shorter than I have been, and so make haste that I may obtain that, that I desire. And now of those fathers that remain Theoplnlus Archibishoppe of Alexandria, Origen his heresic. shall be the first that in our matter shall give his testimony. This man writing against Origen, for that he said that the devels shall be saved at Theop. Alexand. li. 2. pasch. the last, saith thus. Consequens est, ut qui priora susceperit, suscipiat & quae sequuntur. Et qui pro Doemonibus Christum dixerit crucifigi, ad ipsos quoque dicendum suscipiat, Hoc est corpus meum, & accipite, Hic est sanguis meus. Si enim pro Daemonibus crucifigitur (ut novorum dogmatum assertor affirmat) quod erit privilegium, aut quae ratio, ut soli homines corpori eius sanguiniue communicent, & non Daemones quoque proquibus in passione sanguinem fuderit: It is consequent, that he that receiveth the first things, should also receive those things that follow. And he that doth say christ to be cruicified for Devils, allow also to be said unto them: This is my body, and Take, this is my blood. For if christ shall be crucified also for devels, as the avoucher of new doctrines doth affirm, what shall be the privilege, or what reason that only men should communicate the body and blood of him, and not devels also for the which in his passion he did shed his blood? hitherto Theoph. Who improving the opinion of Origen before mentioned, saith that if the body of christ should suffer for devels, and his blood should be shed for them, then unto them he should have said, as he hath to his Apostles, and all faithful men: Take, eat, This is my body, Take and drink, This is my blood. Which argument, as it doth confute the error of Origen, for that it is meit that all they that be partakers of the redemption purchased by the body and blood of christ, should also be such, as to whom in time convenient, it devels be not redeemed by Christ'S passion, but if they might receive him spiritually they should be partakers of his merits. might be said: Take eat, This is my body. Take drink, This is my blood. Which thing to devels is not said: so also it doth impugn the error of our Adversary in that that no mention being made of figures and tropes, the words of christ be left in their own proper sense, teaching us that we must take and eat, his very body, and drink his very blood. And that they do so teach us by the mind of this author, the words that follow in his second argument do well prove. For the better perceiving whereof, understand first (as the truth of the catholic faith is) that devels be not redeemed by the passion of christ, neither be they, nor can be partakers of the virtue and benefit of the same. Now to receive christ spiritually, is to receive the grace and fruit of this passion. When then in his second argument this author saith that the devels be not parone blood excludeth an other, and the legal solemnity, when it is changed, is fulfilled. Thus Leo. For the better understanding of this saying of the author, it is to be observed that he doth compare the solemnity of the old judaical Passover to the new Passover solemnly begun by christ in his last supper. Which thing may well be perceived by the last words of the author, where he saith as the conclusion of all that he had before spoken: & legalis festivitas, dum mutatur, impletur: And the legal solemnity, when it is changed, is fulfilled. The legal solemnity, was the feast of the paschal lamb. This feast was changed and then fulfiled, when christ in stead of that lamb being the figure, made his solemn feast, and gave his own body and blood, the body and blood of the right, and very true lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, of which matter more is said in the first book. In the which feast (saith the author) that the shadows should give place to the body, and the images should cease in the presence of the truth, the old observance is taken away with a new sacrament. Mark then, in the legal solemnity was the shadow: in Christ'S supper the body, in the legal solemnity were the Images: in Christ'S feast was the presence of the truth, that is, the very thing signified by the image, which is the body and blood of christ, not now in figure, but in very deed. See ye not now than what is in Christ'S supper? Is there not the body of the shadow, and not the only shadow? Is there not the very thing and not the image? Is not the body of the shadow In Christ'S supper is the very body and not the shadow. and the very thing of the image the body and blooode of Chrysts Then the very body and blood of christ be in his supper. Thus may ye perceive what he meant, when he said that christ did ordain the Sacrament of his body and blood, not a Sacrament void of his body and blood, but a Sacrament containing his body and blood. Will ye see this again plainly taught? This author saith, that the old observance is taken away with a new Sacrament. But what is this Sacrament? It is a sacrament, that is a sacrifice removing and ending the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, and others of that nature. It is a Sacrament wherein is blood excluding the blood of legal sacrifices. Hostia in hostiam transit, sanguis sanguinem excludit, one sacrifice passeth into an other sacrifice: one blood excludeth an other blood. The sacrifice of the old law passeth into the sacrifice of Christ'S body and there endeth, and the blood of christ excludeth and putteth away the blood of the sacrifice of the old law, and so is the sacrifice of that blood ended. christ in his supper did not institute a bare Sacrament only Thus may you perceive, that when this author said, that christ ordained the Sacrament of his body and blood, that he meant not only the institution of a bare Sacrament, but also the consecration of the body and blood of christ lying hidden under the forms of bread and wine in the same Sacrament. Which ordinance and consecration was done by the words of christ, when he said: Take, eat, This is is my body. And Take, drink, this is my blood. And so the words teach the very presence of Christ'S body and blood in the Sacrament, and not a naked figure. If thus much satisfy not the reader forsomoch as is here said of and upon this author, as I trust it may any that is not contentious, if he desire to see more of this author, let him reparie to the sixth of saint john, and to the beginning of this process upon the words of the Supper, and he shall see more, wherefore remitting the reader to those places, I stay to say any more upon this couple, but hast me, according to my promise to hear an other couple. THE SEVEN AND fifth CHAP. proceedeth in the exposition of the same words by saint cyril and saint Gregory. THough it be moche that is already said upon these sew words of christ, and may well suffice to teach the truth of this matter: yet that the arrogancy of the Proclaimer may be beaten down, and his untruth against god's truth well perceived, we shall yet bring in one or two couples more of the higher house of Christ'S Parliament, and then descend to other of the lower house. Of the higher house there yet remaineth holy cyril, whose faith in the Sacrament, although it may well be known to us by his many and sundry sentences both in the first book, and in this upon the vi. of S. john alleged: yet that the faith of the catholic Church may be discerned from error and heresy, with which titles some heretics would defame the same, we will hear him teach us the faith that ought to be had and given to the words of christ, and how we shall understand them, even as he taught Calosyrius, to whom he wrote upon the words of christ in this manner: Non dubites, an hoc verum sit, eo manifestè dicente. Hoc est corpus meum: sed potius suscipe verbum ciril ad Calosyrium. Christ'S words manifest and without doubt. salvatoris in side. Cùm enim sit veritas, non mentitur. Doubt not whether this be true or no, seeing that he manifestly saith: This is my body: But raither receive the word of our Saviour in faith. For lie forasmoch as he is tureth, he lieth not. Weigh these few words of S. cyril well (gentle Reader) and first that he willeth Calosirius not to doubt whether this that Christ manifestly said: This is my body: be true or no. For in that he willed him and by him all Christians not to doubt, what clls willeth he but that all error, heresy, opinion, wandering, wavering and cold faith should be removed, and firm, suro, and fast faith should be given to the words of christ: This is my body, S. cyril showeth the Proclaimer plain words. which words he saith be manifest. If they be manifest, than they have no obscure sense: then they must be taken in the sense that manifestly lieth open before us. That sense is the grammatical sense. Then the figurative sense is taken away. For that sense, as the words be now spoken, is not manifest, but obscure. Then also must the Proclaimer subscribe. For by the judgement of S. cyril the words of christ be manifest. If they be manifest, as undoubtedly they be, than there is one scripture that manifestly teacheth the presence of Christ'S body. Again saint cyril saith, that uless as christ is the truth, he lieth not: but he taking the bread and wine, said: This is my body. Therefore he being the truth and lying not, the things were as he said, then were they his body and blood. For so said he that they were. If the bread and wine, he saying, This is my body. This is my blood: were not made by his almighty power and word the body and blood of christ (these words being spoken by demonstration of certain singular things in nature without any circumstance to declare any other sense upon these words, then in the first hearing they sound to have) If, I say, these creatures remain still in their nature and substances, and be but figures of Christ'S body and blood, than I say, that Christ'S words were not true. For he said that they were his body and blood. And by the opinion of the Adversary, they be not so, but bread and wine figures of Christ'S body and blood. forasmuch as my chief purpose is to help and stay them in their faith that be unlearned, to whom quiddities in learning be raither trooblesom then pleasant or profitable, I have determined not to dispute with the Proclaimer in any quiddity, or else I would somewhat have said to him, for The Proclaimer to disgrace our faith playeth with individun vagum. that it liketh him to dally, and to ask where we find that this word (hoc) in english (this) poincteth not the bread, but individuum vagum. For if it shall be his fantasy to disgrace the truth before the common people by playing with some quiddity, that they can not understand, he may so soen disgrace our faith in the holy and blessed Trinity. For if he list so to play, he might move matter of the distinction and relation of the persons, and by such toieng bring the people to stagger in their faith in the blessed Trinity, as by this mockery of the demonstration, he would make them fall from their faith of the blessed Sacrament. It were convenient that as the people should be taught simply, to believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Ghost, and not to be troubled with the learned quiddities of the generation of the Son, of the spiration as touching the holy Ghost, of the procession of the same from the Father and the Son, and with the distinction and relation of the persons: so should they be taught simply to believe as the scriptures do teach, and the holy fathers do declare and expound the same, that the body and blood of our Saviour christ, even People are simply to be taught not with Quiddities. full christ, God and man, after the consecration, which (as before is declared) is done by the secret power of God, by the work of the holy Ghost at the pronunciation of Christ'S words by his sufficient minister, is verily, really, substantially, and naturally present in the Sacrament, and not to be troubled with demonstrations with accidents, with substances, with placing of that body circumscriptivelie, definitivelie, by the manner of substance, or by the manner of quantity. For these matters are for learned men to dispute, not for good Christian unlearned people to call in question of believe. In the schools it had been a meit matter to dispute: in the pulpitie it was no matter to teach to edify. But it liked him to talk of such quiddities, because by their obscurity and darkness, they being unpleasant unto the people should the more mislike them, and by that means have the readier way to deface the catholic faith, and to set up his heresy: But I minding for that little that in me is, to maintain that holy faith of christ my Saviour that is taught in his catholic Church, I will leave these quiddities, and simply treact of the thing, that we have in hand. And therefore now returning to cyril, from whom I have a little digressed, I say with him, that christ being truth, and saying: This is my body, it must needs be as he said, and so simply we must believe the body and blood of christ, according Cyrillus ibidem. to his word to be present in the Sacrament. Which thing, as he said here that christ manifestly said: This is my body: So he manifestly in the same epistle after a few lines, doth open and christ turneth the bread into his own very flesh. declare to be true, where he thus writeth: Ne horreremus carnem et sanguinem apposita sacris altaribus, condescendens Deus nostris fragilitatibus, instuit oblatis vim vitae, convertens ea in veritatem propriae carnis, ut corpus vitae quasi quoddam semen vivificatiwm inveniatur in nobis That we should not loathe flesh and blood set upon the holy altars, God condescending to our fragilities hath powered into the things offered the power of life converting or turning them into his very own flesh, that the body of life may be found in us, as a certain quickening seed. For that I have upon this place of cyril said something already, I will now no more but note unto you, how manifestly, how apertlie, and how plainly he teacheth us not only that the body of christ is in the Sacrament: but also the means how it is there, which is that God turneth the bread set upon the holy aulanrs into his very flesh. After this he rendereth to us two Two causes why the substance in the Sacr. being flesh appeareth not. causes of the goodness of God toward us, and showed in this Sacrament the one is, that though it be flesh in deed: yet (as Euthymius, and Theophilact also do say) God considering or condescending to our infirmities, maketh it not to appear unto us that that it is in deed, but it appeareth still to us as it was before, as bread and wine. The other cause why we receive the very flesh of christ (though not in the form of flesh) is, saith cyril, that the body of christ, which in an other place he calleth the body of life, might be in our bodies, as the seed of life, to communicate life unto us, and so make us by virtue thereof, to live everlastingly. Now if the Sacrament were but a figure, and not the body of christ, as the Adversary saith, how could Cyrils saying be true, that God turneth the offered things into his flesh? Again if in the Sacrament we receive The flesh of christ received in the Sacr. is the seed of everlasting life. not the body of christ, how then standeth Cyrils saying, that the body of christ, to the intent it may be the seed of life is found in us? It may then well be perceived, that the doctrine of the Adversary teaching that Christ'S body and blood be not in the Sacrament, is pestilent, pernicious and untrue, not only in that it is repugnant to the doctrine of this holy Father, and others before alleged, but also to the very word of christ, who plainly saith: This is my body, and the Adversary saith, it is not his body But a figure of his body. But it is time that we hear S. Grogorie whom we have appointed to join with S. cyril, to declare what was the faith of the latin church in his days. Thus he writeth: Debemus itaque praesens seculum, vel quia iam conspicimus de fluxisse, tota mente contemnere, quotidiana Deo lachrimarum sacrisicia, quotidianas carnis Grog. li. 4 dialog. ca 58. & sanguinis eius hostias immolare. Haec namque singulariter victima ab aeterno interitu animam saluat, quae illam nobis mortem Vnigeniti per mysterium reparat. Qui licet resurgens ex mortuis iam non moritur, & mors ei ultrà non dominabitur: tamen in seipso immortaliter, atque incorruptibiliter vivens, pro nobis iterum in boc mysterio sacrae oblationis immolatur, Eius quip ibi corpus sumitur, eius caro in populi salutem partitur, eius sanguis non iam in manus infidelium, sed in ora fidelium funditur. Hinc ergo pensemus, quale sit pro nobis hoc sacrificium, quod pro absolutionè nostra passionem Vnigeniti filii sui imitatur. Quis enim fidelium haberè dubium possit in ipsa immolationis hora ad sacerdotis vocem caelos aperiri? Daily sacrifice of Christ'S body and blood is to be ofred. in illo jesu Christi mysterio Angelorum Choros adesse? summis ima sociari: terrena coele stibus iungi? unum quoque ex visibilibus, & invisibilibus fieri? We aught therefore, forasmuch as we see this present world to have comed to nothing, with all hour mind to contemn it, and to offer unto God the daily sacrifices of tears, the daily sacrifices of his flesh, and blood. This singular sacrifice saveth the soul from everlasting destruction, which reneweth unto us by mystery the death of the only begotten Son. Who although rising from death, dieth no more, and death shall never more have lord ship over him: yet in himself living immortally, and in corruptiblie, he is offered again in this mystery of the holy oblation for us. There truly his body is received, his flesh to the health of the people is given abroede: his not blood is now shed, not into the hands of the unfaithful: but into the mouths of the faithful. By this then let us weigh what manner of sacrifice this is for us, which for our deliverance doth allwais follow the passion of the only begotten Son. What faith full man can doubt in the time of that sacrificing, at the word of the priest, the heavens to be opened, in that mystery of jesus christ? companies of Angels to be present? unto high things low things to be coupled? to heavenly things earthly things to be joined? one thing also of invisible and visible things to be made? Thus moche S. Gregory. It may perchance be said, that though this place of S. Gregory doth moche prove the very presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, yet it teacheth not the understanding of Christ'S words: This is my body: which is the matter that I now take in hand to declare, Truth it is, that the words of christ be not here recited by express words, but they are hear understanded and the true understanding of them is also here settfurth for the understanding whereof I first note unto you this sentence of Gregory's authority: What faithful man (saith he) can doubt in that time of immolation at the voice of the priest the heavens to be opened etc. what voice of the priest it is at which the heavens be opened, the companies of angels be present: high things are coupled to low things: but that voice of the words of christ spoken by the priest, in the person of christ: This is my body, This is my blood? For unto that time (saith S. Ambrose) the priest useth The heavenly body of Christ is io●ned to the earthly forms of bread and wire at the pronovincing of the words of christ his own words, but then he useth not his own words but the words of christ. at the which voice all these wonderful things are doen. S. Gregory then by this voice of the priest understandeth these words of christ uttered by the priest. The true understanding of which words he teacheth when he saith: that at the speaking and pronunciation of them, unto high things, low things are coupled: unto heavenly things, earthly things are joined What be these high things and heavenly things coupled and joined to low things and eartlie things, but the heavenly and glorious hody and blood of our Saviour christ? which by his divine power turning the substances of bread and wine into the substance of the same his body and blood and being in the Sacrament under the earthly forms of bread and wine, he being high and heavenly is joined and coupled to low and earth lie things. Jrenaeus li. 4. ca 34. After this manner the holy martyr Irenaeus did settfurth the holy Sacrament for he saith: Qui est à terra panis precipiens vocationem Dei iam non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia, ex duabus constans rebus, terrena, & coelesti. The bread, which is of the earth, receiving the vocation of God (that is the words of consecration) is now not common bread, but (Eucharistia) a good grace of God being Amb. ora. prepar. ad Missam. compact of two things, earthly and heavenly. S. Ambrose also hath even the same words, that S. Ghregorie hath, saying: ubi summa imis iunguntur. Where high things be joined to low things. Heavenly and earthly things os the Sacr. discussed what they be, by conference of thadversary. doctrine, It shall much help the setting forth of the truth, if we may, conferring with the doctrine of the adversaries, discuss what is this heavenly or high thing that is joined in the Sacrament, with the eartly thing, And here we must according to the doctrine of Irenaeus, first confess and agree, that these two things, of the which the Sacrament is made, are two permanent things, two things standing and abiding. Now the adversaries doctrine seeking by all means to displace and remove christ from the Sacrament feigneth many things to be the heavenly part of the Sacrament, which in deed will not stand with the doctrine of Irenaeus. In some place it saith that the grace of God which cometh to the Grace is not one of the parts of the Sacr. but the effect. receivers of the Sacrament, is the heavenly part of the Sacrament. This can not stand as part, for grace is the effect of the Sacrament, and not the part. And grace therefore must be and is in the receiver and not in the Sacrament, as a part thereof. For if grace were in the Sacrament as a part of the Sacrament, than either unworthy men receiving the Sacrament, receive grace also, (which is not to be said) or else it must be said, that uless as they receive not grace, they receive no Sacrament: for a thing is received when it is wholly received. And thus shall they be uncertain when the Sacrament is ministered. Of some it may be said that because the Sacrament is called the bread of thanks giving, that thanks to God is the heavenly part of the Sacrament. Thanks giving is not th'one part of the Sacr. This also can not be. For this is well known to all men that have but reason, that thanks giving is either in him that giveth them, or in him that receiveth them, and not in the bread, for it neither giveth nor receiveth thanks. If they say, because, S. August. saith, Accedit verbum ad elementum, et fit Sacramentum, that is, the word cometh to the element, and it is made a Sacrament: The word is not that one part of the Sacrament. that therefore the word is the heavenly part of the Sacrament. That also can not be said of the Sacrament already consecrated for the word is raither the cause of the Sacrament, than the part, because the word is not a permanent thing but these parts of the Sacrament must be two permanent or constant things as Irenaeus saith, If they will flee to this shift and say, that though the word be not a Sanctification of the creatures cannot be the heavenly part of the Sacram. by the doctrine of the adver. permanent thing: yet the sanctrification that is done in the bread by the word remaineth, and that is the heavenly part of the Sacrament. This also even by their own learning can not stand. For Oecolampadius and Cranmer, and all the rabble of that Sect teach constantly that dumb things be not partakers of sanctification. Now what else they can feign to maintain their evil matter I can not devise but of these no one will serve. Wherefore leaving them, we will hearewhat the catholic faith teacheth to be the heavenly part of the Sacrament which thing we may easily do, travailing no farther than to S. Gregory whom we have now in hand. For we have heard him say that jesus christ living in himself immortally, and incorruptiblie, is offered for us in the holy mystery, where The heavenly part of the blessed Sacrament what it is his body is received, where his flesh is given abroad to the people, where the blood is not shed upon the hands of the unfaithful, but into the mouths of the faithful. Here may you see the heavenly part of the Sacrament what it is. It is very body and blood of christ that is given in the holy mystery to the people it is the high thing coupled to low things: it is the heavenly thing joined to earthly things: it is that one invisible thing that is made one with visible things. And here note that this place of S. Gregory can not be wrested to the only spiritual receiving of Christ'S body, but it must be understand of the corporal receipt. For he saith, that the blood of christ in the Sacramen Corporal receiving of the body and blood of christ avouched by S. Greg. is powered into the mouths of the faithful, which manner of receipt is corporal, even the receipt of Christ'S very real and substantial blood. The other receipt is only in the soul, and can not be received of the body. Wherefore we may conclude that he speaketh here of the corporal receipt of Christ'S blood, which thing also is confirmed by that he accounteth all one blood that was shed upon the hands of the unfaithful, and into the mouths of the faithful. That, that was shed upon the hands of the unfaithful jews in the passion of christ, was Christ'S very real and substantial blood, wherefore that, that is received by the mouths of the faithful, is Christ'S very substantial blood. Thus by S. Gregory we are taught that Christ'S very body and blood, be verily in the Sacrament, which so being the catholic doctrine is, that Christ'S body and blood be the heavenly part of the Sacrament. But of both parts distinctly saint bernard, whom only at this time I will produce, doth very learnedly speak, treacting of the Sacrament in this manner Quemadmodum species ibi videntur, quorumres, vel substantiae ibi esse non creduntur: sic res veraciter, & substantialiter creditur, cuius species non cernitur. videntur enim species panis & vini, & sabstantia panis & vini non creditur. Creditur autem substantia Bernar. de Coen. Dom. corporis, & sanguinis Christi, & tamen species non cernitur. As the forms be there seen whose things or substances be not believed, there to be: so a thing is verily and substantially believed, whose form is not seen. For the form of bread and wine is seen, and the substance of bread and wine is not believed: Form of bread seen, the substance not believed substance of Christ's body believed, the for me not seen. the substance of the body and blood of christ is believed, and yet the form is not seen. Again in the same sermon he writeth thus: Quod autem videmus species est panis & vim, quod autem sub specie illa credimus, verum corpus est, & verus Christi sanguis. quod pependit in cruce, & qui fluxit de latere. That that we see is the form of bread and wine: but that we believe under the form is the very body and very blood of christ, that did hang upon the cross and that slowed out of his side. Thus he, Now ye have seen the two parts of the Sacrament so plainly expressed, as nothing can be desired more plain. In the Sacrament (saith S. bernard) be the forms of bread and wine, and the substance of the body and The body and blood of Christ the heavenly part, the forms of bread and wine the earthly part of the Sacr. blood. These two things be the two parts of the Sacrament. The body and blood of christ be the heavenly part: the forms of bread and wine be the earthly part. The body and blood of christ be the high things the forms of bread and wine be the low things. These heavenly and high things of Christ'S body and blood, and the low and earthly things of the forms of bread and wine joined together make the Sacrament according to the sainges of the holy martyr Irenaeus, of S. Ambrose, and S. Gregory. And now supposing that the minds of these two noble men of Christ'S Parliament house, I mien S. cyril and S. Gregory, be fully opened, and declared as touching the understanding of the words of Christ'S supper, which in all points agreeth with the rest, I will leave them, and call in the last couple of this company of the higher house. THE EIGHT AND fifth CHAP. ENDETH the exposition among the eldest Fathers by Euthymius, and Isidorus. THough it hath been a painful work for me to gather so many authors of the eldest Fathers of Christ'S Church, upon this one text of christ: yet it comforteth me and releiveth me of my pains to see and behold the mercy and goodness of God towards his Church, who by his foreknoweledge foreseeing that the children of Ishmael would persecute, and vex the children of Sara and Isaac, did in time of peace provide weapons, and in time of plenty laid up store, that the children of Sara the children of the Church might have plenty of weapons, and provision to withstand the adversaries and defend their mother. In the time of peace as concerning the matter of the holy Sacrament, when no controversy was moved upon it, his holy Spirit directed the pens of a number of holy men then to write that, that now (as ye have perceived and yet more shall) defendeth the holy faith of christ and his spouse the Church. of the which there yet remaineth one named Euthimius, a famous man in the Greek Church, who as he is ancient, learned and holy: so is his weapon very sharp against the Adversary, it will in deed pierce the false patched coat of Christ'S enemy in this matter of the Sacrament Euthym. in 26. Math. Thus he writteh: Sicut vetus testamentum hostias & sanguinem habebat: ita sanè & nowm, corpus videlicet et sanguinem Domini. Non dixit autem: Haec sunt signa corporis mei, & sanguinis mei: sed, Haec sunt corpus meum, & sanguis meus. Oportet ergo non ad naturam eorum quae proponuntur respicere, sed ad virtutem eorum. Quemadmodum enim supernaturaliter assumptam carnem deificavit (si ita loqui liceat) ita & haec inessabiliter transmutat in ipsum vinificum corpus suum, & in gratiam ipsorum. Habent autem similitudmem quandam, panis ad corpus, & vinum ad sanguinem. Name & panis & corpus terrea sunt: vinum autem & sanguis aerea sunt & calida. Et quemadmodum panis confortat: ita & Christi corpus hoc facit, ac magis etiam, corpus & animam sanctificat. Et sicut vinum Laetificat: ita & sanguis Christi hoc facit, & insuper praesidium efficitur. As the old testament had sacrifices and blood: so truly hath the new testament also, that is, the body and blood of our Lord. He did not say: These be signs Plain sainges for the Proclaimer of my body and blood, but these things be my body and blood. We must therefore not look to the nature of those things that be settfurth but to the virtue of them. For as he did supernaturally deify (if a man may so speak) the flesh that he took upon him: Even so doth he unspeakably transmute these things into the same his quickening body, and into his own precious blood, and into the grace of them. The bread hath a certain similitude to the body, and the wine to the blood. For both the bread and the body be of the earth. But the wine and blood be of the air and hot. And as bread doth comfort: so doth the body of christ also, and moreover also it doth sanctify both body and soul. And as wine doth make glad: so doth the blood of christ also, and above that it is made a defence. Thus far Euthym. I will not now trouble you with many notes here, the author is so plain of himself that he needeth not to be noted. And yet every sentence is worthy to be noted. But for that that is to the purpose of our process here, namely for the having of the true understanding of Christ'S words I can not pass, but wish thee (good reader) if if havest noted it, yet to turn back and note it again, that the wicked exposition of the Adversary is by express and direct words denied and rejected. So sound and good Figurative gloze of the Sacramentaries flatly deemed. is that doctrine that an holy father writing above a thousand years passed by the computation of some doth flatly deny it. The Adversary confowndeth the text of christ, and saith this is a figure of my body: This learned Father expoundeth the words of chest, and saith: christ saith not these be signs of my body and blood, but these be my body and blood. And to remove all cavils he doth immediately show how these things become his body and blood. As christ (saith this author) did supernaturally deify the flesh that he took upon him: even so unspeakably doth he transmute these things into his own very body, and into his own very precious boode. O merciful God what is the malicious blindness of these men, that see their doctrine confuted a thousand years agone, and yet arrogantly persist in it, and to the increase of their damnation, labour to draw many souls with them to withstand so manifest a truth. If the Proclaimer will not Enthymius with a plain negative denieth the proclaimers assirmatiut. say that this is a plain sentence, which by a plain negative denieth his affirmative, and teacheth that the sacrament is not a sign or a figure of Christ'S body, but the body it self, where the Adversary saith it is a figure and not the body: I can not but say that his seight faileth him, being corrupted with a very evil humour, so that he can not judge betwixt rough and plain, crooked and straight. And here again consider that this holy father Euthymius writeth these words upon the words of Chyrst, expounding them to give us the true meaning, sense and understanding of them. Wherefore we may very well conclude, that the words of christ are to be understanded without figure or trope, accordingly as this learned ancient hath taught. Perchaunche the Proclaimer will say that although this author denieth a figure in Christ'S words: yet he doth not as by him is requested in his proclamation, say plainly by express words that Christ'S natural body is in the Sacrament. To see the vanity of this shift, let us search how many things be called Christ'S body, and by application we shall perceive, that it can not otherwise be but that this author speaketh of the natural body of christ. There be four things that be called the body of christ: The figure, the Church, the merit, fruit, or virtue of his passion, and his body natural. Four things called the body of Chryst. The figure is called the body of christ. For S. Augustine saith: that figures oftentimes have the names of the things of the which they are figures, This manner of body is not here to be understanded, for it is by express words denied, of this author. It is not the Church, which S. Paul calleth the body of christ. For to all men it is evident, that the Sacrament is not the Church, other wise then because the Sacrament is a figure of the Church. It is not the spiritual body of christ, I mien the merit, virtue, and grace of Christ'S passion. For the bread and wine cannot be transmuted into it, as the Adversary himself doth grant. It remaineth then that it must needs be spoken of the natural body of christ. And where of necessity one thing must be understanded, and none other can there be understanded, that place must needs be called plain. To be short, where a thing is spoken of and if it can not be applied to the figure of the thing, it must needs be applied to the thing it self, specially Plain terms for proof of real prescce. when the circumstance shall also fully prove the same, as here it doth. For the transmutation of the bread and wine into the thing, and these terms: his own very body, and his own very blood, with the comparisons of the properties of the bread and wine to the properties of the body and blood of christ, maketh the matter so plain, that it can not be but confessed so to be but as a man in a bringht Sun shining day will maliciously say that the Sun shineth nott. But what do I stand so long upon so clear a place? It is time that the other that shall declare the faith of the latin Church be produced, who shall be Isidore. This Isidore, although he be not with in six hundreth years of Jsidorus commended. christ: yet he is very near, For he lived the year of our Lord 626, I have yet produced him to make up the couple with Euthymius, both that he is the eldest of the latin Church of them that remain, and treact of the words of christ, and also that he is one that lived before any controversy Isydor. de office eccle. cap. 18. was risen in the matter of the holy Sacrament. Wherefore I might produce him as a sufficient and a meet witness in this matter. this is his testimony. Sacrificium quod à Christianis Deo offertur primum Christus Deus noster & magister instituit, quando commendavit Apostolis corpus & sanguinem suum priusquam traderetur christ instituted the sacrifice offered of the Christians. sicut legiturin evangelio: Accepit jesus panem & calicem, & benedicens dedit eyes. The sacrifice that is offered of the Christians unto God, christ our Lord and Master did first institute, when he gave to his Apostles his body and blood, before he should be betrayed, as it is red in the gospel: jesus took the bread and the cup, and blessing them gave them unto them. Thus Isidor. In this brief saying of this author ye learn not that christ gave unto his Apostles a figure of his body and blood, but that he gave them his body The blessing of christ of great force and power. and blood. We be here also advertised of the time, that it was before he should be betrayed (as it is read in the Gospel) which was in his last supper, at which time (as this author maketh mention) he took the bread and the cup, and blessing them, gave them to this Disciples. Great is the prow of the blessing of christ. And as the power is great, so is the Matth. 14 joan. 6. Matth. 15 effect answerably great. He blessed the five loaves, and two fishes and by that blessing they so multiplied as they fed five thousand people. And when they were satisfied there were gathered up twelve baskets full of the fragments that they had left. He blessed seven loaves and a few fishes, and by the Effect of Christ'S blessing of the bread power of his blessing they were sufficient not only to feed and satisfy four thousand people, but also to fill seven baskets after they had doen. Great therefore, I say, is the power of Christ'S blessing. Wherefore taking in his last supper the bread and the cup and blessing them, he wrought there by such and so great an effect, the he said: This is my body: This is my bloooe. This great effect is answerable to so great a power. If by this blessing he had made the bread and wine only figures of his body and blood, and not his very body and blood, the effect in respect had been very small. For many joan. 3. To say christ made but a figure of his body by blessing the bread is a derogation of his power and honour things were figures without the express blessing of God: The lambs the calves, the oxen that were slain in the law of Moses. The brazen Serpent, as christ himself testifieth, was a figure of himself exalted upon the Cross. And yet we read not that it was blessed to be made a figure, it is therefore but a vain dream of the adversary and an abasing of God's power, and a derogation to his honour, to say that christ blessing the bread and wine did no more but make than figures of his body and blood. Therefore acknowleadging the great power of Christ'S blessing with this holy Bishop Isidore, let us say as he saith, that christ gave to his Apostles after he had blessed the bread and wine, not now bread and wine in substance, but the body and blood of himself, according to the truth of his own saying: This is my blood. As who might say, before I blessed it, it was bread Amb. li. 4 de Sac. c. 4 Ang. de verbis Do. serm. 28. Consent of doctrine among the holy and ancient sathers. and wine: but now that I have blessed it, and by my blessing changed it now I say to you: Take and eat: This is my body: Take and drink this is my blood. This like manner of understanding (as is before declared) hath both S. Ambrose, and S. Augustin, when they said: Non eraet corpus Christi ante consecrationem, sed post consecrationem dico tibi, quòd iam corpus est Christi. It was not the body of christ before the cosecration: but after the consecration, I sai to thee, that now it is the body of christ. Thus now ye see the consonant testimony of this Father of the latin Church, with Euthymius of the greek Church, and of these two with all the rest, and of all among themselves, which all as it were with one mouth, as it becometh soche ancient fathers, and noble men of Christ'S high Parliament house, and right scholars also of his blessed school, though they were in diverse places, half of the greek Church, and half of the latin Church, and diverse times, some in the very beginning of the Church, some two hundredth, some three hundredth, some four hundredth years after other, and yet in faith and in agreement in the same, in the understanding also of the words of Christ'S supper, they speak as they were but one mouth, and in one time and place, all confessing upon these words of christ the very presence of his real body, and not one confessing it to be a figure, Tertullian only excepted, who yet so doth not after the manner of the adversaries doctrine, but after the manner of the catholic doctrine, which (as there at large is declared) teacheth that the Sacrament is both the figure and the thing it self. Now therefore (Reader) seeing thou seest so great consent and agreement of so many ancient learned Fathers, even of the eldest of the Church of the which diverse have testified their faith by their bloods, and be holy Martyrs of christ, diverse holy confessors and saints in heaven, and all virtuous and good, upon whose authority, next unto the scriptures, the Canons of the holy Apostles, and the holy general councils, the Church doth found and buill their faith and religion in all points of the same, honouring and reverencing them, and submitting themselves to them and their judgements as children to fathers and scholars to masters: submit also thyself to them, consent to them, agree with them, and believe with them, that thou mayst be saved with them. Remember whether if be English Let all the Protestants bring forth if they can, when any country did wholly openly and quiethe profess such religion as they now preach. man, or French man, , Fleming or Saxon. that when thy country first received christ, it received this faith, in this it hath continued, in this thy fathers were baptized, in this they lived, in this the most part of them died, and in this, hope is, that they be saved. Bring forth if thou can, if ever (till now of late days) thy country professed such faith (if it may be called faith) if ever it used such manner of religion, if ever they did so often change their profession. If no such precedent can be showed, if this way be a way that thou never sawest before, why wilt though upon the fantasy of novelties be carried away? Call to thy mind the good advertisement of saint Paul, who saith: Be not carried away with diverse and strange doctrines. Forget not that when Luther first began his pestilent heresy, he acknowledged the presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, so did his disciples Heb. 13 Diversities of religion in these days how they began. also, till within few days his Disciples Carolstadius, Zuinglius, and Oecolampadius, fell from him, and began a new way, and taught that Christ'S body was not in the Sacrament. Besides these, out of Luther came the Anabaptists, and a number more of other sects so that in diverse countries, so many free cities: so many Dukedoms, so many lordships, almost so many faiths, or raither opinions, and so many diverse countenances of religions. In england in the time of King Henry the eight, there began a new countenance of religion: In the first year of the reign of Mutations of religion in Englond. his Son King Edward, an other countenance: within two years after ter even in the time of the same king his reign, an other countenance. And that is now in this same Realm varieth from them all. Perceive then that the doctrines that be now settfurth by the Proclaimer, as they be strange, so be they diverse, so be they variable, so be they changeable. The doctrine, that was before this kind of people troubled the Church, was not diverse but one, not strange, but of ancient continuance, not causing war, debate, tumults, and insurrections in Realms: divisions, dissensions and contentions betwixt neighbours: But as touching religion great quietness, joyful peace, and amiable concord, not only in Cities and towns: but also in all free cities, Lordships, Dukedoms and realms of Europe. Remember again that (as S. Paul saith) God is not the God 1. Cor. 14. of dissension but of peace. Where then thou seist peace, thither divert, there settle thyself: there abide: among these holy Fathers thou seist peace in this matter of the Sacrament: among the other, there is discord as thou have perceived in the xli. chapter of this book, leave the one and cleave to the other, and the God of peace be with thee. THE NINE AND fifth CHAPTER beginneth the exposition of the same text by the fathers of the later days, and first by Damascen, and Haymo. I Have hitherto used the testimonies of the ancients and Fathers of Christ'S Church, naming them noble men of the higher house of Christ'S Parliament, for that they be all within or very near sixth hundredth years of christ, which the Proclaimer, can not refuse, except he will say, as the great heresiark Luther Luther's proud contempt of holy fathers. said. Non curo mill Cyprianos, nec mill Augustmos: I care not for a thousand Cyprians, nor a thousand Augustine's. By the testimony of all which the words of christ are delivered from the misty and cloudy figures of the adversaries and are placed and adorned with the avouching of the bright and clear presence of Christ'S blessed body and blood. And so is the Proclaimer plentifully confuted by such holy fathers as he himself can not refuse. And the faith of the catholic Church by the same is as fully maintained and declared. And although the Proclaimer by Luciferance pride, seemeth (as it is in the english proverb) to correct magnificat, I mien, to correct the Church, and the faith of the same, and to be a judge upon all the learned men, that have been these nine hundredth years, and by his judgement without any sufficient Commission to condemn them, to deface them, and not to esteem their sainges, learning or authority, wherein he followeth the Manichees and other, which for the maintenance of their heresieswolde accept such scriptures as they liked, and such as they liked not they would refuse. Yet uless as the Church hath allowed them, and their doctrine is agreeable to the elder Fathers: I will call a company of them, both that their doctrine may be conferred with the elders before alleged, and so to be approved and also that by them we may know the enacted truth of the true understanding of The Proclaimer mocketh holy and learned fathers. Christ'S words, in the lower house of Christ'S Parliament, whereby the Aduersarles heresy may be more manifestly confuted, and the faith of the good Christian more confirmed and stayed. And although it liked the Proclaimer in his high pride to solace himself with the mocking of the learning of Silvester, Isidore, Innocentius the third, Gerson, Durand, Holkot, S. Thomas, Dunce, Fisher, and other, and made their arguments as foolishly as he listed, thereby to commend himself and his doctrine to such as were light, which yet was and is discommendable to them that be grave, sober, and wise, yet in the end ye shall see that these men shall confute him, and overthrow him in the judgement of them whom gods grace hath not A lamentable time to see preachers in pulpits mock Saints in heaven. forsaken. For who is he that is wise, and, as the wiseman saith, hath his eyes in his head, that saith not to much arrogancy in that man, that taketh upon him in open audience to deride mock and scorn holy ancient learned men? of which some of them be Saints in heaven, some of them lived with great fame of learning above a thousand years agone, some eight or nine hundredth years agone, some three hundredth years agone or there about. All which are but babes and punies in his seight. But I will not intermeddle this work of the heigh and great matter of the Sacrament, with such vain toys of mockeries, but they shall be reserved to some other more meit place, as either to a Christenmasse scaffold, and so a player by a player, or else to the Paruise in Oxford, a paruise toy, by a paruise boy to be answered. Wherefore converting myself to the matter, I will produce Damascen, as the first and eldest of this company of the lower house, which I have selected and chosen among all other to expound unto us Christ'S words. This Damascen although he be placed in the lower house, as in consideration that the adversary doth not accept or regard his authority: yet he lived more than eight hundredth years agone, and therefore is worthy to be heard. Thus he writeth upon the words of christ: Propositionis panis, vinum & aqua per invocationem, & adventum sancti Spiritus, supernaturaliter Damascen li. 4 ca 14. transmutantur in corpus & sanguinem Christi, & non sunt duo, sed unum, & idem. The show bread, the wine and the water by the innocation and the coming of the holy Ghost are supernaturally transmuted into the body and blood of christ, and they be not two, but one and the very same. And after a few words of exhortation in the same matter, he saith thus of the same bread and wine. Non est figura panis & vinum corporis Bread and wine not a figure of the body and blood of christ & sanguinis Christi (absit enim hoc credere) sed ipsum corpus Domini deificatum, ipso dicente, Hoc est meum (non mei corporis figura) sed corpus, non figura sanguinis, sed sanguis. Et ante hoc, ipsis judaeis: Quoniam nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, & biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Caro mea verè est cibus, & sanguis meus verè est potus. Proinde omni cum timore & conscientia pura, & indubitabili fide accedamus. The bread and wine is not a figure of the body and blood of christ (God forbid we should believe that) but it is the very body of our Lord deified, himself saying: This is, not a figure of my body, but my body, not a figure of my blood, but my blood. And before this he said to the jews, that except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you. My flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drink. Therefore with all fear and pure conscience, and undoubted faith let us come unto it. In these few words of Damascen ye see four things taught: The transubstantion: The presence of Christ'S very body and blood, with a plain denial of the adversaries figure: The application of the sixth chap. of saint john to these words of christ: And finally an exhortation for hour due coming to the receipt of the same body and blood. Of transubstantiation we have already spoken, and that by the authority also of this man among other Fathers. wherefore I will not tarry upon it, only I would that the reader should be advertised, that though the Adversary do so moche exclaim against the thing: yet the learned Fathers according to the catholic faith of Christ'S Church, do plainly and agreeably teach the same, and therefore, I would wish that by repetition of the same, it may remain in memory, whereby, as meit it is, their authouritie declaring the truth with great agreement and consent, may be regarded and esteemed, and the arrogant falsehood of the Adversary teaching untruths and heresy, may be utterly condemned and forsaken, and thus overpassing this matter as not principally here sought, I will come to that, that is here cheislie intended. For the which I wish it to be well noted, that this Author expounding the words of christ: This is my body (the seeking of the exposition of Figuratine expositions of the Sacr. slatlie denied. which words is our travail) doth plainly by express words deny, refuse and reject, the fond exposition of the Adversary, and teacheth that these words are to be understanded in their propresense. And therefore saith, that it is not a figure, meaning that it is not a bare figure of a thing absent in substance, and only present in figure, but it is (saith he) the very body. And this is not to be overpassed, that to this exposition he addeth these words: God forbid that any man should so believe, which manner of words we use in matters that be perilous, dangerous, and horrible, and matters to godward, where the thing is moche offending God, and provoking his heavy displeasure, ire and indignation. whereby may be perceived the great danger that is ensuring to them that so believe, and the great necessity of the right belief, that is, to believe that the Sacrament is not a bare figure, but the very body of christ. Thus once again to advertise you, ye see that where the Adversary saith, This is my body, that is (saith he) a figure of my body: This learned author saith, God for bid you should so believe. It is not (saith he) a figure of the body of christ, but his body: not a figure of the blood of christ but his blood in deed. This exposition as it is dissonaunte and repugnant to the exposition of the Adversaries: so is it consonant and agreeable to the doctrine and exposition of the elders. In the next chapter before this, you saw the exposition of Euthymius upon these words of christ, not unlike unto this, but altogether like Euth. in 26. Matt. Doctrine of the sacramentary contrary to the sathers. both in words and sentence, it is not (saith he) a figure of Christ'S body, but his body, not a figure of his blood, but his blood. Wherefore Reader, when thou see'st the authors agree, and agreeing say the contrary of that, that the Adversary teacheth, if mayst be well adsured, that the doctrine of the Adversary is false. Wherefore seeing it plain before thine eyes, flee the falhead, and cleave to the truth. The third note also maketh for the declaration of this matter that he alleging the sixth of saint john, referreth it to the Sacrament in the same sense that he understood Christ'S other words, which is, as Theophilact also upon the same sixth of saint john saith, Non figura carnis, sed caro med est. Not a figure of my flesh but it is my flesh. So that by these authors the sixth of S. john pertaineth to the Sacrament, notwithstanding the contrary saying of Luther and Oecolampadius, and other of that rabble. In which chapter is promised the giving not of a figure of his flesh, but his very flesh, And as it was there promised verily to be given: so was the same to the accomplishment of the same promise in very deed delivered and received, even the very flesh and very blood of jesus christ, and not the only figure of them. The fourte note also, which is for the due receiving of the Sacrament, giveth also light to the understanding of the presence of Christ'S very body in the Sacrament. But for that the convenient place to speak of this matter is in the third book, we shall not here trouble the reader with all. We have now seen a goodly, and an evident testimony testifying how Christ'S words were understanded in the greek Church: we will likewise hear one that shall declare the understanding of them in the latin Church. Who shall be Haymo, who upon these words of christ writeth thus: Expletis solemnijs veteris Paschae, transit Dominus ad sacramenta novi Paschae demonstranda, Haymo in 26. Matth Postquam coenavit dedit eis panem, & vinum in mysterio videlicet corporis, & sanguinis sui: Quia enim panis cor hominis confirmat, & vinum anget sanguinem in homine, meritò idem panis in carnem Domini mutatur, & idem vinum in sanguinem Domini transfertur, non per figuram, neque per umbram, sed per veritatem. Credimus enim quia in veritate caro est Christi, similiter & sanguis. The Solemnities of the old passover being fulfiled, our Lord goeth to show the sacraments of the new Passover. After he had supped he gave them bread and wine in mystery, Breadchaunged into the body, and wine into the blood of christ not in figure but in truth. that is of his body and blood. Because bread doth make strong the heart of man, and wine increaseth blood in man, therefore the same bread is very well changed into the flesh of christ, and the same wine is transferred into the blood of our Lord, not by figure, nor by shadow, but by truth. For we believe that in very deed it is the flesh of Christ, and likewise that it is his blood. Thus much Haymo. Yowe see now here in the latin Church, also a goodly testimony, and a clear exposition of Christ'S words, so clear and plain, that I shall not need to travail to open the same, but only I have thought good to note to thee, Reader, the goodly order that this author observeth in his exposition. First he ioneth our new Passover to the old, as the very truth to the figure, which being in place the figure vanisheth away. whereby it is consequent, that if the Passover which christ did institute were the truth, which the old passouer did prefigurate, that the new passover was a true thing in deed, and not a bare figure. For otherwise should the figure be the figure of a figure, and not of a truth, which is against the nature of a figure. And when he had thus joined the truth to the figure, he declareth when it was done, saying that after he had supped he gave them bread and wine in the mystery of his body and blood. Then proceeding he giveth a cause why christ used bread and wine in this mystery of his body and blood because (saith he) the material bread comforteth the heart, and the material wine increaseth the blood, therefore to signify that as these two things do A change in the Sacr. in truth not in figure. work their effects in our material bodies: so thy being transmuted and changed into heavenly bread and wine of Christ'S body and blood the bread of the life, they work the like effect spiritually in our souls. And uless as he had said that the bread and wine be turned and changed into the body and blood of christ, he immediately teacheth how it is changed. They are changed (saith he) not by figure, nor by shadow, sed per veritatem, but in very deed, which is asmuch to say, as it is changed or turned into the very flesh and blood of christ in very deed, and not into a bare Sacramental bread as the Adversary termeth is. Now as I have done with Damascen, so will I with this author first confer this dictrine with the doctrine of the elders to see how they agree, and after, the doctrine of the adversary, both that it may appear which of them best agree with the ancient church, and whether there be any just cause why the Adversary should reject this author or his likes. This author Greg. Nissen. serm. cathec. de divinis Sacramen. saith that the bread is changed into the body of our Lord, and the wine into his blood, doth not among the elders, the great elder Gregory Nissen use the like words? Quamobrem (saith he) rectè nunc etiam Dei verbo sanctificatum panem, in Dei Verbi corpus credimus immutari. Wherefore we do now also very well believe the bread that is sanctified by the word of God, to be changed into the body of the son of God. See ye not then that the doctrine which Haymo here teacheth of the transmutation, changing, or turning of the bread into the body of christ transubstantiation, that is, change of bread and wine into the body and blood of christ, a matter of faith. which now the Church termeth, Transubstantiation, is an ancient doctrine and if you will confer them diligently, ye shall have occasion to think that this author Haymo did in this matter follow Gregory Nissen, their sainges be so like. For as Gregory maketh this matter of the changing of the bread into the body of christ no matter of doubt, or an opinion, but a sure and certain matter of faith and belief. for he saith, Credimus immutari, we believe it to be changed into the body of our lord: so Haymo, when he had said that the bread is changed into the flesh of christ, and the wine into his blood, saith, Credimus quia in veritate caro est Christi, similiter & sanguis, we believe that in very deed it is the flesh of christ, and likewise his blood. So that ye may perceive not only a concord and consent of doctrine betwixt them, but also an imitation. And here I wish these wooordes well to be noted, that the unstableness Faith how it is decayed in these days. of men in their faith might be taken away. For the more is the pity, so much hath the Devil gotten by the work of his ministers, that diverse men in these days be not ashamed to say, we can not tell what to believe. Other some will say, I will believe none of them all, until they agree better. as though it were sufficient for them to live without faith, and that they might be saved, without the profession of their faith, forgetting the saying of S. Paul: Sine fide imposibile est placere Deo. without faith it is not possible to please God. And again: cord creditur ad justiciam, ore autem confessio fit ad salutem. The heart believeth unto righteousness, but the confession of faith by Hebr. 11. Rom. 10. mouth is done to salvation. Let them understand that this time is a time of probation, a time of trial, who will abide by their faith and who will be carried away from it. But although your teachers in this time say: Non credimus immutari, This time a time of probation. we believe not the bread and wine by the word of God to be changed into the body and blood of christ, yet turn your eyes to the old ancient church, have you recourse thither, and see Gregory Nis sen and after him Haymo saying: Credimus immutari, We believe that the bread and wine be changed into the body and blood of christ, and they be now in very deed the flesh of christ, and likewise his blood. and so abide in the faith of the ancient church, what soever is now taught you to the contrary. By this conference ye may perceive, that Haymo agreeth with the ancient elders, as concerning the changing of the bread and wine into the Sacramentaries deny that the fathers affirm and affirm that they deny. body and blood of christ. If ye will confer him in that he saith, that this change is not done by figure, or shadow, but in very deed: you have Euthymius and Damascen at hand, which both deny the Sacrament to be only a figure. If ye will confer the doctrine of the Adversary to the do-doctrine of these Fathers ye shall perceive that what the Fathers affirm, the Adversary denieth, and what the Fathers deny, the Adversary affirmeth. The holy Fathers affirm that the bread and wine be changed. the Adversary denieth it. The holy Fathers deny that the Sacrament is only a figure, the Adversary saith that it is a figure only. See you not then that the Adversary is directly contrary to the holy Fathers? What hope of true learning than is there to be had, where and of whom the fathers of truth are denied, contraried and against said. But to conclude for the matter that is here sought, this author speaking these words as an exposition upon the words of christ and teaching us, that the bread and wine be changed into the body and blood of christ, and that by no figure, nor shadow, but in very deed, it is manifest that these words of christ, be to be understanded without figure, and that they teach us that in the Sacrament is the very body, and the very blood of christ in very deed. Wherefore leaving this as a most plain matter, we will call an other couple. THE SIXTETH CHAP. PROCEADETP IN the exposition of the same text by Theophilact, and Paschasius. OF this couple that shall now give their testimony for the true understanding of Christ'S words, Theophilact, as he is the senior so shall he be the first that giveth testimony expounding the words Theoph. in 26. Math. of christ, thus he writeth upon the same words: Dicens: Hoc est corpus meum, ostendit quod ipsum corpus Domini est panis, qui sanctificatur in altari & non respondens figura. Non enim dixit. Hoc est figura, sed hoc est corpus meum. Ineffabili enim operationc transformatur, etiansi nobis videatur panis. Quonia infirmi, sumus & abhoremus The bread sanctified on the altar is the very body of Chrystand not only a figure. crudas carnes comedere, maximè hominis carnem, ideo panis quidem apparet, sed caro est. Saing: This is my body, he doth declare that the bread which is sanctified in the altar is the very boodie of our Lord, and not a figure answering to it. For he did not say, This is a figure of my body: but this is my body, For it is transformed by an unspeakable operation, although it appear bread. For asmuch as we be weak, and do abhor to eat raw flesh specially the flesh of a man, therefore it appeareth bread, but it is flesh. Thus Theophilct. As they that be obstinate in this heresy against the blessed Sacrament when they read this exposition, their consciences be, I dare say, touched Four things plainly avouched by Theoph. against the Sacram. and pressed with the same to their great grief: even so do I marvel that they be so sold over to voluntary and malicious blindness in heresy, that seeing not only the true faith and exposition taught so clearly and evidently, that they be not able with any good apparent answer to avoid, will yet stubbornly to their grievous damnation, persist and abide still in their heresy. But let us veive the saying of Theophilact. In him we find these four things taught: First the presence of Christ'S very body in the Sacrament. For he saith that the bread that is sanctified in the altar, is the very 1. Real presence affirmed. body of our Lord. The second is a flat and a plain denial of the figurative speech, that the Adversary would have in the words of christ. For this author saith 2. Figure denied. that christ did not say: This is a figure of my body: but my body. and so the figure is denied, that so stoutly and with violence should be here thrust in. thirdly here is taught how the sanctified bread is made the body of christ: it is transformed (saith he) by an ineffable operation, although Transubstantiation anouched. it appear bread unto us. In these few words he teacheth us three things: first that the bread is trasformed, which is all one as if he had said transubstantiated. for in the bread there be two forms, the in ward form, and the outward form. Now this author saith that the outward form of bread remaineth still. For he saith that it appeareth unto us as bread. It is consequent then that seeing here is a transformation, which is a change of a form, that the inward form of bread is changed. The inward form of the bread is the substance of it (Substantia and forma being all one) wherefore he saying that it is transformed, saith that the Church saith, that it is transubstantiated. The second that he teacheth The work of the Sacr. is miraculous. is that transformation or transubstantion is done, ineffabili operatione with an unspeakable manner of working, by which he doth both teach that this change of the bread into the body of christ is against Oecolampadius, a wonderful and a miraculous work, so miraculous that though we believe it to be done, yet not being able to comprehend it, how it is done, we are not able to say how it is done, and therefore unspeakable. For nothing can well be spoken that is not known: and also that this change against the Adversary is not a sacramental change, for that transformation or chaungeys not unspeakable. For we both comprehend the doing of it, and we are also able to speak it, and therefore not unspeakable. And if than this transformation be unspeakable, it is a moche greater and higher change, then to change the use of a piece of common bread, to the use of Sacramental bread. The fourth that is here taught, is why the bread being transformed, it Form of bread why it remaineth. doth yet still appear bread, as though it were still bread in substance. it is (saith the author) because we are weak, and do abhor to eat raw flesh, cheislie of a man, therefore it appeareth bread. So that by this we are warned of the great goodness of God and mercy towards us, in that he so mercifully considereth our weak state and condescendeth to our infirmity, and yet as touching the Sacrament, though for gods merciful considerations it appeareth bread, it in very deed (as this author saith) it is flesh. Now to keep our order, for that Theophilact is of the lower house, and with in the compass of the time, that the Adversary prescribeth against, Let us also confer his doctrine with the doctrine of the Fathers, which ca 55. be of the higher house to make proofihowe they agree. Where he saith that ca 57 the bread which is sanctified in the altar is not a figure, but the very body of christ, although the Adversary himself may confess that Chrysostom, by that that is alleged out of him in this book and in many other places, doth likewise plainly and fully confess the same presence of christ in cyril. ad Calosir. the Sacramunt: yet that I may he short and with one author show you all that Theophilact saith, I will conferrehim with S. Cytill. whom ye heard but late alleged, who useth almost the lame words that S. cyril did, so near that in this place I may raither call him the imitator of cyril, then of Chrysostom. Thus ye have him there alleged: Ne horreremus carnem & Janguinem apposita sacris altaribus, condescendens Deus nostris fragilitatibus, insluit oblatis vim vitae, convertens ea in veritatem propriae carnis. That we should not adhorre flesh set upon the holy altars, God condescending to our fragilities poureth into the things offered the power of life, turning them into his very own flesh. Thus cyril. Now if you will confer them, where Theophilact saith that the body of christ is in the altar, cyril saith that flesh and blood is on the holy Theophilact, and S. cyril, compared in their doctrine of the Sacr. altars. where Theophilast saith that the bread is transformed by the unspeakable work of God: cyril saith that God turneth it into his very own flesh. Theophilact saith that because we are weak, God considering our weakness sussreth the outward forms of bread to remain: cyril saith that least we should abhor flesh and blood upon the holy altars, he put into the bread and wine which be the things offered. the power of life, which is the flesh of christ, which he calleth the flesh that hath power to give life. Thus ye see a goodly agreement, be twixt Theophilact and cyril. Soche was the constant faith of this learned author that not only upon the sixth of S. john, and the x x v i of S. Matthew, as ye have now heard, he doth teach the presence, and deny the Sacrament to be a figure, and confesseth the transformation of the bread into the flesh of christ, but also he doth the like upon S. Mark, Whose saying I will ascribe, not only for that it maketh for the matter of the Sacrament as the other do: but also that such cavil as the Adversary would make there upon may be removed. Thus he writeth ther. Quum benedixisset, hoc est gracias egisset, fregit panem, id quod etiam nos facimus preces Theophil. in 14. Matth. adiungendo, Hoc est corpus meum, hoc (inquam) quod sumitis. Non enim figura tantùm & exemplar Dominici corporis panis est, sed in ipsum convertitur corpus Christi, Dominus enim dieit: Panis, quem ego dabo, caro mea est, non dixit figura carnis mea est, sed caro mea est. Et iterum: Nisi ederitis carnemfilii hominis. Et quomodò (inquis) caro non videtur? O honio, propter nostram infirmitatem istud fit, quia enim panis & vinum ex iis sunt quibus assuevinius, ea non abhorremus. Idcirco misericors Deus nostrae infirmitati condescendens speciem quidem panis & vini servat, in virtutem autem carnis & sanguinis transelementar. When he had blessed, that is, when he had given thanks, he broke the bread, which thing also we do, adjoining prayers: This is my body, this I say, that you receive. For the bread is not only a figure and Figure of of the Sacr. slatlie denied. an exemplar of hour Lords body, but it is turned into the very body of christ. For our Lode said: The bread that I will give you is my flesh. He did not say, it is a figure of my flesh, but it is my flesh. And again except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man etc. But thou sayest, how is not the flesh seen? O man, this is done for our weakness. For because bread and wine be of these things which we be accustomed unto, we do not adhorre them, therefore our merciful God condescending to our weakness, he keepeth the form of bread and wine, but he doth transelementate them into the virtue of his flesh and blood. Thus Theoph. It were superfluous, to make any notes upon this place, sith every part is so plain, and therewith so like the other before alleged, that what is said there, may be applied to this, and such notes as be there may be referred also to this. Only I shall remove the cavil of the Adversary, which cavil of the Sacramentaries upon the word (virtue) he would ground upon these words of Theophilact, where he saith, that God transelementated the bread and wine into the virtue of his flesh and blood. By this sentence, and specially by this word (virtue) would the Ad versarie wrest all the sainges of this Author, that where he saith, that God transmuteth, transformeth, turneth or changeth the bread and wine into his flesh and blood, they are (saith the Adversary) to be understanded of the virtue of his flesh and blood, and not of the flesh and blood themselves. Oecol. de verb. coena Dom. For this is his saying: Panem & vinum convertuntur dignè comedentibus non in corporalem presentiam, sed in virtutem carnis & sanguinis Christi. The bread and wine are turned, to them that worthily eat, not into the corporal presence, but into the virtue of the flesh and blood of christ. Let us now weigh this their violent exposition. They say that the bread and wine be turned into the virtue of the flesh and blood of christ. it Sacramentaries teach contrary to their own rules. is a pretenced rule among them, that nothing may be taught without scriptures. What scripture have they to prove this their saying? Where find they in all the scripture that the bread is turned into the virtue of Christ'S flesh? Certain I am, they have no one title. and yet they teach nothing, they say, but the sincere word of God. but under such colour of sincerity they utter many untruths, as we shall prove this to be one. First their own doctrine is (as before is said) that these dumb and insensate creatures are not partakers of sanctification or holiness. But the virtue of Christ'S flesh is not only an holy thing, but also the cause of sanctification and holiness. wherefore bread and wine being insensate creatures, are not partakers of it much less can they be turned into it. To prove this we will open someparte of the virtue of Christ'S flesh. for it is great and large, and hath many parts, But the bread and wine can Virtue▪ of Chrysts flesh be turned into none of them. The virtue of Christ'S flesh is to unite us to the same his flesh, as S. Hilary saith. The virtue of the same flesh is to make christ naturally to abide in us, as he also saith. The virtue of the same flesh Hilar. li. 8. de Irini. maketh us members of Christ'S body, as saith Irenaeus. The virtue of the same flesh, which is quickening and making to live, or giving power of life, maketh our flesh after the resurrection to live everlastingly, as saith S. cyril. Iren. li. 5. adverse heres. Chrysostom rehearsing the virtues of Christ'S blood, among a great number, which were to long to rehearse, saith thus: Hic sanguis facit ut imago in nobis regia sloreat: hic animarum nostrarum salus: hoc lavatur, hoc ornatnr, hoc incenditur, hic igne clariorem mentem nostram reddit, & auro splendidiorem. This blood causeth cyril in 15. joan. the kings image to flourish in us: this blood is the salvation of our souls, with this she is washed, with this she is beautified: with this she is enkindled: Chriso. hom. 45 in joan. this blood maketh our mind more clear, and more glistering than gold. To be short the virtue of the flesh and blood of christ is our redemption, justification, and salvation. Be the bread and wine turned into these virtues, or into any one of them? if the bread and wine can receive no holiness, can they receive these virtues? As by this ye may perceive that their doctrine is neither consonant and agreeable within it self, nor yet sound and good: so shall it be made plain Sacramentaries doctrine conferred with Theophilact. to you that it will not agree with Theophilact. whom they labour to wrest. They say that the bread and wine be turned into the virtue of Christ'S flesh and blood, and not into the flesh and blood it self: if the bread be turned into the virtue, and not into the flesh, then standeth this proposition of theirs, that the bread and wine be still but figures. But how standeth that their saying with the saying of Theophilact, who by express words saith: Non est figura. It is not a figure? Again, saying that the bread is not turned into the flesh: how agree they with Theophilacte, who saith also by express words: Panis convertitur in ipsum corpus Christi. The bread is turned into the very body of christ. or into the body of christ it self? Which words have great force, and limit this turning of the bread solely and only into the flesh of christ. I mien whole christ himself, and no other thing for him. Again, if the bread be not turned into the flesh of christ, how agreeth it, with that Theophilacte saith, that although it appear bread: yet it is flesh? Tus then is may perceive that this Author by express words denied the bread to be a figure, and also affirmed the same bread to be turned into the body of christ it self, and that the Sacrament is flesh, though it appear bread. What impudency than, What shamelessness is there in these men, that after so plain and manifest asseveration of the turning of the bread, and wine into the body and blood of christ, made by this author not in one place as a thing unadvisedly spoken, or suddenly fallen from him, but with good deliberation both upon S. Matthew, and upon the sixth chap. of S. john, and there also more than once, and here likewise upon S. Mark, denieth the figure, and affirmeth the turning of the bread to be into the very body of christ. yet now they would upon one word draw him violently to theeir wicked purpose, and make him (as it wherewith one breath) to say yea and nay to one thing, and in one sentence to deny and again to affirm the same. But that we may once end this matter, and let you perceive the true understanding of this word of Theophilact. which the Adversary abuseth: ye shall understand that the word (Virtue) in that place is taken for the flesh of christ, and not for the virtue as divided from the flesh of christ. Which thing first the process of Theophilact doth well prove, and among other this that he saith, that although it appear bread: yet it is flesh. which manner of speech proveth invincibly the presence of Christ'S flesh. which presence is no otherwise there but by turning of the substance of bread into it. Besides this the holy doctors use this word (Virtus, virtue) and this Virtue and power taken for the flesh of christ Tractatu 26. in Joan. word (Vis power) for the flesh of christ in the Sacrament. As for the first it appeareth in S. Augustin, and the other in cyril. S. Augustyn saith thus: Aliud est sacramentum, aliud virtus sacramenti, quam multi de altari accipiunt, & moriuntur, & accipiendo moriuntur. The Sacrament is one thing: the virtue of the Sacrament is an other which virtue many do receive from the altar and do die, and in receiving do die. By the death that S. Augustine here speaketh of he meaneth damnation everlasting. For immediately he saith: unde dicit Apostolus: judicium sibi manducat & bibit. Wherefore the Apostle saith: he eateth and drinketh his own damnation. In which his words this partickle (the Virtue of the Sacrament) is not taken for the virtue of Christ'S flesh as distincted and divided from the flesh of christ, but it is taken for the very flesh of christ yt self, which we know and believe always to be full of virtue wheresoever it be. If the Adversary will take here the word (Virtue) in S. Augustine, as not signifying the flesh of christ, but only the merits and benefits of Christ'S flesh, which be grace, remission of sins, justification and salvation, than it shall follow that a man may at one time receive grace and displeasure, justification and condemnation. salvation and damnation. For S. Augustine saith: that many in receiving the virtue of the Sacrament do die. that is be damned. Now if in receiving the virtue of Christ'S flesh, which is salvation they also receive death which is damnation, than they receive at one time both salvation and damnation, which is unpossible. Wherefore (Virtue) in this place neither is nor can be taken as the adversary would have it, but for the flesh of christ, which being unworthily taken and received causeth in deed damnation, as the text of S. Paul by S. Augustin alleged doth teach. of the which we shall treact more at large in his own place in the third book. The other also used by S. cyril signifieth not the power of life, as separated from the flesh of christ, which is (as S. Cyril saith) Caro vitae, the flesh of life: and Corpus vitae, the body of life: but it signifieth that lively flesh it self. For when saint cyril (as a little before ye have heard) had said that God poureth into the offered things (meaning the bread and wine) the power of life, how that is done, or what he meaneth by that, he immediately declareth saying: turning those things into his own very flesh and blood: As who might have said: He poureth into the offered things the power of life, when he turneth them into his own flesh and blood. Thus trusting that Theophilact is fully delivered from the wresting of the the Adversary, and that the falhead of the same Adversary, is here detected Plain places of Paschasius against the Sacramentaries. and the catholic truth opened and defended: I will end with him, and call in Paschasius, who is of the other side of Christ'S Parliament house, who will very aptly come in this place to answer the Adversary, who would in stead of Christ'S body place the virtue of his body. For he upon Christ'S words saith thus: Coenantibus autem illis, accepit jesus panem, benedixit ac fregit, deditue Discipulis suis & ait: Accipite & comedite, Hoc est corpus meum. Audiant qui volunt extenuare hoc verbum (corpus) quòd non sit vera caro Christi, quae nunc in sacramento celebratur in Ecclesia Christi, neque verus eius sanguis. When they were at Paschasiut li. de corp. et sang. Dom. supper jesus took bread, he blessed it and broke it, and gave it to his Disciples and said: Take and eat, this is my body. Let them hear that will extenuate or abase this word (body) that it is not the very flesh of christ, that is now celebrated in the Sacrament in the Church of christ, neither that it is very blood, And a little before he saith upon the same text: Nec ita dixit, cùm fregit & dedit eye panem: Haec est, vel in hoc mysterio est quaedam virtus, vel figura corporis mei, sed ait non fitè: Hoc est corpus meum. Et ideo hoc est, quod dixit, & non quod quisque fingit. Neither did he say, when he broke the bread, and gave it them: This is, or in this mystery is a certain virtue or figure of my body: but he saith plainly, This is my body. And therefore it is it, that he said, and not that that every man feigneth. And yet again after a few lines he saith: unde miror quid velint nunc quidam dicere non in re esse veritatem carnis Christi & sanguinis, sed in sacramento, virtutem quandam carnis, & non carnem: virtutem sanguinis, & non sanguinem: figuram, & non veritatem: umbram, & non corpus. Wherefore I wonder what some men do mien to say that there is not in deed the verity of the flesh and blood of christ: but in the Sacrament, to be a certain virtue of the flesh and not the flesh, the virtue of the blood and not the blood, a figure and not the verity, a shadow and not the body. What shall I trouble the reader with doing of that, that is already done? As Euthymius, Damascen, Haymo, and Theophilact, do avouch the presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, and as you have heard them deny the Sacrament to be only a figure: so doth this author agree with them, and denying with them the Sacrament to be a figure, shadow or virtue or Christ'S body, teacheth as they do, the very presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, and that by virtue of Christ'S words, Paschas. ibid. who said (This is my body) Whereupon again he saith: Hoc est corpus meum, & non aliud quàm quod pro vobis tradetur. Et cùm calicem porrigeret: Hic est (inquit) calix novi Testamenti, qui pro vobis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Nec dum itaque erat fusus, & tamen ipse porrigitur in chalice sanguis, qui fundendus erat. Erat quidem iam in chalice, qui adhuc tamen fundendus erat in precium. Et ideo ipse idemue sanguis iam erat in chalice, qui & in corpore, sicut & caro, vel corpus in pane. This is my body, and none other but even the same that shall be delivered for you. And when he gave them the cup, he said: This is the cup of the new Testament, which shall be shed for you in the remission of sins. It was not yet shed, and yet the same blood was given in the cup, that was to be The same blood in the cup, that was to be shed. shed. It was truly now in the cup, that was to be shed in redemption. And therefore even the very same blood was now in the cup, that was in the body, even as it was the same flesh or body that was under the bread. Thus far Paschasius. As this author agreeth with other above named, for that he there said: so for this that he here saith he agreeth with saint Augustine. For as this man saith that the body and blood, which was given to the Apostles, was even the same that was to be delivered to death, and to be shed for the remission of sin, and so all one with his own body sitting among them in visible form: so (as ye have heard) saint Augustine said, that christ carried himself in his own hands, when he gave forth his body to his disciples, and said, Take eat, this is my body. And so the body that did carry, and the Aug in Psal. 33. conc. 1. body that was carried, was all one body of christ. So now to conclude, it is manifest, that as saint Augustine in that place taught the very presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, and the words of christ to be understanded without figure in their proper sense: so doth this author also. Wherefore this being plain I end, and go to an other couple. THE ONE AND SIXTETH CHAP. CONTInueth the exposition of the same words by Oecumenius, and Anselmus. Now of the lower house we have heard two couples, which although they be so placed, yet are they both of good antiquity (the youngest of them, which is Paschasius, being almost seven hundredth years agone) and also such as aught to be received for that they were a good time before Berengarius began the controversy of the blessed Sacrament. These that follow be such as were after the controversy was moved by Berengarius: yet such as have been in estimation, price and reverence both in the greek Church and in the latin Church, and such, whose doctrine the Church hath approved, and received. Wherefore reason and good order would (notwithstanding the arrogancy of the Adversaries, who have appointed themselves judges upon the Church, to which they aught to be subjects, and so refuse such as they list) that they that love the Church of christ, and wish to be, or be members of the same, should accept, whom the Church accepteth, and approve, whom the Church approveth, The testimony then of these we will hear, that to the confutation of the enemy, it may appear that they are unjustly rejected of them, when they teach as the fathers do. And therewithal we shall see the truth of the Sacrament setfurth and commended unto us, to the great comfort (I trust) of such as love the catholic faith, and the honour of that blessed Sacrament. Oecum in 〈…〉 Prim. Corr. Among these therefore that yet remain, Oecumenius, one of the greek church, who is accounted to have lived about four hundreth and seventy years agone, writeth thus upon Christ'S words: Erant quoque in veters testamento pocula in quibus libabant ubi etiam, postquàm victimas immolassent, sangulnem irrationabilium excipientes poculis libabant. Pro sanguine igitur irrationabilium, Dommus proprium Our Lord giveth his own blood in a cup. sanguinem dat, & been in poculo, ut ostendat vetus Testamentum anteà hoc delineasse. There were also in the old Testament cups in the which they did sacrifice, wherein also after they had offered their sacrifices, receiving the blood of unreasonable beasts, they did sacrifice it in cups. Therefore for the blood of unreasonable beasts, our Lord giveth his own blood. And well in a cup, that he might show the old Testament to have delined this before. Thus Oecumen. Besides the aptation and applying of the thing figurated to the figure, in the which this author meaneth, that as verily as the blood of unreasonable beasts was received in cups, so verily also have we the blood of christ in cups, besides this I say, his speech and manner of words are to be weighed. The figure of Christ'S blood is not his own blood. Wherefore saying that christ giveth us his own blood, he removeth the adversaries figure. For the one importeth properly the thing it self: the other a figure or token of the same. And yet farther to consider the very words of this author, where giveth Christ'S blood ysnot contained. in cups spiritually christ his own blood unto us He saith: In poculo. In the cup. If then it be given us in the cup, it is not the blood of christ spiritually, for that is not received in cups, but in the soul of man. Being than Christ'S own blood, and received in a cup, it must needs be the blood of christ really, to the which it well appertaineth, for so moche as christ hath so appointed it, to be received in a real cup, for that it self is a real thing. Besides this, the author saith that it answereth the figure very well, that the blood of christ is in a cup, because the figure had so, as it were foresaid that it should so be, in that that the blood of beasts was offered in cups. Then christ giving his own blood in the cup to his Disciples, and saying: Drink ye all of this. This is my blood: did speak these words in their proper sense. And as he did them, so did he undoubtedly these, This is my body. And thus by this author we have like testimony, as by other before alleged. We shall now likewise see what agreeable testimony Anselmus will give, who is appointed to give the same for the latin Church, as Oecumenius hath Ansel. li. de of sic. dini. done for the greek church. Thus he writeth: Sic enim habemus in evangeliis. Accepit jesus panem, benedixit, fregit, deditue Discipulis suis dicens: Accipite, & manducate ex hoc omnes. Hoc est enim corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur. Quando in manus accepit panis erat, sic enim dixit: Accepit panem, & per illam benedictionem panis factus est corpus Christi, non tantùm significatiuè, sed etiam substantiuè. Neque enim ab hoc sacramento figuram omnino excludimus, neque figuram solam admittimns. Veritas est, quiae corpus Christi est: figura est, quiae immolatur, quod incorruptibile habetur. Consideremus ver ba Domini. Manducate (inquit) ex hoc omnes. Hoc enim, quod vobis trado ad manducandum est corpus meum. Et ut certi essent, quod revera esset corpus Christi, signa expressit, quibus hoc dignoscerent. Hoc est, inquit, corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur. Si hoc corpus, corpus Christi non substantiuè, sed significatiuè tantùm fieret, hoc figura corporis Christi tantùm existeret. Nihil ad figuram, quod sequitur: Quod pro vobis tradetur. Nec panem nominavit postquam panem benedixit, sed corpus: nec vinum nominavit postquam vinum benedixit, sed sangumem. Igitur, sicut fides catholica credit, panis qui offertur sacerdoti ad ad consecrandum, per sacerdotalem consecrationem fit corpus Christi non significatiuè tantùm sed substantiuè. Thus have we in the Gospels: jesus took bread, he blessed it, he brak it, and gave it to his Disciples, saying: Take and eat of this all. For this is my body, which shall be delivered for you. When he took it into his hands it was bread. For so the Evangelist saith he took bread, and by that blessing Bread how it is made the body of Chryst. the bread is made the body of christ, not only significativelie, but also substantivelie. Neither do we from the Sacrament altogether exclude the figure, neither do we admit the sole figure. It is the verity, because it is the body of christ: It is a figure because it is offered in sacrifice, that is incorruptible. Let us consider the words of our Lord: He saith: Eat ye all of this. For this, which I deliver you to eat, is my body. And that they should be certain, that in very deed it was the body of christ, he declared certain tokens, by which they should perceive it. This is my body (saith he) that Circumstances in Christ's words declaring the Bless. Sacr. to be his very body. shall be delivered for you. If this body should be made the body of christ figuratively and not substantially, it should be only a figure of the body of christ, that that followeth, pertaineth nothing to a figure, which is this, that shall be delivered for you. Neither did he name it bread, after that he had blessed the bread, but his body: neither did he after he had blessed the wine, name it wine, but his blood. Therefore, as the catholic faith doth believe, the bread that is offered to the priest to be consecrated by the priestly consecration is made the body of christ, not significativelie, but substantivelie. Thus much Anselmus. Whom ye see to draw by the same line, that all the rest of the fathers have doen. Ye see in this exposition, as it should be among such as be of the house of God, an uniformity, a consent, and a goodly agreement in the utterance of this one truth, being a weighty matter of our faith. Ye see not here as among them that have separated themselves from the house of God, as the Lutherans, the zwinglians or Oecolampadians and calvinists, who so contend strive and dissent among themselves, that that the one side affirmeth the other side denieth. So among these there is yea and nay, it is, and it is not. Sacramentaries descent among themselves tholse fathers agree in one doctrine. But among all them that be produced out of God's Parliament house, among these that learned their lessons in Christ'S school, there is no such dissension. What one affirmeth, the other denieth not. And what one denieth, the other affirmeth not. For where other before have taught, that in the Sacrament after consecration, there is the body and blood of christ, as saint Ambrose, and saint Augustine so doth this author say, that by the consecration is made the body and blood of christ. And where by a number it was before taught, as by Euthymius, Damascen, Haymo, Theophilact, and Paschasius; that the Sacrament is not a figure only. This author teacheth us even so, and withal giveth us the plain catholic understanding of these fathers (which thing is also declared upon the place of Tertullian) that the Sacrament containeth both the body of christ verily, really, and substantially and also the figure of the same body. Whereunto to add also something at this present, saint Augustine giveth a goodly, and a most plain testimony thereof, saying: Corpus Christi & veritas & figura est: Veritas dum corpus Christi & sanguis in virtute Spiritus De consec. dist. 2. ca utrum sancti ex panis & vini substantia efficitur: figura verò est, quod exteriùs sentitur. The body of christ is both the verity and the figure. It is the verity for that the body and blood of christ, by the power of the holy Ghost, is made of the substance of bread and wine: but that is the figure, that Both figure and verity in the Sacr. is outwardly perceived. agreeably to this saith Hilarius, Bishop of Rome next unto Leo the first. Corpus Christi quod sumitur de altare figura est, dum panis & vinum videntur extrà, veritas autem, dum corpus & sanguis Christi intorius creditur. The body of christ that is received of the altar is a figure, for that the bread and wine be seen outwardly: But it is the truth, for that the body and blood of christ be believed inwardly. Where then these fathers say that the Sacrament is not a figure of the body of christ but the body it self: they understand that it is not only a figure. A figure it is, but it is the body also, which thing this author Anselm, doth very well in few words utter when he saith: Neque ab hoc sacramento siguram omnino excludimus, neque figuram solam admittimus. We do not from this Sacrament exclude altogether a figure: neither do we admit only a figure. This then is the catholic faith, that the holy Sacrament is both a figure, and also the very body of christ. By this author also, who doth expound Christ'S words is the trifling M. Pilkintons' sophistical argument in thopen disput action holden in Cambridgie against the blessed Sac. sophistical argument solved, which an Adversary made against Christ'S presence in the Sacrament, upon these words of christ. The argument was this: christ took bread, he blessed bread, he broke bread. Wherefore he gave to his Disciples bread. If he gave them bread, than he gave them not his body. In this argument the Adversary useth the words, as though by the acts, which the verbs express, nothing had been doen. He saith christ did take bread, and blessed bread. By that that christ did take bread, is declared one act, and when he did bless the bread, he did an other act, which the Adversary passeth over, as though christ in blessing had done nothing. By which Sophisine he may aswell prove christ to have delivered no sacrament, as no body. For (as they say) he delivered that, which he took: but he took bread no sacrament: therefore he delivered bread no sacrament. But what did christ when he blessed the bread? Though the Adversary would so overpass it: yet this author telleth us what he did. For he saith: Accepit panem, & per illam benedictionem panis, fit corpus Christi. He took bread, and by that benediction the bread is made the body of christ. Now then Effect of Christ'S blessing of the bread. where the Adversary reasoneth and saith: christ took bread, and blessed bread, and broke bread, and therefore gave bread, he hideth what act christ did when he blessed the bread. For by that blessing the bread was made the body of christ. So that he might and did truly say, take and eat, This is my body. Therefore the argument is nothing but a false Sophism. For indeed he took bread into his hands but after he had once blessed it, and said, this is my body, he delivered no bread, but his body, according to the truth of his word. Other things worthy of note there be in this author, but having declared that, that sufficeth to the purpose for the expounding of Christ'S words, I leave the rest to be considered by the reader, and will hast me to bring in an other couple. THE TVO AND SIXTETH CHAP. ABIDETH in the exposition of the same words by Rupertus, and Nicolaus Methonen. WIshing that the reader should fully perceive the descent of the faith of the Sacrament, how it is deduced from christ to the Fathers, and so from age to age, and from time to time, even unto this our time, and therewith how the words of christ are to be understanded, even from Christ'S time of the speaking of them until this our time: forsomoch as I have passed so near to our time, I will with thy patience (gentle reader) go on, until I bring the within a very little of this our time. In God's name then let us proceed and go to the time of Rupertus, who is thought to have lived the year of our Lord MCCXXiiii. and so about CCCCXXXViii. agone, of whom we shall learn what faith was in the latin Church in his time as concerning the blessed Sacrament, and how the words of christ were understanded. Thus he writeth: Coenantibus, id est, sedentibus adhuc in coena Rup de operib. lib. 3. qua manducaverant carnes agni, carnes Paschae veteris, accepit panem, & benedixit. Panem communem accepit, sed benedicendo longè in aliud quàm suerat transmutavit, ut veraciter diceret sic: Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur. Item vini substantiam accepit, sed itidem gratias agendo, vel benedicendo sic in aliud vertit, ut diceret veritas, quae non mentitur: Hic est sanguis meus novi Testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur. Sed non videtur oculis carnis, non sentitur gustu oris, quòd panis ille caro factus sit: quòd vinum illud in sanguinem versum sit. Nimirum si videretur colour, aut sentiretur sapor carnis, & sanguinis humani, homini non plus salutis, sed plurimum adferret horroris. Being at supper, that is, sitting yet at supper in the which they had eaten the flesh of the If christ blessing the bread transmuted it into a better thing, M. Pilkintons' argument healteth. lamb, the flesh of the old Passover, he took bread and blessed it, he took common bread, but blessing it, he did transmute it into a far other thing, than it was, that he might truly say: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. He did also take the substance of wine, but likewise giving thanks or blessing, he did so turn it into an other thing, that the truth which lieth not, might say: This is my blood of the new Testament, which shall be shed for many. But it is not seen with the eyes of the body: it is not perceived by the taste of the mouth, that, that bread is made the flesh of christ, that that wine is turned into blood. For truly if the cooloure of the flesh and blood of man should be seen, or the taste should be perceived, it should bring no more health to a man, but it should bring much loathsomeness. Thus moche Rupertus. In this author as in Anselmus, who went last before him in the last chapter, is declared the virtue and power of the benediction of christ when he Effect of Christ'S blessing of the bread. blessed the bread and wine in his holy supper. For as Anselmus said, that by the blessing of the bread and wine, they were made the body and blood of christ: So this author saith, that christ blessing the bread, did transmute or change it into a far better thing, Which thing was such that christ might truly say by it: This is my body, which is given for you. Neither let this seem strange to the Adversary, that these two authors say, that by the blessing of christ the bread and wine be changed or turned into the body and blood of christ. For it is not a saying yesterday invented, but it is a saying, of the great Fathers, the ancients and pillars of the Church. How moche doth saint Ambrose speak of this thing? how large a discourse doth he make of it? treacting of the blessed Sacrament, and proving by examples of the scripture, how the grace and blessing of God doth change the nature of one thing into an other thing. Amb. li. de imit. mist. cap. 9 He saith thus. Quantis igitur utimur exemplis, ut probemus non hoc esse, quod natura formavit, sed quod benedictio consecravit, maioremue vim esse benedictionis, quam naturae, quia benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur? How many examples have we to prove, that this is not it that nature form, but it that the blessing hath consecrated, and that the power of the blessing is greater than the power Power of blessing greater than pour of nature. of nature. Because that by the blessing nature it self is changed. And after many examples there produced to that purpose, he maketh this conclusion Quodsi tantum valuit humanabenedictio, ut naturam converteret, quid dicimusde ipsa consecratione divina, ubi verba ipsa Domini salvatoris operantur? If then the blessing of man were of so great force that it might turn or change nature: what say we of the divine consecration, where the very words of hour saviour do work themselves? Thus S. Amb. And thus may we perceive the great power of Christ'S blessing to be such, that not only it may, but it doth also change the nature of one thing into an other, as the nature of bread and wine in the Sacrament, into Transubstanciation avouched. the very nature of the body and blood of christ, verily and substantially. And therefore this change wrought and done by the blessing of christ for so much as it is a turning or changing of one nature or substance into an other nature or substance, it may very well bear the name of Transubstanciation. For that name doth lively declare the act that there is doen. Holy cyril also considering that the great work of God, which maketh present in the Sacrament the body and blood of christ, is done by the denediction of God, doth commonly in his works call the blessed Sacrament the mystical benediction. As then this author hath taught no other wise than he heard his Fathers speak before him, of the power of Christ'S blessing: no more doth he in teaching the presence of Christ'S body and blood, although our senses can not perceive the same presence. For (saith he) though the bread be made the flesh of christ, and the wine be turned into his blood: yet neither do we see it, neither taste it so to be. By which his teaching he doth well advertise us of the office of faith that aught to be in us, which ground upon the word of God, believeth what it teacheth, though no one of our senses give us any aid there unto. And here is Cranmers' gross sensual heresy improved. rebuked the gross manner of Cranmer, who saith that faith teacheth nothing against the senses, and therefore for so much as we see no flesh nor blood, nor taste none in the Sacrament, there is none in the Sacrament. But I will not now tarry to refel that gross and sensual error of the senses, forasmuch as I do more at large speak of it in an other place. Therefore I will no more do here, but by conferring of the doctrine of this author, with the doctrine of the Fathers, so by that way improve the doctrine of Cranmer. It is not saith this author, seen with our eyes, nor tasted by our mouths, that the bread is made flesh, nor that the wine is turned into blood, for if it should so be, it should nothing increase our salvation, cyril. ad Calosyr. Christ'S own very flesh in the Sacrament but it should bring much loathsomeness. And therefore it is so the flesh and blood of christ. as it may be meit for our use, and sufficient also for our salvation. agreeably to this ye have heard declared out of S. cyril. least we should loathe flesh and blood set upon the holy altars, God condescending unto our weakness, powered into the offered things the power of life, turning the same into the truth of his own flesh. Here ye see Christ'S own flesh taught to be in the sacrament, but so as no sense perceive the same, lest we should loathe it, if she should see it or taste is as very flesh. Damascen also hath the like saying, and Theophilact in diverse places. but one of them Theophil. shall suffice for all. Because we are weak and loath to eat raw flesh, specially the flesh of man, therefore it appeareth bread, but it is flesh Note this last part of Theophilactes saying, it appeareth bread but it is flesh. Are we not taught by this that faith teacheth us one thing, and the senses teach us an other thing? It Faith teacheth one thing and senses an other. appeareth bread: What is that? Hour seight judgeth it to be bread, hour taste judgeth it to be bread, hour taste judgeth it to be bread and so forth of other senses, But it is flesh. For hour faith ground upon the certain and infallible truth of Christ'S word, believeth and knoweth it (because he saith: This is my body) to be his flesh. Now our senses teach it to be that, that it is not. For they teach that it is bread, where faith teacheth that it is flesh in deed. Vain therefore is Cranmers' saying, vain also be they that say because they see not, nor taste no flesh nor blood, they will believe none to be ther. As they be sensual men: so they frame to themselves a sensual faith. But God make them once rightly spiritual. And now to our purpose you have seen a conference and a plain agreement, betwixt this author and other in these two points. Finally he expoundeth the words of christ of the very presence. for (saith he) the bread is changed into that thing, that christ may truly say: This is my body. And so the wine is turned into that thing, that he may truly say by it: This is my blood. These words with that that is above said, prove most sufficiently that the words of christ are to be understanded without figure metaphor, or trope. This being thus plain we will see what his fellow will do. who is Nicolaus Methanensis. Thus he writeth: Quis ille qui conculcat filium Dei? Nun qui sanguinem Nicolaus Methan. eius ingratus abrogat, nec admittit? & veraces ab omniue mendacio alieni oris trrditionem & mandatum nihili facit, Hoc est corpus meum dicentis, & hic est sanguis meus, &, nisi manducetis carnem filii hominis, & bibatis eius sanguinem, non habetis vitam in vobis? Quid haesitas? Quid omnipotenti impotentiam attribuis? Nun ipse est, qui ex nihilo omnia ut essent fecit? unus trium personarum divinitatis, qui postremis incarnatus est, & panem in suum corpus transmutari jussit. Quid requiris causam & ordinem naturae panis transmutationis in Christi corpus, & aquae viniue in sanguinem cùm supra naturam, rationem mentem & cogitationem ex virgine sit natus? Non credes itaque nec mortuorum resurrectionem, nec in caelos eius assumptionem, & alia Christi miracula supra naturam mentem, & cogitationem eminentia. Who is he that treadeth under foot the Son he treadeth under foot the Son of God, that believeth not his body and blood to be in the Sacr. of God? is it not he that as an ingrate and unkind man, doth abrogate his blood and will not allow it? and setteth nothing by the commandment and tradition of that true mouth, which is all wide from all untruth, saying: This is my body: And, this is my blood, And except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you? What dost though doubt? What dost though attribute impotency to the omnipotent? Is it not he that made all things of nothing? one of the three persons in god head, who in these last times was incarnated, and commanded the bread to be transmuted into his body. What dost thou require the cause and order of the transmutation of the natuae of bread into Christ'S body, and of the water and the wine into the blood, sithen that he above nature, reason, understanding and thought was born of a virgin? Thowe wilt not then believe neither the resurrection of the dead, nor the assumption of him into heaven, nor other miracles of christ being above the reach of nature, understanding and thought. Thus far he. Ye have now heard an other witness, but not telling you an other tale diverse from him that he is coupled with, or from any here before alleged. In the manner of the utterance of his testimony he doth somewhat, like unto chrysostom, speak with wonder and admiration that men should doubt of the presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, seeing that Christ'S own mouth hath spoken it. Wherein he well declareth that this faith in this matter was so firm, so sure, and so stable, that it was a matter of wonder to him, that any man could not believe it, that had been brought up in christ, in so much that he reputeth the misbelievers of this Sacrament, of the number of those that tread christ under foot, upon whom, as S. Paul saith, shall come heavy and grievous punishments. He teacheth us, as Gregory Nissen, Chrysostom and many more have taught that the bread is transmuted or changed into the body of christ. In the setting forth whereof he useth almost S. Ambrose sentence and words. S. Ambr. li. de mist. c. 9 Ambrose saith: Quid hic queris naturae ordinem in Christi corpore, cùm preter naturam sit ipse Dominus jesus partus & virgine? What dost though here seek the order of nature in the body of christ, sith the same Lord jesus christ was beside nature conceived of a virgin? This author saith, what dost though seek the cause or order of the transmutation of the nature of bread, into the body of christ, and of the wine and water into his blood, sith he above nature, and reason was born of a virgin? So far wide was it from the meaning of this author to vary from the minds of the ancient fathers, that he useth their words. To end, it is easy to perceive that this man teaching transmutation, or transubstantion, and such credit to be given to the plain word of christ for the very presence of his body in the Sacrament, understandeth Christ'S words without figure, as also Rupertus did? THE THREE AND SIXTITH CHAP. TARRIETH IN the exposition of the same words by Innocentius, and Germanus. IN this proceasse we are descended to Innocentius the third, who lived the year of our Lord. 1300. and therefore about 362 years agone. In this matter he writeth thus: Agnus Paschalis sive dubio figurabat Jnnocen. de office Miss. Dominicum corpus: sed panis azimus sincerum opus. Sicut autem joannes Baptista qui dixerat: Eccè agnus Dei, per adiunctum determinavit: Ecce qui tollit peccata mundi: Sic & Christus qui dixerat, Hoc est corpus meum, per adiunctum determinavit: quod pro vobis tradetur. Sicut ergo corpus Christi veraciter tradebatur: sic verè demonstrabatur, non in figura, quaeiam cessaverat, sed in veritate quae iam advenerat. The paschal lamb without doubt, was a figure of our lords body, but the unleavened bread signified a sincere work As john the Baptist The body of christ both delivered and demonstrated not in figure but in truth. who said: Behold the lamb of God, by a clause adjoined did determine it saying: Behold him that taketh away the sins of the world: So christ, who had said, This is my body: by a clause adioned determined the same, saying: which shall be delivered for you. Therefore as the body of christ was verily delivered: so was it verily demonstrated, not in a figure, which now had ceased, but in truth which now was comed. This author minding to expownde Christ'S woods, doth first declare that the paschal lamb, whereof we have at large spoken in the first book, was undoubtedly a figure of Christ'S body wherbie the giveth us to understand, that now the figure being taken away (which can not other wise be ceased but by the coming of the verity) that now the body of christ is not only as in a figure, as it was in the paschal lamb, but it is now in verity. He proveth it by Christ'S own word, who said and spoke nothing but truth: This is my body. That he spoke it by his own natural and substantial body, he proveth by the determination that he put to it, which was this: Which shall be delivered for you. This particle added determineth his saying to be of his natural body. For he delivered not his figurative body, neither his spiritual body, nor his mystical body. Wherefore it was spoken of that body, which might be delivered for the sins of the world, which was only his own natural body. Then he concludeth upon these two parts, that as Christ'S body was verily delivered to death: so was it verily spoken of christ in the supper not in a figure, which is now past and hoen, but in verity, which is comed. To be short, as he breislie concludeth the truth: so with asmuch brevity Figure of the Sacramentaries flatly denied. he excludeth the untruth. He sendeth the empty figure, to the old Law: he appointeth the fullness of the verity in the new Law. Thus the adversaries figure being also denied by this author, as it hath been by many other, the conclusion may be made, that Christ'S words are to be understanded not figuratively, but in their proper sense simply and literally. Now on the other side shall give testimony the holy man Germanus, Germanus epis. Constantin. Bishop of Constantinople, who did write an exposition upon the Mass of the greek church, where in he writeth thus: Ipse dixit: Hoc est corpus meum: hic est sanguis meus. Ipse & Apostolis jussit, & illos universae Ecclesiae, hoc facere. Hoc enim ait, facite in meam commemorationem. Non sanè id facere iussisset, nisi vim inditurus fuisset, ut id facere liceret. He saith, This is my body: this is my blood: He also commanded the Apostles, and by them the whole Church, this to do. For saith he, This do ye in the remembrance of me. Truly he would not have commanded them so to do, except he had given them power that they might do it. What is their power afterward he declareth saying: Spiritus sanctus, qui semel egressus est, & in posterum non dereliquit nos, sed est nobiscum & erit in perpetuum aeuum, haec per manum sacerdotum & linguam mysteria conficit. Ac non sanctum Spiritum dumtaxat misit Dominus noster ut maneat nobiscum, sed & ipse policitus est se mansurum nobiscum usque ad consummationem seculi. At Paracletus inconspicuus adest, quia ipse corpus non gestavit: Dominus verò, & conspicitur, & tangi se patitur per tremenda & sacra mysteria, ut quinostrā naturam acceperit, eademque gestet in secula. The holy Ghost, The holy Ghost consccrateth the Sacr. by the hand and tongue of the priests. who once came forth to us, and never hereafter doth forsake us, but shall be with us for ever to the worlds end, doth consecrate these mysteries by the hand and tongue of the priests. And our Lord hath not sent his holy spirit, that he only should abide with us: But he himself also hath promised to dwell with us, unto the end of the world. The holy Ghost is with us, but not seen, because he had no body. But our Lord is both seen, and suffereth himself by the fearful and holy mysteries to be touched, as one that hath taken our nature upon him, and will bear it for ever. The power then of the ministers of christ is that they be the instruments of holy Ghost by whose hand and tongue these mysteries be consecrated. In that he saith the holy Ghost doth work this great work by the tongue of the priest, he meaneth at the pronunciation of Christ'S words by the mouth of the priests, at the which the holy God invisibly worketh the presence of Christ'S body and blood agreeably to the words of christ Li. 4. de Sacr. spoken by the priest in the person of christ, saying: This is my body. For until that time (saith S. Ambrose) the priest useth his own words, but now (saith he) he useth not his own words, but the words of christ, That the holy Ghost worketh this consecration of the body and blood of christ it is not a few times testified before. But Damascen by most plain words declareth the matter, saying: Quemadmodum quaecunque fecit Deus, Spiritu sancto cooperant fecit: sic & nunc Spiritus sancti operatione, haec super naturam operatur, quae non potest capere nisi sola fides. Quomodò fiet mihi istud, dicit sancta virgo, quoniam virnm non cognosco? Respondit Gabriel Archangelus Spiritus sanctus superueniet in te, & virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi. Et nunc interrogas, quomodò panis sit corpus Christi, & vinum & aqua sanguis Christi. Respondeo tibi & ego: Spiritus sanctus obumbrat, & haec operatur super sermonem & intelligentiam. As all that god hath made, he hath made them the holy ghost working with him: even so now The work of the holy Ghost in the Sacr is above nature, and understanding by the work of the holy Ghost he worketh these things (meaning the consecration of the body and blood of christ) above nature, which things nothing can perceive but only faith. How shall this be done to me (saith the holy Virgin) for I know not a man? The Archangel Gabriel answereth: The holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the hieghest shall overshadow thee. And now thou askest how the bread is made the body of christ, and the wine and water the blood of christ. And I also answer unto thee, The holy Ghost overshaddoeth and worketh these things above that can be spoken, and above all understanding. agreeably to this S. Augustine also speaking of the Sacrament, and of the work of the holy Ghost therein saith: Quod cùm per manus hominum ad illam vibilem August. li. 3. de Trin. cap. 4. speciem perducitur, non sanctificatur ut sit tam magnum sacramemtum, nisi operant invisibiliter Spiritu Dei. Which thing (meaning bread) when by the hands of men it is brought to that visible form, it is not yet sanctified that it may be so great a Sacrament but by the invisible work of the spirit of God? In this than that this author saith that these mysteries of the body and blood of christ be wrought by the holy Ghost, ye perceive that he teacheth none otherwise then the other holy Fathers of the Church. And by this also by the way may we learn reverently to speak of this blessed Sacrament, for so much as it is no trifling toy of man's invention, but it is the work of the holy Ghost, who worketh no trifles but matters of weight agreeable to his majesty. Which thing this author also after the manner of chrysostom doth very well teach in the later part of his saying, The Sacraments of Christ'S body and blodbe holy and fearful my steries. when he calleth the Sacraments of Christ'S body and blood, Tremenda & sacra mysteria. fearful and holy mysteries. They are not fearful and holy, except something be in them that is of it self fearful and holy. Bread and wine being figures of Christ'S body and blood, be no more fearful, than the bread and wine of Melchisedech, or the show bread in the temple, which was eaten of David and his men without any fear. There is therefore in this holy mystery more than a figure, which else can be nothing but the very thing that is figured, which is christ our Lord and God, who is to be feared of all saints, the psalm saying: Timete Dominum omnes sancti eius. Fear your Lord all ye Saints. In the end this author declaring the difference of the being and abiding of christ and the holy Ghost with us maketh this difference. The holy Ghost (saith he) for that he had no body, for he was not incarnated, there Difference of the being of christ with us and of the holy Ghost. for though he be with us, yet he is not seen: christ for that by his incarnation he took a body upon him, he is both seen, and also suffereth himself to be touched, but how? By the holy and fearsull mysteries. Then by the bolie and fearful mysteries christ is both seen and touched. It is so, For so saith chrysostom: Ipsum vides, Ipsum tangis, Ipsum comedis. if seist him, thou touchest him: thou eatest him, if desierest to see his garments, but he delivereth himself to thee, not that thou shouldest only see him: but also that thou mayst touch him and also have him with thee. But here laboureth the Adversary to lay a snare to entrap the reader, and to make him mistake chrysostom. For (saith the Adversary) we touch A Cavil of the Sacramentaries and eat christ in the Sacrament as we see him. But wet see him only by faith, wherefore we touch and eat him but by faith. And so is the presence of christ merely spiritual and not corporal. If this argument were good, he might prove by the same that there were no creature. And thus he might, frame his argument. Every creature as An answer concerning his being is as it is seen. But no creature is seen to have corporal Substance, wherefore no creature hath corporal Substance. Or thus, to come nearer to him in his own terms: We touch and eat our meat at the table as we see it: But we see no substance of meat. Wherefore we eat no substance of meat. Thus one fond argument may be perceived by an other. And so perceived to be fond, to let it so go as sufficiently answered. But for the contentation of the reader this shall be said: As natural knowledge teacheth that every creature hath a substance: so it teacheth that that substance is invisible. Therefore though we see no substance, but the A thing p●saied to brseen, when the outuard forms are only seen, because the substance is invisible outward forms of creatures: yet being assured by this knowledge, that there is under those forms a substance, we say that we did see or touch this or that creature, and the saying is true: Even so when spiritual knowledge, which is faith, teacheth us that the holy Sacrament hath a substance, and that substance is invisible. And therefore though we see but outward forms of bread and wine. yet being assured by this spiritual knowledge that there is under those forms the substance of the body and blood of christ, we say very well, that we see Christ'S body, and touch his body, and eat his body, when we see, touch, and eat these forms in due Spiritual knowledge teacheth the substance of Christ's body and blood to be under their forms of bread and wine as well as natural knowledge the substances of natural things under their forms. manner after that the consecration is done, faith giving us certain and assured knowledge of the being of Christ'S substance under those forms as natural knowledge doth for the substances of natural creatures under their forms. And therefore now where the Adversary saith, that we eat christ as we see him, though in natural things it be not properly true, for their we eat both the substance and the outward forms, yet see but the out ward forms, in manner above said: yet for that the substance is certainly under those forms, by a mean it is truly said, that we see and eat such a thing: so in this heavenly matter of the Sacrament, we both eat and see presently the very presence of Christ'S body in substance, our senses subjecting themselves as well to the knowledge of faith, as they do to the knowledge of nature, and truly say that we see and eat the substance of the body of christ. And by this was the common saying of the faithful people used generally in the church, when they had seen the Sacrament: I have seen my Saviour, I have seen my redeemer, and such like, as in natural things we say we have seen a man, a woman, a beast, a tree, an herb, when we have neither seen the substance of man, woman, beast, tree, nor herb, but only the outward forms of them. But to protract this disputation no longer, I will end it with the argument of this author, which may be uttered in this manner. christ is continually Difference of the being of christ with us, and of the holy Ghost. with us, and so is the holy Ghost, but they be after diverse manners, the one to be seen, the other not to be seen, wherefore the one corporally, the other spiritually. The proof may be this: If christ be with us but spiritually in the Sacrament, then is he with us no otherwise, than the holy Ghost is. But christ is with us in an other diverse manner than the holy Ghost is, in such a manner as he may by his fearful and holy mysteries be seen, which diverse manner to spiritual manner must be the corporal manner. Wherefore he is with us corporally. And this most undoubtedly was the meaning of this author. For there is no doubt of the spiritual presence of the holy Ghost in the ministration of the Sacraments neither yet of christ. But there must be an other manner of Christ'S being with us besides that manner, or else the being of the holy Ghost and christ must be all one, and not different. The contrary whereof this author teacheth. Whereby also, as by that, that is before said, it may be perceived, that the words of christ be of him understanded in their proper sense. THE FOUR AND SIXTETH CHAPTER showeth the exposition of Petrus Cluniacen. and Bessarion upon the same. Now that our process is comed so near to our time we will end with this couple, that shall be produced of the which the first is the good and virtuous learned man Petrus Cluniacensis, of whose virtue and learning not only his writing is a good witness, but also holy saint bernard in sundry epistles written doth very well testify the same. This man thus expoundeth the words of christ: Dic Domine testator novi & aeterni Testamenti, utrum Testamentum hoc unius diei (sicut isti dicunt) esse volveris, an potius aeternum esse decreveris. Petr. Cluniacen. contra. Petrobrufianos. Audiant isti, non me, sed te, ut convertantur non ad me, sed ad te. Quid ergo? In coena ultima, quam cum Discipulis tuis votus Pascha novo commutans celebrasti, accepisti panem, gratias egisti, fregisti, dedisti Discipulis tuis. Sed quid dixisti? Accipite, hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur. Et quid addidisti? Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Similiter & calicem postquam coenasti: Hic est sanguit meus novi Testamenti, qui pro vobis & pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Audistis? Nolite fieri simulachra quae oculos habent & non vident, aures habent, & non audiunt. Audistis hoc non à quolibet doctore, sed ab illo, de quo Pater clamans praecipit: Ipsum audite. Audistis eum dantem corpus, sed quod corpus? Sunt enim corpora coelestia, & terrestria. Et quicquid visui, auditui, olfactui, gustui, hic subiacet, corpus est. unde ne putaret quis animalis cuiuslibet hoc esse corpus, aut hominis cuiuslibet, ad excludendum omne aliud sensibile vel insensibile corpus, postquam dixit: Accipite, hoc est corpus, adiunxit, meum. Suum ergo non alterius corpus Discipulis dedit. Rursus ne alicui cogitatio occulta subreperet, potuisse creare in mambus suis, corpus, quod suum quidem esset, sed tamen, quod ipse erat, non esset, addidit. Quod pro vobis tradetur. Ac si diceret, nolite dubitare, nolite hoc vel illud vobis fingere, nolite, nolite aliud & aliud cogitare, quia hoc est corpus, non alteruns, aut alterius sed meum, non permutatum vel noviter creatum, sed quod pro vobit tradetur, pro vobis crucifigetur, pro vobis morietur. Sic & de chalice: Hic est ait sanguis, non bovis, aut arietis, non agni aut cuiuslibet hominis, sed meus, non alius, aut nova creatione productus, sed qui pro vobis fundetur, stagellis provocatus, clavis extortus, lancea excussus. Say therefore, o Lord, the testator of the new and everlasting testament, whether this testament be of one day, as these men say, thou wouldest it to be, or whether thou havest decreed it to be an everlasting Testament. Let these men hear, not me, but thee, that they may be turned not to me, but to thee, what then was done? In the last supper which thou diddest celebrate, with the Disciples, changing the old passouer for the new, thou thookest bread, if gavest thanks, if brakest it, and gave it to the disciples. But what saidst though? Take this is my body, which shall be delivered christ gave to his Apost. not the body of an other, or his body newly createdbutthat same body that should be delivered. for you. And what diddest though add unto it? This do ye in my remembrance. Likewise the cup also after thou hadst supped, saying: This is my blood of the new Testament which shall be shed for you, and for many in the remission of sins. Have you heard? Be not made dead images, which have eyes and see not, ears and hear not. Ye have heard this not of every teacher, but of him, of whom the Father saying commanded: Hear him. Ye have heard him giving a body, but what body? There be heavenly bodies, and carthlie bodies, and what soever is here subject to the seight, hearing, smelling, tasting or touching, is a body. Wherefore least any man should think this to be a body of any common man, or any other natural creature, to exclude all other bodies sensible or insensible, after he had said: Take this it a body, he adjoined this word (mine) he gave then his own body to his Disciples, and not the body of any other. Again lest any privy thought should come to any man, that he might have created in his hands a body that should be his in deed, but not that should be it that he was himself: he added: Which shall be delivered for you As who should say: doubt you not, feign you not this or that to your self, think not an other thing, and an other thing. For thisys the body, not an other, or of an other, but mine, not permuted, or newly created, but that which shall be delivered for you, shall be crucified for you: shall die for you. So like wise also of the cup: This is, saith he, blood, not of an ox, nor of a Ram, nor of a lamb, or of any man, but mine, not an other, or produced by a new creation, but which shall be shed for you, provoked by skoorges, extorted with nails, thrust out with a speer. Thus much this author. To this exposition to add any thing as therbie to make it plain to the reader, I think it superfluous. It is already so plain as no man in my judgement, can make a more plain exposition. Only I will open the cause, why he wrote this. There was afect of heretiquesbegonne by one Peter de Bruys, and one Henricus, whose disciples were called Petrobrusions and Henricians. These had invented a new fantastical heresy, as it is proper to all such men, to make Fancies of Heretics called the word of the Lord. their fantasies matters of faith, and cuerie of their fantasies is the pure, and sincere word of the lord. These had (I say) invented this fantasy that Christ alone at his last supper did consecrated his body and blood, and gave it to is disciples, and they all received his body and blood. But since that time was it never, nor yet is received of any man. Against these men did this holy father write, against whom taking the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God, he fought with them with it, and overthrew them by the the word of christ that said: that the blood which he gave in the cup to his disciples, was the blood of the everlasting Testament, whereupon taking an argument, he saith in the beginning: Say, o Lord, the restatour of the new testament, whether this testament be of one day, as these men say thou wouldest it to be, or whether thou havest decreed it, to be an everlasting testament. another argument he maketh also of the commandment of christ, who said: This do ye in the remembrance of me. Whereby christ giving them commandment to do that that he had done, and he by their own confession consecrated his body (wherein they are more gentle to christ, than the Adversaries and the Proclaimer) The argument is good that such, to whom the authority is derived do that that christ did, that is, do consecrate his blessed body and blood. I writ thus moche, that ye may perceive into what variety and diversity of fantasies men do fall in, that begin to withstand Gods holy faith, of which variety I have already spoken in the xli. chapter of this book, whereunto if ye add this fantasy, then shall you perceauc how many contrary fantasies Satan can devise upon these four words of christ: This is my body. And can, as is said, utter them all to the people for the pure word of God. But to return to this author, as by these arguments he hath overthrown the heresy of the Petrobrusians: so with these and the plain exposition of Christ'S words, he convinceth all the other wicked fantasies, and leaveth Christ'S words in their proper and native sense, figures and tropes not remembered. I shall not need to confer him, with the ancient and elder Fathers, the conference of other saying as he doth, maketh good that he hath said, as it did theirs which were conferred with him. Wherefore omitting that conference with his seniors, I shall bring in his iuniour to be conferred with him, who is Bessarion Patriarch of Constantinople and Cardinal, who lived the year of our Lord. 1471. Wherefore not fully one hundreth years agone. And yet (as his disputation in the Florentine Council against the greeks, and his book against Marcus Ephesinus do prove) he was an excellent learned man, in this matter thus he writeth: Nemo est quem lateat, quemadmodum panis & vini in corpus & sangumem Christin instanti facta transubstautialitas, humanam Bessarion li. de Sacr. Euchar. omnem excedit facultatem, ingensue opus est & certè divinum: it a etiam huius Sacramenti efficientia verba instar ipsius Sacramenti, eximiae cuiusdam virtutis esse debere. Christ's verò dtuints verbis nihil esse potentius, nihil ess● acius esse posse manfestum est. Quamobrem fateri necesse est, Dominicis illis verbis, & nullis aliis dtuinum hoc sacramentum confict posse. Nec enim divinissima per divinam potentiam confict negaverit quispiam, nec verbis Christi nihil effiacius esse, cùm non modò homo, verumetiam Deus sit, creatorue omnium, qui solo nutu cuncta produxit, qui verbo aegros curavit, mortuos suscitavit, caeteraue miracula fecit, quae in evangelio recitantur. There is no man but knoweth how that the transubstantiation of the bread and wine, done in an instant into the body and blood of christ, doth exceed all power of man, and is a great and very work of God: Even The Sacrament may be consecrated by noother words then with these: Hoc est cor. etc. so also the efficient words of this Sacrament should be of some great power, like as the Sacrament is. Now it is manifest that nothing can be more mighty, more effectuous than the divine words of christ. Wherefore we must needs confess, that this divine Sacram. may with no other words be consecrated, than with those words of our Lord, Neither will any man deny these most holy things to be consecrated by the divine power, neither that any thing is more mighty in work then the words of christ, sithen he is not only man, but also God the creator of all things, who at his only pleasure produced all things of nothing, who with his word healed the sick, raised the dead, and did other miracles, which be written in the Gospel. Not the merits of man, but the power of God consecrateth the Sacr. And within a few words he saith thus: Panis & vini in corpus & sanguinem transmutatio non petentium meritis, sed eius potentia, qui ex nihilo cuncta produxit, per sacerdotem tanquam per instrumentum quoddam efficitur. The transmutation of the bread and wine into the body and blood is done not through the merits of the petitioners, but by the priest as by a certain instrument, through the power of him that brought out all of nothing. Of this author, as of all the rest, we learn the power and mighty work of Christ'S words, God and man, by which the bread and wine be transmuted and changed into the body and blood of the same hour master and Saviour jesus christ. And where transmutation and transubstantion is confessed and taught (as this author confesseth both) there is the adversaries figure denied, and the proper sense of Christ'S words, and not the figurative sense admitted and allowed. But we shall hear him with his own words declare himself. Thus he saith: Corpus est duplex: Verum alterum, alterum mysticum. Et verum quidem est, quod in hoc divino Eucharistiae sacramento consecratur, atque conficitur, sub visibili specie panis The true body of christ under the form of bread. ac vini. Hoc idem est cum eo corpore, quod fuit ex beata Virgine Spiritus sancti obumbratione conceptum. De quo ipse Dominus in exhibitione sacramenti, cum nobis sensibilem panem vinumque ostendisset, ait, Hoc est corpus meum: & hic est sanguis meus. Deinde addidit: Quod pro vobis traditur, & qui pro vobis effunditur in remissionem peccatorum. Mysticum autem eius corpus est Ecclesia, & congregatio fidelium. christ hath two bodies. A true body, and a mystical body. The true body is it, that is consecrated and made in this divine Sacrament, under the visible form of bread and wine. This is all one with that body, that was by the overshadowing of the holy Ghost, conceived of the blessed virgin. Of which body our Lord himself in the giving forth of the Sacrament, when he had showed to us sensible bread and wine, said. This is my body, and this is my blood. Then he added: which is delivered for you, and which is shed for you in the remission of sins. But his mystical body is the Church, and the congregation of the faithful. And afterward by express words denying the adversaries figure, saith thus: Cavendum autem, ne quis propterea quòd Eucharistiae mysterium figura esse dicitur, A great blasphemy to say or think the Sacr. is not the body of our Lord. dicere aut omnino suspicari audeat, non esse verum Domini corpus. Absit tanta blasphemia à fidelium mentibus. It is diligently to be taken heed unto, that no man, because the Sacrament is called a figure, be so bold to say, or by any means to think that it is not the very body of our Lord. God forbid so great a blasphemy, from the minds of the faithful. Thus far he. In which saying (as before diverse times is said) the author according to the catholic faith, teacheth that the Sacrament is both a figure, and the body of christ. But because it is a figure therefore (as the Adversary saith) it is not the body of christ? That blasphemy (saith this good man) God keep from the minds of the faithful. Behold Christian reader) that to say, that the Sacrament is a figure, and not the very body of christ, it is a blasphemy. O merciful Lord, how moche blasphemy then is there now committed? God of his mercy preserve such as yet have not, that they never speak blasphemy against their Lord God in this matter, and call again such as have, that his heavy indignation fall not upon us. I see I have tarried long upon these few words of christ. And therefore although I might have brought forth many more of the lower house (as the learned know there be many) yet I have of them taken but six couples, remembering that I had a good number of the higher house, and they ministered much occasion of matter, upon which I had better will to tarry, because the Proclaimer alloweth their authority. Who in deed, if he will look well upon himself, and will think no more of himself then is meet, nor take more upon him than becometh him, should not with scorn and contumely reject any of these of the lower house, nor disallow soch learned men, as he doth, and such a number and of so long time, and so many years, except Misunderstanding of Christ'S words mother of all the heresies of the Sacramentaries. he doth it upon like policy, as some men do, who mistrusting their cause, refuse many to go upon their quests, because they shall be found guilty. I have, I say, tarried long upon this short text, and few words of christ, because the misunderstanding of them (which is the maintenance of their heresy, and the mother and dam of all the wicked opinions in this matter) may be taken away and the true understanding, which is the ground of true faith, and the very fowntain and lively well spring of whollsom doctrine, may be stayed, settled, and with like minds of men to be received. For he that hath the true understanding of the words of christ can not lightly err in the matters of the Sacrament. And he that misunderstandeth them, for the most part erreth in all matters, that be moved by evil men against the blessed Sacrament. Now ye have heard, first the three holy Evangelists and S. Paul reporting in one manner those words of christ: ye have heard eleven couples of Christ'S higher house of parliament of each side, that is, both of the greek Church, and latin Church, men not obscure, but most famous among all writers that have written upon these words of christ, not only in learning, but in ancienty, Catholics how they understand Christ'S words in holiness, and in gravity: ye have heard six couples of Christ'S lower house of Parliament, chosen also of both sides of the house, men also in their times famous both in learning, in holiness of life, and in my judgement most worthy men. I say among those that I could find that did treact of the words of christ, by way of exposition. In the process also ye have heard the propositions or sayings of the catholics and of the adversary as touching the understanding of these words of christ, wherein standeth the controversy. The catholics have two sayings: The one that the words of christ are to be understanded without figure: The other Sacramentaries how they understand them. which followeth upon that, that christ spoke of his very body. The adversaries contrary wise have two sainges: the one that Christ'S words are to be understanded with a figure: The other that christ did not speak these words of his very body. The catholic, upon his sainges growndeth this truth, that Christ'S very body, and very blood after the consecration, be really and substantially in the Sacrament, and so given to the receivers. The adversary upon his sainges growndeth his error, that Christ'S very body and blood be not really and substantially in the Sacrament, but in the Sacrament is only a figure of the body, and is given to the receivers as a sign or token of christ. As concerning which controversy it is now easy to be said: first for the first part of it that neither the holy Evangelists, neither saint Paul, nor any of all the holy Fathers of the higher house, hath taught or said as the Adversary doth teach and say, that Christ'S An epilog of authors denying the Sacramentaries figure. words are to be understanded figuratively, I mien, that the Sacrament is only a figure, I say not one. But contrary wise a number of them by express words deny that Christ'S words are so to be understanded, and that the Sacrament is a figure only. And for the better memory to be had of them, I shall make a brief epilog of their sainges: Chrysostom upon the the sixth of saint john saith that christ did not speak these words: My Chrysost. in 6. Joan. flesh is verily meat: obscurely or in parables. If not so: them plainly and without figure. Euthymius upon Christ'S words said: He did not say, these be signs of my body and blood, but these things be my body and blood. Damascen said: The bread and wine is not a figure of the body and blood of christ. God Euthy. in 26. Math. forbid that any man should so believe. Haymo said: That same bread is changed into the flesh of our Lord, and the wine is transferred into the blood of our Lord, not by a figure, nor by a shadow, but by truth or in Damascen li 4. cap. 14 very deed. Theophilact said, that the bread that is sanctified on the altar is the very body of our Lord, and not an answering figure. For christ did Haim. in 26. Math. not say, this is a figure, but this is my body. The like saith he upon saint john, that it is not a figure but the body. Paschasius said, that he meruciled what they meant that said, that in the Sacrament was not in very deed the Theophilact in 26. Math. flesh of christ and his blood, but the virtue, the figure and not the verity, the shadow, and not the body. Anselmus said, christ took bread, and by his blessing of it, the bread was made the body of christ, not only significativelie, or by signification, but substantivelie or in substance. Neither do Paschasius lib. de corp & sang. Domini. we (saith he) from this Sacrament, altogether exclude the figure, neither do we admit the only figure. Innocentius said: As the body of christ was verily delivered: so was it verily demonstrated, nor in a figure, which now had ceased: but in truth which was now comed. Bessarion said: that we be not so bold, that because the Sacrament is called a figure, that we either Ansel. li. de office diui. say or think that it is not the very body of christ. God keep (saith he) so great a blasphemy from the minds of men, by which words he denieth Innocent. 3. li de offi. Miss. the only figure to be in the Sacrament without the presence. All these stand directly against the Adversary. For where he saith, that the Sacrament is a figure only, they say it is not only a figure by plain words. And uless as S. Augustin and Hilary do teach that the Sacrament is both the Bessarion. li de sacra. Eucha. figure, and the verity, may they not be adnombred to this company, as denienge the only figure, for as much as with the other they affirm as well the presence as the figure. And in that they do so, they deny the only figure. August. Hilar. Thus ye see the first proposition of the Adversary by so many witnesses denied, and the proposition of the catholic Church affirmed. If the Adversary for all these can bring any one catholic writer that is ancient, and approved, that doth say, as he saith, that the Sacrament is only a figure, I for my part shall confess the truth to be on his side. If he can not bring one, as I am sure he can not, and the catholic Church for the truth An epilog of authors assirming the real presence. that she teacheth bringeth so many, what madness is there in him that will still persist in his fantasy, for the maintenance whereof he hath no authority. But let us gather as brief an epilog for the proposition of the catholics which is, that christ in these words: This is my body: spoke of his very body. Although it be already sufficiently proved and declared by that it is not a figure only, and so importeth that christ spoke of his body: yet that Just. apolog 2. the matter may be plentifully plain before your face, I shall take the like pain in this, as I have done in the other. justinus, who is the first, said: that as jesus christ our Saviour had flesh and blood for our salvation: even so we are taught, the food, where with our flesh and blood be nourished by alteration, when it is consecrated by the prayer of his wood, to be the flesh Iren. contrahaeres. li. 4. ca 32. and blood of the same jesus incarnated. Irenaeus said, that christ took bread, which is a creature, and gave thanks saying: This is my body. and the cup likewise, which is a creature as we be, he confessed to be his blood, and of the new Testament taught a new oblation. Tertullian said, that the bread which christ did take and give to his disciples, he made it his body. Tertulli. 4 cont. Martion. Cypr. de caena Dom. Cyprian said: after our Lord had said, This do in the remembance of me. This is my flesh and this is my blood, that substantial bread and cup, as often as it is done with these words, and this faith, that substantial bread and cup consecrated by the solemn benediction doth profit to the health and life of the whole man, being also a medicine and a sacrifice to heal infirmities and to purge iniquities. Iwencus said, when christ took bread in his hands and had given thanks, he divided it to his Disciples, and taught them, that Jwenc. li. 4 bisto, evang. he delivered unto them his own body. And that he took the cup and sanctified it, and gave it to them to drink, and taught them, that he gave them his blood, and saith drink this blood. Eusebius Emisenus said, The invisible priest turneth the visible creatures into the substance of his body Eusebius Emis. hom. 5. Pasch. and blood, by his secret power with his word, saying: This is my body. And the sanctification repeated, take and drink (saith he) This is my blood. Again he saith: when the creatures are set upon the holy altars to be blessed with the heavenly words, before they be consecrated with the invocation of the most high name there is the substance of bread and wine, but after the Amb li. 4 de sacr. ca 5 words of christ the body and blood of christ. S. Ambrose said, before it is consecrated it is bread, but when the words of christ have comed to it, it is the body of christ. And before the words of christ it is a cup full of water and wine, but when the words of christ have wrought, there is made the blood that redeemed the people. Gregory nissen said: the bread by the word is changed into the body, as it was said of the word (meaning christ) This is my body. And again he saith: we do believe that the bread sanctified by the word of God, is changed into Greg. Niss. ser. cathec. Hier. ad Hed. qn. 2 Isich. in Levit li. 6. ca 22. the body of the Son of God. S. Hierom said: Let us understand that the bread which our Lord gave unto his Disciples, is the body of our Lord and Savionre, forasmuch as he said: This is my body. and that the cup is that, of the which again he said: Drink ye all of this, This is my blood of the new Testament. Isichius said: he receiveth the sacrifice by ignorance, that knoweth not the power and dignity of it, that knoweth not that it is his body and Ang. in Psalm. 33. con. 1. Chrysosthom. 83. in 26 Math. hom. 51. in 14 Marc cyril. ad Calosyrium. blood in very deed, but receiveth the mysteries, and knoweth not the power of them. S. Augustine said: that christ was born in his own hands, when giving forth that same his body he said: This is my body. For he did bear that body in his hands. chrysostom said: forasmuch as he hath said: this is my body, let us be holden with no doubt, but let us believe, and with the eyes of our uderstanding let us verily see it. Again he said: He that said: This is my body, altogether with his word, he made the thing also. S. cyril said: Doubt not whether this be true or no, sith he manifestly saith: this is my body, but raither receive the word of our Saiowr in faith. For he forasmuch as he is the truth, he lieth not. S. Gregory said: christ is offered for us in this mystery of the holy sacrifice. There truly his body is received, his flesh to the health of the people is given abroad, his Grego. li. 4. Dial. ca 58 blood is now shed, not upon the hands of the unfaithful, but into the mouths of the faithful. And again: which of the faithful can doubt in that time of the sacrifice, at the word of the priest the heavens to be opened in that mystery of jesus christ companies of Angels to be present, unto high things low things to be coupled, unto heavenly things earthly things to be joined, one thing also of invisible and visible things to be made. Isidor said: The sacrifice that is offered of the christians unto God, christ our Lord and master did first institute, when he gave to his Apostles his body and blood before he would be betrayed, as it is red in the Gospel: Jsidorus de ●ffi. ●ccl. ca 1●. jesus took bread and the cup, and blessing them gave, them to them. Thus have I breissie tocuhed so moche as may serve to prove the second proposition of the catholics: If any desire to see any more of these authors, let him repair to their chapters and there shall he see them at large. And now ye see that as by many witnesses the figure in the first proposition was denied: so by all these, that christ in his words spoke of his very body, it is here affirmed. And yet all these notwithstanding, if the Adversary can bring forth but one ancient Father that by express words saith, as he saith that christ in his supper did not speak of his body or that his body after consecration duly done, is not in the Sacrament, I will join with him. The Proclaimer more arrogantly than truly, saith of the catholic Church, and that with repetition, saying: once again I say (as thereby with The brag of the proclaimer. boldecountenance to bear out his fall should and untruth) that of all the words of the holy scriptures: of all the examples of the primitive Church: of all the old fathers, of all the ancient doctors in these causes, they have not one, Now judge whether he be true or no, and what credditte is to be given unto him in other matters, that so shamelessly speaketh in this. To the farther proof of the truth of Christ'S substantial presence in the Sacrament also, beside that that is said of many of the authors severally, I have treacted of tansubstantion, wherefore I remit the reader thither, and now having but one scripture in the Evangelists to speak of, I will briefly touch it, and so finish this second book. THE FIVE AND SIXTETH CHAP. treateth of the bread blessed and given by christ to the two disciples in Emaus, and proveth by Theophilact and Bede that it was the Sacrament. IN the gospel after saint Luke we read that christ joining himself to two of his Disciples going to Emaus, when he came thither Luc. 24. he sat down with them, And took bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and their eyes were opened and they knew him. And these Disciples returned with joy to Jerusalem, and told the The bread given to the Disciples in Emaus was Christ'S blessed body. Apostles, what was done in the way, and how they knew him in the breaking of bread. This bread that was here blessed, and broke, and given to the Disciples, the holy learned men do testify not to be common bread, but to be by the blessing of christ made the bread of life, even his own body. Wherefore seeing it is so understanded, I thought it appertaining to that purpose that I have taken in hand, to see the minds of the holy fathers in it. And at this time to ascend, I will begin with Theophilact, who writeth thus upon the same scripture: Insinuatur autem & aliud quiddam, nempe quod oculi corum, qui benedictum panem assumunt, aperiuntur, ut agnoscant illum. Magnam enim Theophil. in 24. Luc. & indicibilem vim habet caro Domini. another thing also is given us to understand, that is, that the eyes of them, which do take the blessed bread, are opened, that they may know him (meaning christ) For the flesh of christ hath a great and unspeakable power. Thus he. By this author it doth not only appear that christ gave unto the two disciples his body, but it is also evident. For when he had first said that their eyes were opened that received the blessed bread, so well that they might know jesus, immediately opening what this blessed bread was, he saith: For the flesh of christ hath an unspeakable power. The blessed bread then blessed of christ to be given to the Disciples was so of him blessed by the testimony of Theophilact that it was made the flesh of christ. Which he proveth by the effect. For although christ had walked with them so much way, and had conferred with them, and had rebuked their slackness of faith, and finally had interpreted the scriptures unto them, beginning at Moses, and so passing through all the Prophets, that had written of him: yet all this blessed and holy talk, his lively interpretation of the scriptures, The disciples in eman's kuewe not christ until they had eaten of the blessed bread. his blessed and mighty voice, which sounding in the ears of the jews, that came with judas to apprehend him, did throw them down to the ground, did not make these Disciples to know him as christ, until they had eaten of the blessed bread, which he blessed for them and gave to them, and their eyes were opened, and they knew him. By this great effect than it is manifest, that it was a great thing, that was given them, a thing of moche power and virtue, even that same flesh in substance, that anoincted the eyes of him that was born blind, and gave him his seight. That same flesh now opened their eyes, that now they might know him, whom before by other diverse means (as is said) they did know. To this Graecian we shall join Bede, one of the latin Church, who upon Beda in 24 Luc. the same place saith thus: Certi mysterij causa factum est, ut eye in illo alia ostenderetur effigies, & sic eum non nisi in fractione panis agnoscerent, ne quisquam se Christum agnovisse arbitretur, si eius corporis particeps non est, id est, Ecclesiae, cuius unitatem in sacramento panis commendat Apostolus, dicens: unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus, ut cùm eis benedictum panem porrigeret, aperirentur oculi eorum, ut agnoscerent eum. Because No man knoweth christ except he be a member of his body, that is, of his Church. of a certain mystery it was done that an other likeness or form should be showed to them in him and so they should not know him but in the breaking of bread, least any man might think himself to have known christ if he be not partaker of his body, that is, of his Church. The unity whereof the Apostle setteth forth in the Sacrament of bread, saying: All we being many are one bread, and one body: that when he gave to them the blessed bread, their eyes should be open, that they might know him. Thusfarre Bede. Of whom we learn that it was not done as a matter to no purpose, that christ showed himself unto them in a strange likeness, but to open a mystery, which is, that no man can know christ, except he be a member of his Church, and be in the unity thereof. And that they might be in that unity, he gave them the blessed bread, which is the Sacrament of unity, and then were their eyes opened, and they knew him. Thus as Theophilact said by express words, that christ gave them his flesh whereby to open their eyes, so Bede saith, that he gave them the blessed bread, which is the Sacrament of unity, meaning that blessed bread that Theophilact calleth the flesh of christ, which (saith he) he gave them and then their eyes were opened. Of both these than we are taught, that christ gave unto the two Disciples in Emaus not common and bare bread, but the Sacrament. THE SIX AND SIXTITH CHAP. proveth the same by saint Augustine and Chrysost. AS Theophilact is the follower of chrysostom so is Bede of S. Augustine. Wherefore as we have heard the minds of these two as disciples: so will we hear the minds of the other as masters. S. Augustine writing of the consent and agreement of the Evangelists August. de consens. evang. li. 3. cap. 25. saith thus of this matter: Non enim incongruenter accipimus hoc impedimentum in oculis eorum à Sathana fuisse ne agnosceretur jesus, sed tantùm à Christo propter eorum sidem ambiguam facta permissio usque ad sacramentum panis, ut unitate corporis eius participata, removeri intelligatur impedimentum inimici ut Christus posset agnosci. We do not incongruentlie take this impediment in their eyes to have The bread that Christ blessed and delivered to the disciples in Emaus was the B. Sacram. been done by Satan, that jesus should not be known. But of christ it was only permitted for their doubtful faith until they came to the Sacrament of bread, that the unity of his body being participated, it might be perceived that the impediment of the enemy was removed, that christ might be known. Thus much S. Aug. Of whom this is without difficulty to be learned that the bread that christ blessed, and gave to the Disciples was the Sacrament. For so by that name doth he call it. Whereunto when he addeth the effect, that after the receipt of that Sacrament, the impediment of Satan was removed, their sight was illumined, and christ before unknown, was then well known: he doth signify unto us that they there received him that is the true light, that lighneth every man that cometh into the world. Which thing more plainly Chrisostom doth open, upon Matthew thus saying: Quia de sanctis coepimus dicere, non est tacendum, quin aliud est sanctificatio, aliud sanctificatum. Sanctificatio Chrysost. hom. 17. in Matth. enim est quod alterum sanctificat. Sanctificatum autem alterum sanctificare non potest, quamuis ipsum sit sanctisicatum. ut puta signas panem tuum quem manducas, sicut ait Paulus, Sanctificatur enim per verbum Dei & orationem. Sancttificasti eum, non fecisti sanctificacionem. Quòd autem sacerdos de manu sua dat, non solùm sanstificatum est, sed etiam sanctificatio est, quoniam hoc solùm non datur quod videtur, sed etiam illud quod intelligitur. De sanctificato ergo pane licet animalibus iactare, & infidelibus dare, quia non sanctisicat accipientem. Si autem tale esset, quod de manu sacerdotis accipitur, quale est quod de mensa manducatur, omnes de mensa manducarent, & nemo de manu sacerdotis acciperet. unde Dominus non solùm in via benedixit panem, sed de manu sua dedit Cleophae & socio eius. Et paulus navigans non solùm benedixit panem, sed de manu sua porrexit Lucae & caeteris Discipulis suis. Because we have begun to speak of holy things, it is not Sanctification and the thing sanctified be diverse. to be left unspoken, but that sanctification is one thing, and the thing sanctified is an other. Sanctification is that sanctifieth an other thing, but the thing sanctified can not sanctify an other thing, although it be sanctified, as for example, if makest a cross upon thy bread, which thou eatest, as S. Paul saith, It is sanctified by the word of God and prayer: Tow have The blessed Sacr. a sanctified thing and sanctification also. sanctified it, but thou have not made sanctification. But that the priest giveth from his hand, it is not only a sanctified thing, but also it is sanctification. For not only that is given that is seen, but also that that is understanded. Then it is lawful to cast of the sanctified bread to beasts, and to give of it to infidels, because it doth not sanctify the receiver. But if that which is taken of the hand of the priest were such a thing as that, that is eaten of the board, all would eat of the board, and no man would receive of the priests hand. Wherefore our Lord also, did not only bless the bread in the way but gave with his own hand to Cleophas and his fellow. And Paul sailing did not only bless the bread, but also with his hand gave to Luke and his other Disciples. Thus far he. In this place of chrysostom three things are, as concerning the matter of the Sacrament to be noted. The first is, that he saith, that it that the priest A plin place for real presence against M. jewel. giveth with his hand is not only a sanctified thing, but also sanctification it self, that is, both a thing made holy, and also the thing it self that doth make holy. In that he saith that the thing that the priest giveth with his hand, is it that sanctifieth other things, or maketh other things holy, what else can be understanded but Christ'S blessed body, who is our sanctification, justification and redemption, as saith S. Paul, who being there, sanctifieth the worthy receruers? forasmuch now as chrysostom saith that this sanctification, this thing, that maketh other things holy is given by the priests hands and it can not be understanded of christ spiritually received, for that is not given by the priests hand, I would the Adversary would answer directly, where this sanctification resteth? where it is, whether it be in the bread or in the priest. For sith he saith that it is given by the hand of the priest, it must be either in the priest, that giveth it, or in the thing that is given. No man will say that that great power to sanctify other is in the priest. for it is the proper act of God, as he himself withnesseth, Exod. 31. saying: Ego Dominus qui sanctifico vos. It is I your Lord, which do sanctify you. So that the priest doth not the act, he sanctifieth not, but he delivereth the sanctification. If in the Sacrament were nothing but bread (as the adversary teacheth) this sanctification could not by his own doctrine be in it. For the bread being a dumb creature is not apt to receive sanctification, as he saith. Then it remaineth that the Adversary must of force confess, that sith there is a thing given by the hand of the priest, in which resteth this sanctification, and it is proved that it neither can be the priest, nor the bread, it can be none other but the body of christ in the Sacrament, which never being separated from the God head is even he, that sanctifieth us. And this is not to be overpassed that Chrisostom saith that that, which the priest giveth is both a sanctified thing, and the sanctification also, whereby Both parts of the▪ Sacr. opened. he doth fully open both parts of the Sacrament, namely what it was as bread and wine, which now being sanctified, are thereby turned into sanctification it self, that is, into the body and blood of christ, Of the which thing in effect S. Augustine saith: Qui cùm per manus hominum ad illam visibilem speciem perducïtur, non sanctificatur ut fiat tam magnum sacramentum, nisi in visibiliter operant Spiritu Dei. When the bread by the hands of men is brought to that visibile form, it is not sanctified, that it may be made so great a Sacrament, but by the invisible work of the holy Ghost. In that he saith it is sanctified, he openeth the first word of Chrysostom, who calleth it sanctificatum, a thing made holy. In that he saith that it is made so great a Sacrament by the invisible work of the holy Ghost: he openeeh the other word of chrysostom calling it sanctification. For by the work of the holy Ghost it is sanctified to be the body of christ, who (as is said) is our sanctification, that is, he that sanctifieth us. And for affirmation of the giving of this sanctifying thing by the hand of the But if it be lawful for us to follow every act of christ done for our example and instruction, than we may receive under both kinds, and we may lausullie receive under one kind, but diversely. For as christ when he did institute it, did it as a solemn action of or for the memorial of his passion and death, which by his ministers should be srequented in his Church, until he came again, and therefore though the number that believed priests doing the solemn action of the memorial of Christ'S passion in their masses aught to receive under both kinds. both men and women was great, yet he called none to this manner of ministration but the XII. Apostles who were priests, signifying thereby that all priests, that should in his Church do this solemn action before his people for the memorial of his passion and death, should do it under both kinds, as thereby to signify unto the faithful, that in the passion of christ, the blood of that blessed body was separated and divided from that body, and ran out plentiful to wash away our filthy sins: Even so they that be priests, and according to the office of priests, do this public ministery in the setting forth of this memorial of Christ'S death, must according to Christ'S institution have and receive the blessed Sacraments under both kinds. Which thing the catholic Church never hath nor doth pretermit, but inviolably observeth, having there in, as it is meit a special re●arde to Christ'S institution. In the other time of Christ'S ministration of the Sacrament of his body to the two disciples, as the Gospel maketh no mention that it was done as a solemn action of or for the remembrance of Christ'S passion or death, but raither as a mean to work them a benefit, to remove the impediment of Satan, which letteth them to know christ, and so to open their eyes that they might know him, and therefore received the Sacrament but under Private psons their spiritual cosort may lawfully receive under one kind as the disciples did in eman's. bishops priests and all of the clergy not doing the public action, receive under one kind. one kind: Even so private persons that for their spiritual comfort in christ, for the enkendling of the fire of God's love in them, for the godly exercise of their faith, for their incorporation into christ, for their strength and defence against the assaults and temptations of the enemy, or in extremes for their voyage meat the better to walk their journey, do receive the blessed Sacrament, may very well, according to Christ'S example receive it under one kind, as those disciples did. Wherefore all Bishops, all priests, and all other of the clergy, whensoever they receive as private persons, that is, when they do not that public ministration and solemn action of Christ'S memorial for and before the Church, then do they, as all other do, receive under one kind, contenting themselves in their so doing by the example of christ as is afore said. As christ by his doings hath left us an example what we may lawfully do as concerning the receipt of the blessed Sacrament, by which the Proclaimer is answered, for that part of his objection, that objecteth Christ'S institution: So shall we now answer for that he objected of Saint Paul, He saith that the words of Saint Paul are sufficient also to prove that the Sacrament aught to be received of all men under both kinds. It is a plain matter that Saint Paul maketh no special institution of the Sacrament, but only maketh a proclaimers 〈…〉 of S. Paul for receiving under both kinds anuswered. rehearsal of Christ'S institution, than this part of his objection may be answered with that that is said to his objection of Christ'S institution, forsomuch as this is but a rehearsal of that. But yet shall we to the furtherance of the truth make a farther answer. Wherefore understand that although S. Paul did deliver to the Corynthians the institution of christ as then delivered under both kinds: yet S. Paul teacheth not, that of necessity it must always be used in both kinds and no other. For if he had taught it with an exclusive excluding all other manner but this, it had some force. But so he doth not. The scope of S. Paul's doctrine resteth in these two points: that the Sacrament be received The scope of S. Paul touching the Sacra. 1. Cor. 11. in the remembrance of Christ'S death: And that it be received worthily. Wherefore I say, that so far wide it was from the mind of S. Paul, by his doctrine there taught to forbid the receipt of the Sacrament under one kind, that as christ did to his two disciples in Emaus, so did S. Paul to Luke and his fellows in the ship (as chrysostom witnesseth) give the Sacrament under the one kind of bread. Although these acts of christ, and Saint Paul are sufficient to prove that the receipt of the Sacrament under one kind is lawful and good, in manner above said: yet the same may also appear by the other place of the acts alleged in the last chapter. Where also mention is made that the Sacrament was ministered under one kind, namely of bread, no title of mention made of the other kind. And beside the good catholic men that do understand this place of the Sacrament, the Waldenses also did so understand it. Then sith the multitude of the faithful even immediately after the coming Acto. 2. of the holy Ghost, did receive the Sacrament under one kind, it is manifest that it may without offence be done and used now in Christ'S Church, and may not be reputed, as it is of the Proclaimer, for an unlawful fact. For he that impugneth the Church for doing of that, that the scripture showeth the example, and saith that the act of the Church is unlawful, impugneth the scriptures, and importeth that they be unlawful. These acts of christ and Saint Paul, and the doing of the multitude in the second of the acts, do not abridge the first institution of christ, or take it away, as his second ordinance in sending his Apostles to preach Acto. 2. taketh away the first: but they do raither teach, that out of the solemn action of Christ'S memorial, which must be done under both kinds of him that doth that action, other may very well receive the Sacrament under one kind. And as it may be done because the scriptures say, it hath been done: so shall it appear to every faithful man that it is well done, if he truly conceive and understand what is doen. In the catholic faith it is taught, that after the consecration, as by many it is already testified, in the Sacrament under the form of bread is the very body of christ, and under the form of wine the very blood of christ, not in this, blood without a body: nor in that, a body without blood. For christ, as Saint Paul saith, rising from the dead, now dieth not, death shall no more have lordship over him. Now if the body were without blood, it could not be living and so should death be in the body of christ again, wherefore it is a body with blood, and so a living and a perfect body, as the holy Martyr Cyprian testisieth it to be, saying: Panis iste communis in carnem & sanguinem Domini mutatus procurat vitam This Cypr. de coena Dom, Under form of bread both flesh and blood of Chryst. Iren lib. 5. Under form of wine the body of christ. common bread changed into the flesh and blood of our Lord procureth life. The bread then changed into the flesh and blood of christ, teacheth us that it is not flesh alone, but it is both flesh and blood: So likewise under the form of wine is not the blood of christ only but the body also. Whereof we have the testimony of the ancient Martyr Irenaeus, who saith thus: Calicem qui est creatura, suum corpus consirmavit. He affirmed the cup, which is a creature to be his body. So that under each of the kinds is verily and substantially the body and blood of christ: For where a lively body is, there must be blood also: And where blood is, there must be flesh and veins also, as Irenaeus saith: Sanguis non est nisi a venis, & carnibus, & à reliqua, quae est secundum hominem, substantia. Blood is not but of the veins and flesh, and the other substance, which is as man. Wherefore I say that Iren. ihid. under each of these kinds is the body of christ. Which thing also S. bernard teacheth by express words in his sermon of the supper of our Lord, saying: Idipsum, o Christian, de vino sentias, id Bern. serm. de coen. honores in vino, quod scilicet de panis specie sensisti, & in ea honorasti. Understand even the same (o Christian) of the wine honour that in the wine, that thou diddest understand of the form of bread, and diddest honour in it. And where Melancton saith, that this necessity that where the body is, there must be blood, and where the blood is, there of necessity must be the body: is but men's inventions and traditions having a countenance of truth, but not the thing: Thowe seest (Reader) that we stand not upon fantasies, but we stand and stay upon the authority of the great ancient Fathers, and holy Martyrs. Saint Irenaeus, S. Cyprian, and S. bernard, who teach what in this point is to be said. And therefore Melancton, and his likes saying that the one kind is but half the Sacrament, and dividing christ confess him not to be wholly under each kind cleaveth to his fantasies, and singular devices, and followeth not the doctrine of the Fathers. But we saying Vale to Melancton and his invention we cleave to the substantial, and ancient doctrine of the Fathers, and by that we conclude, Whole Christ being under each kind, the people be not defrauded receiving but one kind. that the body and blood of christ is necessarily under each kind, as wholly and perfectly under the one as under the other. And uless as the Godhead joined to christ in unity of person is inseparable from the manhood, therefore it followeth of necessity also that the body being under each kind the godhead that hath taken to it self the same body, is with the same body under each kind, and so under each kind is whole christ God and man. And being so, he is there with all his gifts, graces, merits, and virtues. Wherefore he that receiveth the Sacrament under one kind, receiveth will christ, God and man. And if he receive it worthily, receiveth him with his gifts and graces, according to the measure of the gift of christ. Now then perceiving what is done in the receipt of the Sacrament, under one kind, namely that there is received whole christ God and man with all his gifts and graces as fully and perfectly, as if both kinds were received, so that the receiver is nothing defrauded of the effect of the Sacrament: it may be perceived that so to receive is well done and lawfully doen. If it be then asked, why christ did institute the Sacrament under both kinds, if it be sufficient to receive the one: the answer is made why Christ instituted the Sacr. under both kinds before, that he did institute the Sacrament under both kinds to be frequented as the solemn memorial of his passion, and death, in the presence of his Church yet he himself ministered under one kind to declare that to private men he leaveth it indifferent to receive under one or both. Thus much is said upon the scripture for the receiving of the blessed Sacrament under one kind. THE EIGHT AND SIXTETH CHAPTER, proveth the same receipt under one kind to be lawful by the ancient practice of the Church. AS the enemies of Christ'S Church in the subversion of Boemia, rejoiced that they had sound out (as they thought) some notable error in the Church, which is (as they would have it understanded) directly against the scriptures, namely the receiving of the Sacrament under one kind, against this saying of christ in Saint john. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you. So the Adversaries of Christ'S Church in these our days likewise rejoice, and in their own conceit triumph against the same, saying that it erreth, and doth directly both against the plain institution of christ, who did institute the same Sacrament under two kinds, and so gave it forth to be received: and also against the use and example of the primitive Church, which did minister the same many hundredth years after christ under both kinds. Among these the Proclaimer singeth a part, and saith, that the Communion under both kinds was used throughout the whole Church six hundredth years proclaimers objection of the practice of the primitive church. after Christ'S ascension without exception. But for the proof of this his saying he bringeth in but a little fragment of Gelasius an old Father of the Church, and a Bishop of Rome, which is this: Divisio unius eiusdemue mysterij sine grandi sacrilegio non potest pervenire. The division of one very mystery, can not be done without great sacrilege. But as the one part of their wicked slander is already declared to be untrue, for that to receive the Sacrament under one kind, as is said, is not against the scriptures: So shall it be made as plain that the other is as untrue, for that ye shall evidently see the practice and examples of the primitive Church in diverse ages to have used the Sacrament under one kind. But first we shall answer the objection, that the Proclaimer maketh by Gelasius. For the which it is to be understanded, that the heresy Gelasius his meening opened. of the manichees, which began in the time of Belix the five and twentieth Bishop of Rome after Saint Peter, in the year of our Lord two hundredth, seventieth and two: continued to the time of Gelasius, who ruled the Church of Rome, the year of our Lord four hundredth, neinteth and four which heresy, as Saint Augustine did with great labour, and like learning impugn: so did diverse holy Fathers, and rulers of Christ'S Church travail, for it did moche vex the Church, to repress and utterly to extinguish it. Now in the time of Gelasius, there were many of them in Rome, who using dissimulation to cloak their heresy, came among the Christian Manicheis how they dissimuled in receiving the Saer. people to the receipt of the Sacrament. But for that they believed that christ had no very natural body of man born of the Virgin Marie, but a fantastical body, therefore they contented themselves to receive the Sacrament under the form of bread, they wickedly phantasieng it, as a memorial of the fantastical body of christ. But when they should come to receive the Sacrament under the form of wine, they conveyed themselves away, because, they believed that the body of christ, which as is said, they did take to be fantastical, had no blood. And therefore they would receive no Sacrament of his blood. The Eutychians also Eutychians their heresy denying the human nature to abide in christ, and therefore to have any perfect natural body in the Sacrament, joined at that time with the manichees, and with like dissimulation contenting themselves to receive the Sacrament under the form of bread, as the Sacrament of a certain divine, and heavenly body, they, as the other did, sledd from the receipt of the other kind, phantasieng no blood to be in such a body. Of which their wicked doings, Gelasius having intelligence to the intent they might be discerned and well known from the true christians, and so to be deprehended, he made a like decree, as before him, for the same purpose, and against the same men, did the holy Father Leo the first, Bishop of Rome not many years before Gelasius. The very words of which Leo to the better understanding of the matter, I think very necessary to ascribe, and they be these: Abducant se Sacramento salutis humanae & Christum Dominum nostrum, sicut in veritate carnis nostrae denegant natum, Leoser. 4. de quadr. ita mortuum verè, & resurrexisse non credunt, & ob hoc diem salutis nostrae, & laetitiae nostrae sui ieiunij moerore condemnant. Cumue ad tegendum infidelitatem suam nostris audeant interesse mysterijs, ita in Sacramentorum communione se temperant, ut interdum tutius lateant. o'er indigno Christi corpus accipiunt sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae haurire omnino declinant. Quod ideo vestram volumus scire sanctitatem, ut vobis huiusmodi homines & ijs manisestentur indicijs, & quorum depraehensa fuerit sacrilega simulatio, notati & proditi, à sanctorum societate, sacerdotali authoritate pellantur. They with draw themselves from the Sacrament of the health of man. And as they deny christ our Lord to be borne in the verity of our nature: So do they not believe him to have been verily dead, and risen again. And therefore do they condemn the day of our health and gladness, with the sadness of their fasting. manichees fasted on the sunday And when to cover their infidelity, they are so bold to be at the ministration of our mysteries, to the intent they may be the longer unknown, they temper themselves so in the communion of the Sacraments, That with unworthy mouth they receive the body of christ, but to drink A plain place for real presence against the Proclaimer the blood of our redemption they utterly refuse. Which thing we will your holiness to understand, that these manner of men by these tokens may be known, and whose sacrilegall dissimulation is perceived being disclosed, and noted they may be by the priestly authority banished from the so cietie or fellowship of true Christian people. In these words ye may learn the heresies of the manichees, ye may perceive their wicked dissimulation, ye may understand the very cause why they would not receive the Sacrament under the form of wine, finally ye may perceive to what purpose both kinds were commanded to be received, namely that soche cloaked heretics might by such means be disclosed and known. Now Gelasius succeading this man, and finding this of springe of vipers not yet destroyed, he followed him in pronowncing against them, as he did follow him in time and government, and said thus: Comperimus Gelasius. autem, quòd quidam sumpta tantùm sacri corporis portione, à calice sacrati cruoris abstineant, qui procul dubiò (quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi) aut integra Sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur, quia divisio unius eiusdemue mysterij sine grandi facrilegio non potest pervenire. We certainly find, that certain men, when they have received the portion of the holy body, they do abstain from the cup of the holy blood, who uless as I know not by what superstition they are taught so to be Portion of the holy body and cup of the holy blood. withholden, let them without all doubt either receive the whole Sacraments, or else let them be forbidden from the whole. For the division of one very mystery can not be done without great sacrilege. Thus he, Now if ye will refer this sentence of Gelasius to the sentence of Leo, ye shall perceive that Gelasius writeth not against the doing of the catholic Church receiving the Sacrament under one kind. But against the Manychies, who by their heresy divided the blessed mystery of christ, and teaching that he had but a fantastical body, denied any very blood to be in it, And therefore in their dissembling manner receiving one kind as a Sacrament of such fantastical body, as they phantasied him to have, they refused the other kind as a Sacrament of his blood, and so in their conceit they divided the blood from the body, and so divided the mystery, which (as Gelasius saith) can not be done without great sacrilege, which thing every good catholic affirmeth and embraceth. For if ye will call to remembrance, it is declared in the last chapter that the catholic Church teacheth that the very body and blood of christ, even whole christ, God and man is under each kind, so that we Doctrine of the catholic church touching each kind of the Sacr. make no division of the body from the blood, or of the blood from the body: or of the godhead from the manhood, or of the manhood from the godhead, but we teach the whole very body, and the whole very blood, whole God, and whole man jointelie to be in these Sacraments of Christ'S body and blood, albeit the one is more principally the Sacrament of his body, and the other more principally the Sacrament of his blood. Weigh then therefore that these sainges were not spoken against Catholics, but against heretics, that by their wicked heresy divided the blood of christ from his body, phantasieng him a body without blood, which in deed is a great sacrilege: than it is spoken against such manner of heretics, why doth this Proclaimer so wrest and wring this Author to make him appear to the unlearned that he spoke against the catholic use of one kind in the Church, when the Author hath not one title against it? Both kinds were commanded to be used. But why? Not that one kind were not sufficient, but that those heretics (as Leo saith) might thereby be known, and therefore was it expedient at that time to be commanded to the confutation of that heresy, as in the councils of constance, and basil it was expedient to be done under one kind for the confutation of such heresies, as Wycleff, and hus, had raised. And as these things have been altered as it hath been thought good to the Church for the wealth of God's people, and the confutation of his enemies: So is this commanded but for a time, and may be altered as occasion shall serve, but not by every private man, but by the Church only. But will ye besides all this wresting of this Author see also the sincerity or raither the false sleight of this Proclaimer, who to deceive his audience, would not faithfully bring in the whole saying of the Author, as I have now doen. But brought in half a score of the last words, and left out (I think I may say) of very purpose an whole score that go before, because they made so moche against him, that he durst not for shame bring them wholly in. For in the former words be two things very plainly taught against Gelasius truncatlie alleged by the Proclaimer avoucheth two things against him, which he concealed. him. The first is the very real presence of Christ'S body and blood, in that he so reverently calleth the Sacrament under one kind the portion of the holy body, and the other he calleth, the cup of the holy blood. As this is spoken reverently: So is it spoken plainly. For when he saith that they abstain from the cup of the holy blood, he plainly teacheth that the content of the cup is holy blood, which holy blood is not mere spiritual. For that, as it is diverse times said, is not contained in extern or outward material vessels, but in the inward spiritual vessels. And although this one part of the Authors saying, which the Proclaimer left out, doth prove the real presence: Yet mark an other as affectual as this, which is, that he saith, that these wicked men, these Manychies, against whom he pronounced this sentence, did receive the holy body. Of the which men also Leo said: o'er indigno Christi corpus accipiunt. They with unworthy mouth, receive the body of christ. If they received the holy body, forsomoche as they did not, being evil men, receive the holy body spiritually, it argueth invincibly that they received the holy body corporally. The second thing, that he teacheth is, the he calleth not these two kinds, Sacramentum, a Sacrament: But Sacramenta, Sacraments, in the Each kind an whole Sacram. plorall number: Signifying thereby that each of them is an whole Sacrament. And by this be answered the fond sainges of the Adversary, which he useth against the catholic Church saying, that her priests give unto the people but half a Sacrament, or a piece of a Sacrament, a truncate Sacrament, and such like. Where by this proclaimers Author, at the least by him produced, it is manifest that the people receiving one kind receive an whole Sacrament, and not a piece: They receive whole christ and not half, or a piece of christ. By this than it may be perceived that the Author which the Proclaimer hath truncatelie alleged against the catholic Church, being wholly produced and truly understanded maketh all together against him. Soche is the synceretie of the man in the handling of the doctors, that bringing in ten words that seemed, but in deed made nothing for him, he left out thirty that directly made so moche, and so plainly against him, that I dare say, he was ashamed, and his conscience much rebuked to bring them in. But why should not he use his false shelft in them now as well as Melanchton did his false corruption before? He than being thus fully answered: we will now see the practice of the Church for the receiving under one kind, that his truth may as well be perceived in this, as his falsehood is in the other. For introduction people in the primitive church earned home the Sacr. to receive it in their houses secretly. where unto it is to be understanded, that in the primitive Church were many, and great persecutions moved against the christians, by reason of which they could not but seldom come together to common prayer, and ministration of the Sacraments, wherefore the priest at such time as they might meet delivered them of the Sacrament wrapped in fair limans clothes to carry home with them, that where they could not when they would receive the Sacrament at the hand of the priest in their common assemblies, yet they might secretly at home receive it by their own hands. And this could be none other, but the Sacrament under the form of bread. The plain practice whereof we find declared by Tertullian, who writing to his wife, and dissuading her from the marriage of any infidel after his decease, useth her private receipt of the Sacrament, as a thing to dissuade her buy, saying: Non sciet maritus, quid secretò ante omnem cibum gusles? & si sciverit, Li 2. ad uxorcia. Practices of the primitive church proving aswell real presence, as reservation and private or sole receipt of the blessed Sac. panem, non illum credit esse qui dicitur. Shall not thy husband, know what thou dost eat secretly before all meat? and if he do know it, he will not believe it to be that bread, that it is said to be. As who might say. where ye use in the mornings secrety, and fasting to receive the Sacrament, which I being a Christian man, and your husband ye may very well do, but if I die either by natural death or by persecution for my faith, which in this time is like, if after my decease, ye marry with an infidel, will not he (think you) perceive what you do secretly receive when ye be fasting, and so perchance forbid ye so to do, or if he suffer you: yet this incommodity and grief ye shall have, that where ye take it, and believe it (as it is in deed) a great mystery, he will not regard it, neither will he believe it to be any other thing than bread. By this than it is manifest, that this was a practice of the primitive Church to receive the Sacrament under one kind, that was under the form of bread, which might best be reserved, and that they did it secretly alone without any number of Communicantes, as hereafter also more at large shall be snewed. For this private manner of the receipt of the Sacrament Saint basil giveth a notable testimome. Who writing to a godly woman, that for the reverence that she bore to the blessed Sacrament feared to receive the same into her hands, as then the use was, and to carry it home (as it is said) in a fair linen clothe, and to reserve it to receive when devotion should move her, without the ministration of the priest, saith thus. Illud autem in persecutionis temporibus necessitate cogi quempiam, non present sacerdote, aut ministro Communionem proprta manu sumere, nequaquam esse grave superuacaneum Bas Epist. ad Cas pat. est demonstrare. Proptereà quòd longa consuetudine hoc ipso rerum usu confirmatum est. Omnes enim in eremis solitariam vitam agentes, ubi non est sacerdos, Communionem domi servants, à seipsis communicant. In Alexandria verò & in Aegypto unusquisque eorum, qui sunt de populo, plurimùm habet Communionem in domo sua, Semel enim sacerdote sacrificium consecrante, & distribuente, meritò participare, & suscipere, credere oportet. Etenim & in Ecclesia sacerdos dat partem, & accipit eam is, qui suscipit cum omni libertate, & ipsam admovet ori propria manu. Idem igitur est virtute sive unam partem quis accipiet à sacerdote, sive p'ures parts simul. As for that not to be a grievous thing in the times of persecution, any In Alexandria and Egypt people had the Sac. in their private houses reserved man to be enforced, with his own hand to receive the Communion, the priest or Deacon not being present, it is more than needeth to prove, for because the same thing is by a long custom, and by the very use of things established and confirmed. For all they that in the wilderness Led a solitary life, reserving the Communion in their houses, where there is no priest, they communicate themselves. In Alexandria and in Egypt every one of the people for the most part have the Sacrament in their houses. When the priest hath once consecrated the sacrifice, and distributed it, we must believe that we do receive, and participate the same. For in the Church also the priest giveth part, and he that receiveth it, taketh it with all liberty, and with his own hand putting it to his mouth. It is therefore all one thing in virtue of power, whether a man take one part of the priest or many parts together. Thus much he. Omitting to note unto you here in Saint basil. how the Sacrament was reserved in the houses of the Christian people to receive as their devotion moved them, which invincibly and most plainly affirmeth and proveth that the Adversary denieth, namely that the Sacrament ought to be reserved: I wish you to note for that that is before said, that Saint basil saith, that in the times of persecution the people received the Sacrament at home by themselves, when they had once received it at the priests hands. And this Saint basil wisheth to be taken as no strange thing, for that they in Alexandria and Egypt, yea and all such as lived solitarelie in wilderness had the Sacrament at home with them, and did communicate themselves. Which thing was not lately practised, but it is a thing established and confirmed by ancient use and custom long before the time of Saint basil. And being long before Saint basil I trust the Adversary will grant that it was an accustomed practice of the primitive Church to reserve the Sacrament, and to receive it under one kind, for that in those hot countries such small portions of wine will not be kept conveniently in their own kind such long time, as they were forced to reserve the Sacrament in the wilderness and else where. If you desire a more plain testimony for this receipt under one kind hearken to Saint Cyprian, who writeth thus: present ac teste meipso, accipite quid evenerit. Parents fortè fugientes, dum trepidi minus consulunt sub nutricis alimento Cypr ser. 5. de lapsis. par●ulam siliam reliquerunt. Relictam nutrix detulit ad magistratus. Illi ei apud idolum quò populus consoluebat, quòd carnem necdum posset edere per aetatem, panem mero mixtum (quod tamen & ipsum de immolatione pereuntium superat) tradiderunt. Recepit siliam postmodum matter. Sed facinus puella commissum tam loqui & indicare non potuit, quam nec intelligere prius potuit, nec arcere. Ignoratione igitur obreptum est, ut sacrificantibus nobis, eam secum matter inferret. Sed enim puella mixta cum sanctis, precis nostrae & orationis impatiens, nunc ploratu concuti, nunc mentis estu sluctuabunda iactari, velut tortore cogente, quibus poterat indicijs conscientiam sacti in simplicibus adhuc annis, rudis anima fatebatur. Vbi verò solemnibus adimpletis calicem Diaconus offerre praesentibus coepit, & accipientibus caeteris, locus eius advenit, faciem suam paruulainstinctu maiestatis divinae avertertere, os labijs obturantibus premere, calicem recusare. Perstitit tamen Diaconus, & reluctanti licet, de Sacramento calicis infudit. Tunc sequitur singultus, in corpore atque ore violato Eucharistia permanere non potuit. Sanctisicatus in Domini sanguine potus de pollutis visceribus erupit. Hear what happened myself being present and witness. The parents of a child flienge Of a child that received of the wine offered to idols, and afterward the B. Sac. by chance, while in their fear they took not good adwisement, left their little daughter at nourcing. The nurse brought the little one so left unto the officers. They before an idol, where the people were gathered, did deliver unto the same little one, because it could not as yet for lack of age eat flesh, a sop dipped in the wine, which remaineth of the immolation or sacrifice of the idolaters. Afterward the mother received her daughter. But the girl could not speak, and declare the offence committed. even as before she could not understand it, nor withstand and let it, it fell out therefore by ignorance, that while we were doing sacrifice, the mother brought her in with her. But truly the girl being among holy people, and not able to abide our supplications and prayers, sometime was constrained to cry out, sometime with vehement griefs of mind tossed here and there, and even as the tortoure had forced her, the ignorant soul by such tokens as she could, did knowledge or confess the conscience of the fact in these her tender years. And when the solemn service was fulfiled the deacon began to offer the cup to them that were present, and other receiving it, her place came to receive. The little one even by the motion The Sacr. was ministered to this child under one kind. of the divine majesty, turned away her face, stopped her mouth with holding her lips together, and refused the cup. The deacon notwithstanding persisted, and even against her will powered in to her of the Sacrament of the cup. Then ensued boakinge and vomit. The Sacrament could not abide in that desiled body and mouth, The sanctified drink in the blood of our Lord, burst out of the polluted bowels. Thus far he. For the better understanding of S. Cyprian observe that in his time, and so to the time of S. August. it was in use to minister the Sacrament unto infants being chrystened, as to other of perfect age? And yet it was to this child ministered not under both kinds, but under the form of wine only. For if it had been ministered before under the form of bread, the like effect should have followed in the child that followed upon that other kind, both kinds being of one virtue might and power. Wherefore it was ministered under one kind, that was under the form of wine, Of this manner of ministration under one kind we find a goodly testimony also of the practice of the Church in the time of chrysostom, reported in the history of Sozomenus in this manner. joanne Constantmopolitanam Ecclesiam optimè gubernante, vir quidam è Macedoniana haeresi, uxorem eiusdem opinionis habebat. Eccl. hist. li. 8. cap. 5. Hic, cùm joannem quomodò de Deo sentiendum esset, docentem audisset, dogma illius laudabat, & uxorem quoque ut secum sentiret hortabatur. Cùm verò illa magis nobilium mulierum sermonibus, quam illius consuetudini obtemperaret, & post frequentes admonitiones vir illius nihil effecisset: Nisi (inquit) in divinis consors fueris, neque in vitae communione posthac eris. Mulier hoc audito, & consensum simulatè policita, rem eam famulae cuidam communicate, quam fidam sibi esse iudicabat, illiusue opera ad fallendum virum uritur. Circa tempus autem mysteriorum (sciunt initiati quid sit quod dico) illa quod accepit continens, quasi oratura procumbit. Famula astans clanculum illi dat, quod secum in manu attulerat. Hoc cùm dentibus admoveretur in lapidem congelascit. Mulier perterrefacta, metuens ne quid sibi mali propter eam rem, quae divinitus acciderat, contingeret, ad Episcopum cursu contendit, ac seipsam prodens lapidem ostendit, adhuc morsi vestigia habentem & materiam incognitam, coloremue admirabilem ostendentem, simulue veniam cum lachrimis petens, viro suo consensuram se policetur. Quodsi hoc cuipiam incredibile videtur lapis iste testis est, qui etiamnum inter clinodia Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae asseruatur. In the time of the good government of the church of Constantinople by The history of a woman that for the Sac. received a stone. john chrysostom, a certain man of the heresy of the Macedonians had a wife of the same opinion. This man when he had heard john Chrysostom teaching what was to be thought of God, he commended his doctrine, and exhorted his wife, that she also should be of his mind. But when she did more regard the words of noble women, than his conversation or manner in saith, and after many admonitions her husband had done no good in her, he said unto her: Except in the matters of God if be a companion with me, thou shalt not hereafter be a partaker of living with me. The woman when she had heard this, and had dissimulatelie promised to consent unto him she told the matter to a certain woman servant whom she judged to be trusty unto her, whose help she used to beguile her husband. About the time of the mysteries (they that be taught the faith, know what I say) she keeping still that she had taken, falleth down, as though she would pray. This woman recaaved under one kind only Her woman servant standing by her giveth unto her priveily, that she had brought in her hand: which thing when she had put to her teeth it congealed into a stone. The woman being astoined, fearing lest some evil should happen her for that thing, which by God's power had chanced, she goeth with speed to the Bishop, and accusing herself, she showeth the stone, having yet the marks or prints of her biting, and showing an unknown matter and a marvelous colour, and withal desiring with tears forgiveness she promiseth to agree to her husband. If this thing seem to any man incredible, this stone is witness of the matter, which until this day is kept in the Church of Constantinople. As this history is notable: so for the purpose it is evident that the Sacrament was ministered under one kind, that was under the form of bread. For the woman taking that in her hand, and not minding to receive it kept that still and took some other thing of her servant to eat, and so thought to have beguiled her husband, so their was but one kind received. To be short, as of the learned it is testifieth, the manner of receiving under one kind, which is used in all the latin Church upon good friday, on The manner of receiving under one kind upon good friday used in the primitive Church. which day the priest receiveth the host consecrated upon Mawndie thursday, hath been so used from the primitive Church. whereby as by that that is before said also, it doth well appear, that the receiving under one kind, hath been practised in the primitive Church, notwithstanding the false report of the Proclaimer. Wherefore, Reader, be not deceived with such brags of untruth. For though he hath said it, he neither doth nor can prove it, but stand thou to the doctrine of the catholic Church, who what she teacheth, she proved to be true, as by this matter though dost perceive. Thus having now ended the scriptures of the Gospel, with thanks to God, we end this second book, praying that it may be to his honour, and to the profit of the Readers. Amen. THE third BOOK. THE FIRST CHAPTER ENTERETH BY PREface into the first text of saint Paul that toucheth the Sacrament and expwndeth it according to the letter. DIdymus, of whom, for that he was a famous learned man, saint Hierom desired to be taught and instructed, in his first book of the holy Ghost (which work is translated by saint Hierom) considering how great a matter it was to treacte of li. 1. de Spiritu sancto. Divine things are with reverence anc diligence to be handled. divine things, and that therefore they aught with reverence to be used, he saith thus: Omnibus quidem, quae divina sunt, cum reverentia, & vehementi cura oportet intendere. We must with reverence and great care, diligently look unto all things that be divine. Wherefore minding by God's aid, to proceed in treacting of the blessed Sacrament of the body and blood of christ, and of the presence of the same our Saviour jesus christ, weary God and very man in that Sacrament, with other matters thereunto appertaining, which be in deed divine matters, I wish not only unto myself in the writing, but also to the reader in the reading, that reverence, that to each of us appertaineth. Before in the beginning of the first book. And for my part considering what I have already written as concerning the holy scriptures, that they be hard and dark, so that (as saint Hierom saith) Sine praevio & monstrante semitam ingredi non possumus, without a fore guide and a shower, we can not enter the right path of them. And for so much also as there is (the more pity) so great controversy of the matter to be treacted of: I will not be so rash and irreverent to the scriptures, Jrens. li. 3. ca 4. to handle them, wrist them, and abuse them after mine own fantasy, but I will (as Irenaeus advertiseth) have recoverse to the eldest churches, and learn of them the truth, and true meaning of such scriptures, as be called in question about the matter of the said Sacrament, of the which I Doubts in controversies where to be dissolved. shall now treacte. Quid enim? & si quando de aliqua quaestione modica deceptatio esset, nun in antiquissimas oportet recurrere ecclesias, in quibus Apostoli conversati sunt, & ab eye de praesenti quaestione sumere, quod certum, & rei liquidum est. What? if at any time there be a deceptation of a little matter, must we not run or have recourse to the eldest churches in the which the Apostles were conversant, and of them to take that that is certain and plain? This Ibidem. holy Father giveth so moche unto the ancient Fathers, that if there were no scriptures he saith, we should follow the order of tradition, which the Apostles have delivered unto them. Quid autem si neque Apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent nobis, nun oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quem tradiderunt his quibus committebant ecclesias? What (saith Irenaeus) if neither the Apostles had left us scriptures, did it not behove us to follow the order of Tradition it to be followed. tradition, which they delivered unto those, to whom they committed the churches? Thus Irenaeus. In which sentence of this holy Martyr we are not only taught, that we aught to repair to the Fathers to have our doubts dissolved, and so to learn of them how the Scriptures are to be understanded but also for traditions that be not written in the scriptures, for the report of which, as well as for such as be in the scriptures, we must credit the Fathers. So that it is of this holy martyr to be learned, how moche the elders are to be esteemed, how moche to be credited, and how Which fathers are to be consulted with in controversies. for certain knowledge of things that be in doubt and controversy they must be consulted with, which were in the ancient church before the controversy was ever moved. Of the which matter we read a like counsel in the tripartite history. Therefore as heretofore I have not used mine own judgement or fantasy in the exposition of such scriptures as Li. 9 ca 19 do speak of this mystery by me treacted of: No more will I hereafter in such as shall be brought out of S. Paul for the proof and confirmation of the truth of the matter of the blessed Sacrament and the ministration thereof. And first, to take the places and sentences here to be handled, in order as they are written by saint Paul, we will begin with this: Nolo enim vos 1. Cor. 10. ignorare fratres, quontam patres nostri omnes sub nube fuerunt, & omnes mare transierunt, & omnes in Moyse baptizati sunt in nube & in mari, & omnes eandem escam spiritualem manducaverunt, & omnes cundem potum spiritualem biberunt, bibebant autem de spirituali consequent cos petra, Petra autem erat Christus. Brethren I would not that ye should be ignorant how that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the Sea, and were all baptized under Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and did all eat of one spiritual meat, and did all drink of one spiritual drink, and they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, which rock was christ. It shall not be without profit, for the better understanding of this scripture, if we do search the cause why saint Paul maketh rehearsal of such benefits, as the jews received at the hand of God, at their departure out of egypt, and in the desert. The cause is both breiflie and clearly Homel. in dictum Apostli Nolo vos ignor. declared by Chrysostom, who asketh the question, and solueth it thus: Quare, & unde incidit in hanc historiam? Increpabat eos qui temerè, & non requisiti ad Idola ingrediuntur, pollutam comedentes mensam, & tangentes Idolothyta. Et cùm ostendisset, quòd duplex damnum illi inde sustinerent, nam & insirmiores offendebant, & ipsi Daemoniorum participes erant, & cùm per praedicta satis spiritus corum humilasset, & docuisset: ostendit fidelem spectare, non solùm quae sua sunt, debre, sed & quae multorum. Volens eis incutere timorem, veterem historiam eis recenset. Siquidem & illi magna de se sentiebant, quasi sideles, & ab errore liberati, & scientiam assecuti, ineffabilium sacramentorum participes effecti, necnon & ad regnum coelorum vocati. Volens ergo declarare quòd illorum nulla sit utilitas, nisi adsit vita tantae gratiae respondens, ex veteri historia ipsos erudit. Wherefore, Why S. Paul rehearseth the benefits that the jews received, 1. Cor. 10. and from whence fell he into this story? He did rebuke them which rashly, and not being required, did enter in to the Idols, eating the defiled table, and touching things offered to Idols: And when he had showed that they by it did suffer double harm. For they both offended the weak, and thy themselves were partakers of devels. And when by the foresaid things he had sufficiently humbled their spirittes, and had taught them. He declareth that the faithful aught not only to look to those things that appertain to himself: but also to things that appertain to other many. Now willing to strike fear into them, he rehearseth good religion without good life not avaiable. the old history unto them. For they also did think moche of themselves, as that they were become faithful and delivered from error, and had obtained the knowledge of the unspeakable sacraments, and made partakers of the same, and also that they were called to the kingdom of heaven. Willing therefore to declare, that of these things there is no prositte except there be a life answering to so great grace he doth teach them out of the old history. Thus much Chrysostom. In which sentence ye perceive the cause of the rehearsal of the benefits given to the jews, and so in that place recited by saint Paul to be to put the Corinthians in fear, and to diswarde them from evil by the example of the jews, who notwithstanding the receipt of so many benefits, for that they were ingrate and disobedient, not seeking by an answerable life to please their Lord God, as he by such benefits did pleasure Benefits of the Jewesas they were figures of our benefits, so their plagues of our plagues. them, God in them had no pleasure, but plagued them, and overthrew them in the desert. Even so the Corinthians, who had received the very things and true benefits, as the Sacrament of Baptism, the holy Ghost, and had eaten the body of christ, and drunken his blood. Which benefits were figured by the benefits given to the jews, that if they would be proud, unthankful, and disobedient, and would not lead a life worthy their vocation, that God would after the gift of so many benefits and so great, as their demerittes required, have no pleasure in them, but plague them and overthrow them, as he did the jews. For as their benefits were figures of our benefits: So their plagues and punishments, we figures In 10. 1. Cor. hom 23. of our plagues and punishments, as Chrysostom saith: Quemadmodnm enim dona figurae sunt, ita & supplicia. Wherefore saint Paul saith: Haec autem infigura facta sunt nostri, ut non simus concupiscentes malorum sicut & illi concupierunt. These are figures or examples unto us, that we should not lust after evil things as they lusted. Faith with out works sufficethnot in persons of discretion. Here by the way to note, by these scriptures is overthrown the wicked heresy of them which have taught, that if a man believe in christ, and have received his sacraments, how wicked so ever his life be, he shall be saved. For here ye perceive that though the Corinthians had received the faith and the sacrament annexed to the same: yet if their life and conversation were not agreeable and answerable, that they should fall into God's displeasure, and neither faith, neither sacraments should avail them as chrysostom doth expound. The cause thus known why saint Paul recited these things, it were Four benefits of the Jews numbered. not amiss to know what things they were, and what commodity or benefit happened unto the jews by these. These things in number be four: The cloud, the Sea, Manna, and the water that flowed out of the rock. Of these four Esdras, reciting unto God his benefits showed and done, saith thus: And the read Sea diddest though divide before them 2. Esd. 9 in sunder, so that they went through the midst of the Sea dry shod, and their persecutors threwest though in to the depth as a stone in mighty waters, and leddest them on the day time in a cloudy pillar, and on the night season in a pillar of fire, to show them light in the way that they went. Thowe gavest them bread from heaven when they were hungry, and broughtest forth water for them out of the rock, when they were thirsty. The division of the read sea, whereof Esdras first maketh mention, The read Sea. shall be perceived to be a great wonderful work of God, and a great benefit to the Israelites, if the history of the same be considered. In the book of Exodus we read, that when Pharaoh king of Egypt, Exod. 14. had, according to gods commandment sent unto him by Moses, permitted the children of Israel to depart out of egypt: he being a man of wicked heart, when they were gone, with might and force prepared to follow them, and to persecute them. Whose mighttie army, and great number of horses and chariettes, when the Israelites saw poursewing them: and with all considering the great straight that they were in, having Pharaoh and his host behind them at their back, and the readd sea before them: So that there appeared unto them nothing but woeful distress, and inevitable peril of death, they were sore afraid and carried out to God. And Moses stretched out his hand over the read Sea, and God carried away the Sea, by a very strong east wind all that night, and made the Sea dry land, so that the children of Israel went through the midst of the Sea with dry feet, having the waters as a wall unto them, both on the right hand, and on the lest. And the Egyptians followed after them into the midst of the Sea, and God caused the waters to return upon them, and drowned them with their horses, and chariettes. For which great wonder Moses sang in praise to God: Flavit spiritus tuus, & operuit cos mare, submersi sunt quasi Exod. 15. plumbum in aquis vehementibus. The wind blewe, and the Sea covered them, they sank like lead in the mighty waters. filii autem Israell ambulaverunt per siccum in medio ●eius. But the children of Israel went on dry land in the midst thereof. As ye may perceive by this, what a great work of God, and how great a benefit to the jews it was that saint Paul in these few words spoke The cloud. (that all passed through the red Sea) So was it likewise that he said, that all the Fathers were under the cloud. Of the beginning of this cloud we read also in Exodus that when the children of Israel departed out of Egypt, that their journey should not be uncertain, and they wander without Exod. 13. & 14. order, the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud to lead them the way, and by night in a pillar of the fire to give them light, that they might go both by day and by night. The pillar of the cloud departed not by day, nor the pillar of sire by night out of the sight of the people. Benefits of the Cloud. This cloudy pillar was not only a guide and a leader unto the people: but it was also a bulwark of defence. For when Pharaoh with his army did persecute the children of Israel, the angel of God, which went before the host of Israel, removed and began to go behind them. And the cloudy pillar, that was before the face of them began to stand behind them, and came between the host of the Egyptians, and the host of Israel. It was also a dark cloud, and gave light by night, and all night long the one came Num. 9 not at the other. This cloud did not only now serve for the commodity of the Israelites: but further on their journey in the wilderness, it was a great benefit unto them, as we read in the book of Numbers, where we learn that it covered the Tabernacle always by day, and the similitude of fire by night. And it happened that when the cloud abode upon the tabernacle from even unto the morning, and was taken up in that morning than they iourneied. Or if the cloud tarried two days, or a month, or a long season upon the tabernacle, and remained thereon, the children of Israel abode still and iourneied not. And as soon as the cloud was taken up they iourneied. Of this cloud also speaketh the Prophet David in the psalm, reck ninge it among other as a great benefit of God given to the Israelites, Expandit nubem in protectionem eorum, & ignem ut luceret eis per noctem. Manna. He spread out a cloud to be a covering, and fire to give them light in the night season. Exd. 16. Thus this goodly benefit somewhat opened and declared, we shall do the like about the next, which is Manna. Of the which we read, that the xv. day of the second month, after the departing of the children of Israel out of the land of egypt, the whole multitude of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness, and the children of Israel said unto them: would to God we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of egypt, when we set by the flesh pots, and when we did eat bread our bellies full. For ye have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole multitude with hunger. Then said the Lord unto Moses: Be hold, I will rain bread from heaven to you, and the people shall go out and gather day by day. And in the same chapter it followeth: And in the morning the dew lay round about the host, And when the dew was fallen, behold it lay upon the ground in the wilderness small and round, and when the children of Israel saw it, they said every one to his neighbour: it is Manna. For they witted not what it was. And Moses said unto them this is the bread, which the Lord hath given you to eat. Thus God fed the children of Israel in the wilderness, where they did neither sow ne reap with this bread from heaven, of the which they had no lack. This is the meat that saint Paul speaketh of that all the fathers did eat of. This is it that is spoken of in the Psalm. Et Psalm. 77. pluit illis Manna ad manducandum, & panem caeli dedit eyes. He reigned down Manna also upon them for to eat, and gave them food from heaven. Of the wonders of this bread more shall be said in the next chapter. The last benefit recited of saint Paul in this place is, that they all drank Mater of the Rock. of one drink that came out of the rock. Of this miraculous drink we read, that when the children of Israel were in Raphadim where was no water, the people thirsted, and thereupon murmured against Moses and said: Exod. 17 Num. 20. Why havest though brought us out of Egypt, to kill us, and our children, and our cattle with thirst? And Moses and Aaron at the commandment of God gathering the people together, Moses took the rod where with he smote the river in Egypt and the red Sea, and smott the rock twice, and the water came out of the rock abundantly, and the multitude drank, and their beasts also. And this was a miraculous work of God, and a great benefit to the jews. David the Prophet enombreth it so among other the benefits of God, done for his people saying: Interrupit petram in eremo, & adaquavit eos velut in abysso multa. Psalm. 77. Et eduxit aquam de petra, & eduxit tanquam flumina aquas. He clave the hard rock in the wilderness, and gave them drink thereof as it had been out of the great depth, he brought waters out of the stony rock, so that it gushed out like the rivers. Now these four things contained in saint Paul's sentence being opened and known what they be, and how they were miraculously wrought for the commodity and benefit of the children of Israel, and wherefore saint Paul did enombre them: the letter of the said sentence may be perceived. THE second CHAPTER SHOWETH what these four things done in the old law did figure in the new law. AS these four things before rehearsed, were verily done in the old law: So are they figures of things verily do in the new law. The figure must be like the thing figured in some points, but not in all. Neither must it be in all points unlike, For than it can not be a figure, as Chrysostom saith: Neque omnino alienum oportet esse typum à veritate. Alioqui non esset typus: Neque omnino adaequari veritati, quia alioqui & ipsa veritas foret, sed oportet manner in suo modo, & neque comprehendere Homilia indictum Apost Nolo vos ignor. omnem veritatem: neque omni veritate destitui. Nam si totum contingat, iterum ipsa est veritas: Si autem à toto destituatur, & nulla sit similitudo consequenter non potest esse figura. Neither must the figure altogeter be unlike or not agreeable to the truth, or else it should not be a figure. Neither may it altogether be like unto the truth, for than it should be the truth it self. But it must abide in his own manner, and neither in all things answer the truth, neither in all things be A figure what a thing it must be. unlike the truth. For if it answer all, it is again, the truth it self: but if it be destitute of all, and there be no similitude of consequence it can not be a figure. In seeking therefore of what things in the new Testament, these things be the figures: it shall be necessary to observe, with what things they will most aptly agree in similitude, and yet not in all parts. This shall be the better done, if we first lay before us such things as be in the figure. And for so much as saint Paul in the rehearsal of these figures, maketh first mention of the cloud saying that all our Fathers were under the cloud, we also shall first speak of that. As touching the which, I wish that you call to your remembrance that Commodities of the Cloud. that was spoken in the last chapter, it was there declared, that the cloud was a leader of the people in their journey, so that they wandered not in uncertain ways but following the cloud they walked the right way, even both in their flight out of Egypt, and also in the wilderness. It also defended them from the tyranny of Pharaoh, and his host, standing betwixt them and their enemies, so that their enemies might not come to them to hurt them. A cloud also defendeth from the violent heat of the sun, and mitigateth the rage of the same, much also refresheth the labouring man with the shadow of it. A cloud also giveth dews and rain to moist the earth whereby the goodly and pleasant fruits of the earth are brought forth. These being the properties, let us search to what thing they may be most aptly applied unto in the new Testament. Among all to no one thing may they better agree, than to the holy Ghost, as a learned writer saith, expounding this place of saint Paul: Quod enim illis nubes protegens, conducens, ac refrigerans: id nobis Spiritus sanctus, actionum nostrarum Dux, & protector, libidinumue moderator, & extinctor. That that the cloud defending, conducting, and refreshing was unto them, that unto us is the holy Ghost, the guide and protector of our doings and the temperer and extinguisher The cloud applied to the holy Ghost, as the figure to the thing sigured. of our unlawful lusts. By the cloud the children of Israel were led in their way out of Egypt through the wilderness to the land of promiss: By the holy Ghost we are guided out of the servitude of the Devil, and sin, through the desert of this world and life, to the land of everlasting bless. By the cloud they were defended from the Egyptians: By the holy ghost we are preserved and defended, from the army of sins and wickedness. Under the cloud they rested refreshed, and comforted them selves after their labours and travails in their journey, and otherwise in battle: under the holy Ghost, after we have somewhat travailed in the journey of this life, and after conflicts and battles had against the assaults of the great Pharaoh the Devil, the tentations of sins, we rest and be refreshed and comforted by his grace, and made strong by his blessed help to travail again and fight a new fight. Out of the cloud cometh sweet and pleasant dews, and goodly showers of rain, whereby the earht is moisted, and made lusty to bring forth good fruits: From the holy Ghost, cometh the sweet and pleasant dews of grace, and goodly showers of godly inspiration, whereby man is made lusty to bring forth good and godly works, and virtuous exercises to the glory of God, and good example of his neighbour. The cloud defendeth from the heat of the sun and mitigateth the rage of the same: The holy Ghost defendeth from the heat of filthy concupiscence and lust, and mitigateth the raig of them. In this comparison than it may be perceived, how aptly the one answereth the other: so that we may very well call the cloud the figure of the holy Ghost, of the which yet more shall be said, wherebily the matter shall more clearly appear to the reader, hereafter. The second benefit that S. Paul rehearseth is that the fathers, did pass Tract. 45. in Joan. through the red sea. The red Sea (as S. Augustine declareth) signifieth Baptism: Mare rubrum signficat baptismum. Moses' ductor per mare rubrum, significat Christum. Populus transiens, significat fideles. Mors Aegyptiorum significat abolitionem pectorum. The read Sea a figure of Baptism. The red sea signifieth Baptism. Moses' the leader through the red sea signifieth christ. The people passing through it signifieth the faithful. The death of the Egyptians signifieth the abolishing of sins. Thus he. In which saying of S. Augustin, we perceiving the things done in the old Testament to signify things done in the new Testament, may also by application of the one to the other, perceive how answerable the one is to the other, Which yet in some part S. Augustine more clearly openeth in an other place: Rubet mare rubrum: Baptismus utique Christi sangnine consecratus. Hosts sequentes à tergo moriuntur: peccata praeterita. Ducitur populus per desertum: Cont. Faust. baptisati omnes nondum perfruentes promissa patria, sed quod non vident, sperando & per patientiam expectando tanquam, in deserto sunt. The red Sea is red, likewise Baptism consecrated with the blood of christ. The enemies following die be hind their back: the sins past are destroyed. The people is led through the desert: all the baptized not yet enjoying the promised country, but hopping, and through patience looking for that they see not, they are as in the desert. Thus moche S. Augustin. chrysostom also most manifestly setteth forth this figure, applying it to baptism, as to the thing by it figured. And first he diligently noteth how S. Paul to every of these figures, which the fathers received addeth this word (all) saying: all our fathers were under the cloud, and all did pass the Sea, and all were baptized under Moses, and all did eat of one spiritual meat, and all did drink of one spiritual drink: In the which he noteth a In dictum Apost. N●olo vos ignor. great similitude and answearablenesse of the things figured to the figures, and afterapplieng it to the purpose saith: Volens enim declarare, quod sicut in Ecclesianon est discrime servi & liberi, neque civis & advenae, neque senis & adolescentis, neque insipientis & saptentis, neque privati & principis, neque mulieris & viri, sed omnis aetas omnis dignitas, & unaquaeque natura in Baptismum descendit, etiam Rex & pauper eadem purificatione utuntur id quod maximum nostrae praesertim nobilitatis est argumentum. Nam similiter & mendicus, & purpuram gestans ad mysteria admittuntur. neque in sacramentis maior istius quam illius est respectus. sic & in veteri convenienter, omnes posuit. Neque enim dicere potes quòd Moyses per aridan, judaei per mare transierunt, neque quòd abundantes per unam, & indigi per aliam viam, neque mulieres sub sereno, viri sub nube fuerunt, sed & sub mari omnes, & sub nube omnes, & in Moysen omnes,. Nam transitus ille futuri Baptismi tipus erat. Oportebat igitur primum figuram illam benè omnia figurare, quò omnes ipsam tenerent, sicut & hic omnes ex aequo participes sunt. He willing to declare, that as in the Church there is no difference of bond man and free man, neither of country man and straungerneither of old man, and young man, neither of unwise man, and wise man, neither of private man and prince, neither of woman and man: but every age, every dignity, and every nature equally descendeth into the font: both king also and poour man use one purification, The which thing is a great argument chiefly of our nobility. Baptism is received of all in different he both rich and power. For both the beggar and he that weareth purple be in like sort admitted to the mysteries neither in the sacraments is there any more respect of this, then of the other. So in the old he hath conveniently used the word (all) for neither canst though say that Moses did pass by the dry land, and the jews by the sea, neither that they which were rich passed by one way and the needy by an other, neither the women under the clear, and the men under the cloud: but that they were all under the sea, and all under the cloud, and all under Moses, for that passage was a figure of Baptism to come. It behoved therefore that the figure should figurate all things well, that all should be under the law, even as here all be equally partakers. Hitherto Chrysostom. Whom as ye perceive to affirm that the passage through the red Sea was a figure of baptism: so have ye also perceived the one very lively applied to the other, for that part, and for so moche as they were compared together. For which afterward coming to the very point of the thing, he directly applieth the figures to the things figured in themselves. Et poterimus te docere quomodò vetus ad nowm Testamentum habeat cognationem, & ille transitus ad nostrum baptisma. Nam ibi aqua: & hic aqua. Lavachrum hic: & ibi pelagus. Omnes hic in aquam ingrediuntur, & ibi omnes. juxta hoc similitudo est. Postea vis cognoscere colorum veritatem? ibi quidem liberati sunt ex AEgipto per mare: hic autem ab Idololatria. & ibi quidem Pharao submersus est: hic autem Diabolus. Ibi AEgyptii submersi: hic autem uètus homo peccatis defoditur. And we can teach thee (saith Chrysostom) how the old Testament agreeth to the new, and that passage with our baptism. For there was water and here is water. Here a wishing place, and Baptism and the read Sea compared together. there the Sea: All hear entre into the water, and all ther. According to this here is similitude. Wilt though afterward know the truth of the colours? There they were delivered out of Egypt by the Sea, here from Idolatry. There Pharaoh was drowned, here the Devil. Their Egyptians were drowned, here the old man with his sins is buried. In this although Chrysostom hath sufficiently showed the agreement and similitude of the figure of Baptism with Baptism it self: Yet he stayeth not, but proceedeth by like application to show the excellency of the effect or operation of the one above the other, saying thus: Vide cognationem figurae ad veritatem, & veritatis excellentiam. Vbi igitur est affinitas figurae ad veritatem? Omnes ibi, hic omnes. Per aquam sunt ibi, & hic per aquam. A servitute liberati sunt illi, & nos à servitute liberati sumus, sed non ab eadem omnes. Nam illi quidem à servitute Aegytiorum, nos vero à seruitnte Daemonum. Illi quidem à servitute Barbarorum, nos verò à servitute peccati. ad libertatem venerunt illi, & nos, sed non ad eandem. Nam nos ad The goodly effects of Baptism. multo clariorem. Behold (saith he) the likelihood of the figure to the truth and the excellency of the truth. Where then is the affinity of the figure to the truth? All there, and all here. By water there, by water here. They are delivered from servitude, and we are delivered from servitude, but not all from one or the same servitude. For they were delivered from the servitude of the Egyptians: but we from the servitude of devels. They from the servitude of barbarous people, but we from the servitude of sins. They came to liberty, and we also, but not to all one. For we came to a moche more honourable liberty. Thus far Chrysostom. Now that ye have heard him speaking so moche and so plainly declaring this figure of Baptism, I think it for me vain and superfluous to add any thing to his sainges as to make the matter more clear and plain, where all is already so manifest, except I would attempt to put some more light to the bright sunny beams, which were mere folly. Wherefore leaving this figure sufficiently opened and declared we shall do our endeavour to make that plain that followeth in S. Paul, where he saith: Et omnes in Moyse baptisati sunt in nube, & in mari. And all were baptized under Doubts that may rise of S. Paul's words. Moses in the cloud and in the Sea. These words be somewhat obscure and dobtfull. For if the cloud (as before is said) were a figure of the holy Ghost, and the red Sea of Baptism, and Moses of christ: How then be they baptized in all these three? Again, seeing that the red Sea only in this scripture is appointed as the figure of Baptism, why now doth he seem to join all three as the figure of baptism? Moreover if this be but a figure of Baptism, why doth he teach, that the children of Israel were baptized, as though it were very baptism in deed, and not the figure? It seemeth also to have some scruple that he saith they were baptized in Moses, as though that Moses were the institutor of Baptism. These doubts will be solved, if it be remembered that to baptism, besides The same doubts solved. Three things necessarily to be had in Baptism. the party to be baptized and the virtues in him requisite, there be three principal things necessarily to be had: that is, christ the institutor and author of the sacrament, or his ministre for him, or other depute in time of necessity to pronounce the prescribed form of words of baptism: The holy Ghost, the worker of grace in the ministration of the sacrament: And the water for the matter of the sacrament. That christ is the institutor it is manifest, for he was first baptized himself in the flood of jordan of john the baptist. Yfanie object that not christ but john did institute baptism. for he did baptize in the wilderness before christ was baptized or showed himself openly to the world. For it is written: Exibat ad eum Hierosolima, Math. 3. & omnis judaea, & omnis regio circa jordanem, & baptisabantur ab eo in jordane. Jerusalem and all jewrie and all the country about jordane, went out to him, and were baptized of him in jordan. It is true that john did baptize before christ, but he baptized not then with the baptism of christ of the which christ was the institutor: but he baptized with the baptism which was called the baptism of john, as it is in the Acts of the Apostles. So that Act. 19 there were two Baptisms: the Baptism of john, and the Baptism of christ The distinction of the which the said john maketh saying: Venit fortior me post me, cuius non sum dignus procumbens solvere corrigiam calceamentorum eius. Ego Mar. 1. baptiso vos aqua, ille baptisabit vos Spiritu sancto. There cometh one stronger than I am after me, whose shoe latchett I am not woourthie to stoop down and unloose. I have baptized you with water, but he shall baptize you with the holy Ghost. This distinction appeareth also in the Acts of the Apostles: where we read that Paul came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples and said unto Act. 19 The baptism of Christ and of john distincted. them: Have ye received the holy Ghost, since ye believed? And they said unto him, we have not heard of the holy Ghost, whether their be any or not. Wherewith then were ye baptized? And they said, with john's Baptism. Then said Paul, john verily baptized with the baptism of penance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him, which should come after him, that is on christ jesus, when they heard this they were baptized in the name of our Lord jesus, Thus than it doth manifestly appear that the Baptism of john was not the very Baptism, but raither a figure or a preparation to the very baptism which is the Baptism of christ (as chrysostom saith) Vide igitur quàm diligenter Homil. 12. in Matth. haec expresserit. Cùm enim dixisset, quia venerit praedicare Baptisma poenitentiae, intulit: in remissionem peccatorum, quasi diceret: Ego illis confiteri peccata sua, & poenitentiam agere persuasi, non ut castigarentur omnino, sed ut dignius postea remissionis dona susciperent. Nisi enim se ipsos ante damnassent, neque sanè gratiam requisissent. Non quarentes verò gratiam, neque remissionem profectò assecuti fuissent. Ita istud Baptisma alterius, id est, Christi Baptismatis praeparatio est, & idcirco dicebat ut crederent in advenientem post eum. See therefore how diligently he hath expressed these things, When The Baptism of John preached remission of sins, and prepared men to the baptism of christ. he had said, that he came to preach the Baptism ofpenance, he inferred: in remission of sins. As who should say: I have persuaded them to confess their sins, and to do penance, not that they should be all together amended but that they might more wourthilie afterward receive the gifts of remission. For except they had before condemned themselves they had never sought for grace, and not seeking for grace, truly they had never obtained remission. so this Baptism was the preparation of an other Baptism, that is of the Baptism of christ. And therefore he said that they should believe in him, that was coming after him. Thus he. In this saying of chrysostom two things are to be observed: first that he saith that the Baptism of john was a preparation to the Baptism of christ. The second (which is a proof that it was not very Baptism, but a figure or a preparation) that it did not remit sins, Which thing although chrysostom doth here say, yet more expressedly he saith it in the same homely: Qua verò de causa ad baptisandi est missus officium? Et hoc nobis idem Baptista declarat, dicens: quoniam venerit in regione jordanis praedicans Baptisma poenitentiae in remissionem peccatorum. Et certè remissionem peccatorum non habebat. Hoc enim munus illius baptismatis erat, quod postea Christus instituit. in hoc enim vetus noster homo crucisixus est, ac sepultus. & ante crucem nunquam prorsus extitit remissio peccatorum. siquidem ubique ipsius hoc sanguini deputatur. Idem enim istud Paulus affirmat: Sed mundati The baptism of Christ gave remission of sins the baptism of john not so, which over throweth the doctrine of calvin. estis, inquit, sed sanctisicati estis, non per Baptisma joannis sed in nomine Domini nostri jesu Christi, & spiritu Dei nostri. Et alibi ipse dicit: joannes quidem praedicavit baptismum poenitentiae, & non ait remissionis, sed ut crederent in advenientem post cum. For what cause was john sent to the office of baptizing? Thus also the same Baptist declareth, saying: that he came in the region of jordane preaching the Baptism of penance in remission of sins. And truly this Baptism had not remission. For this gift appertaineth to the baptism, which christ afterward did institute. In this baptism our old man was crucified and buried. and before the cross, there was utterly no remission. For truly this every where is deputed to his blood. For even the same doth Paul affirm: But ye are cleansed: but ye are sanctified, not by the baptism of john, But in the name of our Lord jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of our God. And in an other place he saith: john did preach the baptism of penance, and he doth not say of remission: but that they should believe in him, that was coming after him. Thus far Chrysostom. By all this that is said of chrysostom it is easy to be perceived that christ is the institutor of Baptism, that is available before God for the remission of sins. And that john baptized to penance, thereby to prepare men, that they baptized with the Baptism of christ, might receive remission Differences of the Baptism of John, and of christ. of their sins, for so much as they were penitent. Of these woourdes may be gathered these differences of these two baptisms. The baptism of john was a figure and preparation of and to the very effectual Baptism of christ: The baptism of christ the thing prepared for, and the true thing by figure signified. The Baptism of john was in water: The Baptism of christ in water and the holy Ghost. The Baptism of john was in water to penance: The baptism of christ in water and the holy Ghost to the remission of sins. The Baptism of john was included in the Baptism of christ, as the lesser thing in the greater: The Baptism of christ contained the Baptism of john, as the worthier thing may contain the un worthier, and can neithier be included nor contained of it. christ then the institutor of this Sacrament who leadeth us from the Tyranny of the Satanical Pharaoh, and the servitude of sinful Egipte, and bringeth us through the miraculous fowntain, to walk through the desert of this world to the heavenly land of promiss is as necessarily required as Moses was to lead the people out of Egypt through the sea into the desert, to journey to the earthly land of promise, who was the figure of christ, as S. Austen hath testified. Wherefore the thing figured must needs answer the figure. As christ the institutor is necessarily required: so also is the holy Ghost, and the water, christ himself testifying: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua & Spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei. Except a man be born a new of the joan 3. water and the holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God. Now then these three, that is christ the holy Ghost, and the water, being necessarily required to the effectual Baptism, which is the thing figured: The other three also, as Moses, the cloud, and the sea, must needs concur in the figure, fully to signify, that is here fully required. The jews under Moses were baptized in the cloud and the sea in the dark manner of a figure: The christians in the holy Ghost and the water in the clear manner of the truth, as Origen saith. Antea in enigmate fuit Baptismus Homil. 7. in Numer. in nube, & in Mari: Nunc autem in specie regeneratio est in aqua & Spiritu sancto. Before Baptism was in a dark manner, in the cloud and in the Sea: But now in clear manner regeneration is in the water and in the holy Ghost. This then that is said well weeghed and considered the doubts before moved are clearly solved, and the text thus far expounded. THE THIRD CHAPTER expoundeth the resideu of the text: Et omnes eandem escam spiritual etc. IT is to be retained in memory, that (as in the first chapter is said) S. Paul in this sentence did rehearse certain benefits of God bestowed upon the jews, as figures of greater benefits, that God hath and doth bestow upon the Christians. What the cloud and the sea did to the commodity of the jews, it is there declared: Likewise what Manna, and the water flowing out of the rock. The second chapter began to declare what these great works and wonders of God in the old law, did figure in the new law, and finished three of them, that is, what Moses, and what the cloud, and what the read sea did signify. Now there remaineth to be declared what Manna and the water of the rock did signify, and of what things in the new Testament they be figures. In this declaration it appertaineth to me to member, that in the first book in the 22 chapter, where by order these two should have been declared, upon consideration that S. Paul did make mention of them, and that I would not be grievous to the reader with the reading of one matter twice: I differed it, and reserved it to this place. Wherefore I must, I say, remember in the declaration of these two, to keep such order, as I would have done there, and as I did with the rest of the figures there declared. The order was by scriptures of the new Testament and doctors to declare what things the figures did prefigurate. That done, to declare what prophecies were of the same, and them according to the mind of the holy Fathers to apply to the thing prophesied. Omnes (saith S. Paul) eandem escam spiritualem manducaverunt. All did eat of one spiritual meat. What this one meat was, of the which they did all eat, it is before declared, that it was Manna. Which thing also chrysostom doth testify: Quia dixit de mari, et de nube, & de Moise: Adiecit preterea: Et omnes eundem spiritualem cibum comederunt. Sicut tu (inquit) à lavachro aquarum ascendens, ad mensam curris: sic & illi à mari ascendentes, ad mensam venere novam, & admirabilem. De Manna loquor. By cause he had spoken of the cloud, and of Moses: He also added: And they have all eaten of one spiritual meat. As though (saith he) coming up from the washing place of the waters, dost hast the to the table: so they also coming up from the sea, came to a new and a wonderful table, I speak of Manna. In these words ye perceive chrysostom to expownde this same one meat, which all the Fathers did eat of after they had passed through the red Sea, to be Manna. agreeably whereunto S. Augustin also speaking of this text of S. Paul, which we have now in hand saith thus: Quando autem manducavit Manna populus Israel? Cùm transisset mare rubrum. When did the people of Tract. 11. in joan. Israel eat Manna? When they had passed through the red sea. And a little after he saith: Si ergo figura maris tantum valuit, species Baptismi quantum valebit? Si quod gestum est in figura, traiectum populum ad Manna perduxit, quid exhibebit Christus in veritate Baptismi sui traiecto per eum populo suo? If than the figure of the Sea was of so great force: of what force shall the verity of the Baptism be? If that was done in figure did bring the people that was led over unto Manna: what will christ in the verity of his baptism give unto his people led and conducted by him? Manna then, as by the holy Fathers we are taught was the meat that all the Fathers did eat of. Tho. Aqui Jn. 10. 1 Cor. But it is to be considered why saint Paul did call it spiritual meat, seeing it was sensible and corporal, and did corporally feed: He doth so call it, because it was miraculously given unto them, as saint Thomas in the exposition of this same text saith: Vocat came spiritualem, cùm esset corporalis, & miraculosè fuit data. He calleth that meat spiritual, when yet it was corporal, because it was miraculously given. The like cause why it was called spiritual, Jn. 10. 1. Cor. doth chrysostom also assign: Quamuis quae dabantur in sensu perciperentur, spiritualiter tamen dabantur, non secundùm naturam consequentium, sed secundùm muneris gratiam. Although those things which were given were perceived in sense or sensibly: yet they were given spiritually, not according to the course Manna why it was called a spiritual meat. of nature, but after the gift of grace: For although Manna were a corporal thing: yet it was made by God in the clouds by his especial work causing it to fall, as it were dew upon the earth, which thing we see not to be done by common course of nature, for that the like is not now done. So that it may well be called a spiritual, meat because it had no natural cause. As their meat which God sent them in the desert was spiritual: so was also there drink in the desert spiritual. Wherefore saint Paul saith: Et omnes eundem potum spititualem biberunt. And all drank of one spiritual drink. This Water of the rock. why it was called spiritual drink. drink is called spiritual, because it was miraculously given them out of the rock, by the power and work of the spiritual rock which was christ, as S. Paul immediately declareth: Bibebant despirituali consequent eos petra: Petra autem erat Christus. They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them. The Rock was christ. It is much against nature that an hard and a dry stone should bring forth streams of water, that is both soused and moist. So is it against nature, that the great rock, which once gave them water should follow them, through the desert, and give them drink sufficient for so great a multitude of people, at all times and places. But as the spiritual Rock christ by his great power and work gave them gushing streams of water in great plenty to serve their necessity in that place out of a material stone or rock: So did that spiritual rock also, and not that material rock, follow them in their journey through the desert, and gave them drink sufficient to satisfy their necessity. Which thing saint Paul very plainly by express words saith: Bibebant de spirituali consequent eos petra. They drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, Petra autem erat Christus, but that Rock was christ. Note that saint Paul saith not, they drank of that material rock: but they drank of a spiritual rock, which followed them, which spiritual Rock was christ. I wish this to be well noted here because Oecolampadius the Archenemie Oecolamp. abuseth S. Paul's words: The rock was christ of the Sacrament of the body and blood of christ, affirmeth this text of saint Paul (the rock was christ) to be a figurative speech. And useth it for his probation to prove the saying of christ (This is my body) to be also a figurative speech. Now forsomuch as this text is here to be expounded being now in handling, it is meet that it be not only expounded in the native sense, but also delivered from all adulterine and violent expositions Oecolamp. in Expsition Hoc est. Corpus which the said Oecolampadius would wrest it unto, for a further mischief. Let us therefore hear his words, and examine his exposition and see if the text of the scripture will bear it. His words be these: Tempus est ut probemus verba caenae Dominicae eodem tropo dicta, quo illa quae Apostolus dixit: Petra autem erat Christus, hoc est petra significabat Christum, vel erat figura Christi. It is time (saith he) that we prove the words of the lords supper, to be spoken by the same figure, by the which the words which the Apostle said are spoken: The rock was christ, that is to say, the rock fignified christ: or the rock was a figure of Christ. Thus he. If Oecolampadius will have the words of christ, This is my body, understanded with the same sense that these words of S. Paul, The rock was christ, are to be understanded, I shall join with him. For the words of S. Paul are to be understanded without trope. And by that part of his argument, so are These words: The rock was christ cannot be expounded by a Trope. the words of the lords supper (as he termeth them) wherein I say, I shall join with him. That the words of S. Paul are to be understanded without trope, it is manifest, for he calleth not christ the material rock, but the spiritual rock, saying, that they drank all of the spiritual rock, which is christ. So that this sentence: christ is the spiritual rock, of the which the jews did drink needeth no tropical or figurative sense to be expounded by. Neither in this place and manner as S. Paul speaketh it, can it bear a figurative sense, as Oecolampaduis would patch and piece one to it, but the plain literal sense. To this understanding of this text, as the scripture it self enforceth us, so is also chrysostom a witness, writing upon this text thus: Cùm dixisset Chryso. in 10. 1. Cor. quòd potum spiritualem bibebant, addidit: Bibebant enim de spirituali consequent eos petra, & adiunxit: Petra autem erat Christus. Non enim ipsius petrae natura aqua (inquit) scaturiebat. Siquidem any etiam scaturiisset, sed alia quaedam spiritalis petra, omnia operata est, hoc est Christus, qui praesens ubique omnia fecit miracula. Ideo dixit, consequent. When he had said that they drank spiritual drink, he added: They drank of the spiritual rock, that followed them, and joined to it: That rock was christ. For not the nature of that stone (saith he) flowed out water, for than it would have flowed out before that time, but an other certain spiritual christ was the spiritual not the material rock. and therefore no figure is in S. Paul's saying. stone wrought all these things, that is, christ being present every where did all the miracles, and therefore he said, that followed. Hitherto chrysostom Whose words give plain testimony to the words of saint Paul: christ was the roke, not the material rock, for than Oecolampadius trope must needs have taken place. But he saith that christ was that spiritual rock of the which they drank, and therefore no trope can be admitted here. And to prove that saint Paul meant that christ was that spiritual rock, chrysostom noteth saying: Ideo dixit, consequent: Therefore said Paul, which followed:: as who might say, for so moche as saint Paul saith that the jews drank of a spiritual rock, which spiritual rock was such one as did follow them. But no other rock did follow them save christ: wherefore christ was the spiritual rock, so that we may conclude that this proposition is to be understanded grammaticallie or literally, and not tropicallie or figuratively. If than Oecolampadius lay his foundation of his building to prove the words of the lords supper to be figurative upon a wrong understanding Scriptures alleged by Oecolamp. to prove his figurative speech. of the scriptures: will he not (trow ye) make his building of the same nature, that is, that these words of christ shall be wrong understanded also? Which thing (I doubt not) but ye will credit, when ye shall perceive how well he frameth other scriptures to his building. proceeding in his proof he saith: that it is common in the scriptures that the figures of things shall be named with the names of the things of which they be figures. To prove this he bringeth in the fiery tongues, which appeared upon the Disciples: The dove which appeared upon christ at his Baptism. The breathing of christ upon his Apostles: and the saying of christ that john was Helias, all which he saith, be figures, as the fiery tongues, the dove, and the breathing of christ were tokens or figures of the holy Ghost: and john a figure of Helyas. Where first note how he abuseth the scriptures, and laboureth to blind Oecolamp. his abusing of the scriptures opened. and deceive the reader. For where he, pretending to prove this saying of christ (This is my body) to be figuratively spoken, bringeth in these rehearsed places: there is not one of them that hath the like enunciation or manner of speech, as the saying of christ hath. Neither is the fiery tongues, the dove, or the breathing of christ named in the scriptures to be the holy Ghost, as the other thing is named to be the body of christ. And that this may manifestly appear, I will simply bring in every of the scriptures of these places The first is in the Acts of the Apostles where we read thus: Factus est repentè de coelo sonus tanquam advenientis spiritus vehementis, & replevit totam domum Act. 2. ubierant sedentes, & apparuerunt illis dispartitae linguae, tanquam igms, seditue super singulos eorum. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as it had been the coming of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they sat. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as they had been of fire, and it sat upon each of them. This is the text. Note now what chrysostom shall say upon this this text Visae sunt (inquit) illis dispartitae linguae, velut igneae. Rectè ubique Jn. 2. Act. additum est, velut, ne quid sensibile de Spiritu suspicareris, velut igneae (inquit) & velut flatus. Nec enim ventus erat simpliciter per aerem diffusus. Ac tamen cum joanni deberet innotescere Spiritus velut columbae specie in caput Christi venit. Nunc verò cum tota Fiery tongues are not said to be the bolie Gost. multitudo convertenda esset ad fidem, venit in specie ignis. And there were seen (saith he) to them chosen tongues as fiery. It is in every place added (as) that thou shouldest suspect nothing sensible of the spirit. As fiery (saith he) and as a wind. Neither was it the wind simply diffused by the air. And also when the holy Ghost would be known to john, he came in the form of a dove upon the head of christ, but now when all the multitude was to be converted to the faith, he came in the shape or form of fire. Thus Chrysost. Now albeit he hath in the end of his sentence resolved us for the manner of the coming down of the holy Ghost in the likeness of a dove: yet will we hear the scripture, that the agreement of the doctor and the scripture many appear together. S. Luke saith jesus baptisato, & orante apertum est coelum, & descendit Spiritus sanctus corporali specie sicut columba in ipsum. When jesus was Luc. 3. baptized, and did pray, the heaven was opened, and the holy Ghost came down in a bodily shape like a dove upon him. In this text, as ye perceive that the holy Ghost came down like a dove, but neither that the dove was the holy The doveys not said to be the holy Ghost. Ghost, neither the holy Ghost the dove: so ye perceive that chrysostom agreeth, and saith nothing contrario to the scripture. But as the scripture saith that the holy Ghost came down like a dove: and that the sound was, as it had been the coming of a mighty wind, and the chosen tongues as they had been of fire: So Chrysostom noteth in every place to be this word (as) whereby is taught raither the likelihead of the things there to be, than the very things themselves. The third thing that Oecolampadius rehearseth is the breathing of christ: upon his Apostles: In the Gospel of S. john we read that christ thus said to Joan. 23. his Apostles. As my Father sent me, even so I send you also. And when he had said those words, he breathed on them, and said unto them: Receive ye the holy Ghost. In which fact of christ, although the holy Ghost to the fullness of his gifts were not given, for that christ said: Nisi abiero Paracletus non Ibid. 16. veniet ad vos, si autem abiero mittam eum ad vos. Except I go the comforter shall not come to you: but if I go away I will send him to you. At the which coming he promised them saying: Accipietis virtutem superuementis Spiritus sancti in vos. Ye shall receive power after the holy Ghost Acto. 1. is comed upon you: yet now they received certain gifts of the holy Ghost as Chrysostom wittnesseth: Non erraret quispiam si tunc eos potestatem quandam & gratiam spiritualem accipisse diceret, non tamen ut mortuos suscitarent, & virtutes In. 20. Joan. ostenderent, sed ut peccata dimitterent. Differentes enim sunt gratiae Spiritus. Quare addidit: Quorum remiseratis peccata remissa sunt, ostendens quod virtutis genus largiatur. A man should not err if he said, that they did receive a certain power The holy Ghost was given by Christ'S breathing. and spiritual grace, not yet that they should raise the dead, and show wonders, but that they should forgive sins. The graces of the Spirit are different wherefore he added: Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted, declaring that he granted a kind of power. Thus chrysostom. By this than it is manifest that at that breathing christ gave unto his Apostles the holy ghost. Let us now examine the fourth scripture, which Oecolampadius allegeth to prove a trope in Christ'S words, which is that christ said of john the Baptist, that he was Helias. The words be these: Omnes Prophetae ac ipsa lex usque ad joannem prophetaverunt, & si vultis recipere, ipse est Helias, Iqui venturus erat. All the Prophets and the law it self hath prophesied unto john. And Math 11 if ye will receive it: This is Helias which was for to come: For the better understanding of this text it is to be noted that the jews upon the prophecy Opinion of the jews of the coming of Helias. of Malachi, which prophesieth that Helias shall come before the judgement of christ, mistaking and mysunderstanding the same, that he should come before his coming into flesh, were in doubt whether john the Baptist were Helias, and therefore sent Messengers unto him ask, whether that he was Helias or no. Where in deed the prophecy speaketh of the coming of Helias before the second coming of christ, which shall be to judgement, as the words do declare. Behold (saith almighty God by the Prophet) I will send you Helias the prophet before the coming of the great and fearful day of the Lord. He shall turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and of the children to their fathers Mala. 4. that I come not and smite the earth with cursing. Two things in this prophecy there be, which do teach us, that Helias shall be the percursour of the judgement of christ, and not of his nativity. The one is that he shall come before the day of the great and fearful Lord. christ at his nativity came, as Rex pacificus, a king a peacemaker: he came as Zacha. ●. Rex mansuetus, as a lowly king, as Zacharie prophesied that he should do: Rejoice (saith he) greatly, if daughter of Zion, be glad o daughter Jerusalem. Forlo, Math. 21. Mar. 11. Luc. 19 Jbid. 2. thy king cometh unto thee, even the righteous and saviour, lowly and simple is be, he rideth upon an ass, and upon the fool of an ass. This to be fulfilled in christ the holy Evangelists do witness. At his birth also, as the prophet willeth Zion, and Jerusalem to rejoice: so the Angel appearing to the shepherds, said. Behold I bring you tidings of great joy, that shall come to all people. And straight way there was with the Angel a multitude of heavenly soldiers pray sing God and saying. Glory to God on height and peace on the earth, and unto men a good will. By this it doth well appear that the first coming of christ is not fearful but peaceable, lowly, and joyful. The first coming of christ was joyful. the second shall be terrible. The second thing be noted is that the Prophet, shall come to turn the hearts of the fathers to the Sons, etc. Lest when that Lord cometh he smite the earth with cursing. christ at his first coming, came not to smite punish and curse, as he himself not a few times doth testify: Non veni ut judicem mundum, sed ut saluificem mundum. I came not to judge the world, but to save, the world. Again: Venit filius hominis quaerere, & saluum facere, quod perierat. The Son of man came to seek and save that that had perished. In so much that when his Disciples moved him, that Luc. 19 fire might descend from heaven to consume the Samaritans, that would not receive him, he said: The Son of man came not to destroy, but to save men's lives. All which places declare, that christ at his first coming, came not to Luc. 9 judge, nor to punish, but to seek, and save. But his second coming in deed shall be fearful and terrible. For than he shall come to judgement, at which time if the hearts of the people be not turned, he shall then be a severe judge, and shall grievously smite the wickedness of men, and shall pronunce the sentence of cursing upon earthly men saying: Go ye cursed into the everlasting fire, which is prepared for the Devil and his Matth. 25 Angels. Of this judgement ye may read in saint Matthew more at large. Forsomoche then as christ at that his second coming shall be a fearful Lord, and shall smite the earth with cursing: it must needs be that Helias must be a precursour of that coming and not of the first. Now for that the jews where in that error that they looked that Healias should come before that Messiah should come in to the world, christ said unto them: Si vultis recipere ipse est Helyas, qui venturus erat. If ye will receive it, this is Helias which was for to come. Which words. Euthymius expoundeth thus: Si vultis recipere, quod futurum esse dictum est, de boc tempore, ipse est Helias, In 1. Math qui venturus erat, utpote ipsum illius ministerium perficiens. If ye will receive that that is spoken to be done hereafter, to be of this time present: He is Helyas which was for to come, as one performing even his very ministry and office. As who might say, Where as ye think that Helyas (who shall be the percursour of my second coming to prepare the hearts of the people, that they may eschape my terrible judgement) is the precursour of this my first coming, to prepare the hearts of the people to receive me and my faith, as touching that office, if ye will so take it, john is Helias. For to that office is he by the prophets appointed, as Helyas is to the other. So that in this manner of speech christ did but answer the opinion of the jews, and therefore did not assertivelie say, that john was Helias, but christ did not assertivelie say that john was Helias with a circumstance: if ye will receive it. which thing also is noted of chrysostom: Significavit autem joannem Heliam esse, & Heliam joannem. Vtrique enim unam administrationem susceperunt, & praecursores ambo constituti sunt▪ Quare non dixit: hic est profectò Helias: sed si vultis suscipere, high est. He signified john to be Helias, and Helias john. For both they have taken one administration, and both be made percursours. Wherefore he did not say this is verily Helias. But if ye will so take it, this is he. Thus Chrysost. Neither is it the proper sense or understanding of this proposition, that john is a figure of Helias, or john is a sign or token of Helias: as by this he would prove the other saying of christ: This is my body to be understanded, for that this is spoken with a circumstance, and as it were with a condition, and not simply as christ said: This is my body. Now to apply all these other scriptures, which Oecolampadius hath brought in: Mark diligently, I beseech thee, good Reader, if any of them all be of like speech as these words: This is my body. The scripture saith not: The dove is the holy Ghost: neither doth it say that either the breathing into the Apostles, or the fiery tongues be the holy Ghost, But far otherwise, as is already said, and far unlike to this manner of speech: This is my body: For the one is spoken by a liklihead, and therefore used with this term, as, the other by the very substance, and therefore expressed with this word, is. And yet withal note how it pleaseth God, that as he made Balaams' Ass Occolamp. likened to balaams ass. to speak to the reproach of her master: so it pleaseth him to work in this man, who, through malice made dumb to speak the truth, willingly, but yet unwittingly hath broughtin these scriptures, which being considered and weighed make nothing against the truth, but moche for the truth. And first where he began his building with our text. Petra erat Christus. The rock was christ: which he said was a figurative speech: it is proved that there is none but a plain speech, for the spiritual rock was christ. Therefore it standeth well to be applied to the catholic truth, that as the rock was not figuratively, but verily christ: so the substance of the Sacrament of the altar is not figuratively, but verily the body of christ. And as the holy Ghost was verily under a corporal form like a dove, and verily present with the fiery tongues: and also verily given to the Apostles with the breathing of christ: so is the body of christ verily, and truly under the corporal forms of bread and wine, Presence of the holy Ghost under the form of the dove with the fiery tongues and breath of christ, conferred with the presence of christ in the Sacr. as the holy Ghost under the form of a dove: and verily also given to the faithful, as the holy Ghost to the multitude. And under that corporal form as truly received of the christians, as the holy Ghost was by the breathing of christ, received of the Apostles. So that there is a conformity and great likelihead betwixt these scriptures, and moveth the Christian very strongly to believe the presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament. For as we are taught to believe that the holy Ghost was under a corporal form, because the scripture saith, that the holy Ghost descended in a corporal form: so are we taught to believe, that Christ'S body is under the form of bread, because the scripture saith, that christ blessing the bread said: This is my body, and so of the rest. And as the scripture saith not that the dove, or the tongues were the holy Ghost: No more doth it say that the form of bread is the body of christ. But as the scripture teacheth that with these forms the very things be given, and not the bare signs only: so are we taught that with the the form of bread is given the very thing sanctified which is the very body of christ himself saying: Take, eat, This is my body. Thus may ye perceive, how goodly God hath set forth his mysteries, that one may aptly be conferred with an other, as that thereby the faith of the weak may be much helped, and the faith of the strong moche comforted and delighted, and the more when they may see how God turneth the weapons of the enemies upon themselves, and so with their weapons defendeth us. THE FOURTH CHAP. BEGINNETH TO DEclare by the holy fathers of what things Manna and the water be figures. Now this text of S. Paul being truly expounded, according to the minds of the holy catholic fathers, and delivered from the violent wresting of the Adversary: it is time and place convenient, that we seek of what things these two yet not applied that is Manna, and the water, be figures of. That they be figures it is most certain: but of what things it is in controversy. The Adversary affirmeth Manna to be only of the word of God a figure, as whereby the soul of man is fed, as the jews were in desert: But the good catholic teacheth that it is not only a figure of the word of God, but also of the body of christ in the Sacrament, wherewith man is fed to everlasting life, and made strong to walk through the desert of this world, to the heavenly land of promiss. And for further opening of this matter, understand that one Irenaeus wrote an epistle to S. Ambrose ask why God did not rain Manna from heaven as he did to the jews. S. Ambrose answering him, treateth not only of Mamna it self, but also of that which was figured by it. And so in that process, declareth, that not only Ad Jrenaeum epla 62 the word of God is a spiritual Mamna, but also the body of christ in the Sament is Manna. Thus writeth S. Ambrose: Quaeris à me cur Dominus Deus Mannapluerit populo patrum & nunc non pluat. Si cognoscis, pluit. & quotidiè pluit de coelo Manna seruientibus sibi. Et corporeum quidem illud Manna hody plerisque in locis Quamto praestantiora sunt haec superioribus. iwenitur. Sed nunc non est res tanti miraculi quia venit quod perfectum est. Perfectum autem panis de coelo, corpus ex virgine, de quo satis evangelium te docet. Quanto praestantiorà sunt haec superioribus: Illud enim Manna, hoc est, panem illum, qui manducaverunt, mortui sunt. Hunc autem panem qui manducaverit, vivet in aeternum. sed est spirituale Manna, hoc est plumia spiritualis sapientiae, quae ingeniosis & quaerentibus de coelo infunditur, & irrorat mentes piorum, & obdulcat fauces corum. Thowe askest me, why the Lord God did rain Manna to the people of the Fathers, and now he doth not rain. If thou knowest, he raineth now, and daily he raineth Manna from heaven unto them that serve him. And in diverse places the same corporal Manna is now found, but it is not now a thing of so great miracle for that is comed that is perfect. But that perfect is the bread from heaven, How moche more excellent are these then the other above rehearsed? which is the body born of the virgin, of the which the gospel sufficient lie teacheth. How moche more excellent are these, than the other above rehearsed? Who soever did eat that Manna, that is, that bread, they are dead. But this bread whosoever eateth, shall live for ever. But this is a spiritual Manna, that is the spiritual rain of wisdom, which is powered into them from heaven that be witty, and do seek it, and it doth dew the minds of the Godly, and maketh sweet their jaws. hitherto S. Ambrose. Of whom we may learn as is before said, that not only the word and Oecolap. his shameful abusing of the ancient Fathers, namely of S. Ambr. wisdom of God is called Manna, but also the body of christ which was born of the virgin, which he calleth perfect Manna. And here it is not to be overpassed that Oecolampadius the enemy of this Sacrament, who of indurate malice, wrote a book against the same, in the which to the intent he might more easily deceive the unlearned and simple, as to make them believe that the holy fathers were of his side, he useth to allege diverse of them, but so that sometime he doth wrest them shamefully, some time he falfifieth them, sometime he corrupteth them: sometime he truncateth them: sometime alleging them and taking upon him truly to report them, he doth mutylate them in the midst of their saying, as impudenilie and wickedly he doth use S. Ambrose here in this place last alleged, of the which, for that he perceived it made against him, he left out a sentence, which I have noted in the margin both the latin and the english, to the intent ye should perceive the sentence alone, and with all see how that wicked man joined the rest of the sentence together, mutilating and cutting this away. This is the sincerity of heretics in handling of matters of faith and religion. And thus may ye see what credit they be worthy of. By this ye may perceive also whether they offend of ignorance, of simplicity, or else of devilish malice. Is not this devilish malice, that seeing a sentence in the midst, that impugneth his heresy, he cutteth it of, and peiceth it together again, as though there were nothing lacking? Did not his conscience (trow ye) reprehend him when he did it? Is not he the child of his father Satan, that seeth and perceiveth that this way is nought and wicked, and yet by guile and craft will travail to induce men into it, and bringing many to damnation, aggravate his own, even as his father doth. I have thought good (reader) here to advertise thee of their impostures, that though they set out their doctrine with never, so good a countenance of holiness, learning, and consent, or testimony of holy Fathers: yet be well assured that under the fair countenance of the enemy of mankind tempting our mother Eve there was a mortiferous serpent, under his sweet words, which to well liked the hearer, was most bitter falsehood and untruth. Under the sweet words of Heretics lieth bitter poison of falsehood In that goodly pleasant and delctable apple was cruel and horrible death and damnation: so in their fair countennance ye shall find serpentine infection, in their words falsehood, error, and heresy, and in the taking of their doctrine or consenting to it plain damnation. But now that ye may perceive how moche this sentence which denelishlie he cut of, doth impugn his doctrine, and make for the truth, I will somewhat open the same, and so shall ye perceive that of set purpose, and of very malice he left it out. S. Ambrose answering Irenaeus, saith, that Manna now a days, though it be found in many places, at this present time it is not a thing of so great miracle. He addeth the cause: because (saith be) that is now comed that is perfect. as who might say: The figures of the law, though many of them, when they were in use, were great things, and seemed to be marvelous: yet when the things came, of the which they were figures, they were not so marvelous: like as the light of a torch in the night time, seemeth to be a great light a very perfect light: yet in the day the brigth beams of the Sun shining, and glistering, it is but an unperfect and almost no light: so the figures of the old law compared to the things figured in the new law. Wherefore Manna being but a figure of that perfect thing the body of christ: when that once came in place Manna appeared to be but an unperfect thing. When S. Ambrose had made this comparison of the figure to the thing figured, and saw the perfection of the one, and the impefection of the other the excellency of the one, and the weakness or baseness of the other, he brought in this sentence which, Oecolampadius left out: Quanto sunt praestantiora haec superioribus: How moche more excellent are these then the other above rehearsed? how moche more excellent is the body born of the virgin, our very true Manna, and the right bread of heaven, which we feed upon in the Sacrament, than Manna which the jews did eat? And here note Sacramentaries to maintain their heresy deny the excellency of the Sacraments of the new law. again (gentle reader) that this wicked man, and other his complices, who deny (as ye perceive) the presence of christ in the blessed Sacrament do also as wickedly teach, that the Sacraments of the new law give no grace. And to maintain these two evil and wicked opinions, they take the third against the truth, that all Christ'S Church received, which is that the Sacraments of the new law are of no more excellency, than the Sacraments of the old law. For if they should grant that they were more excellent, then must they needs also admit the Sacrament of Christ'S body and blood to be more than a bare sign, figure or token of his body. And so must be enforced to grant the presence. Now by cause, Oecolampadius impugneth that presence, and fowde in S. Ambrose, that he taught, that the Oecolamp. his best soli●cion to S. Amb. argumet. things of the new testament, are more excellent, than things of the old, and saw that he was pressed with the weight of S. Ambrose his argument, he had no better solution then clean to leave it out, and so to ship it over. I trust ye perceive, that this little sentence of S. Ambrose, left out by Oecolampadius, doth not a little impugn his pestilent doctrine, which he maintained against the presence of Christ'S body in the blessed Sacrament, and also overthroweth by plain words his heresy against the excellency of the Sacraments of Christ'S Church, whereby I think it may well appear of what wicked purpose he left it out. And as in this he is deprehended to be a falsary: so I doubt not but he shall be found the like hereafter in the sentences, and sainges of other holy fathers. Now to proceed with S. Ambrose, it is evident, that he calling the body of christ born of a virgin the perfect thing in comparison of Manna, Manna, a figure of the body of Chryst. which he meaneth to be the unperfect thing, (as every figure is, in respect of the thing figured) that he doth understand Manna, to be the figure of our true Manna, the body of christ, our heavenly food, and very bread given from heaven: which is not meant of the body of christ absolutely, as the body only born of the virgin, but of the body born of the virgin, and given us in sacrament to feed on, to our spiritual comforth. which thing S. Ambrose signifieth in that same epistle, wherewith also Oecolampadius would not meddle, but could overpass it as it were a thing in a mist which he could not see. Oriente autem justiciae Sole, & plendidioribus Christicorporis & sanguinis sacramentis refulgentibus cessarent inferiora, & perfecta illa sumenda populo forent. The Sun of rightwiseness appearing, and the bright Sacraments of Christ'S body and blood shining, the inferior things should cease, and those perfect things should be taken of the people. Thus S. Ambrose. By which he doth not only teach us, that the sacraments of Crystes S. Ambro. his magnifying of the blessed Sa. argueth it to be more than a figure body and blood are the perfect things, and the figures thereof inferior things: but also that the body and blood of christ, as in Sacraments (which Sacraments for the presence of that body and blood are bright and shining Sacraments) is the clear light, of the which Manna, was the figure and the shadow. In which manner of speech it is notable how S. Ambrose doth magnify this most wrouthie and excellent Sacrament, I wish it of the Reader to be considered. If that blessed Sacrament were but a bare sign or figure (as they term it) why should it be called of S. Ambrose the bright and shining Sacrament above Manna? where as if it were not for the presence of him that is the light of the world Manna in and hundredth parts were more wonderful more excellent and far surmounting the figure or sign of Christ'S body, as here after shall most clearly appear unto you. Wherefore we are not only taught by S. Ambrose that Manna was the figure of the body of christ: but also that the same body is present in the Sacrament of his body and blood whereby it is made a wonderful an excellent, and a bringt shining Sacrament. Never the less the same S. Ambrose teacheth us that the word of God, which he calleth the rain of spiritual wisdom, is also a spiritual Manna, which undoubtedly well and duly taken feedeth the soul. Non in solo pane vivit homo, sed in omni verbo, quod procedit de ore Dei. Man liveth not by bread only, but by every word which proceedeth from the mouth of God. Dent. 8. Matth. 4. Three kinds of Manna. So that of S. Ambrose it may be learned, that there be three kinds of Mamna. Manna which God reigned from heaven to the people in the desert, which is the figure: Manna the body of christ in the Sacrament, which duly taken feedeth both body and soul to everlasting life. And Manna the word of God. which illumineth, nourisheth and feedeth the soul, and moisteth it with the dew of god's wisdom, and maketh man wise in God. This doctrine is not dissonant from the Gospel for in the sixth of S. john, we are taught that Manna the figure was given to the jews, and that it figured not only the word, and the Godhead of christ, but also his manhood which both are called the breads of life, as in the second book is declared. The declaration of the figure, and application of it to the thing figured is plainly settfurth by christ when the jews said unto him: Patres nostri joan. 6. manducaverunt Manna in deserto. Hour Fathers have eaten Manna in the desert. To whom christ, minding to bring them from the bread Manna which did but nourish the body to the maintenance of the corporal life, which bread and life in respect of the heavenly bread and everlasting life, be no true bread and true life, to himself the true bread, and giver of true life, said: Non Moises dedit vobis panem de coelo, sed Pater meus dat vobis panem de coelo verum. Moses' did not give you bread from heaven: but my father giveth you the true bread from heaven. This text Euthymius very lively and plainly expowdeth: Quia putabant Manna esse panem ab eo, quod coelum propriè appellatur, eò quòd scriptum esset, Panem de coelo dedit eyes, corrigit erroneam eorum opinionem. Nam ibi scriptura impropriè aerem vocavit coelum. Quemadmodum etiam dicuntur, volucres coeli In. 6. joan. Et rursum: Intonuit de coelo Dominus. Ait ergo: Non Moyses dedit tunc nationi vestrae panem, qui de coelo propriè sit: sed Pater meus nunc dat vobis panem ab eo quod propriè coelum appellatur. Nam sicut Pater propriè dicitur coelestis: ita & filius coelestis, & propriè panis, utpote cor hominis confirmans. Because they thought Manna to be Heaven taken for the air. bread from that that is properly called heaven, because it is written: He hath given them bread from heaven: He doth correct there erroneous opinion. For the scripture there called the air unproprelie heaven. as also the birds be called the birds of heaven. And again: The Lord thundered out of heaven. He saith therefore, Moses did not give then unto yower nation bread which is from that which is properly called heaven: but my Father giveth you now bread from that is properly called heaven. Eor as the Father is called heavenvly: even so the Son is heavenvly, and called bread as confirming the heart of man.. Thus Euthymius. In which exposition this is first taugh, that where the scripture saith, that God gave the jews bread from heaven it is not meant that he gave them that bread or ford of Manna from heaven in deed, but from the air, which in diverse places of the scriptures is called heaven, as in the examples it is showed, and diverse other places may likewise be produced. A gain, upon this is taught the excellency of christ the thing figured above Manna was from the air Christ our bread is from heaven. the figure. For where the bread of the jews was but from the air, our bread Christ is from heaven in deed, and not from heaven as a common heavenly thing, but from heaven as a thing heavenly, as the Father is heavenly and withal not as a common bread, but as a bread that is properly called. and is heavenly bread in very deed, because it confirmeth and maketh strong the heart of man. And yet immediately by express words this author declareth as a cause why that Mamna was not the true bread, and speaketh it in the person of christ: Siquidem panis ille siguratiws erat, me (inquit) praesigurans, Manna a figure of christ our bread. In 6. Joan. hom. 44. qui sum ipsa veritas. For that bread was a figurative bread, prefigurating me (saith christ) which am the truth it self. Here unto agreeably also saith chrysostom: Panem autem simpliciter, & non verum illum appellat, non quòd falsus esset in Manna miraculum, sed quòd figura esset, non veritas. He calleth it only bread and not the true bread, not that in Manna was a false miracle, but because it was a figure and not the verity. Now then as in the words of christ comparing and also preferring himself before and above the bread that the jews had under Moses in the desert, he declareth himself to be the thing figured by that bread, and that bread to be the figure: so have ye heard these learned men expounding this scripture to teach the like or raither the very same. If now the adversary will object and say, that Manna was a figure of the Godhead, but not of his manhood, and so consequently not of his body, for that these texts and scriptures speak of the deity or God head of John. 6. Euthim. ibidem. christ, and not yet of his humanity, as Euthimius, whom we have alleged, doth also testify, expounding this saying of christ: Ego sum panis vitae. I am the bread of life. Panis vivificans, & qui, ut dictum est, dat vitam aeternam. Nam ea proprie dicitur vita quae aeterna est. Quae enim ad tempus durat, non vita est, sed vitae imago. Panem autem vitae svam vocat divinitatem. Siquiden ipsa panis est, quae de caelo descendit. I am the bread of life, the bread that maketh to live, and which (as it is said) giveth eternal life. For that properly is called life, which is everlasting. That that endureth but for a time it is not life but an image of life. The bread of life he calleth his Godhead. For it is the bread that descended from heaven. Thus Euthim. It is true that all that christ hath spoken of himself hitherto, sithen he began to speak of Manna, is spoken of his Godhead. For so doth chrysostom also witness. And therefore we accept that that Euthimius saith, and grant the same. But then I would ye went to the next line of Euthymius, and read Euthim. what he addeth to this sentence, that is now out of him alleged. It followeth there immediately: Tandem verò etiam corpus panem vocat. afterward also he calleth his dodie bread. Which he doth when he saith: And the bread christ called bread two ways. which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. upon the which text he saith: Duobus modis Christus dicitur esse panis, secundùm divinitatem scilicet & bumanitatem. Postquam ergo docuit de modo, qui secundùm Divinitatem est, nunc etiam docet de modo, qui est secundùm humanitatem. Two manner of ways christ is said to be bread, that is to say, after his Godhead and after his manhood. Therefore after he hath taught of the manner which is after his Godhead, now also he teacheth of that manner which is after his manhood. Thus than it is manifest, christ himself teaching, and Euthimius, Chrysostom, with diverse other so declaring as ye may see in the second book, where the sixth chapter of S. john is by a number of learned Fathers expounded, that Christ'S body is called bread, and yerie well, both for that by that name it aunfwereth the figure: And also as Manna fed the jews so in a more excellent manner the body of christ feedeth the christians he himself witnessing and speaking of his own body thus: Qui manducat Joan. 6. hunc panen, vivet in aeternum. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. And here I can but marvel at the malicious blindness of Oecolampadius, who travaileth by all means to prove that the body of christ feedeth not the soul, and so would make christ contrary to himself both in this sentence last alleged, and also in this sentence where he faith: Caro mea verè est Jbid. ● cibus, & sanguis meus verè est potus. My flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed. But Oecolam. would have that the soul is fed only the word of God, and faith and therefore speaking of the flesh of christ, he saith: Neque opus est carnem in ipsam ingredi animam. Quod ne imaginaremur satis caverat Dominus, dicens: Caro non prodest quicquam. Neither it is needful that the flesh entre into the soul. which thing that we should not imagen the lord did diligently provide saying: The flesh profitetb nothing: And yet christ saith: Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. I am loath (as in the proverb it is said) Actum agere. to do that thing In the xxxvi. chap. etc. that is done all ready, and so with prolixity and tediousness to grieve the ready. Wherefore all these scriptures of the sixth chap. of S. john being sufficiently declared in the second book, and among other, this text which Oecolampadius bringeth, inwhiche is (The flesh profiteth nothing) there truly by S. Augustine. Chrysostom Theophilact and other expounded and declared to be of an other manner of sense, than he devilishlie would wrest it to: and there also being showed how the flesh of christ feedeth and profiteth the soul very moche: I shall refer the reader thither, where he shall find Oecolampadius fully answered, and matter sufficient, I trust, wherewith he himself shall be satisfied. Wherefore now I will but touch a word of Oecolampadius where he saith: that the inward man is fed by faith. It is a manner of feed that I have not red in any authentic author. But this may be, and is red that christ and his word received by faith, doth feed the soul, but not faith it self. Neither have I red any catholic author that Jnward man is fed by ●aith the gloze of Oecolamp. touched. teacheth that the flesh of christ entereth in to the soul, as it liketh Oecolampadius his feigned speech to dally, or raither as a man in darkness goeth he can not tell whether: so he in this darkness of heresy speaketh he can not tell what, and wandereth he can not tell whether. But to conclude this part that the sixth chapter of S. john, or raither christ in that chapter teacheth, that Manna is a figure of his body in the Sacrament, as before it is taught to be a figure of his God head, Mark what christ saith in that part, where (Chrysostom saith) he speaketh of his body: Joan. 6. He that eateth me, shall live by the means of me, This is that bread, which came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat Manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live ever. In which words of christ is made a just comparison of himself the thing figured to Manna the figure. of the which (as Chrysostom saith) he often maketh mention, as it were by it to allure them to the faith. Homil. 46. in joan. This is his sentence: Frequenter autem Mannae meminit, & differentiam conferendo ad fidem allicit. Nam si possibile fuit, ut quadraginta annos, sine messibus, & frumento, & aliis ad victum necessariis viverent. longè magis nunc cùm ad maiora venerint. Nam si in illis figuris sine labore expositum colligebant, nunc profectòmagis, ubi nulla mors, sed vaere vitae fruitio. Often he maketh mention of Manna and conferring the difference, allureth them to faith. For if it were possible that they should live forty years, without harvest, and corn and other necessaries to their living: moche more now when they are come to greater things. For if in those figures they did gather without labour the thing made ready to their hands: now truly much more, where is no death, but the fruition of the true life. Thus moche chrysostom. Why christ made so often mention of Mamna 90. 6. In whose saying as it first offereth it self▪ so it is first to be noted, that Christ often maketh mention of Manna, but to what purpose? that by conferring of himself and Manna, as the thing, and the figure, he might allure them to the faith of him, unto whom the law, and all the figures of it did lead them. Another that chrysostom by express words calleth it a figure. For (saith he) if in those figures they without labour did gather that, that was ready laid before them: much more now, etc. By which he meaneth Manna, which God raining from heaven, and so being prepared without their labour, they did but gather it, and had sufficient to serve their necessity. Thus, I trust, it is manifest that Manna is a figure of the body of christ, both by the words of christ himself in the sixth of S. john, and also by holy learned men in the exposition of the same chapter so teaching us, wherefore now leaving it we will repair to our text of S. Paul, and seek how it is taken their of the ancient Fathers. Likewise what the water that flowed out of the stone, which for the most part are joined together, did signify. THE fift CHAP. TEACHING THAT MANna and the water of the stone were figures of the body and blood of christ by Origen, and S. Ambrose. AS our Saviour christ hath taught, that Manna was a figure of his body: And as he laboured with the jews by it to make them to understand him, and from it the sign and figure of him, to lead and bring them to him the thing signified and figured: so S. Paul travaileth with his Corinthians by figures to understand the verities as well of very benefits by figures of benefits, as of very plagues by the figures of plagues, that they should not be puffed up with pride, neither led with a negligence of holy life, now that they be under christ, and have received the great gift of the new birth by baptism, and have been fed with the body and blood of christ. For if they did, these great gifts notwithstanding, God would have no pleasure in them, no more than he had in many of the jews, which were under Moses, and were baptized in the cloud and in the sea, and did eat of one spiritual meat, and drink of one spiritual drink, which were figures of these benefits, but he would cast them of as he did the jews. For they were overthrown in the wilderness, of the which more at large was spoken in the first chapter. Wherefore I will not now detain the reader but entre to the purpose, and hear the minds of the fathers what they think of these figures, and whether they be figures of figures, and signs of signs, or else figures of very things, and signs of things now present, and not absent. In this process Origen for that he is right ancient shall first be heard: Modo Origen. homil 7s in Num. enim cum Moyses venit ad nos & coniunctus est nostrae Aethyopissae, lex Dei iam non in figuris, & in imaginibus sicut priùs sed in ipsa specie veritatis agnoscitur. Et quae priùs in enigmate designabantur, nunc in specie & veritate complentur. Et ideo ille qui species figurarum, & anigmatum disserebat, dicit: Scimus quoniam patres nostri omnes sub nube erant, & omnes mare transierunt, & omnes in Moyse baptisati sunt, in Nube, & in mari, & omnes eandem escam spiritualem manducaverunt, & omnes eundem potum spiritualem biberunt, biberunt autem de spiritali consequent eos petra, Petra autem erat Christus. Vides quomodò aenigmata legis absoluit Paulus, & species aenigmatum docet. Now when Moses came unto us, and was joined to this hour Ethyopisse, the law of God is not now known in figures and images as before it was, but in the If christ be now received in figure, he is received as in Moses' law in dark manner. plain form of truth. And such things as before were appointed in a dark manner, now they are fulfilled in plain formand truth. And therefore he, who declared the plain forms of dark things, saith: We know that all our Fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the Sea, and all were baptized under Moses in the cloud and in the Sea, and all have eaten one spiritual meat, and all have drunk one spiritual drink. They drank of that spiritual rock that followed them. The rock was christ. Thowe seest how Paul openeth the dark things of the law, and teacheth the plain forms of the dark things. And after he had showed of the rock, the cloud and the sea, he cometh to Manna and saith. Tunc in Acnigmate erat Manna cibus: nunc autem in specie caro Verbi Dei est verus cibus, sicut ipse dicit: Caro mea verè est cibus, & sanguis meus verè est potus. Then in a dark manner Manna was meat: but now in plain and open manner, the flesh of the Son of God is the true meat, as he himself saith: My flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed. Thus far Origen. In the which saying of Origen there is nothing (as me thinketh) to be desired, either for the express manner of affirming Manna to be a figure of the body of christ, or else for the presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament. For if the jews in eating Manna did figuratively receive christ, that is, did eat Manna as a figure of christ, which Origen calleth the dark manner, than it must needs be that the christians, who receive christ in plain manner (as Origen termeth it) must receive christ verily, that is, not figuratively only, christ is not now received of the Christians as he was of the jews: for then in figure now in verity. which is the dark manner, but verily, that is, substantially, and really, which is the true and very manner, or else it were all one to Origen, and there were no difference betwixt a clear manner and a dark manner, which were to much absurdity to affirm. It can not therefore by the mind of Origen be said that the christians in receiving the Sacrament receive but a sign or a figure of christ. For they should them receive him in a dark manner only, and so should christ be all one way, meat to the jews, and to us. Which is not true, for he was meat unto them figuratively, but to us verily, according to his own saying, which Origen allegeth: My flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed. And so is it true that the very flesh and blood of christ is really and verily received in the Sacrament. To Origen shall be joined that the holy reverend Father saint Ambrose, who declaring how the Christian people rejoice and glory in the excellency and honour of the table of christ, giveth to this matter a goodly testimony. Ille ergo antè despectus, iam praeferor, iam anteponor electis. Ille ego antè despectus populus peccatorum, iam babeo coelestium sacramentorum veneranda consortia, Ambro. in psal. 1 10. iam mensae coelestis honore suscipior. Epulis meis non plwia undatur, non terrae partus laborat, non arborum fructus. Potui meo non flumina quaerenda, non fontes. Christus mihi cibus est: Christus mihi potus. Caro Dei cibus mihi, & Dei sanguis est potus. Non iam ad satietatem mei annuos expecto proventus: Christus mihi quotidie ministratur. Non verebor ne quae mihi coeli intemperies, aut sterilitas ruris immineat, si pij cultus diligentia perseverat. Non iam coturnicum pluuias mihi opto descendere, quas antè mirabar. Non Manna, quod antè cibis omnibus praferebant, quia qui Manna manducaverunt patres, esurierunt. Meus cibus est, quem qui manducaverit, non esuriet. Meus cibus est, qui non corpus impinguat, sed confirmat cor hominis, fuerat mihi antè mirandus panis de coelo. Scriptum est enim: Panem de coelo dedit eis manducare, sed non erat verus ille panis, sed futuri umbra. Panem de coelo illum verum, mihi seruavit pater. Even I (saith S. Ambrose in the person of the new become faithful christians) before despised now I am preferred, now I am set before the chosen. Even I before a despised people of sinners, now I have the woorshippefull companies of the heavenly sacraments. Now I am advanced to the honour of the heavenly table. The reign is not powered down for my meat, the spring of the earth laboureth not, neither the fruits of the trees. To my drink neither rivers are to Plain sainges of S. Ambrose for the Proclaimer. be sought, nor wells. christ is my meat, christ is my drink. The flesh of God is my meat, the blood of God is my drink. Now for my satiety, I look not for yearly profits. christ is every day ministered unto me. I will not fear least any way the untemperateness of the heaven, or the barrenness of the earth come upon me, if the diligence of Godly tillage do continue. I desire not now the reins of quaills to descend unto me, the which before I wondered at: Not Manna, which before they preferred before all other meats. For the fathers which have eaten Manna, have hungered. My meat is which fatteth not the body, but it maketh strong the heart of man. Before the bread from heaven was marvelous to me, for it is written: he hath given them bread from heaven to eat, but the bread which was not the true bread, but the shadow of the bread to come. The Father hath kept for me that true bread from heaven. Hitherto S. Ambrose. Of whom first, that is here to our purpose we may learn, that Mamna was Mamna was a figure of Christ'S body in the B. Sacram. a figure of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, for he saith, that it was a shadow of the true bread, which true bread the Father of heaven hath kept for him. What this true bread is he also showeth, saying: christ is my meat, christ is my drink. And that these his words should not be misunderstanded by the simple, or wrested by the wicked, he addeth as it were an exposition what he meaneth by christ, and saith: The flesh of God is my meat, the blood of God is my drink. And yet for that it was foreseen by the holy Ghost, that the Adversary would wrest these words, though they were thus plainly spoken, to eschew it he addeth where the flesh of the Son of God, and the blood of the The fleshof God our meat, the blood of God our drink, and that on the table. Son of God, be his meat and drink, saying: jam habeo coelestium sacramentorum veneranda consortia. jam mensae coelestis honore suscipior. Now (saith he) have I the worshipful companies of the heavenly Sacraments. Now am I advanced to the honour of the heavenly table. In the heavenly table then, where he hath the woorshippefull companies of the heavenly Sacraments, there receiveth he the true bread, that the father hath kept for him: there receiveth he his meat, which is the flesh of God, there receiveth he his drink, which is the blood of God. Which words do most evidently prove unto us, that in the heavenly Sacraments of Christ'S body and blood ministered in that heavenly table, is this worthy and excellent meat christ, even his very flesh, and his very blood. In this brief opening of S. Ambrose words (which may as well be perceived of the unlearned Christian, as of the learned) I have not, jam sure, dissentet from the mind of S. Ambrose, no more have I gone from his words, that the truth might as it is appear. Oecolampadius, Whose conscience was cawtherised having a pretence of sincerity in handling, of the scriptures, and the Fathers, but not in deed, as ye perceived before: so shall ye now again, perceive how wickedly he Oecol. his wresting of S. Ambrose opened. hath abused S. Ambrose in wresting him to his wicked purpose. In this fame sermon where these words be written, which as yeperceave be very plain, and of that force, that they could not well be wrested by the crafty engines of Oecolampadius, immediately after follow other words, which he perceiving that he might wrest, left out all this that is before alleged, and took only this that followeth, which when it is applied to this that is before rehearsed, then judge (Reader) whether it be not violently wrested from the true meaning of saint Ambrose or no. Thus he allegeth: Mihi ille panis Dei descendat de coelo, qui dat vitam huic mundo. Non judaeis, non Synagogae descendit, sed Ecclesiae descendit, sed populo minori. Nam quomodò judaeis descendit Ambr. ibid. panis, cùm omnes qui illum manducarunt, hoc est, quem judaei putarunt Manna, in deserto mortui sunt? Quomodò Synagogae descendit, cùm omnis Synagoga interierit, & aeterno jeiunio fidei defecerit? Denique si accipissent panem verum, non dixissent: Domine, semper da nobis panem hunc. Quid petis judaee ut tribuat tibi? Panem, quem dat quotidie, dat semper, in teipso est ut accipias hunc panem. Accede hunc panem, & accipies eum. De hoc pane dictum est: Omnes qui se elogant à te peribunt. Si elongaris ab eo peribis. Si appropinquaris vives. Hic est panis vitae. Qui vitam manducat, mori non potest. Quomodò enim moritur, cui vita cibus est? Quomodò deficiet, qui habet vitalem substantiam? Accedite ad eum, & satiemini, quia panis est. Accedite ad eum & potate, quia fons est. Accedite ad eum & illuminemini, quia Lux est. Accedite ad eum & liberemini, quia ubi Spiritus Domini, ibi libertas. Accedite ad eum & absoluimini, quia est remissio peccatorum. Qui sit iste quaeritis? Audite ipsum dicentem: Ego sum panis vitae, qui venit ad me non esur●et, & qui credit in me non sitiet unquam. Audistis eum, & vidistis eum, & non credidistis ei ideo mortui estis. That bread of God descend unto me from heaven which giveth life to the world. He hath not descended to the jews, not to the synagogue: but he hath descended to the Church: he hath descended to the inferior people. For how hath that bread descended to the jews, seeing that all that have eaten it, that is, whom the jews thought to be Manna in the wilderness, are dead? How hath he descended to the synagogue, seeing that all the synagogue hath perished, and with the hunger or fast of faith hath failed or decayed? If they had received the true bread, they had not said: Lord give us always this bread. What dost though ask, O jew, that he should give unto thee? The bread which he giveth to all, which he giveth daily, which, he giveth always, it is in thyself, that thou mayst take that bread Come unto this bread, and thou shall receive it. Of this bread it is said: All that make themselves far from thee, shall perish. If thou make thyself far from him, thou shalt perish: if thou draw near to him, thou shalt live. This bread is the the bread of life. He that eateth life, can not die How can he die unto whom life is meat? How shall he fail that hath that lively substance? Come unto him and be filled, for he is the food. Come unto him and drink, for he is the well. Come unto him and be lightened, for he is the light. Come unto him and be made free. For where the Spirit of God is, there is freedom. Come unto him and be absolved, for he is the remission of sins. Who this is do ye ask? Hear him saying: I am the bread of life, he that cometh to me shall not bungar, and he that believeth in me shall not thirst at any time. Ye have heard him, ye have seen him, and have not believed him. Therefore ye are dead Thus moche of S. Ambrose is alleged of Oecolampadius, which for that it hath none of those express words, which be in the rest of S. Ambrose, which I have before alleged. Therefore he took this part of S. Ambrose, that he might the better wrest it, and left that which I have alleged, because he could not so well blind the eye of his reader with the wresting of it. Now what would ye think of a man that so useth any holy author, as to bring him against a matter, or raither as seeming to speak against a matter, who in deed speaketh nothing against it, but in the next line speaketh so manifestly, and so plainly with it, that the wrester is ashamed, and dare not bring him forth, and report that, that there he saith, but knowing that he is for the truth, will bring him forth as though he were against the truth? There is no other thing but that he is an Angel of Satan transforming himself into the Angel of light, and by sweet words entrappeth the hearts of the simple, and of such as be not ware and circumspect. And therefore you must think that it is necessary to be vigilant, and by earnest prayer to desire the Lord of all Spirittes to give you grace to discern betwixt spirittes, I mien, betwixt the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error, and so to fly the evil and cleave to the good. And when ye see soche wicked wresters so to abuse the authors, think as ye have just cause, that their matter is nought, who seek by such naughty means to maintain it. Now I wish that if the reader be learned he would read these two allegations in saint Ambrose: if he be not learned read them as they be here alleged. For so moche as Oecolampadius allegeth followeth in saint Ambrose immediately after that, that I alleged, even as it doth here. Now join them together as one (as they be in deed) and then judge if they teach not the presence of christ in the Sacrament, and Manna to be a figure of the same, how soever Oecolampadius would wrest it to the contrary. This also by the way is to be noted, that where this and the rest of the Adversaries of God's truth, teach that there is no difference betwxit the Difference between Manna and the blessed Sacrament Sacraments of the old law and the new, as touching any more excellency or worthiness in the one then in the other, but that the one signified christ to come, the other as comed: that saint Ambrose here noteth a more difference, saying that Manna was not the true bread, but our bread is the true bread, that was a shadow, our the very thing: that gave not life, our giveth life. Be not these differences showing the one more excellent than the other? Did not Origen also in his saying signify moche difference when he said that Manna was meat in dark manner, and now the flesh of the Son of God is true meat in a plain manner? If the balance be in a true man's hand, the one will weigh much more than the other, even as much as the body more than the shadow. Thus ye have heard the mind of Origen and S. Ambrose in these three points, that is, that Manna is a figure of the body of christ: that the body of christ is present in the Sacrament: and that the things of the new Testament are of more excellency, than the things of the old Testament. In particular, I mien of that thing that they have spoken of. A place shall be had that they shall be spoken of universally. In the mean while as I do pass through the Authors, as they do touch it, so it shall be noted, and so likewise of the other two. THE SIXTH CHAPTER DECLARETH THAT Manna was a figure by the testimony of saint Cyprian, and Chrysostom. THe holy Martyr S. Cyprian, whose faith is well to be perceived in the matter of the Sacrament by his plain and manifold godly sainges in the first and second book alleged, will also be a notable witness for the same here. In the first book he hath most clearly declared unto us, the figures that were there spoken of, as of Melchisedech and the Paschal lamb: so here also as plainly as briefly he toucheth this figure saying: Huius panis figura fuit Manna, quoth in deserto pluit. Sicubi ad verum panem in terra promissionis ventum est, cibus ille defecit. Of this bread, Mamna was a figure, which reigned in the desert. So when we came to the true bread Cyprian. de caena. Do. in the land of promise, that meat ceased. That the bread which he speaketh of here, of the which he saith that Manna was the figure, is the holy bread of the blessed Sacrament, it is more manifest, than that it can be denied. For this his Sermon, wherein these words be written, being of the supper of our Lord, he only treateth of it. This will also be proved not only by the sentence on the which this dependeth Ibid. and hangeth: but also very manifestly, where he openeth himself in the end of the sermon by express words, saying: Sed & nos ipsi corpus effecti. Sacramento & re Sacramenti capiti nostro connectimur, & unimur. Singuli alter alterius membra ministerium dilectionis proinuicc exhibentes, communicamus charitate, participamur The one meat and drink that we feed on is our Lord jesus christ. solicitudine, eundem cibum manducantes, & eundem potum bibentes, qui de spiritali prosluit petra, & emanavit. Qui cibus & potus est Dominus noster jesus Christus. But we ourselves also (saith Cyprian) being made his body by the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament, we are connected and united to our head, every one being members one of an other, we communicate in charity, we are partakers of one care, eating of one meat, and drinking of one drink, which did flow out of the spiritual stone. Which meat and drink is ower Lord jesus Chryst. Thus moche S. Cyprian. In this saying it is manifest that he alludeth to the same text of S. Paul, that we have in hand, for he useth the very words of S. Paul saying: that we eat all of one meat, and drink all of one drink, which drink did flow out of the spiritual stone. I need not to confer the one to the other, for he that knoweth the one doth well perceive the other. But what this one meat is that we all eat of, and what this drink is that flowed out of the spiritual stone, of the which we all drink, he forth A plain saying for the Procla. with expoundeth and saith: Which meat, and drink is our Lord jesus christ. A more plain speech can not be desired. As the jews did eat of one Manna, and drank of one water flowing out of the stone: so all we christians eat one meat, and drink one drink the body and blood of christ. The body of christ being the one meat figurated by the one meat of the jews, which was Manna. The blood of christ being the one drink of the christians, figurated by the one drink of the joan. 19 jews, which did flow out of the stone, as the blood flowed out of the spiritual stone, the body of our Lord and Saviour christ jesus. For as the Evangelist saith, unus militum lancea latus eius aperuit, & continuò exivit sanguis & aqua. One Sacramentaries gloze of spiritual lie impugned. of the soldiers with a spear thrust him into the side and forthwith there came out blood and water. This clear testimony of S. Cyprian can not be darkened with the common obscure gloze of the Adversaries, as to say that our Lord jesus christ is our meat spiritually. We confess (as before) that christ is our spiritual meat, and that we feed upon him spiritually, and we wish and pray that all Christians will so frame their lives, and conversations, that they may daily feed on him spiritually. But with all we confess and believe, that we recea him really, and substantially in the Sacrament, as S. cyril saith, whose phrase is not unlike this that we have now said. Thus he writeth: Non negamus cyril. in 15 Joan. Christ'S body is received both spiritually and really. nos recta fide, charitateue sincera Christo spiritualiter coniungi: sed nullam nobis coniunctionis rationem secumdùm carnem cum illo esse, id profectò pernegamus, idue à divinis scripturis omnino alienum dicimus. We deny not but that we are joined to christ spiritually by right faith, and sincere charity: But that we have no manner of conjunction with him after the flesh, that in very deed we utterly deny, and say it to be far wide from the scriptures. And a little after: An fortassis putat ignotam nobis misticae benedictionis virtutem esse? quae cùm in nobis fiat nonne corporalliter quoque facit communicatione carnis Christi, Christum in nobis habitare? Doth he think peradventure that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? which when it is done in us, doth it not make also by the communication or receiving of Christ'S flesh, christ corporally to dwell in us? Now therefore with S. cyril confessing both manners of receiving and feeding of christ, we do not with the Adversaries so confess the one, that we deny the other. wherefore not denying, but affirming with the holy martyr Cyprian, we say that we receive christ verily, and that our lord jesus christ, as Cyprian speaketh it, is our meat, and his blood our drink really, and substantially. And that S. Cyprian so meaneth it will without all scruple appear manifestly to the reader, if he will consider, and understand, where he speaketh these words. They are spoken in a sermon that he made of the supper of our lord, which sermon being made to setforth that thing that it was made for, must, and doth seth it forth as it is. And so by the figure of the paschal lamb, and by the figure of Melchisedech he declareth the verity A short solution of the Sacramentaries. of christ in the Sacrament, of the which moche is said before, both in the first book, and in the second, whereinuinciblie by S. Cyprian is proved the presence of christ in the Sacrament. In the which matter S. Cyprian is so plain in this sermon that the Adversary hath no better evasion then of his own authority to say that it is not S. Cyprians sermon, as he doth for the like cause make a like solution to the books of S. Ambrose of the sacraments, saying they be none of his. And therefore weigh well the rest of the sermon, and what is said of him in the other books here before and ye shall see what faith he professeth as concerning the Sacrament, and how he would be understanded here. But that the unlearned reader may not be referred to a place unknown Effects of the blessed Sacr. and the means to atteing them. to him, or enforced to suspend his judgement in this matter, it shall upon this present sentence of S. Cyprian be manifested and declared unto him. This is in this saying of S. Cyprian to be considered, that he teacheth the effect and commodity of the Sacrament, and by what mean we atteing to it. The effect is that we be made the body mystical of christ, we be knit and united to him, as to our head, we be made members one of an other in this mystical body. These effects which happen unto us by the receipt of the Sacrament, if they be well considered and weighed, they be very excellent and great. The mean to attain to them S. Cyprian also here declareth when he saith: by the Sacrament, and the thing of the Sacrament, what the Sacrament is, and what the thing of the Sacrament is, and what is the difference betwixt them both, S. Augustin teacheth us saying: Hoc est quod dicimus, quod modis omnibus approbare contendimus, sacrificium Ecclesiae duobus modis confici, duobus constare, visibili elementorum specie, & Li. senten. Prosper. vide sup. cap. 19 invisibili Domini nostri jesu Christi carne, & sanguine, & sacramento, & re sacramenti, id est, corpore Christi etc. This is it (saith S. Augustine) that we say, that by all means we labour to prove, the sacrifice of the Church to be made two ways, to be of two things: of the visible form of the elements, and the invisible Aplain place for the Proclaimer flesh and blood of our Lord jesus christ: both the Sacrament, and the thing of the Sacrament, that is to say, the body of christ. Even as the person of christ is of God and man, for as much as he is very God, and very man. For every thing containeth the nature and verity of those things, of which it is made. The sacrifice of the Church is made of two things, of the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament, that is to say, of the body of christ. It is therefore the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament, the body of christ. Thus moche S. Augustin. Of whom ye have heard (except my judgement fail me) a very plain declaration of the sacrifice of the Church, and of the Sacrament and of the thing of the Sacrament. But leaving here to speak of the Sacrifice, and referuing Sacrifice of the Church avouched. it to some other more meet place, we will only speak of that that this place requireth, that is, for so much as S. Cyprian saith, that we be connected, knit, and united to christ our head by the Sacrament, and the thing of the Sacrament, to mark and learn by S. Augustin, what is meant thereby. The sentence of S. Augustin is plain therein, that the Sacrament is the visible form of the elements. As for example: Even as the visible form of the element of water, when the word cometh to it, is the sacrament of Baptism: So be the visible forms of bread and wine, when the word is Sacrament and thing of the Sacr. what they be. comed to them, the Sacraments of the body and blood of christ. Beside this there is also the thing of the Sacrament. Which S. Augustine saith, is the body and blood of christ. Now when S. Cyprian saith that we be knit and united to christ our head by the Sacrament, and the thing of the Sacrament: What is it else, but we are united (as S. cyril saith) by the Sacrament and the body and blood of christ, and that (as ye heard S. cyril say before) not only spiritually, but also corporally, receiving his very flesh? If of S. Cyprian we ask how we are knit to christ our head by his body and blood, which is the thing of the Sacrament: He also answereth like unto S. cyril, saying: Edentes, & bibentes, eundem cibum & potum, qui cibus & potus est Dominus noster jesus Christus. Eating, and drinking the same meat, and drink, which meat and drink is our lord jesus christ. Now than ye perceive that S. Cyprian taketh the meat and drink, that S. Paul speaketh of, not for the figures of the body and blood of christ, of the which we have the very presence in the Sacrament. which as it is declared by him very plainly: So I doubt not but Chrysostom will as plainly declare it, so that there shall be no place for the enemy to lurk in. Chrysostom Homil. in dictum. Apost. Nolo vos ignor. making a special homely upon the words of S. Paul, which be now in hand, declareth both the figures and the things figured by express words, saying thus: Dixi enim quod oportet veritatem habere excellentiam quandam supra figuram. Vidisti de baptismate quae figura, & quae veritas. Age, ostendam tibi & mensas, & sacramentorum communionem ibi delineari, si non iterum petis à me totum, sed sic requiris, quae facta sunt, sicut par est in adumbratione & figuris videre. Igitur quia dixit de mari, & de nube, & de Moyse, adiecit preterea: Et omnes eundum spiritualem cibum comederunt. Sicut tu (inquit) à lavachro aquarum ascendens ad mensam curris: sic & illi à mari ascendentes ad mensam venere novam, & admirabilem, de Manna loquor. Et iterum The truth must have an excellency above the figure. sicut tu admirabilem habes potum salutarem sanguinem: sic & illi admirabilem habuerunt poculi naturam. I have said (saith Chrisostom) that the truth must have a certain excellency above the figure. though havest seen of Baptism, which is the figure and which is the verity. Go on I shall show thee the tables and the communion of the sacraments there to be in a dark manner set forth, if thou do not again ask all of me, but so requirest those things that be done, as it is meet in the shadowing and figures to see. Therefore because he had said of the Sea, and of the cloud and of moyses, he added furthermore: And all have eaten one spiritual meat. as though (saith he) ascending from the bathe or washing of waters dost run to the table. So they also going up from the sea, came to a new, and a marvelous table, I speak of Mamna, and again as thou have a wonderful drink, the wholesome blood: so they also had a wonderful nature of drink. Hitherto chrysostom. Who hath declared every part of these matters, that here are to be set forth. In the beginning of his saying he confowndeth the Adversary in that he so plainly saith, that the verity must have a certain excellency above the figure. Then uless as Baptism is the verity, and the sea the figure, Baptism is more excellent than the sea: Likewise Manna and the water being the figure of the Sacrament of the body of christ, and of his blood. than the Sacrament of the body and blood of christ is more excellent than Manna, for the verity is more excellent than the figure. That Manna and the water be figures of the Sacrament, he doth most manifestly declare when he Our drink the wholesome blood of christ. saith: I will show thee the tables, and the communion of the Sacraments there to be in figures set forth. And proceeding to show what Sacraments be settfurth there, he doth apply the one to the other saying: As though coming up (saith he) from the font of baptism, runnest to the table. So they from the sea to Manna. As though have a wonderful drink, which is the wholesome blood of christ: so they the water of the stone. In this is plainly taught, which be the figures, which be the verities. The Sea, Manna, and the waters be the figures: Baptism, Christ'S body and Christ'S blood be the verities. For although Chrysostom in the application of Manna doth but put the table as the verity. what he meant by the table he well declareth in the application of the water to the verity where he saith: As though drinkest wonderful drink the wholesome blood, So they the water. Whereby as in this by express words he declareth the blood to be the verity of the water being the figure: so by the table wherein that holy Sacrament is ministered, he meant the body of christ, which after a few lines he openly speaketh saying: Sicut autem dixit, quòd omnes per mare transierunt: Sic nobilitatem Ecclesiae praefiguravit cùm dixit: Eundem cibum spiritualem comederunt. Hoc idem rursus insinuavit: Sic enim in Ecclesia, now aliud corpus dives, aliud verò pauper, neque alium quidem sanguinem ille, alium autem iste. Sic & Itunc non aliud quidem accipiebat rich and poor eat all one body, and drink all one blood. dives Manna, alium verò pauper, neque alterius fontis iste particeps erat, alterius verò in digentioris ille. As he hath said that all have goen through the sea: so he hath perfigurated the nobility of the church when he said: They have eaten all one spiritual meat. he hath insinuated the same again, for so it is in the Church For the rich man receiveth not one body, and thee, poor man an other, neither he one manner of blood and this an other. So also then the rich man did not take of one Manna, and the poor man of an other, neither was this man partaker of one fountain, and he of a worse. In this saying chrysostom making an other comparison betwixt the figure and the verity, he showeth what he meant by the table in the place first alleged. For here he calleth it the body, saying, that the rich man doth not receive one body, and the poor man an other: no more than the rich man did receive one Manna, and the poor man an other: but as all eat one Manna in the figure: So all indifferently eat one body in verity. For the poor lazar receiveth that same body of christ that the king doth. Which by the way to note, I wish all men of power and honour to remember and consider that God contemneth not the miserable and wretched, but receiveth all, and despiseth none but the wicked. And as he is no acceptour of persons in the receipt of his Sacraments, no more is he in the receiving to his glory. For poour Lazarus was in the bosom of Abraham when the great rich man was in torments. But to return to our matter. chrysostom yet in the same homely declaring why S. Paul maketh mention of these things. saith: Sed cuius gratia horum memoriam adsert beatus Paulus? Ob causam quam principio Chry. Jbid. vobis dixi, ut discas, quòd neque Baptisma, neque peccatorum remissio, neque scientia, neque sacramentorum Communio, neque sacra mensa, neque fruitio corporis, neque participatio fanguinis, neque aliud horum prodesse nobis poterit, nisi vitam rectam, & admirabilem, & omni peccato liberam habeamus. Neither the fruition of Christ'S body nor the partaking of his blood availeth without good life But wherefore doth S. Paul make mention of these things? for the cause which I told you in the beginning, that if shouldest learn, that neither Baptism, neither remission of sins, neither knowledge, neither the communion of the sacraments, neither the holy table, neither the fruition of the body, neither the partaking of the blood, neither any thing of these can avail us, except we have a life right and commendable, and free from all sin. Thus Chrysostom. In which his saying ye perceive how plainly he teacheth the receipt of the body and blood of christ in the Sacrament really and in very deed and not figuratively or spiritually. And this is the proof of it. Christ'S body may be 〈…〉. For he saith that the receipt of the body and blood of christ profiteth nothing, except we have a godly life withal. Now the spiritual receiving of christ includeth a godly life with all. For to receive christ spiritually is having the remembrance of Christ'S passion and death to receive him by faith and charity, which can not be without a godly life. For where perfect faith, and perfect charity is, there is a man of perfect and holy life, and he that is of that sort receiveth christ spiritually. But here Chrysostom speaketh of the receipt of the body of christ without holy life. which must needs be spoken and meant of the body of christ in the Sacrament. Which as it was received by judas, he being then a wicked man: so may it be received of other that be wicked, and not of holy life, but then (as chrysostom saith) it profiteth nothing, but it raither hurteth moche, as here after shall be said. In 10. 1. Cor. hom. 23. christians eat the body of Christ as the jews did Manna. All though ye have had here clear testimony of chrysostom in this matter: yet he is more plain in an other place, expounding the same scripture and applying it to the verity, thus: Quae autem sequntur sacram mensam significant. Nam quemadmodum tu corpus Dominicum manducas: ita & illi Manna manducaverunt. Et sicut tu sanguinem bibis: ita illi aquam de petra biberunt. These things that do follow do signify the holy table. For as though dost eat the body of our Lord: so they also have eaten Manna and as though drinkest blood: so they have drunk the water of the stone. And again in the same homely, speaking of the benefits, which God gave to the jews, as Manna, and the water in figures of the benefits of his body and blood, which he giveth unto us, and showing him to be the giver of them both, saith in the person of S. Paul. Qui enim illa illis prebuit (inquit) hic & hanc praeparavit mensam. Et ipse idem, & illos per mare, & te per baptisma adduxit. Et illis Manna, & aquam: & tibi corpus & sanguinem dedit. He that prepared (saith he) those things to them, to these hath he also prepared this table. And even the very same hath brought them through the Sea: and the through Baptism. And unto them he gave Manna and the water: and unto thee, the body and blood. What can the Adversary once say against these so clear and manifest testimonies for the truth? What blind gloze or malicious interpretation can he bring to make these sainges any thing look toward him? If the jews received the figure, and we the verity: what base or lower thing is it then the body of christ? If the Adversary say, that we receive christ spiritually, so did they in the receipt of Manna also: I mien all they that received If the christian receive christ but in figure spiritually, as the jew did where is then the verity. well. What then receive we more now in, or with the verity under christ in the Gospel, than they did with their figures under Moses in the law? If they proceed and say that we receive the Sacramental bread as a figure of christ: so received the jews Manna as a figure of christ. If in every place the figure, where is the verity? If there a figure and here a figure, if there christ spiritually, and here spiritually, and no more in the one, then in the other, what then signifieth the verity? and where is the verity? Farther (as ye heard chrysostom before say) the verity must have excellency above the figure, if then we have the verity (as Chrysostom also saith) then of necessity it must follow, that if the jews had the figure of christ in Manna, and if the good receivers with the figure Manna, received also christ spiritually, that we must have a certain excellency with our verity, which be none other, but the presence of him that is the verity in deed, which is christ. For we have a figure with the jews, and a spiritual receiving, with the jews, and in these we be equal, and on our part there is no excellency. This therefore is the excellency, that where they had the figure: we have both figure and the thing figurated, which is the body and blood of christ. Of these two authors then, as of the other, ye perceive these three things avouched, which were before mentioned, that is Manna, and the water, to befigures of Christ'S body and blood, and that same body and blood be in the Sacrament, and that there is an excellency in the things prefigured above the figures. as to the verity it appertaineth above the figure. THE SEVENTH CHAP. proceedeth TO DEclareth the same by saint Hierom and saint cyril. WHen I consider with myself, how long the verity of the presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament hath been received and believed: how not in one corner of the Christian orb (as now the Adversaries of this truth do occupy) but throughout in all places, where christ was professed, as well in the east Church, as the west church, in the greek church, as in the latin Church, this truth was embraced, the Sacrament much reverenced, christ God and man there truly and highly honoured: the same also by the greatest, gravest, and holiest learned men taught and preached, and in their books by the testimony of their hands testified, and to all the world commended: I can not cease to marvel how men of this our time be bewitched and infatuated to leave so sure an anchor, while they be in the trooblesom sea of this world, and take hold of a feather, in the which there is no surety nor stay, but raither great occasion of present peril and destruction. They be not altogether unlike the dog in the fable, who swimming through the water, and having a good bone in his mouth saw the shadow of the same in the water, and Protestanres compared to the dog in the fable. suddenly without consideration leaving his good bone, snatched at the shadow to have caught it, and so lost for the shadow, the substantial thing: So these men swimming through the trooblesome water of his world, and having in their mouths the substantial word of truth that was able to feed them, seeing the shadow of this vain doctrine, which like a shadow appeareth to be somewhat, but is nothing in deed, they let the catholic and substantial doctrine fall from their mouths and catch the shadow. But as long as they have but the shadow their feeding will be so bare, or raither nothing, that their souls which should be fed with the true word of God, shall perish with famine, it increaseth my merueilling and wondering, that they seeing these grave fathers, and learned writers so manifestly teaching the truth, yet as men addicted to swear to the words of their wicked masters, they move not from their fantasies. What then? Shall we cease to call upon them? Nay, God forbid. S. Paul although he well saw the stiff necks of the jews, that they would not bow to the faith, yet he said: Quamdiu sum gentium Apostolus, ministerium meum Rom. 11. honorificabo, si quomodò ad aemulandum provocem carnem meam, & saluosfaciam aliquos exillis. As long as I am the Apostle of the gentiles I will magnify mine office if by any mean I may provoke them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. God grant the charity of S. Paul to all, whom God hath called to the office of teachers, that they may magnify their office, and call upon the people continually, that some may be saved, though damnation to them that be called, and will not hear be the more grievous. Wherefore although these two couple in the chapters before alleged, might suffice to certify us of the true understanding of this scripture of S. Paul, and of the matters depending upon the same: yet to the intent I may by a number of worthy witnesses, all with one consent, and as it were with one mouth testifying the ancient received truth, provoke some to follow: I will by gods help produce three or four couples more that shall teach all one truth though they were not all in one time, but some five hundredth years after the other, and some more and some less. The first couple of these shall be S. Hierom and S. cyril, whose fame and ancienty, I need not now to set forth. For I have of it already said and they are also well known. But for that Saint Hierom is the elder, his sentence shall be first heard. expounding this scripture he saith thus: Et omnes eandem spiritualem escam manducaverunt etc. Manna figura corporis Christi Hieron. in 10. 1. Cor. ● fuit. And all did eat of one spiritual meat. Manna was a figure of the body of christ. Although these words be full enough and teach that that is here sought, for saying that Manna was a figure of the body of christ they teach, that as the jews did eat Manna as the figure: So now the figure being gone we eat the body of christ as the verity of that figure, yet more at large he openeth the whole matter somewhat after saying: Omnia enim quae in populo Israel illo tempore facta sunt in figura, nunc in nobis in veritate celebrantur. Sicut enim illi per Moysen ex Aegipto liberati sunt: Sic nos per quemlibet sacerdotem vel doctorem de seculo liberamur. Deinde christiani facti, ducimur per deserta, ut per exercitium contemptus mundi & abstinentiae in oblivionem nobis eant Aegypti voluptates, ita ut nesciamus ad seculum repedare. Cùm verò Baptismi mare transimus; tunc nobis Diabolus cum suo exercitu tanquam Pharao demergitur. Deinde Manna cibamur, & potum accipimus de Christi latere emanantem. Claritas quoque scientiae tanquam columna ignis in nocte seculi demonstratur, & in tribulationis aestu, divinae consolationis nube protegimur. All things (saith S. Hierom) which in that time were done in the people of Israel in figure, now they are celebrated in us in verity. As they by Moses were delivered out of egypt: So we by every priest and doctor are delivered from the world. Then being made Christians we are led through the deserts, that by the exercise of the contempt of the world, and of abstenence, the sleshlie pleasures of Egypt may be of us forgotten so that we shall not know to go back again into the world. When we pass through the sea of Baptism than the Devil with all his army, even like as Pharaoh was, is drowned. Then we are fed with Manna, and take drink flowing out of the side of christ. The brightness also of knowledge is showed in We drink● drink flowing out of the side of christ. the night of the world, as the pillar of fire, and in the heat of tribulation, we are defended with the cloud of divine consolation, Thus moche S. Hierom. In whom we see the whole application of the figures mentioned in Saint Paul to the things figured, which things as by other before, so by him they are called, veritates, the verities. And therefore he saith in the beginning of his sentence thal all things done in the jews in figures, are fulfilled in us in verity. So that such things as we have, which were prefigured in the jews, As we have not now Moses but christ in deed, not a figure of Baptism, but Baptism in deed, not the holy Ghost in figure but in deed. So not the figure of Christ'S body, but his body in deed. Hiero. ibi. they be not with us bare signs or figures as they were with them. But although they be figures in some respect: yet they are also verities, and the very things in deed. Wherefore as Moses was a figure of christ, and now again we have not a figure of christ, but christ himself as the verity, or very thing of the figure: and as the sea was the figure of Baptism, and now we have not an other figure of Baptism, but Baptism it self in very deed: And as the cloud was a figure of the holy Ghost, and now we have not an other figure of the holy Ghost, but the holy Ghost in very deed: so Mamna, as S. Hieron saith here, being the figure of the body of christ, of like consequence it must follow, that now we having the verity of the figure, have not an other figure of the body of christ, but the very body of christ in deed, that as the jews did verily eat Mamna, and drink verily the water as the figures of the body and blood of christ. So as Chrysost. said in the last chap. thou dost verily eat his body and drink his blood. Wherefore also S. Hierom, in this application of the figures to the verities, coming to Manna, saith: Cibamur Manna, et potum accipimus de latere Christi emanantem. We are said (saith he) with Manna, but that ye should understand him of the true Manna the body of christ, he addeth: And we take drink slowing out of the side of Chryst. What drink slowed out of that blessed side? it is well known to be the precious blood of our Saviour christ. So that ye see that Saint Hierom, as he doth it godly, and learnedly: So also simply and plainly, and faithfully confesseth and teacheth, that as the jews did eat Manna, and drank the water of the stone: So we eat the verity of that figure, and drink the verity of that figurative water, which be the very body and blood of the spiritual stone jesus christ. And note that the masters of figures can not place their figure in Saint Hieroms' words. For he contented not himself to say only the blood, but to declare the reality and substance in deed, he said: the blood that flowed out of Christ'S side, not a figure, but that blood in deed. But peradventure the Adversary will reject this authority, because it is doubted of some, whether it be Saint Hieroms' work or no, that this authority is taken out of. Whether it be or no, two things move me to regard and esteem the authority. The first and the chiefest, because it is a catholic saying, not disagreeing from the like sainges of the good catholic and ancient Fathers. The second, because it is no new work, but of such ancienty, that it might, as it appeareth, be ascribed to Saint Hierom, if it be not his in deed. But that the Adversary shall not cavil that we allege Saint Hierom, where in deed it is not Saint Hierom: we will allege Saint Hierom, that he shall not refuse to be Saint Hierom. And this is his saying: Si panis, Hieron. ad Hedibiam. quest. 2. qui de caelo descendit, corpus est Domini, & vinum, quod Discipulis dedit, sanguis illius est novi Testamenti, qui pro multis effusus est in remissionem peccatorum, judaicas fabulas repellamus. If the bread that descended from heaven be the body of our Lord, and the wine, that he gave to his disciples, be his blood of the new Testament, which was shed for many in remission of sins: let us cast away jewish fables. And again a little after: Nec Moyses dedit nobis panem verum, sed Dominus jesus, ipse conviva, & conuivium, ipse comedens &, qui comeditur. Illius bibimus sanguinem, & sine ipso potare non possumus. Neither hath Moses given us the true bread, but our Lord jesus. He is both the feaster and the feast: He is both the eater, and he that is eaten. We drink his blood, and without him we can not drink. Thus S. Jerome. For that both these places do apply the figure to the thing figured, that is, Manna to the body of christ the true bread, which Manna in the sixth of Saint john is called the bread from heaven, and likewise in diverse places, therefore I thought them meet for this place. In the first under a conditional term, he teacheth a plain assertion, that the bread that descended from heaven is the body of our Lord, and the wine that he gave to his Disciples is his blood, which is a plain manner of speech affirming the presence of christ, and not a figurative speech signifying his absence. In that he saith that our Lord jesus body is the bread that descended from heaven, he declareth the verity of Manna the figure to be the body of christ. For when the jews had said to christ: Hour Fathers did eat Manna in the desert, in which words they spoke of the figure: christ answering, joined them both together and said: Non Moyses dedit vobis panem de coelo, sed pater meus dat vobis panem de coelo verum. Moses hath not given joan. 6. you bread from heaven. But my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. And after speaking of the bread which is his body, and applying it to the figure he saith: Hic est panis qui de caelo descendit. Non sicut manducaverunt patres vestri Manna, & mortui sunt. Qui manducat hunc panem vivet in aeternum. This is the bread that descended from heaven, Not as your Fathers have eaten Manna in the desert and be dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. Now then Saint Hierom saying that the bread that descended from heaven, is the body of hour Lord jesus: He teacheth against the Adversary, that the sixth of Saint john speaketh of the Sacrament, and also avoucheth that the verity of the figure Manna, is the body of christ. The like also he doth in the next sentence, saying, That not Moses, but our Lord jesus gave us the true bread. And that by this true bread, which christ gave us, he meaneth his body in the blessed Sacrament, it is invincibly proved by that that he adjoined: He is the feaster and the feast, it is he that eateth and is eaten. As christ in his last supper was both he that prepared the feast (as Cyprian said) Et consumpto agno quem antiqua traditio proponebat, inconsumptibilem De caena Domini. cibum magister apponit Discipulis. And when the lamb was consumed which the old tradition did set forth, the master set before his disciples inconsumptible meat: and one that did partake of the feast, as among diverse other chrysostom saith speaking of the cup of his blood, Ipse In 26. Ma. Hom. 83. quoque bibit ex eo, ne auditis verbis illis, dicerent: Quid igitur sanguinem bibimus, & carnem comedimus? ac ideo perturbarentur. He also drank of it himself, lest when they had heard those words, they should say: What then do we drink blood and eat flesh? and therefore should be troubled. So was he the feast himself, I mien the meat of the feast, which as he then gave it sitting at his last supper with his Apostles: So giveth he it now. For, as Chrystome Hom. 30. de prodit. saith, he is now present, and sanctifieth. So that this table that is daily ministered is in nothing inferior to that table of his last supper: Haec enim illa, non alia mensa est: haec nulla re minor quam illa est. This is even the same table Hom. 83 in Matty. and not an other: this is in nothing less than that. And as Saint Augustin saith, that he is the priest that doth offer, and De ciu. Dei li. 10. ca 20 the offering, or oblation that is offered: So is he, he that eateth, as Saint Hierom saith, and he that is eaten. Thus Reader, if dost not only perceive the evident and strong testimony of Saint Hierom against the Adversary: But also thou perceivest the goodly concord and agreement of the Fathers together, so mightily knit together in the plain confession of God's truth, that if a legion of enemies were conspired together they could not by all their pulling and wresting draw them into their part. And yet to fortify this truth, not for it self, but for the Reader, we will now hear Saint cyril, whom we promised to join with S. Hierom. Cyr. ca, 19, in 6. Joan, Thus he saith: Non enim prudenter quae ad breve tempus sufficiunt hoc nomine appella buntur, nec panis erat ex Deo, quem maiores judaeorum comederunt, & mortui sunt. Nam si de coelo, & ex Deo fuisset, liberasset à morte participantes. Contrà verò corpus Christi panis de coelo est, quia aeternam comedentibus vitam largitur. Those things which suffice but for a short time, shall not well be called by this name. Neither was it bread from God, which the elders of the jews have eaten and be dead. For if it had been from heaven and of God, it had delivered the partakers of it from death. But contrary wise the body of christ is the bread from heaven, for it granteth everlasting life of the eaters. Thus he. Thisys a brief and a plain testimony, in the which mention is made of the figure, that is, of the bread which the elders of the jews did eat, which bread was Manna: and of the thing figured, which is the verity, which by express words he calleth the body of christ. So that agreeably to all that before hath been spoken, he teacheth, that the thing figured by Mamna was not a figure or a sign of the body of christ, but the very body of christ in deed. For as in diverse places before alleged out of the same cyril, it doth well appear that he is no figurer, but a plain a avoucher of the presence of Christ'S body in the blessed Sacrament, and that we receive the same body really and substantially, as among a great number this may be one: Quoniam salvatoris caro Verbo Dei, quod naturaliter vita est coniuncta, Cyr. ca 14 in 6. joan. When we eat the flesh of christ we have life in us. vivifica effecta est, quando came comedimus, tunc vitam habemus in nobis, illi coniuncti, quae vita effecta est. forasmuch as the flesh of our Saviour being joined to the Son of God, who naturally is life, is made able to give life. When we eat the same flesh, than we have life in us being joined to it that is made able to give life. Thus S. cyril. In this saying ye perceive that the flesh of christ is able to give life, because it is joined to the Son of God in unity of person, which is naturally of it self very life, he himself testifying: Ego sum via, veritas, & vita. joan. 14. I am the way, the truth and the life. Therefore we eating the same flesh that hath life, we also have life. In this here is no void word of figure, he saith not that we shall have life, if we eat the figure of his flesh, for the figure hath no life in it, but if we eat the flesh. And if ye will weigh it, ye shall perceive no consecution nor dependence to be in the saying of S. cyril, if proving the flesh of christ to give life, he should will us to eat the figure of his flesh, and so by it to have life, for that is not proved. For what consequence is this, the flesh of christ giveth life, ergo we eating the figure of it have life? Nay, the consequence of cyril, as he speaketh and meaneth it, hath a good consecution after this sort. The flesh of christ is quickninge, or making to live, therefore he that eateth it shall be made to live: So that it can not be denied, The flesh not the figure g●…eth ●ife, wherefore we eat the very flesh to have life but he speaketh of the very real flesh of christ to be eaten, and not of the figure of it. And thus cyril speaking of the bread which was the figure addeth thereunto the verity of the figure, which is the very body of christ, and not an only figure of the body. And now this couple thus being heard to agree with the rest before them, we shall make like trial of another couple. THE eight CHAP. proceedeth IN Declaration of the same by Saint Augustin & Oecumenius. Saint Augustin whom all good Christians have in great reverence for his singular gift of knowledge, which God by his holy spirit had exceadinglie powered into him, as by the same gift of knowledge he is in all matters of the Christian faith copious and plentiful: so is he in this matter, now in hand. But of many places to bring some let us first see how he speaking of the younglings or novices in the faith, doth compare Manna the figure to the body of christ the thing sigured. Thus he saith. Cathecumeni iam credunt in nomine Christi, sed jesus non se credit eye, id est, non eyes impertit corpus & sanguinem suum. Erubescant ergo quia nesciunt. Transeant per mare rubrum. Manducent Manna ut quomodò crediderunt in nomine jesu, sic se ipsis credat jesus. The learners of Christ'S faith now believe in the name of christ, but jesus committeth not himself to them, he doth not impart or give to them his body and blood. Let them be ashamed therefore because they know not. Let them go through the read sea. Let them eat Manna, that as they have believed in the name of jesus, so jesus may commit himself to them. Thus moche Saint Augustine. For the better understanding of whose saying, it is to be known, that in the primitive Church, such, whose hearts god had touched to receive the holy faith of christ, were for a time under the hands of teachers to be instructed in the principles of faith. During which time, as they were not baptized until they had sufficient knowledge of faith, and believed according to their knowledge: no more did they receive the blessed body and blood of christ. Now (as it may appear) some of these learners, that believed in christ, did not increase and profit so well in faith that they might be admitted to be baptized, and to receive the body of christ. Of the which S, Augustin therefore to quicken them, said that they believed in jesus christ, but jesus did not yet commit himself to them. What he meant by that he said, that jesus did not commit himself to them, he immediately openeth when he saith: That is (saith he) he giveth not them his body and blood. Wherefore rebuking them he saith: Let them be ashamed that as yet they be no better learned in christ. Let them so believe that they may pass through the read sea, and may eat Manna. Now to apply this saying directly to our purpose, this is without all doubt that S, Augustine in the end willing the Cathecumeni to pass through the read sea, and to eat Manna, moved them to be baptized, and to receive the holy Sacrament. whereby it is evident that he by Manna understanding the blessed Sacrament accounteth Manna the figure of it. For it is common by the name of the figure to understand the thing figured. As christ is called the lamb that is slain from the beginning of the world and so it is in other figures. But if you will know what our Manna is in very deed, S. Augustine opened it in express words, when he said, that jesus gave them not his body and blood. See then the comparaison of the figure to the thing figured, see the thing figured to be the body of christ. But of this place of S. Paul S. Augustine more at large treateth in another place. When he had showed how Saint Paul, expounded the stone to be christ, he proceedeth to inquire what the other things did signify. jam ergo lumine illato, quaeramus quid coetera significent. Quid sibi voluit mare, nubes Manna, August. de utilit. paen. haec enim non exposuit. Sed Petra quid ostendit. Per mare transitus, Baptismus est. Sed quia Baptismus, id est salutis aqua, non est salutis, nisi Christi nomine consecrata, qui pro nobis sanguinem fudit, cruce ipsius aqua signatur, & ut hoc significaret, ille Baptismus mare rubrum fuit. Manna de coelo apertè ab ipso Domino exponitur. Patres vestri (inquit) manducaverunt Manna in Eremo, & mortui sunt. Quando enim viverent? Figura enim pronuntiare vitam posset, vita esse non posset. Manducaverunt (inquit) Manna & mortui sunt, id est, Manna, quod manducaverunt, non illos potuit de morte liberare, non quia Manna mors eye fuit, sed quia à morte non liberavit. Ille enim à morte liberaturus erat, qui per Manna figurabatur, de coelo certè Manna veniebat. Attend quem figurabat. Ego sum (inquit) panis vinus qui de caelo descendi. Now, saith S. August. the light being brought in, let us seek what the other things do signify. What the cloud the sea, and Manna do mien. For these things he hath not expounded. But what the stone was he hath showed. The passing through the sea is Baptism. But because Baptism, that is to say, the water of health is not of health except it be consecrated in Christ'S name, who shed his blood for us, the water is blessed with his cross, and that Manna from heaven is plainly expounded of our A figure giveth not life, but the blessed Sac. giveth life. ergo, it is more than a figure. Lord himself: Your Fathers (saith he) have eaten Manna in the Wilderness, and they be dead. When should they live? A figure may prenunciate life, but it can not be life. They have eaten (saith he) Manna and be dead, that is to say, Manna, that they did eat, could not deliver them from death, not that Manna was death unto them, but because it delivered not from death. He should deliver from death, who was figurated by Manna. The Manna truly came from heaven. Mark whom it figured: I am (saith ●e) the living bread which came down from heaven. Thus far S. Augustine: In whose words ye see a goodly application of the figures to the things figured. How well and aptly the red sea figured Baptism, which is made red in virtue by the blood of christ, Saint Augustine most godly hath declared. And he hath done no less in the application of Manna to christ in the Sacrament. Mark (saith he) whom Manna did figure. It figured him, who said: I am the bread of life, which came down from heaven. That christ spoke these words there is no doubt. But whether he spoke them of his body in the Sacrament the sacramentary will make a doubt. But that S. Augustine meent that the body of christ in the Sacrament is the thing figured by Manna, he himself doth so plainly open in an other place, that we are delivered from doubt thereof. Thus he saith. Manna typus est escae spiritualis, quae resurrectione Domint veritas facta est in Eucharistiae mysterio. Manna is a figure of that spiritual meat, which in the resurrection Lib. quest. 〈…〉. test quest. 65. of our Lord, was made the verity in the Sacrament. In which words ye see the just application of the figure to the thing sigured. Manna is the figure: the body of christ in the Sacrament is the thing figured and the verity. Let it not trouble the Reader, that he calleth it the spiritual meat, as though thereby were not affirmed the very real presence. But remember that Mamna how it was called a spiritual meat and the water of the rock a spiritual drink S. Paul calleth Manna a spiritual meat, although it were corporal, and the water also he calleth spiritual, although it were likewise corporal, not that he would so teach them to be spiritual, that they were not in very deed corporal, but because they were miraculously and wonderfully, not by the ordinary power and work of God, which he daily worketh in the producing and conserving of his creatures, but by a special, and unwonted manner, given to the people of Israel. Wherefore it liked S. Augustin, as he might very well, to call it, being the verity, a spiritual meat, as Manna the figure was called spiritual meat. Whereby the one better answereth the other. And in deed as Manna was sent to the jews beside the course of nature: So was christ sent to us beside the course of nature. And as it was made meat to them merueillouslie: So is the body of christ in the Sacrament made meat for us marvelously. And thus both these be spiritual The body of christ in the Sacr. how it is called a spiritual meat. meats, although the body of christ more spiritual, both for that after his resurrection his body was glorified and endued with the gifts of immortality, agility, impassibility, subtility, and clarity: and also for that in the Sacrament it is beholden by faith, and not by senses which is a spiritual manner. Thus than it appeareth very manifestly, that the body of christ is and may be called for diverse considerations a spiritual meat, and yet be never the less a corporal substance. That thus in this place, it is to be understanded to be a spiritual meat and not after the manner that the Adversary would have it wrested, the very words of Saint Augustin enforce: For he said that this spiritual meat is in the mystery or Sacrament. The spiritual manner that the Adversary would here violently intrude and thrust in, is not, nor can not be in the Sacrament, but in the receiver, who by faith and charity receiveth after that spiritual manner, which faith and charity be not in the Sacramental bread (as they term it) but in the man the receiver of it. Of the which spiritual meat the bread is a sign or a figure as they teach, saying, that as they receive that bread to nourish the body: So they spiritually receive christ to nourish the soul: So that that spiritual meat of the which they speak, is not in the Sacrament. Therefore it is to be concluded, that he speaketh of the natural meat of Christ'S body, which is, according to the mind of this holy Father, and the doctrine of the catholic Church verily, really, substantially in the Sacrament and yet never the less spiritually, in manner above declared. In this matter diverse other places might be brought in, but for that I would not weary the Reader, but raither delight him with the hearing of some other, and that convenient place might be had for Oecumnnius, we shall cease with thus moche of Saint Augustine, and hear the said Oecumenius Oecumen. 1. Cor 10. upon the same text of Saint Paul. Thus he writeth. Comederunt nempe Manna, sicut nos corpus Christi. Potum spiritualem, hoc est, aquam è rupe sive petra seaturientem biberunt, quemadmodum nos sanguinem Christ. They have (saith A plain saying for the Procla. Oecumenius) eaten Manna, as we the body of christ: They heave drunk a spiritual drink, that is, water running out of a rock or a stone, as we the blood of christ. Thus he. This is but a brief exposition, but yet wonderful weighty, and mighty to overthrow the enemy. methinks I should nothing say here to open the matter, where all is so plain, but to declare that I wonder that men will or can be so deluded in a matter so clearly taught, as it is here. I marvel also how malice can prevail; or how it self against so many fast a truth by such express words uttered, that no mists or clouds of wicked gloze can wrest, but in such wise as it may very well be perceived. But to come to the purpose, this is first to be noted in this Author, that he applieth the figure to the verity in both parts, that is Manna to the body of christ, and the water to the blood of christ. In the which ye may perceive how well he agreeth with Saint Augustin, with whom he is here joined, and how both they agree with them, that be before alleged, which all have taught that Manna and the water be figures of the body and blood of christ, and that not of the body and blood of christ absolutely without respect, but of the body and blood of christ as eaten and drunken, which is only in the Sacrament, as touching the corporal eating of his body. Observe also for the presence of Real presence and corporal receipt of Christ'S body anouched. Christ'S body in the Sacrament, how this Author speaketh without tropes, without figures, or any such like speech, and in most plain manner saith. That they did eat Manna, as we the body of christ: they drank of the water of the rock, as we the blood of Chryst. In the which comparaison I would learn of the Adversary how this adverb of similitude should agree with his spiritual manner, as concerning the eating of it, as this Author speaketh it, taking as they be in deed Manna for the figure, and the body of christ for the verity. If the body of christ the verity be eaten but spiritually, than Manna was not eaten corporally but spiritually, which is to wide from the truth. For they did eat Manna, as we the body of christ, than it followeth that we eat the body of christ corporally. For they did eat Manna corporally. What folly would these masters of most folly, lay in these holy Fathers, that where (if the heretical assertion be true) we receive not Christ'S very body, but the figure of it or sign, they as Chrysostom, Saint Hierom, and this Author expounding, and by their expositions taking upon them to settfurth to us the true meaning, and right understanding of this scripture of Saint Paul give us no light of understanding, but raither darkness, no true meaning but a wrong meaning, no right understanding, but a misunderstanding, and that so perilous, as thereby they bring us into the danger of Idolatry? For they should teach us (as the heretics would have it) and say, that as the children of Israel did eat Manna a figure of christ: So we eat the Sacramental bread as a figure of christ. As they the good jews receiving the figure, received christ by faith spiritually: So we receiving the Sacramental bread as a figure, receive likewise by faith christ spiritually. As they received Manna corporally, but not christ corporally, but only spiritually: So we receive the bread corporally, but christ not corporally, but only spiritually, This is the heretical pure, and sincere doctrine, and yet this manner and No catholic doctor teacheth the Sacr. to be only a figure. form of doctrine, if it be found in any one of all the holy Fathers, that have taught since christ in any time or age, I will lose my credit and give the victory. So pure is their doctrine and spiritual that it cometh not under our senses, either to be seen, or heard, as the doctrine of the Fathers. But the Fathers teach that we receive the very body of christ, and they put no trope nor figure to it, Wherefore they expounding the Scriptures are to be understanded as they speak. When chrysostom expoundeth this text of Saint Paul, he useth no other manner or phrase of words in his exposition, but this: Ille illis Manna & aquam, & tibi corpus & sanguinem dedit. He (meaning God) gave unto them Manna and water, and unto thee his body and blood. If God giveth not unto us the body and blood of christ verily, as the words in their true signification do purport, why doth he not by plain words so say unto us, in an exposition, which should be all clear and plain? Saint Hierom also said not, we are fed with the figure of Christ'S Note well these plain sentences, reader for thy state. blood, which if it had been none other, there is no doubt but in his exposition of the scripture he would so have spoken it. But he said: Et potum accipimus de latere Christi manantem. And we receive drink flowing out of the side of christ. Whereby what else can be meant, but that we receive the very blood of christ that flowed out of his side, and not the bare figure? Which might much better have been expressed by other words, then by so plain lively words as these be, which uttereth the very thing mightily, and not the figure. So also this Author expounding the scripture thereby to give us the true understanding, doth not teach that we take but a figure. Which he should have done if the truth were so. But by plain words signifying the very thing he saith, that the jews did eat Mamna, as we the body of christ. And they drank water of the stone as we the blood of christ. What shall we now then doubt of the matter? Could not these holy men and learned Fathers as well know to speak as Oecolampadius, Zwinglius, Bullinger, Bucer, Peter Martyr, Cranmer or jewel? Were it not to strange that if it were but a figure, that none among so many should so expownde it, and declare it? If there were no more but this it might sufficiently stay any man not destitute of grace to believe that the Sacrament is not only a figure, but it containeth also the very body and blood of christ, as the words of these Authors be, which body and blood be the verities of their figures Manna, and the water of the rock. THE NINTH CHAP. proceedeth IN the declaration of the same by Haimo, and Theophilact. HItherto we have been busied in the testimonies of such as be of the most ancient. Now we will descend to some of later time: and yet not yester day born, but such as were well toward a thousand years agone, and therefore before Berengarius time, before the time of controversy in the Sacrament. Whom as their time doth nothing discommend: So their learning joined with holy life hath gotten them moche estimation. The couple we mien here to produce be Haimo, and Theophilact. which both have travailed to expownde the epistles of Saint Paul. Wherefore we can not mistrust, but that they will give us that exposition, and understanding of them, that the holy Church had in their times, as the other ancient Fathers before alleged have doen. For how soever it be in this our time, it was reputed and accounted with the holy men, a great and an horrible offence to dissent or departed from any thing, that the Church had received, accepted, approved or allowed. And therefore they would not by any means, admit that, whereby they should be found to vary from the faith of the Church. Now then being sure that they report to us the faith of the Church, as it was received then, and comparing it to the ancient Church, the faith of which we have heard by such as hitherto have been alleged, ye shall be sure that ye shall not be deceived of the very true ancient faith. Now therefore let us hear these two, and first Haimo. He expoundeth the text of Saint Paul now in hand, on this wise: Haimo 1. Cor. 10. Et omnes eandem spiritualem escam manducaverunt. Et omne eundem potum etc. Manna, quod de caelo, id est, de isto aere eis datum est: Et aquam, quae de Petra sluxit, dicit spiritualia esse, vel quia spiritualiter intelligenda sunt, significabant enim corpus & sanguinem Domini, quod modò consecratur, & percipitur in Ecclesia, vel quia non mundana lege, & consuetudine parata sunt. Manna which was given The body and blood of our Lord are consetrated in the church them from heaven, that is from this air, and the water which flowed from the stone he saith to be spiritual, either because they are spiritually to be understanded. For they signify the body and blood of our Lord, which is now consecrated, and received in the Church: Or else because they were prepared not after the law and custom of worldly things. Hitherto Haimo. In whose exposition ye have to perceive two causes which he assigneth wherefore the Apostles called Manna and the water spiritual meat, and spiritual drink. The one was, that they be spiritually to be understanded. What the spiritual understanding of them is he declareth. They did signify (saith he) the body and blood of christ. In the which he agreeth with the rest before alleged, that Manna and the water were figures of the body and blooode of christ. But now to come to the point of the controversy, of what body of christ were they figures, of his body corporal, or spiritual? Attend, and mark well what he saith. They signified (saith he) the body and blood of our Lord, which is now consecrated, and received in the church. In this saying the doubt is dissolved, and the matter is opened. For it is the very body of of christ really and substantially in the Sacrament, that was figured by Manna. And this is proved by the word Consecrated, which he useth saying the body and blood of christ, be consecrated in the blessed Sacrament. Although this word (Consecration) be a word that the Adversaries can not abide: yet it is more manifest than that they can deny, that it is a word from whose use the grave and ancient Authors did not alhorre, but did use it, as it is beforesaied, and declared out Consecration what it is. of chrysostom, Saint Ambrose and other, where also it is taught by chrysostom, what consecration is, which (to use his terms) is to make the body and blood of christ of the things set forth upon the table. Whereby he meaneth the bread and wine, where also he declareth, who doth consecrate, and by what words the consecration is doen. As touching him that doth consecrate, he saith it is not man, but christ himself, who was crucified for us. By what words consecration is done he showeth thus. Hoc est, ait, corpus meum. Hoc verbo proposita consecrantur. De pro. Iu. Hom. 30. This is (saith he, meaning christ) my body. With this word (saith Chrysostom) the things settfurth, that is the bread and wine are consecrated. But where unto are they consecrated? into the body and blood of christ, as Chrysostom hath said. And hereunto also Saint Ambrose is a witness who saith. Non erat Lib. 4. de Sac. cap. 4. corpus Christi ante consecrationem, sed post consecrationem, dico tibi, quod iam corpus est Christi. Ipse dixit, & factum est, ipse mandavit & creatum est It was not the body of christ before the consecration. But after the consecration, I say to thee, that now it is the body of christ: He hath said, and it was made, he hath commanded and it was created. And least the Adversary should cavil, and say, that the bread after The cavil of sacramental bread impugned. the words come to it, is Sacramental bread, and therefore it may take upon it the name of the thing, of which it is a Sacrament, and so meaneth Saint Ambrose. To this may be said, that that gloze is to violent for so plain words. For it is to be thought that Saint Ambrose would not have said with such a vehement manner of speech, that it is the body, if it should be but called the hody, and not be the body in deed. For this manner of speech (I say unto thee, that now it is the body of christ) importeth an other manner of force of the thing that is spoken of to be so in deed, then to be so called. And that he meant no less than he said, his own words in the same chapter prove, where objecting against himself in the person of a weak man, at the seight of the Sacrament he saith thus. Tu fortè dicis, meus panis Amb. ibid. est usitatus: Sed panis iste, panis est ante verba Sacramentorum, ubi accesserit consecratio, de pane fit caro Christi. though perchance sayest: It is my usual bread, But this bread before the words of the Sacraments is bread, but when the consecration cometh to it, of the bread is made the flesh of christ. In these words of Saint Ambrose, it may well be perceived, that he meaneth that the body of christ is in the Sacrament substantially, and not that the Sacramental bread (as they term it) is only so called. For the flesh of christ is made of the bread, the substance of the bread being turned into the substance of the flesh of christ by the Almighty power of God through the work of the holy Ghost, as Saint Cyprian testifieth. Panis quem Dominus Discipulis edendum porrigebat, non effigie sed natura De coena Domini. The bread changed in nature is made flesh. mutatus, omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro. The bread which our Lord gave to his disciples to eat being changed notin outward form, but in nature, by almightiness of the word is made flesh. Saint Ambrose saith the flesh of christ is made of the bread: Saint Cyprian saith, that the bread by the almightiness of the word is made flesh. And that this should not seem unpossible, though it be wonderful. Theophilacte maketh a very apt similitude: saying: Et ne quem conturbet quod credendus sit panis caro. Etenim & in carne ambulante Domino, & ex pane alimoniam admittente, panis ille qui manducabatur, in corpus eius mutabatur, etc. And let it not trouble any man, that the bread is to be believed flesh. For when our Lord walked in the flesh, and received the food of bread, the same bread which was eaten, was changed into his body, and was made Why there appeareth not flesh in the Sacr. like unto his holy flesh, and it availed to his augmentation, and sustentation, after the manner of man. Therefore now also the bread is changed into the flesh of our Lord. And how, saith he, doth it not appear flesh, but bread? That we should not abhor from the eating of it. What can be said against these so manifest and so plain testimonies? May we not, or raither aught we not to say as these holy famous, and learned men do, raither then to say as a few fantastical heretics, and Apostaties do? Let us believe these pillars of Christ'S Church, and believing them, seek to be saved as they be. Thus have ye heard enough, I suppose, to declare unto you, that by consecration, which Haimo spoke of, the body of christ is in the Sacrament. And therefore Manna, as he said, signifying the body of christ consecrated, signifieth the very real and substantial body of christ. And thus having opened the mind of this author, who as he is agreeable to the holy ancient Fathers before alleged: So is he plain and pithy to the readers and strong, and mighty to debel the Adversaries, I will come to hear Theophilacte expound the same place of Saint Paul. Thus he writeth, enim nos aqua Baptismi perfusi corpus dominicum manducamus: Sic & Manna illi mari traiecto, in esum sunt usi: Et quemadmodum ipsi Domini sanguinem bibimus; Sic illi erumpentem è percusso lapide aquam biberunt. As we washed A plain saying for M. jewel. with the water of Baptism, do eat our lords body: So they having passed through the sea, used Manna for their food. And as we drink the blood of our Lord: So they drank the water that gushed out of the smitten Rock. Thus Theophilacte. These two testimonies be so like in sense and phrase, that they might raither be judged to come out of one mind, and out of one mouth them from two men, different in time, distant in place, and country. But God, who is not, as Saint Paul saith: Dissentionis Deus, sed pacis, & 1. Cor. 14. The spirit of unity among catholics. unitatis. The God of dissension: but of peace and unity: who by his holy spirit wrought that Multitudinis credentium erat cor unum, & anima una. The multitude that believed were of one heart, and of one soul, made them being of one faith to speak one thing, as he did his four holy Evangelists Who although they did write in diverse times and places: yet they agreed in unity of one truth. But they that can not content themselves with that order and condition that God hath placed them in, but being puffed up with the spirit of pride, go about to buyll the tower of Babel to get them a name, The spirit of division among Protestants. God by his spirit of humility and unity not working with them, their tongues are divided, and dissension is among them, they agree not, they speak not of one thing: as it is easy to see in the school of confusion, even an other Babel the Tower of the wicked name of Luther. Among whose disciples was nor is the spirit of unity, neither were nor be yet that multitude of one heart, nor of one soul, but of diverse. Luther he spoke with one tongue, and said, the very body of christ was in the Sacrament really and substantially: Oecolampadius he spoke in an other tongue contrary to his Master, and said that Christ'S body was not there, but as in a sign. Some other of Luther's disciples said that Magistrates and rulers must be obeyed: Some of them had other tongues and said that we are called to liberty, and therefore we be all equal, and own no obedience to man.. Some tongues said that children must be chrystned again. Some other tongues said nay. Some tongues said that there were but two Sacraments: Some said their were three: Some otherwise with a number of divisions not only among the multitude: but among themselves. I mien that one of them in all places, and at all times did not agree with himself, but here said this, in an other place clean contrary, as hereafter by the help of God's grace, more at large shall be showed. But God (qui facit habitare unius moris in domo. Who maketh men to Psal. 67. be of one mind in the house) maketh men that dwell in his house of his holy Church to be of one tongue, of one mind, to believe one thing, and to say one thing. Therefore let these men of Babel go, these men of confused tongues, and let us hear the people of agreement. Ye see I say, how Theophilacte agreeth with Haimo, and if ye ascend to Oecumenius, to chrysostom and other, ye shall see such agreement in sense, such likeness in words that a man might say, that they were all spoken, not of diverse men, but of one man. Confer them together, Reader and try my ttueth: I shall not need to trouble thee with many words to open the saying The jews eat Mamna we our lords body. They drank water: we the blood of Christ of Theophilacte, for it is so evident and plain that it need no expositor. Only I wish, that for the purpose that he is alleged, that ye note first, that he compareth Manna, and the water to the body and blood of christ as the figures to the verities, in that he saith: As we eat our lords body. So they Manna. As we drink the blood of our Lord. So they drink the water of the Rock. That by the body and blood of christ, he meaneth the body and blood in the Sacrament, which he most manifestly affirmeth, and by express words denieth the only figure of the Adversary so wickedly avouched, Cap. lx. it appeareth in his exposition of this saying of christ, This is my body, in the six and twentieth of Saint Matthew, and in the fourteenth of Saint Mark, which both be allegeth in the second book in the exposition of the same saying of christ. Likewise also doth he upon the vj. of Saint john where he saith thus. Theoph. in 6. joan. Mark that the bread, which is eaten of us in the mysteries is not only a figure of the body of our Lord but the flesh it self of our Lord. For he did not say the bread, which I will give, is a figure of my flesh. But it is my flesh. In this sentence it perceive Theophilacte not only avouching the very substantial presence of Christ'S flesh in the Sacrament, which is the Real presence avouched, and the heretical figure denied. catholic doctrine: but also denying the figure which is the heretical doctrine. What wicked obstinacy is this, that where this Author denieth it to be a figure, they affirm the contrary: and where he affirmeth the substantial presence of Christ'S flesh, they deny it? If the Adversaries had, but one such place to deny the presence (as certain I am they have none) they would triumph much against the truth. But having none to deny that, that they deny, but many to deny that they do affime, it is most devilish arrogancy to stand in it. But let us hear Theophilact in an other place, treacting of Manna, and the Sacrament. Patres vestri comederunt Manna in solitudine. Hoc saepe & multùm In 6. Joan. versat in ore, ut persuadeat hominibus. Nam si possibile fuit quadraginta annis sine mess & sement pasci homines, & conseruari illorum vitam, multo magis nunc nostram spiritualem meliori pane Dominus carne sua, quae absque semine viri, ex virgine constituta est. Your Fathers have eaten Manna in the Wilderness. This (saith Theophilact speaking of christ) he hath moche and often in his mouth, that he might persuade men. For if it were possible men to be said forty years without harvest and sowing, and their life to be conserved: moche more now he shall conserve our spiritual life with that better bread his flesh, which without seed of man was born of the virgin. In this ye perceive the comparaison of the figure to the thing figured, which thing figured is not a piece of bread, of no better sort, condition or dignity then Manna. But it is a better bread saith Theophilacte, that is the thing figured, which is not an only figure of the flesh, as the Adversary would gloze it, but it is the flesh of christ in very deed. For it is the same flesh that was born of the virgin without seed of man. Albeit more might be said out of Theophilacte, who is both plain and plentiful in in this matter: yet trusting that this may suffice a christian reader, I will cease, and come to the last couple upon this text. THE TENTH CHAP. proceedeth upon the same text by Rupertus, and Rich. Holkot, and endeth with Gagneius. perceiving that in these former allegations, I have been somewhat long, being desirous that the Reader should well perceive the faith of these ancients, and learn the truth of them to the condemnation and vanquishing of the falsehood of heresy, in the opening of these three, for that they be not of great ancienty, but yet of most substantial truth, I shall to end this text make with them a short conclusion. Rupertus, who is a learned writer, and so reputed and accepted of learned men, writing upon Exodus, and treacting of Manna saith thus upon Rupert. in Exod. this text. Nec qui plus collegerat habuit amplius, nec qui minus paraverat reperit minus. Hoc pro virtute cibi & spiritualis potus, id est, corporis & sanguinis Christi sciendum & firmiter tenendum est, quia non pro quantitate portionis, quam ore percipit secundùm visibilem speciem panis & vini, alius plus, alius minus consequitur de gratia spiritus vivificantis: sed singuli juxta id quod possunt edere congregant, id est, quod possunt credere, remissionem peccatorum percipiunt, & vitam aeternam. Sicut enim pater qui primus peccavit, cuius nos iniquitatem portavimus, non pro quantitate morsus sui, sive pomi quod momordit, sententiam, vel damnationem instam accepit, tantumue illi valuit pomum unum momordisse, quantum quicquid pomorum in arbore illa fuit devorasse, ad condemnationem infidelitatis, & inobedientiae: Sic è contrario quisque nostrum, non pro quantitate portiunculae vivisici panis quae frangitur illi, quam ore sumit, aut dentibus terit, gratiam vel vitam accipit, sed tantùm illi valet ad consecutionem justitiae exiguum quid percipisse, quàm valeret, si totum quod oblatum est, proprio solus ore perciperet. Rectè ergo sancta Christi Ecclesia panes non valdè grandes, sed exiguas ad consiciendum corpus Christi componit similas & valdè tenues. Neque vini multum sed exiguum quid insundit, quia sicut iam dictum est, nec qui plus collegit habuit amplius, nec qui minus paraverat repperit minus. Unto him that had gathered moche there remained nothing over: and to him that had gathered little, there was no lack. This is to be known and firmly to be holden for the virtue of the spiritual meat, and drink, that is to say, of the body and blood of christ, that not for the quantity of the portion which any man taketh with his mouth according to the visible form of bread and wine one getteth more, an other less of the grace of the quickening spirit: but every one according to that, that they can eat, do gather, that is, according as they can believe, they receive remission of their sins, and life everlasting. As our Father which first offended, whose iniquity we have borne, not for the quantity of his bit or morsel, or else of the apple which he bit, hath he received sentence, or just damnation. For it had been as much for him to have bitten one apple to the condemnation of his infidelity and disobedience, as to have devoured all the apples on that tree: So contrary wise every one of us receiveth grace or: life, not for the quantity of the little portion of the quickninge bread which is broken unto him which he receiveth with his mouth, or bruiseth with his teeth. But asmuch it shall avail him to the obtaining of righteousness to have received a little portion, as it should avail him if he alone should receive with his own mouth, all that is offered. Therefore the holy Church of christ doth well, which maketh not great loans to consecrate the body of christ, But small cakes, and thin. Neither doth she occupy moche wine but a little. For as it is said, unto him that had gathered moche, remained nothing over, and to him that had gathered little, there was no lack. Thus far Rupertus. Who expounding the sixteenth Chapter of Exodus, in the which is declared the feeding of the children of Israel with Manna, expoundeth in the same the miraculous work of God, which Moses declareth to be done in the gathering of the same Manna, which was that where they were commanded, that they should every Man gather a certain measure called a Gomer, which should suffice a man, if any gathered for greediness or otherwise, any more than his measure, which God apappoincted him, yet he had no more, if he gathered less than the measure yet he had enough. This Author applying this work and miracle of God in Manna to the Sacrament, as to the thing figured, he declareth how answerably, God worketh now in the thing figured, to the figure, teaching as great a miracle in the one, as in the other in that respect of having more or less. Although as touching the substance of them, the one so far exceedeth the other, that there is no comparaison. By which it is most manifest, that he taketh Manna to be a figure of christ in the Sacrament. That he believed christ to be in the Sacrament he doth well open in this his application where he saith, that the receipt of the virtue of the spiritual meat, and drink, which is the body and blood of christ, is not to be proportioned, according to the quantity of the visible forms of bread and wine. In the which words, he plainly declareth, that the meat of the Sacrament figured by Manna, is the body and blood of christ. But here the Adversaries will say that this Author is on their part. For he calleth it spiritual meat and drink, whereby he meeneth the spiritual Objection of spiritual meat and drink answered. receipt of Christ'S body spiritually, and not corporally. Call to remembrance, what is said of this in the eight chapter of this book where there be causes assigned upon the saying of S. Augustin, why the body of christ is called spiritual meat, and it shall answer the Adversary fully. And yet I shall add the saying of Saint Ambrose to the utter discomfiting of the Adversary, which teacheth the body of christ to be in the Sacrament. For he declaring Manna to be the figure of it, proveth by that, and by an other excellent reason, that the body of christ in the Sacrament is a spiritual body: In Sacramento Christus est, quia corpus est Christi: Auibr. de mist. ca 9 Non ergo corporalis esca, sed spiritualis est. unde Apostolus de typo eius ait: quia patres nostri escam spiritualem manducaverunt, & potum spiritualem biberunt. Corpus enim Dei, corpus est spirituale. Corpus Christi, corpus est divini spiritus. In the Sacrament is christ, for it is the body of christ, it is not therefore corporal meat. Wherefore the Apostle also saith of the figure of it, that our Fathers have eaten spiritual meat, and drunken spiritual drink? The body of God is a spiritual body. The body of christ, is the body of the divine spirit. Thus moche Saint Ambrose. First teaching the presence of christ in the Sacrament, he contenteth not himself so to say, but to prevent the objection of the Adversary, who christ is the substance of the blessed Sac. will elude this, and say that christ is in the Sacrament as in a sign, he saith not only that christ is in the Sacrament, but he saith also that the body of christ is the Sacrament, the substance of bread and wine being changed into the substance of the body and blood of christ, the only forms of bread and wine remaining. And after he hath thus taught, he inferreth, that therefore it is no corporal meat, but spiritual meat. And to prove this, he maketh as it were two arguments: The first is that uless as the figures of it were by Saint Paul called spiritual meat, and spiritual drink, much more may it be called spiritual meat, and spiritual drink. The second argument is that the body of God is spiritual, and the body of christ is the body of God, wherefore the body of christ is spiritual. Thus ye see that as Saint Augustin (as it is before in the eight Chapter alleged) calleth the very real and substantial body of christ in the Sacrament spiritual. So also doth Saint Ambrose, not that it is not a very body, but because in diverse respects it is spiritual, as Saint cyril also saith: Totum corpus vivifica spiritus virtute, plenum esse ostendit. In 6. Joan. Spiritum enim ipsam carnem nuncùpavit, non quia naturam carnis amiserit, & in spiritum mutata sit: sed quia summè cum eo coniuncta, totam vivificandi vim hausit. Nec turbari propter hoc decet. Nam qui Domino conglutinatur, unus cum eo spiritus est, quomodò igitur caro sua una cum eo non appellabitur? He showeth that all his body is full of the quickening power. For he calleth his flesh the The flesh of christ called a spirit, and so a spiritual flesh. spirit, not that it had lost the nature of flesh, and is changed into the spirit, but because it is so nerelie joined with him, it hath taken into it all power to make to live. Neither is it decent any man to be troubled for this. For he that is fast joined with God, is one spirit whithe him. How then shall not his flesh be called one with him? Thus moche Saint cyril. Of whom we may learn that christ himself called his flesh a spirit, and therefore it may well be called spiritual, and yet saith Saint cyril, though it be so called, it hath not lost the nature of flesh, but is both flesh and spirit. And therefore well called of these Authors a spiritual flesh, a spiritual body, a spiritual meat, and yet always being a very substantial body, and a natural flesh. By these Authors it is made manifest to you, that when they or other do call the body of christ in the Sacrament, a spiritual body, or a spiritual flesh, or as Rupertus doth, a spiritual meat: it is not forthwith after the adversaries mind, to be made so spiritual, that there shall remain neither body, nor meat, but that by a spiritual understanding by faith we must understand it a very body, very flesh, and yet spiritual for many causes here and before declared. And that this Author meant even so it appeareth well. For when he had called it spiritual meat, he forthwith expounded it and said, that is to say, the body and blood of Chryst. which body and blood he would so to be spiritual, not that it should be absent from the Sacrament, but raither to be the substance of the Sacrament, which he doth well insinuate, when he saith, that we receive not the spiritual meat of the body and blood of christ according to the quantity of the visible form of bread and wine. He saith not according to the quantity of bread and wine, which words might include their substances, but saith after the manner of the speech of the catholic faith, according to the quantity of the visible forms of bread and wine signifying the substances of them to be absent because they be changed and maketh mention only of the forms. And that this was his faith, he by most plain words declareth, in his exposition upon the same book of Exodus, saying thus: Quomodò verbum à summo demissum caro factum est, non mutatum in carnem, sed assumendo carnem. Sic Rupert. in Exo. ca 10 panis & vinum, utrumque ab imo sublevatum fit corpus Christi & sanguis non mutatum in carnis saporem, sed assumendo invisibiliter utriusque divinae scilicet & humanae, quae in Christo est immortalis substantiae, veritatem. Proinde sicut hominem qui de virgine sumptus in cruce pependit, rectè & catholicè Deum confitemur: Sic veraciter hoc quod sumimus de sancto altari Christum dicimus, agnum Dei praedicamus. As the Son of God coming down from the high was made flesh, not being changed into flesh, but by taking flesh upon him, So bread and As rightly as we confess christ to have been crucified, so rightly we confess him to be in the Sacr. wine both lift up from the lowest is made the body and blood of christ not changed into the taste of flesh, or into the horribleness of blood, but invisibly taking the verity of both the immortal substances, which be in christ, that is to say both of God and man. Therefore as we rightly and catholicly confess the man which being born of the Virgin hanged on the cross to be God: So this that we receive at the holy altar, we truly say to be christ, we openly confess it to be the lamb of God. Thus Rupertus. This saying needeth no commentary. Wherefore briefly note, gentle Reader, that he saith, that the bread and wine be made the body and blood of christ. Note that the bread and wine have the verity of the substances of both natures of christ. Note that as catholicly as we confess christ, to be God: So catholicly do we confess it that we receive at the Altars holy. holy altar to be christ, and the lamb of God. Also if the altars be holy, as this Author saith they be. It can be no holy deed to pull them down with despite as Germany and Englond have doen. This I trust, sufficeth to open this Authors faith as concerning the presence of christ in the holy Sacrament. Wherefore now leaving him, his follow shall be heard, who is Holkot an english man, who writing upon the book of wisdom saith thus. Per Manna in sacra scriptura figuratur signanter Holkot in li sap. cap. 16 Eucharistiae Sacramentum. Sicut enim filii Israel transeuntes per desertum versus terram à Domino promissam cibi refocillabantur alimento, ita nos per mundum ad coelum pergentes corporis & sanguinis Christi quotidiano viatico recreamur. By Manna in the holy scripture, the Sacrament is notably figured. For as the Manna a notable figure of the Sacrament children of Israel going through the desert toward the land promised unto them of God they were recreated with the food of that meat: Even so we going through the world to heaven, are recreated with the daily journeying meat of the body and blood of christ. Of this Author though he be of the later days, we learn no other thing in this matter, but even the very same that the great ancients have before taught and avouched. So that I can not perceive why the masters of wickedness, should reject him and such other, but only of malice for there plain testimony. As all that before be alleged have taught Manna to be a figure of the Sacrament: So doth this Author likewise. As they have avouched the presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament. So doth this Author also. For he saieththat we are fed in this world in our journey to heaven ward with the body and blood of Chryst. Now ye have had these matters reported and testified to you by twelve witnesses, which be sufficient by the laws if were in matter of life and death, as in deed this is, for they that believe this, as they have testified, may have life: but they which do not shall die the death. They have testified that Manna is a figure of the Sacrament, they have testified that in the same Sacrament is christ verily, and therewithal some of them by express words have testified the excellency of this Sacrament, above the Sacraments of the old law, and in effect so have they every one. For saying that we have the verity, where they had but the figure, it declareth as much excellency in ours ahove theirs, as is of the body above the shadow. These be not twelve bare witnesses, but they are substantial witnesses, all being of Christ'S Parliament house, and most of them of the higher house, I mien of them that were above nine hundredth years agone, who testific unto us no other, but that truth and faith, which then was received as an enacted truth. Wherefore Reader, contemn not their testimony, contemn not their anciency, and with all neclect not thy salvation, but if thou will it obtain, hear these witnesses reverently, believe them faithfully, abide in that belief constantly, and if all other points of life and faith be in thee agreeably, though shalt, no doubt, live perpetually. Now finally to conclude and shut up the exposition of this text: I have thought good to add the thirteenth witness, who shall be Gagneius a man of the later days, but not to be contemned but worthily for his learning to be received. Whom for that he briefly expoundeth the whole text of Saint Paul here treacted of, I have placed him in the last place, for the Readers better remembrance. Thus he writeth. Admonet hoc capite Paulus Corinthios, ne de donis à Deo perceptis efferantur. Futurum enim ut per elationem Gagneius in Paulum 1. Cor. 10. hanc atque alia peccata, ijs donis excidant, & à Christo eijciantur idue exemplo judaeorum docet. Quos, licet in figura, similibus tamen donis ab eo affectos probat, sed hinc tamen ob sua delicta excidisse. Sicut enim Corinthij in spiritu sanclo & aqua baptisati, veri Pharaonis servitutem excusserunt, Christi carne pasti, & eius sanguine potati sunt: It a patres judaei excussa Pharaonis servitute, & transgresso marirubro, quodam modo in mari & nube baptisati sunt, similitudinariè scilicet: Quod enim illis nubes protegens, conducens, ac refrigerans, id nobis spiritus sanctus actionum nostrarum dux & ptotector, libidinumue moderator & extinctor. Quod illis mare, hoc Corinthijs aquae Baptismatis. Corinthij Christi carnem manducabant: illi figuram eius Manna, quam spiritualem vocat escam, quod miraculosè coelitus descenderit. Corinthij Christi sanguinem bibebant. judaei spiritualem potum, quem miraculosè petra sudit, biberunt, neque tame ntot affecti beneficijs praeter duos tantùm, in terram promissionis pervenerunt, sed in deserto prostrati sunt ac mortui. Qua in re sigura nostri fuere, vi scilicet à vitijs illorum abstineamus, alioquin in deserto perpetuae vastitudinis perituri, neque veram promissionis terram ingressuri. Paul doth admonish the Corynthians in this chapter that they be not proud of the gifts which they have received of God. For it may come, that by this pride and other sins, they may fall from these gifts, and be cast out from christ. And that he teacheth by the A notable conference, of the figures and the thirges figured. and of the benefits of both example of the jews, whom he proveth to have had the like benefits although in figure: and yet by their sins to have fallen from them. For as the Corynthians baptized in the holy Ghost and water broke of the servitude of the very Pharaoh after they were fed with the flesh of christ, and had drunken this blood: Even so the Fathers the jews, having broken the servitude of Pharaoh, and passed through the read sea, after a certain manner they were baptized in the sea and the cloud, that is to say, similitudinarelie. For what the cloud was unto them, defending, conducting, and refreshing them: that unto us is the holy Cost, the guide of our doings and protector, and of our evil lusts the moderator and destroyer. What the sea was unto them: that unto the Corynthians was the water of Baptism. The Corynthians did eat the flesh of christ: they did eat Manna the figure of it which he calleth spiritual meat, because it miraculously descended from heaven. The Corynthians drank the blood of christ: the jews drank the spiritual drink, which the Rock miraculously powered out. And yet for all that being endued with so many benefits, they came not into the land of promise, two only excepted, but they were overthrown in the desert, and dead. In the which they were a figure of us that we should abstain from their vices, or else we shall perish in the Wilderness of everlasting vastity, and not enter the true land of promiss. Thus moche Gagneius. Whom ye see not only applying Manna and the water of the Rock as figures of Christ'S body and blood, and affirming the very presence of them both, but also fully and thoroughly expounding the text to the perfect understanding of S. Paul, and in nothing dissenting, but consenting to the enacted truth of Christ'S Parliament house, with the other before alleged. And now thus moche of the figure Manna, and of the exposition of the text of S. Paul containing the same. THE ELEVENTH CHAPTER, DECLAreth the prophecies of the Sacrament under the names of Manna and the water of the Rock. ALthough of this blessed Sacrament there be many prophecies, as in the first book it is declared yet of it, as answerable unto this figure there be not many. The prophet David in the psalm maketh mention of it saying: Et mandavit nubibus desuper, & ianuas caeli aperuit. Et pluit illis Psalm. 77. Manna ad manducandum, & panem caeli dedit eyes. Panem Angelorum manducavit homo. He commanded the clouds above, and opened the doors of heaven. He reigned down Manna also upon them for to eat, and gave them food from heaven. So man did eat Angel's food. Of this also he speaketh again: Et pane celi saturavit eos. Dirupit petram, et sluxerunt aquae, abierunt in sicco flumina. And he filled them with the bread of heaven. He opened the Rock of stone, and the waters flowed out, so that rivers ran out of dry places. These wonderful facts done by the hand of God for his people the Application of Manna and the water to the blessed Sac. children of Israel, the Prophet David rehearseth not as an historiographer upon only respect that they were done, as they be reported, but that they shall be done spirituallieupon his people the faithful christians, which be his very children of Israel, as Saint Paul saith to the Romans. And for this cause is he called a prophet, For he wrote all his Psalms and Prophecies of christ, and his Church, as Saint Augustin saith, So that by this he prophesieth, that as the children of Israel were fed in the desert with Manna a food from heaven: So the children of Israel the Christians shall be fed with the very Manna from heaven, even the body of christ. Rom. 4. And as unto them water flowed out of the Rock: So unto the christians out of that stone, upon whom the Church is builded, which stone God did strike for our sins, as Saint Paul saith, flowed water and blood, of the which there is such plenty, that it sufficeth for all the world to drink of it, if they will. Upon this text S. Hierom saith: Sed & fontem Baptismi, atque martyrij eadem In psai. 77. petra ostendit. De latere enim eius cùm percussus est, sanguis & aqua processit. Quod Baptismum & martyrium, figuravit, But the same stone also showeth out the fountain of Baptism, and of martyrdom. For out of his side, when he was stricken, came forth blood and water, which did figure Baptism and martyrdom. And upon the other text of David, applying that as a prophecy, he saith Panem caeli dedit eyes, panem Angelorum manducavit homo. Ipse homini Psal. 77. Hier. ibid. cibum praebuit, qui dixit: Ego sum panis vitae, qui de caelo descendi, qui manducaverit ex hoc vivet in aeternum. He gave them food from heaven, so hath man eaten the food of Angels. He himself hath given meat to man who said: I am the bread of life, which came down from heaven. He that shall eat of that bread shall live for ever. In the which words S. Hieron expounding the Prophet declareth to what end the words of the Prophet did tend, namely that there should be an heavenly Manna given to the spiritual children of Israel, which Manna was christ the bread of life, which thing S. Hierom upon the Prophet in an other place, more plainly doth open. The Prophet saith: Pane caeli saturavit eos. Psal. 104. With the bread of heaven he filled them: And S. Hierom saith. Sicut enim illi de coelis fluente Manna refecti sunt: Ita nos hody in ecclesia corpore agni accepto reficimur. Disrupit Petram & fluxerunt aquae, etc. Percussus est enim lapis ille pretiosus angularis, & immensos nobis protulit fontes, qui nostros errores abluunt, & ariditates irrigant, As they were fed with Manna flowing from heaven: So we now in the Church, are fed with the body of the lamb being received. We be said with the body of the lamb. He broke the stone, and the waters flowed out. For that precious corner stone was smitten, and he brought forth to us unmeasurable fowntaines, which wash away our errors, and water our dryness. Saint Augustin also upon the same psalm giveth a much like exposition. August. in psal. 77. Qui enim mandavit nubibus desuper, & ianuas coeli aperuit, & pluit illis Manna ad manducandum, & panem coeli dedit eyes, ut panem Angelorum manducaret homo. Qui cibaria misit eye in abundantia, ut satiaret incredulos, non est inefsicax dare credentibus verum ipsum de coelo panem, quem Manna significabat, qui verè cibus est Angelorum, quod Dei Verbum corruptibiles, incorruptibiliter pascit, quòd ut manducaret homo, caro factum est, & habitavit in nobis. He that commanded the clouds above and opened the doors of heaven, and reigned down Manna to them to eat and gave them bread from heaven, that man might eat the bread of Angels, who sent to them meat in abundance, to fill the unbelievers, he is not unable to give unto the believers the true bread from heaven, which Manna did signify, which is the meat of Angels in deed, which Son of God feedeth the corruptible incorruptiblie, who, that man might eat, was made flesh, and dwelled among us. As Saint Hierom and Saint Augustin be well agreeing in the exposition of the sainges of the Prophet David: So also Cassiodorus, a man well toward their time, in nothing dissenteth from them, expounding the same psalm of David. Et pluit illis Manna ad manducandum. Pluit dixit, ut Cassiod. in Psal. 77. ostenderet escae mmiam largitatem, quae tanquam plwia de caelo descendit. Et ne dubitares, quae fuerit illa plwia, sequitur. Manna manducare. Manna interpretatur, quid est hoc? quod sanctae communioni decenter aptamus quia dum admirando cibus iste perquiritur, corporis dominici munera declarantur. Addidit: Panem coeli dedit eyes. Quis est alter panis coeli, nisiChristus Dominus, unde coelestia spiritualem escam capiunt, & deleclatione inestimabili perfruuntur? Denique sic sequitur: Panem Angelorum manducavit homo. Panis ergo Angelorum bene dicitur Christus, quia aeterna ipsius laud pascuntur. Neque enim corporalen: panem Angeli manducare credendi sunt, Sed illa contemplatione Domini, quia sublimis creatura reficitur, verim hic panis in coeloreplet Angelos, nos pascit in terris. And he reigned down Manna unto them to eat. He said (reigned) that he might show the great plenty of the meat which like unto rain came down from heaven. And that if shouldest not doubt, what that rain was, it followeth. To eat Manna. Manna is interpreted, what is this? Which we very well Manna what it is by interpretation. apply to the holy communion. For while this meat is gotten with wondering, the gifts of our lords body be declared. He added: He gave them bread from heaven. Who is the other bread from heaven, but christ our Lord, of whom heavenly things do receive spiritual meat, and joyfully use inestimable delectation. Then it followeth thus: Man hath eaten the bread of Angels: christ than is well called the bread of Angels, because they are fed with his everlasting laud and praise. Neither are Angels to be thought to eat corporal meat, but with that contemplation of our Lord, with the which the high creature is fed they are fed. But this bread filleth Angels in heaven, it feedeth us in the earth. Thus far Cassiod. The testimonies of these Authors, which here be produced upon the Prophet David, are so consonant and agreeable that I dissere to make any note of them until we hear one more, who shall be Titleman, a writer upon the Psalms not to be contemned, though he be of the later days. Whom I join with the better will to these ancients, that it may well appear to the Reader, that these later writers, being agreeable and nothing dissenting from them, the false slanders of the Adversaries be but vain, and without cause moved. This Author in his annotations for the Hebrew and Caldeie tongue saith that the bread, which in our communion text is called Panis Angelorum, the bread of Angels, in the Hebrew, as Saint title in annot super Psal. 77. Hierom, and other do translate it, is called Panis fortium & robustorum. the bread of strong and mighty men. And giving two causes why it is so called, he putteth this for one: Aut fortè propter significationem panis vivi illius tempore gratiae mundo descensuri desuper, cuius non dubium est, Manna corporeum fuisse figuram, panis fortium aut robustorum dictus intelligatur, quia is, cuius typum gerebat, panis vivus de coelo mittendus, confortaturus erat corda sumentium in vitam aeternam, inxta quod apud joannem salvator testatur, dicens: Qui manducat hunc panem vivet in aeternum, & qui manducat me, & ipse vivet propter me. Or else this bread may be understanded to be called the bread of the strong and mighty, for the signification of that lively bread that should descend from above to the world, of the which bread without doubt that corporal Manna was a figure, for that living bread to be sent from heaven, of the which the other was the figure, should make strong the hearts of the receivers to everlasting life, according to that our Saviour testifieth in Saint john, saying: He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. And he that eateth me, shall live through me. Thus much this Author. Now ye have heard these Authors with great concord expounding the Prophet David. And forsomuch as their sainges, here, be even like to them that before are said upon Saint Augustine, to avoid prolixity, I shall raither give a brief note upon their sainges then long to stand upon them This is to be observed in them all, that they apply this Prophecy to christ, as the food of heaven, the very living bread, that giveth such strength to them, that duly eat thereof, that they live for ever, which food is received in the Sacrament of his body and blood. For Saint Hierom applying it to christ, as the food of man's soul, allegeth the sixth Chapter of Saint john, which Chapter, as it is invincibly proved in the second book, treateth of the Sacrament. Whereof also Saint Hierom is there a witness, as a great number more be. And for the more plain proof of this in the exposition of the hundredth and fourth Psalm he saith by express words, that we be fed with the body of the lamb, as they were with Manna, which plain manner of speech leaveth us in no doubt what faith Saint Hierom was of, and how he understandeth the Prophet David. And thus considering how long, I have been upon this one text of Saint Paul, and remembering how many more there remain likewise to be expounded, I shall leave the rest of the Authors here alleged, to be weighed by the Reader and in the next chapter make an end of that that upon this scripture is to be said. THE twelfth CHAPTER, PROVETH BY occasion of that that is said, with farther Authority that the Sacraments of the new law are more excellent, than the Sacraments of the old law. forasmuch as all the Anthours alleged for the exposition of the text of Saint Panule now last handled and treacted of, do all together conspire and agree in this truth, that Manna was the figure, and the body of christ, which we receive in the Sacrament, the verity: and the verity allwais is more excellent in good things than is the figure, even as much more excellent, as the body of a man is above the shadow: It must needs then of necessity follow, that the Sacraments of the new law, which be the things figured by the figures of the old law, must as far excel them, as the verity doth the figure, and as the body doth the shadow. For further proof of this consider, as it is declared at large in the first book and it is S. Augustins' rule also, that all evil things figured by figures of Good things figured better than the figures. the old law, are much worse, than the figures by the which they are figured, So all good things figured, are moche better, and more excellent than the figures. If than the Sacraments and sacrifices of the old law be figures of the Sacraments and sacrifices of the new, as in deed they be, then must the Sacraments, and sacrifices of the new law be much better than the Sacraments or sacrifices of the old law. If moche better, then more excellent. And now note that if it were so (as the Adversaries falsely do teach) that the body of christ were not present verily in the Sacrament and that the other Sacraments of Christ'S Church (as the constant and true doctrine of the same Church is to the contrary) did not give grace, than were the Sacraments of the old law not only as excellent as the Sacraments of the new law, but by all means passing and excelling them. And because this shall not be declared, and proved by examples, that be strange to our matter, we will bring forth an example with in the limits of our matter, even of Manna it self, the figure of our Sacrament. What great miracles and wonders were in that Mamna, the book of Exodus doth declare, which for the better understanding of them, that are not exercised in the scriptures, are collected and set forth by Roffensis, and they be in number twelve. Twelve wonders in Mamna declared Roff. lib. 1. cap. 12. The first is, that how moche soever any had gathered, yet he had no whit more than the measure, that God had appointed them to gather. The second, that he that gathered less than the measure appointed, he had asmuch when he carried it home, as he that had gathered the just measure. The third, if they had kept any portion until the next day, if it were not the Sabbath day, it would have putrefied. The fourth, although it might so quickly and shortly putrefy: yet it was kept in the ark a great number of years, and putrefied not. The fift, if it were laid in the Sun, it would melt, if before the fire, it would be very hard. The sixth, although it did every other day orderly fall from heaven, yet upon the Sabbath day there fell none. The seventh, although other days in the week, whether they gathered more or less, yet they had but one measurefull called Gomer: upon the day next before the Sabbath to serve them two days, because they were forbidden to gather upon the Sabbath day, they had home with them two measures full. The eight, he that that day gathered more or less, had no more nor less than his two measures, when he came home. The ninth, although in so great a multitude, there were of diverse stomachs, diverse appetites, some eating more, some less: yet that measure sufficed the strong stomached, and was not to much for the weak stomach. The tenth unto them that were good it tasted to every one according to his desire. The eleventh, although to the godly it was a most pleasant taste: yet to the ungodly it was loathsome. The twelfth, the children of Israel were fed forty years with this Manna in the Wilderness. As these miracles be contained in the scriptures, as in Exodus, Numeri, and in the book of wisdom: So they are also setforth by holy writers, to Exod. 16. Num. 11. Sap. 16. Chrysost. indictum Apost. Nolo vos ignor. the settingfurth of God's glory in his wonderful works. Of diverse of these chrysostom maketh mention saying: Et hoc utique mirabile: Tentaverunt tunc aliqui per tempus illud, plus quàm opus fuerat, colligere, & nullum avaritiae suae fructum accipiebant. Et quamdiu aequalitatem colebant mansit Manna, quod Manna erat. Postquam autem avari plus habere desideraverunt, avaritia mutavit Manna in vermem. Quamuis hoc non cum detrimento aliorum faciebant. Non enim rapiebant exalimento proximi, cùm plus colligerent, attamen cùm plus desiderarent condemnati sunt. Nam tametsi neminem alium iniuria affecerunt, tamen sibi ipsis maximè nocuerunt, hoc colligendi modo avaritiae students, atque sic simul erat cibus, & divinae agnitionis instructio, simul & pascebat corpora & erudiebat animam. Neque pascebat solùm, sed à laboribus liberabat, non enim opus eratiungere bones, neque trahere aratrum, neque sulcos secare, neque ad annum expectare: sed mensam habebant subitò appositam, semper recentem, & quotidie novam, rebusue ipsis discebant Euangelicum illud praeceptum, non debere solicitum esse in crastinum. Nulla enim utilitas ipsis ab hac solicitudine proveniebat. Nam qui plus colligerat corrumpebatur & peribat, & avaritiae argumentum solùm dabat. Insuper ne putarent illum imbrem juxta naturae consuetudinem esse, nihil talium in die Sabbati fiebat, Deo duo illa ipsos docente, quòd prioribus diebus ipse mirabilem, & priorem pluuiam operabatur, & per diem illum abstinebat, ut inviti etiam discerent illo die feriari. And this also was marvelous. Some proved in that time to gather more than was need, and of their covetousness they took no profit. And as long as they took their equal proportion, that that was Manna did abide Manna. But after the covetous desired to have more, avarice turned Manna into a worm, although they did this without hurt of other, when they would gather more they did not violently take away any part of their neighbour's food, and yet for all that when they desired more they were condemned, For although they did not wrong an other man: yet after this manner of gathering giving their minds to avarice, they did moche hurt themselves. And so it was both meat, and also an instruction of the knowledge of God. It did both feed thee, body and teach the soul. Neither did it only feed, but it also delivered them from labours. For they had no need to yocke their oxen, to draw their plough, nor to cut out furrows, neither to tarry a year, for the crop, But they had a table quickly set forth and made ready, fresh and daily new. And by the same things they did learn the evangelical commandment, that they should not be careful for to morrow. For of this carefulness there came no profit to them. For he that gathered more, it was corrupted, and perished, and gave only a rebuke of their greadinesse or covetousness. Moreover, that they should not think that shower or rain to be according to Manna githered, more 〈◊〉 was niede corrupted. the custom of nature, upon the Sabbath day there was none such. God teaching them these two things, who was the worker of that marvelous rain in the other days, and that he upon that day abstained, that they should learn whether they would or no to keep holy day. Thus far chrysostom. In this he hath declared that Manna was no natural effect of natural custom and order, but by the special work of God, who caused it, as it pleased him to rain down from the clouds to them. He saith also that upon the Sabbath day, God reigned not Manna to the people, signifying that every other day he did. For the manner of the gathering of it he teacheth that they that gathered more than was need, they had no profit of their covetousness, which is, as the text of Exodus saith, that he that gathered much to him their remained nothing, how moche so ever through greedy desire he gathered, he had no more but his measure. As touching the order of the keeping of it, if they kept it as it should be kept, as upon the Sabbath day Mamna kept upon the Sabbath day remained good, upon other dates not. they might keep it, then as chrysostom saith, Manna did abide Manna. But if any other day of covetousness they would keep of it until the next day, than Manna would not abide Manna, but Manna was turned into worms, S. Augustin also, to omit the rest, speaketh in one place, of one miracle of it mentioned above, that is, that it tasted to them according to their desire: In primo populo unicuique Manna secundùm propriam voluntatem in ore sapiehat. August▪ ad Januar. In the first people Manna tasted in every man's mouth according to his own will. By this ye perceive how many miracles God wrought in Manna, so that it might very well be called a marvelous thing. And truly for the great works that God wrought in it, and for the number, which also is great, as being done in one thing, it may well be reputed and esteemed an excellent thing. Compare now our Sacrament with this figure, as the Adversary doth call it a Sacrament, which then is but bread taken to signify or to be a token Manna far excelleth the Sacramentaries Ceramental bread or figure of Christ'S body, and then what is it? is it any more than a plain piece of artificial bread made by man's hand? is it in any respect wonderful? is there any one miraculous work of God in it like as in Mamna? is not Manna by all means more excellent, and far exceeding this Sacrament? Certainly it far excelleth, and exceedeth it, where the catholic faith teacheth that the law had but shadows, and the Gospel the very things. If the highest, the chiefest, the excellentest Sacrament that is in the Gospel which as Saint Dionyse Areopagita saith, is the Sacrament of the body and blood of christ, be so base and bare and may no better compare with his figure, than that it is a sign or token of Christ'S body: then must Saint Paul his doctrine to the hebrews, and the doctrine of the catholic Church be turned into the contrary saying, that is, that the Gospel hath the shadows, and the law the very things. For as our Sacrament is a figure of Christ'S body, so was Mamna. As we receiving that piece of bread may receive christ spiritually: So did the jews receiving Manna, receive christ also spiritually. And above this, Manna hath a number of excellences, and our bread hath none. So that if we receive this doctrine of the Adversary that our Sacraments be of no more excellency than the Sacraments of the old law: we also admit this that the Sacraments and figures of the old law far excel owers. For the excellency of a sacrament or a figure standeth specially Thexcellencie of Sacr. standeth in three points. in three points, in the excellency of the thing that it signifieth or figureth: In the fullness and liveliness of the signification: And in the work of God about the same figure. As touching the first, it is very plain that king Pharaoh was a figure of the devil the Egyptians his people were figures of sins: the servitude that the children of Israel were in under this king and his people, was a figure of the servitude of man under the Devil and sin. These three, although they be figures, and justly do figure the things by them figured: yet they be not accounted excellent figures, because the things by them figured be not excellent▪ Contrariwise Melchisedech for that he is a figure of christ, as S. Paul declareth to the hebrews, is accounted and reputed an excellent figure, because the thing figured is excellent. A figure is as the image of a thing. An image (as common experience teacheth) is regarded and esteemed according as the thing is, whose image it is. As the image of a king, of the subjects of the same King is moche regarded, for that it is the image of their King. And is they honour and love their King: So will they use his image. So like wise Melchisedech being the figure and image of christ, is an excellent, figure because christ is excellent. The second point moche commendeth the excellency of the figure also. For although Isaac were a goodly figure of the passion of christ: yet the paschal lamb is reputed the more excellent figure, for that it more lively doth declare the thing thereby] signified, than tother did. For although Isaac was the only Son of his Father, as christ of his Father, and bore the wood to the place of sacrifice, as christ his cross to the place of his death: yet the lamb because it was slain in deed, and the blood of it cast upon the posts of the doors defended the inhabitants from the hand of the Angel that struck the Egyptians, and for that, upon the death of the lamb the people departed out of egypt, and were delivered from the servitude of King Pharaoh, and his people, which figured the death of christ in deed, and the effects of the same. For as the innocent lamb died and shed his blood without gilt or offence: so the innocent lamb christ died and shed his blood without gilt or offence. As the blood defended the Israelites from the striker: so the blood of christ being cast upon us, defendoth us from the wrath of God, under the which we were born, and apeaceth the same, that it striketh us not to death, as the Egyptians were of the Angel. As the Israelites upon the death of the lamb were delivered from the servitude of Pharaoh, and his Egyptians so we Christians upon the death of our lamb christ were forthwith delivered from the servitude of the Devil and sin. Therefore, I say, the lamb so lively and so fully signifying christ, who suffered for us and purchased hour redemption, is more excellent figure than Isaac. The third point also must of necessity be admitted. For where the works of God be and specially miraculous works, the more they be, and the more miraculous, the more excellent the thing is about the which such works be doen. It was a miraculous work that Elisabeth being an old woman, and past child birth, in her age should conceive and bring forth john the Baptist: but it was more miraculous, that a maid without man should conceive and bring forth a child. And therefore this conception is more excellent than the other, but this increaseth the excellency, that here be more miracles than in the other. For in this conception was conceived God and man: in the other man only. But that this excellency may appear betwixt two figures, I shall bring example of two figures of the Sacrament. As it is sufficiently proved in the first book, the Show bread was a figure of the Sacrament. And as it is here proved, Manna is a figure of the same. The Show bread was but plain artificial bread, about the which was no special work of God, but such as is about all other things, form and made to the conservation of man: About Manna there was no artificial work, but a special work of God, and that beside the natural custom and Comparison of the B. Sacr. to the figure Manna. order. Wherefore Manna is the more excellent figure in that respect. For the one was made by man, the other was wrought by God. About the one also was no miracle, about the other were many miracles, and therefore in that respect yet more excellent. In these three points if comparison be made betwixt our Sacrament and Mamna, if our Sacrament have not the presence of Christ'S body, than Manna far excelleth. For first our Sacrament being a figure of christ, and not containing christ, as the Adversary saith, nothing exceedeth Manna: For Manna was a figure of christ also. So that as touching the thing figured there is no excellency. For they be figures of one thing. In the second point, which is the lively signification and full figuration of the thing signified, and figured, Manna moche excelleth the Sacrament. For as christ was a bread from heaven: so was Manna a bread from heaven. As christ descended from heaven that his people might feed upon him to everlasting life: so Manna descended from heaven, that the people might feed upon it, to the maintenance of their life. As christ is above natural order scent unto us by God the Father: so was Manna above natural order scent to the Israelites from God, as by chrysostom it is before testified. Now it comparison be made betwixt the Sacrament and christ, the Sacrament is nothing so lively a figure so fully figuring christ, as Manna hath doen. For christ is a bread from heaven: the Sacrament a bread from the earth as Irenaeus saith, and as our common knowledge testifieth. christ is our food to everlasting life the Sacrament (in respect that it is a Sacrament) feedeth us not to the sufficient maintenance of this life, as Manna did the Israelites. christ was sent to us above natural order, as also Manna was: the Sacrament by natural and artificial order. Who then saith not that Mamna in all respects more lively and more fully signifieth and figureth christ, than our Sacrament doth. Wherefore it may then well be said, that Manna is the more excellent figure. As touching the third point, there can be no controversy, but that Mamna was altogether miraculous our Sacrament in no point miraculous, if it contain not the presence of Christ'S body and blood. About Manna were many miraculous works of God, about our Sacrament not one. Manna was from heaven: our Sacrament from the earth. Manna wrought by the especial work of God: our Sacrament by the common work of man. Manna besides natural order: our Sacrament, by natural and artificial order. Manna tasted in every man's mouth as he listed: our Sacrament but as bread and wine. Mamna although it putrefied being kept more than one day in the week days: yet it remained unputrified upon the Sabbath day. And although being reserved after the Sabbath day it would putrefy: yet of the same reserved in the golden pot in the Ark, there remained many years unputrified, sweet and good. Hour bread and wine neither putrefieth sooner, neither remaineth longer than other bread, and wine after the common order doth. It is then a most plain matter, that if our Sacrament be rob of the real presence of Christ'S body and blood that it is in nothing more excellent than the figure of it. But contrariwise the figure in all respects is much more If our Sa. have not the real presence of Christ'S body and blood, it is moche base figure than Mamna excellent than it, as by that that is said, it doth manifestly appear. Wherefore the Adversary must of necessity grant one of these two: that either in the Sacrament is the presence of Christ'S body, and so is it more excellent than the figure Manna: or else denying the presence, grant that our Sacrament is not equal but a base and inferior Sacrament, to Manna. But to grant that a Sacrament of the new law is inferior or base, than a Sacrament of the old law, is a plain absurdity: wherefore so is that likewise, that it floweth out of: that is, that there is no presence of christ in the Sacrament. It must then of very necessity be concluded, that Christ'S body is verily in the Sacrament. THE thirteenth CHAP. PROVETH THE the same by scriptures and doctors. SOche hath been the malice of Satan against God and his christ, and against his beloved church, that to hinder the honour of God, to shadow or abase the worthiness of the mediation of christ, and to draw men from salvation he ceaseth not his labour and industry, he sleepeth not from his inventions and devices, he spareth not his engines and ways: but bussier is he to impair and destroy, than we be to repair and save. Wherefore as before the coming of christ, he drew men from the true honour of God to Idolatry, and therein deceived the very jews, which were specially called to the true knowledge of God. So to abase the worthiness of his anointed after his coming, he stirred up diverse wicked members, as Cerinthus, Ebion, Sabellius, Paulus Samosatenus. Martion, Arrius, Ne storius, Eutiches, and a great number more of like rabble. By some of the which he impugned his Godhead, and by other some he impugned his manhood, and Luther allowed two sacraments Melancthon three The Saxons four. Postellus six Suenckfeldiut never one. withal miserably tormented and divided his church, to the loss of many a soul: So now in these days he hath invented some other engines: as where christ had instituted sacraments by the which as by certain instruments or conducts the merit of his passion in sundry sorts should come and be applied unto his people, and by the which the people should have much comfort: he hath to set forth his engines stirred up other disciples and wicked membres, as Luther, Oecolampadius, calvin. Zuinglius, Bucer, Brentius Cranmer, Radley, jewel, and a filthy number of such like, by the which he hath not only by some of them laboured to take away three of them, by other some four of them, by other some five of them, by other some all of them: but also such sinal number as some of them do suffer to remain, they be by them so rob, and so spoiled, that neither are they greatly to the honour of God and christ, neither to the profect or comfort of his people. For when generally they teach that the sacraments give no grace to the receivers of them, little is God honoured in his sacraments, little is his people helped by receapt of them. As when specially they say, Baptism wasiheth not or taketh not away original sin, and that the Sacrament containeth not the very substantial body of christ, but only a bare sign or token of it, what commodity, or advantage can come to us out of such spoiled sacraments left so bare and so poor that Luther. in assert. art. 2. they can give a man nothing. But yet though these sacraments be so spoiled, they are not in very deed spoiled to the faithful catholic, but unto him they are rich, and plentiful giving that measure of grace, that God through the merit of Christ'S death, hath appointed to be given to them that faithfully, and worthily receive them. For as Manna tasted in every man's mouth according to his desire: so the Sacrament savoureth to life according to the faith of the receiver. But unto these wicked: robbers and spoilers of sacraments, which through unbelief esteem them no better then S. Paul did the sacraments and Ceremonies of the old law, which he called: weak and unprofitable ordinances, to them they are as though they were poor, for that they lacking faith rob and spoil themselves of such benefit and grace as might come unto them by the sacraments, which now through their unbelief is not given unto them. Of the high and most noble Sacrament of Christ'S body and blood, I marvel that the Adversaries feared not so blasphemously to abase it, as to say that it is a Sacrament no more excellent than the Sacraments of the old law. In so saying note with me I pray thee, gantle reader, what opinion or estimation he hath of Christian religion. As before is said, S. Paul calleth the ceremonies of the old law, weak and unprofitable ordinances. If than the ordinances of the Christian religion be of no more excellency, than the ordinances of the mosaical religion, then where no difference of excellency is, the things may equally be esteemed. And so by this estimation and judgement all the sacraments and ordinances of the new law, for that they are no better, than the ordinances of the old law, are weak, and unprofitable ordinances. For where equality of condition and state is, there may well be equality in denomination. What then is our Christian religion, if it be no better adorned and magnified, then with weak and unprofitable ordinances? If they will say that as long as the things were not comed which they figured, so long they were not unprofitable: but when christ was once comed Oiection. and they ceased any longer to figure or signify, than their office being done and expired, they were vain and unprofitable, and so S. Paul meant of them: But as for our sacraments they do their office still, for they figure and signify things done by christ that is comed, as the other did of christ to come. And therefore they be not unprofitable ordinances. Although this solution hath some colour, yet if the Adversary will look in S. Paul to the hebrews he shall find him calling the law, and the ordinances of the same weak and unprofitable even when they did their office, and figured christ to come, because they brought not the observers of the same Hebrae. 7. to perfection. The commandment that went before (saith S. Paul) is disallowed, because of weakness, and unprofitableness, for the law brought nothing to perfection. To the which purpose he saith again. The law having the shadow of good things to come, and not the very fashion of the Ibid. 10. things themselves, can never with these sacrifices which they offer, make the comers thereunto perfect. So then the cause why S. Paul calleth the ordinances of the law weak and unprofitable was because they brought not the observers of them to perfection and not because they ceased to signify and to figure. And what difference betwixt weak and unprofitable, as here S. Paul calleth them: and weak and beggarly as he termeth them to the Galathians? Then if these ordinances in the time of their use, before the coming of christ were weak and unprofitable, or weak and beggarly, and our sacraments be no better than they, than our sacraments be as they be weak and unprofitable or weak and beggarly. That our Sacrament of Christ'S body and blood is no better than the paschal lamb Oecolamp. by express words doth confess, saying: Panis autem nosteragno illorum spiritualium est praeciosior. Propterea non magis praedicandus. Hour bread is not more precious than the lamb of those spiritual, therefore no more to be praised. Oecolamp. in Exposi verbor. Cana Dom. This then being the wicked doctrine of the Adversary, this wicked conclusion is deduced out of the same that our Sacraments of the new law, be but weak and unprofitable, as the Sacraments and ordinances of the old law were. O wicked blasphemy, o detestable saying, giving occasion of contempt of the whole religion of christ. A saying more like to overthrow the honour of God, the devotion of man, the comfort and hope of all Christians and so consequently all the whole religion, then to edify any one of these. If the Adversaries had not minded the plain subversion and destruction of the Christian religion, though they had rob the holy sacraments of their efficacy, and made them (as they do) as bare as the ordinances of the law: yet they might have commended them justly and truly above the other, because these did signify christ present, and were instituted by christ himself. isaiah was an holy Prophet, and an holy martyr, who so lively, so plainly and clearly preacheth of Christ'S nativity, and passion that of some he is thought more meet to be called an Evangelist, than a prophet. Hierimie also was an holy prophet, so holy that he was sanctified in his mother's womb, who also excellently prophesied of christ. Daniel is known of all men to be an notable holy prophet, who as certainly appointed the time of christ as a man would have appointed to a thing with his fingar: And yet john the Baptized is called of christ not only a Prophet, but more than a Prophet, and why? because the other did prophecy certainly of christ, but this man did point to him with his fingar saying: Ecce agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit, etc. Behold joan. 1. the lamb of God, behold him, which taketh away the sins of the world. chrysostom also assigneth an other cause, why christ called S. john more than a Prophet: Quum dixisset Prophetis illum esse maiorem, quare maior sit ostendit. In Matth. homil. 38. Cur igitur maior Prophetis joannes? quoniam propinquior erat Christo venturo. Mittan enim (inquit) Angelun meum ante faciem tuam. Qui autem ante faciem est, is proximus est. Nam quemadmodum maiori dignitate hi sunt, qui proximè Regibus deambulantibus ordinantur: sic & joannes in ipso adventu constitutus, maiore gratia fulsit. When he had said that he was more than a Prophet, he showeth why he is more. Therefore then is john more than a prophet? Because he was nearer to christ to come. For I shall send (saith he) my Angel before thy face. He that is before the face, is nearest. For as these are in greater dignity, which are nearest placed to kings when they walk: so also john appointed in the coming of christ, is more honourable. Oecumenius treating the same text saith much like, adding also an other cause: Sed quid existis videre? Prophetam? utique dico vobis, & excellentiorem propheta excellentiorem, hoc est, maiorem. Deinde dicit in quo maiorem, videlicet in eo quòd venerit circa Christi adventum. Nam maiores aliis inter praecones sunt high, qui prope Regem praecedunt. Potest etiam dici excellentior propheta, quia eum quem vidit prophetabat, quod nulli contigit prophetarum. Nec vidit tantùm verùm etiam baptisabat. But what went ye forth to see? a Prophet? yea I say unto you, and one more excellent than a Prophet, more excellent, that is greater. Then he saith in what he is greater, that is, in that, that he came about the coming of christ. For among the foregoers these be the greater, which go next before the King. He may also be called the more excellent Prophet, because he prophesied him, whom he saw. Which happened to none other of the Prophets. Neither did he only see him, but he also baptized him. Thus he. So the Sacraments and figures of the law, for that they figured christ to come, they are worthy of the name of figures of christ, but the Sacraments of the new law, forsomuch as some of them, were figures of christ present, and other of them figures of his benefits wrought by his passion and blood shedding now already purchased and done, and were also all by him instituted and ordained, as the Council of Trydent, and other have before that defined, they must needs for these respects, and considerations be more excellent than the Sacraments of the old law. The Sacrament of Christ'S body and blood, as no Christian dowbteth but that it was immediately instituted of christ himself: and figured and signified him in substance their present, though it had a farther respect, and signification to the manner, as to be a figure of christ crucified: so it can not be denied but it must be more excellent Sacrament than the paschal lamb, whereunto Oecolampadius compareth it, and saith that it is no more precious, neither more to be praised than it, which figure was immediately instituted by Moses, although mediately by God, and figured christ to come, whereas this Sacrament figured christ present, and was immediately of him instituted. Now if john the Baptist was counted more than a prophet, because (as chrysostom saith) he was nearer to christ then other prophets, then by that respect, this Sacrament must be more excellent than the Sacraments of the old law, because it is nearer to christ, than other of the old law. And if john were the more excellent prophet (as Oecumenius saith) because he saw christ present whom he prophesied then likewise this Sacrament must be a more excellent sacrament, because he was present whom it figured. christ saith to the jews: Abraham pater vester exultavit ut videret diem meum, vidit, & gavisus est. Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day he saw it and was glad. Exultavit (saith Oecumenius) sine concupivit, he rejoiced joan. 8. or desired to see the day of christ. The day of christ that Abraham desired In Joan ca 8. to see, was the day of his passion (as chrysostom saith) in the which he rejoiced to see the redemption of mankind. He saw it in the oblation of the ram that supplied the place of his only Son Isaac, and he was glad. For (as Oecumenius saith) Didicit quod sicut ipse non pepercit In joanca 8. filio suo dilecto propter Deum: ita neque Deus parciturus esset filio suo dilecto propter hominem. Et quemadmodum ille portavit ligna holocausti sui: ita & ipse portaturus esset lignum mortis suae. Vernntamen sicut illo non passo suppositus est aries: ita & hoc manente impassibili, humanitas eius occisa est. He learned, that as he did not spare his beloved Son for god sake: even so neither would God spare his son for man's sake. And as he bore the wood of his sacrifice: so also he should bear the wood of his passion. But as he not suffering a ram was put in his stead: so this (meaning his Godhead) abiding impassable his manhood was slain. As Abraham did see christ: so no doubt many other holy fathers and Math. 13. prophets did see him, and yet thinking themselves more happy and blessed if they might have seen christ in the flesh, did earnestly desire the same, as christ saith: Multi prophetae & justi eupierunt videre, quae videtis, & non viderunt, & audire quae auditis, & non audierunt. Many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them, and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them. But above them all. Vestri beati oeuli, quia vident, & aures vestri, quia audiunt. Blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. In these words christ declareth the believers in him, and the seers of In 13. Math. homil. 46. him, to be more happy, than they that only believed, and saw him not, with the bodily eye, as chrysostom saith, expounding these words of christ. Multi prophetae & justi cup. etc. Aduentum scilicet meum, praesentiam, miracula, vocem. Hic enim non solùm perditis illis eos anteponit, verùm etiam prophetis ac justis praestantiores eos asserit, atque beatiores. Quare ita? Quoniam non solùm ista aspiciunt, quae illi non viderunt, verùm etiam quae illi videre cupierunt isti oculis cernunt. Nam fide illi etiam intuiti haec fuerunt, sed isti multo clarius omnia perspexerunt. Many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them, and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them, that is to say (saith he in the person of christ) my coming, my presence, my miracles, my preaching Here he doth not only prefer them before those lost or damned men, but also he affirmeth them to be more excellent and blessed then the prophets, and the righteous men. And why so? for that they do not only see those things which tother saw not, but also those things which they desired to see, these men saw with their eyes. For they also by faith did behold these things, but these moche more clearly did see all things. Thus Chrysost. If then they that saw christ in the flesh, were much more blessed, and excellent, than the prophets which saw him only by faith: how then should not the Sacraments instituted by christ in the flesh, and used of him in the flesh, and signifying him, and his merits being present in the flesh, be more excellent than the sacraments of the old law, which in a dark manner and a far of signified him only to come. And again, if they that saw christ in the flesh were more blessed by the sentence of christ, than the prophets, and righteous men, which desiring to see him, did not see him: how than standeth the saying of Oecalampadius, who wickedly travailed In expas. verborum Caenae. almost in all points to make the old law and the Sacraments thereof, nothing inferior to the new law, and the sacraments thereof, saying: Absit ut spirituales, qui sub lege erant Messiamue expectabant, fide pauperiores nobis fuerint, quibus manifestatus est. God for bid, that they which were spiritual under the law, and did look for Messiah in faith, should be poorer than we, unto whom he is manifested? And how again standeth this saying of Oecolampadius, which within a few lines followeth, with the saying of christ before mentioned? Neque Patriarchis fideles nostri beatiores sunt, quos aequavit fides, non reddunt inferiores sacramenta. Neither be our faithful more blessed than the patriarchs, for those whom faith maketh equal, sacraments can not make inferior. christ saith they are more blessed: Oecolampadius by express contrary Oecolamp. denieth that christ affirmeth. words saith nay. What heretical impudency is this, to deny that that christ affirmeth? That the holy patriarchs were excellent in faith, and as constantly believed that Messiah should come, as they that saw him in the flesh believed that he was comed, no man of sound mind will deny And yet although in that part they might be equal: yet it is no good argument, that in other things and respects the faithful Christian should not excel. For as christ hath taught, that they that believed in him, and bodily saw him, were more blessed, than they that only believed him to come: so they that receive the sacraments in faith presently, which christ hath instituted, are in that respect more blessed than they, which in faith only believed that such should be instituted and never saw them, nor received. But see how this matter carrieth me away? by this yet it may be perceived, that though the sacraments of the new law did not confer grace (as the Adversaries would have it) but were bare signs, and that the fathers of the old law were equal in faith with the christians in the new law: yet if Satan the master of untruth and heresy had not with malice blinded the fight of this his scholar, and other his likes, he and they might well have seen, that both the sacraments of the new law excel the sacraments of the old law: and that the faithful of the new law excel the faithful of the old law, though not in all, yet in diverse respects, as it is said. THE FOURTENTH CHAP. proceedeth IN the proof of the same by the scriptures and doctors. ANd now that the sacraments of the new law do excel the sacraments of the old law, it shall by most manifest testimony be proved. And first for that our special disputation is of the blessed sacrament of Christ'S body and blood we shall first deliver that from the malicious blasphemy of the Adversaries, and prove the excellency of it above other of the old law. And so generally prove the excellency of all our sacraments. For the foundation of the proof of the excellency of the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, I will take the word of him, who is the foundation of all christians, upon whom they must all build, which is christ. who most plainly declareth the excellency of this Sacrament in the sixth of S. john. And to the fortifying of this matter, for that the Adversary most arrogantly saith (but he proveth it not) that the sixth chap. of S. john is not to be understanded of the Sacrament, before I produce the authority of christ in that place, understand (gentle Reader) that I do not only say it, but in the second book, it is avouched, and invincibly proved by the testimony of a number, namely by Origen, Cyprian. Eusebius Emiss. Hierom, Chrysostom, Hilary, Ambrose, Damascen, Augustin, Cyrille, Euthimius, Gregory, Theophilact, Petrus Cluniacen. Guitmundus, Dionysius Carthusian. Lira, and in few words to comprehend a greater number than all these, by the Ephesine Council, in the which were two hundreth learned Fathers. By the testimony of these it is there proved that in the sixth of S. john christ speaketh of the Sacrament of his body and blood. To this also may be added the common and uniform consent of the Christian Church, before this scissure was made in the time of Luther, and Oecolampadius, and the other like Angels of Satan, which with one mouth as it were, taught that chapter to be understanded of the Sacrament. This also maketh good proof of the same, that when the heresy of the communion under both kinds was first raised in Bohemia, they ground the necessity Joan. 6. of that matter upon this text of that chapter: Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you. For the repression of which heresy, as the heretics understood that chap. of the Sacrament: so did no Catholic impugn the same, but granted and accepted it as a true understanding. Which then they would not have done if it had been otherwise to be taken: if it had, as that heresy was condemned De consensu Eunngelist. li. 3. c. 1 The vi. of S. john speaketh of the body and blood of christ. by a general Council: so should that understanding have been condemned likewise. To end this proof, that the reader may see some authority, in this place presently, and not to seek far for it, we shall hear S. Augustin, who speaking of the maundy of christ, saith: joannes de corpore & sanguine Domini hoc loco nihil dixit. Sed planè alibi multo uberius de iis Dominum locutum fuisse testatur. john said nothing in this place of the body and blood of our lord. But plainly in an other place, he testifieth that our lord hath spoken of it very plentifully. Ye hear S. Augustin plainly saying, that though S. john speaketh nothing in that place of the Sacrament, yet in an other place (saith he) he speaketh plentifully of it, We read in no place of S. john's Gospel that he speaketh plentifully of Christ'S body and blood in the Sacrament but in the sixth chapter, Wherefore S. Augustine understandeth the sixth chapter of S. john to speak of the body and blood of christ. In these words also of S. Augustin it is not to be overpassed, but by the way to be noted, that he saith not that S. john speaketh of the Sacrament, figure or sign of the body of christ, but plainly he calleth it the body and blood of christ, and saith that S. john speaketh of them in the sixth chap. This then being certain, and evident, that the words of christ in the sixth of S. john, as by Chrysostom and Euthymius, by S. Augustin and Teophilact they are distincted, be spoken, and understanded of his body and blood, according to the distinction: we shall bring in the words of christ, for the proof of this that is here to be proved. Thus christ saith: Non sicut manducaverunt patres vestri Manna, & mortui sunt. Qui manducat hunc panem, vivet in aeternum. Not as your Fathers did eat joan. 6. Manna, and be dead, he that eateth this bread shall live for ever. In the which saying of christ we are taught two things. The first that Manna is a figure of our heavenly Manna (I mien of christ in the Sacrament our most pleasant food) as the comparison of the one to the other made by christ himself doth well prove, and as at large it is testified by the testimony of many Fathers in the. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9 and tenth chapters of this book. Thexcellencie of the B Sacr. above Manna. The second thing is the excellency of our Manna the body of christ in the Sacrament, the thing figured by the other Manna. Which excellency christ very manifestly declareth when he saith that the eaters of Manna are dead: but the eaters of this Manna in the Sacrament, shall not only live, but they shall live for ever. As life in natural things is much more excellent than death: so that which giveth natural life is moche more excellent, then that which giveth it not life. As betwixt life and death there is no just comparison, both for that inter ens, & non ens nulla est comparatio, betwixt some thing and nothing is no comparison, and also for that no comparison can be ground where is no positive: so betwixt temporal life and eternal life is no comparison, for that, as S. Gregory saith, Temporalis vita aeternae vitae comparata mors est potius dicenda, quàm vita. The temporal life compared to the eternal life is raither Gregorius. to be called death them life. Then the eternal life so far passing the temporal life, as life doth death: how much then surmounteth the Manna Mamna the figure gave but temporal life: Mamna the thing eternal life of the Christians the Manna of the jews, where as this giveth but temporal life, the other eternal, as saith S. Augustin: Manna de coelo apertè ab ipso Domino exponitur. Patres vestri (inquit) manducaverunt Manna in deserto & mortui sunt. Quando enim viverent? Figura vitam praenunciare posset, vita esse non posset. Manducaverunt (inquit) Manna & mortui sunt, id est, Manna quod manducaverunt, non illos potuit de morte liberare, non quia ipsum Manna mors eye fuit, sed quia à morte non liberavit. Ille enim liberaturus erat á morte, qui per Manna figurabatur. De coelo certè Manna veniebat. Attend A figure may fore the we life but it can not be life. quem figurabat: Ego sum (inquit) panis vinus, qui de coelo descendi. Manna from heaven is plainly expounded of our lord himself. Your fathers (saieh he) have eaten Manna in the wilderness and are dead. for when should they live? A figure may foreshow life: but it can not be life. They have (saith he) eaten Manna and are dead, that is to say, Manna which they have eaten could not deliver them from death not that, that Manna was death unto them, but because it delivered them not from death. He should deliver them from death, who was figured by Manna. certainly that Manna came from heaven: Take heed whom it did figure. I am (sayeth he) the living bread, which descended from heaven, Thus far S. Augustin. Seeing then that Manna the figure, which reigned to the jews could not deliver from death, as here you have heard S. Augustin testify: and Manna the body of christ, the thing figured, and contained in our Sacrament doth Our Sacr. giving lise sarre excelteth Mamna that gave got life. deliver from death, and therefore of consequent giveth eternal life, as christ himself also avoucheth in the text alleged: it can not otherwise be concluded, but that our Sacrament of Christ'S body and blood is incomparably excelling Manna and any other sacrament that in the old law did figure christ. As here by the comparison which christ hath made betwixt Manna and his body, the excellency of the one above the other is easy to be discerned: so now shall we see the like handling of the figure, and the verity by the holy fathers. Holy Cyprian showing the meeting and application of the old paschal lamb which was a figure of our new paschal lamb declareth most plainly the excellency of the one above the other. Caena disposita inter sacramentales epulas obuiarunt sibi instituta nova, & antiqua. Et consumpto agno, quem antiqua traditio proponebat, Cyprian de cana Do. inconsumptibilem cibum magister apponit Discipulis. Nec iam ad elaborata impensis & arte convivia populi invitantur, sed immortalitatis alimoniae datur, à comunibus cibis differens, corporalis substantiae retinens speciem, sed virtutis divinae invisibili efficien tia probans adesse praesentiam. The supper being ordained, among the Sacramental The inconsumptible 〈◊〉 given to the Apostles both contained the presence of divine power, and also retained the form of corporal substance. meats, there met together the new and the old ordinances, and the lamb which the old tradition did set forth being consumed, the master set before his disciples inconsumptible meat. Neither are the people bidden to feasts prepared with charges and cunning: but the food of immortality is given, differing from common meats, retaining the form of corporal substance but proving by invisible working, the presence of the divine power to be present. Thus S. Cyprian. As in this sentence ye see the application of the ordinances of the old law to the new: so may ye easily perceive that the one far excelleth the other. The meat which was given according to the old ordinance was consumed: but the meat which was given according to the new ordinance, was inconsumptible. That, that is of a limited power, and finite, it may have a certain degree of excellency, compared to things of like condition but when it is compared to a thing that is infinite, it may not stand in comparison, for Finiti ad infinitum nulla est comparatio, of a thing finite to a thing infinite there is no comparison. Wherefore the inconsumptible meat of our lamb in our Sacrament so far excelleth (being infinite) that the consumptible meat of the old law (being finite) may not stand with it in comparison. Again S. Cyprian calleth our Sacrament the food of immortality, the paschal lamb of the jews was none such. Wherefore our Sacrament by all means excelleth that sacrament of the jews. S. Cyprian also applying our Sacrament to the figure of the same used by Melchisedech, doth most plainly Cyprian ibidem vide sup. li. 1. cap. 39 declare the excellency of it: Significata olim à tempore Melchisedec prodeunt sacramenta, & filiis Abrahae facientibus opera eius summus sacerdos panem profert, & vinum: Hoc est (inquit) corpus meum. Manducaverant, & biberant de eodem pane secun dùm formam visibilem. etc. The sacraments signified in the old time, from the time of Melchisedech come now forth, and the high priest to the children of Abraham doing his works, bringeth forth bread and wine. This is (saith he) my body. They had eaten, and drunken after the visible form of the same bread. But before those words that common meat was profitable only to nourish the body, and did ministre help to the corporal life. Sacrifice propitiatory. But after it was said of our lord. This do ye in the in the remembrance of me. This is my flesh, and this is my blood, as often as it is done with these words, and this faith, this substantial bread and cup consecrated with the solemn benediction, it doth avail to the health and life of the whole man, and is both a medicine and sacrifice, to heal infirmities and to purge iniquities. Thus moche S. Cyprian. But forasmoch as these two sainges are handled in the first book, where the figure and the thing figured be at large opened: I think it not meet any more of them here to say, then toucheth this present matter, which they do wonderfully set forth. It is more than manifest that the sacrifices Hebr. 10. The blood of bulls and goats in the old law did not take away sins: but the sacrifice of the new law purgeth iniquities. of the old law were not of that force, power, and virtue to purge or take away sins, S. Paul saying: Impossibile est sanguine taurorum, aut hircorum auferri peccata. It is unpossible sins to be taken away with the blood of bulls and goats. But this hour sacrifice of the new law, which is the flesh and blood of christ, is available to the whole man, that is to the health both of the body and soul of man. For it is a medicine to heal infirmities and a sacrifice to purge iniquities. If this than be not a notable excellency, which the holy martyr Cyprian giveth unto this glorious and blessed Sacrament above the excellency of these figures, I know not what excellency is. But the matter requireth to have other holy Fathers to speak what they think in this matter. S Ambrose, for that he speaking of this matter, affirmeth the like operation and effect of this Sacrament, as S. Cyprian did, he shall be joined unto him. Thus he saith: Ipse Dominus jesus testificatur nobis, quod corpus suum accipiamus & sanguinem. Nunquid debemus de eius fide & testificatione dubitare? jam redi me cum ad propositionem meam. Magnum quidem & venerabile quod Manna judaeis pluit Li. 4. de sacram cap. 5 è coelo. Sed intellige quid est amplius, Manna de coelo, an corpus, Christi? Corpus Christi utique, qui author est coeli. Deinde Manna qui manducaverit, mortuus est, qui manducaverit hoc corpus fiet ei remissio peccatorum, & non morietur in aeternum. The Lord jesus himself (saith S. Ambrose) testifieth unto us that we receive his body and blood, awght we of his testification and truth to doubt? Now come again with me to my proposition. It is a great thing truly, and venerable Manna ae creature from heaven moche inferior to Christ the author of heaven. that he reigned Manna to the jews from heaven. But understand, which is the greater, Manna from heaven, or the body of christ. The body of christ truly, who is the author of heaven. Farther he that hath eaten Manna hath died: he that eateth this body, he shall have remission of sins, and shall not die for ever. Thus far S. Ambrose. Dost though not, Reader, in this goodly saying see the great excellency of the Sacrament above Manna, as thou diddest in S. Cyprian above the paschal lamb, and the sacrifice of Melchisedec? Dost though not also note the goodly argrement, of these two, in commending unto us the great and worthy Effects of the S. Sacr. proving the excellency of it. effects of this Sacrament? by the which it doth without all controversy, wonderfully excel all the sacramantes and sacrifices of the old law. As S. Cyprian applying the body of christ to the paschal lamb, called it the inconsumptible meat, whereby it excelleth the figure which was consumed: So S. Ambrose, applying the body of christ to Manna as to his figure, saieh, that though Manna came from heaven, Yet christ who is the author of heaven is more excellent. As S. Cyprian called the body the food of immortality: So S. Ambrose saith that he that eateth this body, he shall newer die As S. Cyprian saith that it is a sacrifice to purge iniquities: So S. Ambrose saith, that he that eateth this body, his sins shall be remitted. These goodly effects were not in the sacraments and sacrifices of the old law. Wherefore they being in this Sacrament, it excelleth them all. If thou ask why, or how these effects be in this Sacrament: I answer, because he is there verily substantially, and really in quo inhabitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter, in whom dwelleth all the fullness of the deity corporally: Colloss. 2. and unto whom Non ad mensuram dat Deus Spiritum. God giveth not his Spirit by measure: Et cui data est omnis potestas in coelo, & in terra. And to whom Joan. 3. is given all power in heaven, and in earth, whose flesh coniuncta ei, quae naturaliter Math. 28. vita est, vivifica effecta est, being joined unto that, which naturally is life, is made also able to give life, as S. cyril saith. Cyrillus. Of this his presence in the Sacrament, for that that christ himself saith, and testifieth unto us that we do receive his body, we should not, neither we aught (as S. Ambrose saith) to doubt of his witness and truth. Of the which, as also of farther testimony to the proof of the excellency of the Sacrament, he saith in an other place: Considera nunc, utrum prestantior sit panis Angelorum, an caro Christi, quae utique est corpus vitae. Manna illud è coelo: hoc supra coelum. Ambrose De initiand mist ca 9 Illud coeli: hoc Domini coelorum. Illud corruptioni obnoxium, si in diem alterum seruaretur: hoc alienum ab omni corruption, Quod quicunque religiosè gustaverit, corruptionem sentire non poterit. Illos ad horam satiavit aqua: te sanguis diluit in aeternum. judaeus bibit, & sitit: tu cùm biberis, sitire non poteris. Et illud in umbra: hoc in veritate. Et post pauca. Cognovisti praestantiora: potior enim lux, quàm umbra, veritas, quàm figura, corpus authoris, quàm Manna de coelo. Consider now whether the bread of Angels is more excellent or the flesh of christ, which is also the body of life. That Manna was from heaven: this above heaven. That of heaven: this of the lord of heavens. That subject to corruption, if it were kept till the next day: this free from all corruption, which whosoever shall taste devoutly shall not be able to feel corruption. Unto them water did flow out of the rock Manna proved much inferior to the B. Sacr. by S. Amb. his comparison. unto thee blood out of Chryst. Them did water satisfy for a little time: thee doth blood wash for ever. The jew drank, and thirsteth: if, when thou havest drunk, canst not thirst. And that was in shadow: this in truth. And after a few words he saith: Havest though known the more excellent? The light is more excellent than the shadow. The verity, than the figure. The body of the author, than Manna from heaven. Thus S. Ambrose. need we any plainer testimony, for the proof of this our matter in hand? I think the holy Ghost directed the pen of S. Ambrose, to answer and confute the wicked assertion of Oecolampadius. for this so overthroweth his heresy, as though it had been now written in these days to confute him. But perchance the Adversary will say, that this maketh nothing against him, for here S. Ambrose speaketh not of the Sacrament, but of the body of christ, as suffering for us, to work our redemption. To this there may be manifold answers made. First that Manna is not properly a figure of christ as suffering, but of christ as feeding us. For Manna descended from heaven Objection. to feed the Israelites, and not to suffer for them. so Manna being the food from heaven of the people of God, is a figure of hour heavenly food Thanswer christ in the Sacrament. Farther also it is well known that S. Ambrose in that book treateth of mysteries and sacraments, wherefore in this place it is most like, that he treateth of the Sacrament. Finally the plain words of S. Ambrose invincible prove the same. For immediately, and jointly to this sentence last alleged he objecteth to himself as now the Adversary doth in these days unto us, and saith. Fortè dicasialiud video, quomodò tu mihi asseris, quòd Christi corpus accipiam? Et hoc nobis superest adhuc ut probemus, quantis Ambr. ibid. vide sup. li. 2. ca 51. igitur utimur exemplis, etc. Perchance thou mayst say: I see an other thing, how dost though say unto me, that I receive the body of christ? And this remaineth yet unto us to prove. How many examples may we therefore use? Let us prove this not to be that thing, which nature hath form: but that the blessing hath consecrated, and the power of the blessing, to be greater than of nature. For by the blessing nature it self is changed. Moses' did hold a rod, he cast it down, and it was made a serpent. Again, he took the tail of the serpent, and it returned into the nature of the rod. Thowe seest therefore even by the prophetical grace, The B. Sa. is not that, that nature hath form, but that the blessing hath consecrated. nature to be twice changed, both of the serpent, and of the rod. The rivers of Egypt did run with a pure course, and suddenly out of the veins of the fountains there began blood to break out, so that there was no drink in the rivers. Again, at the prayers of the Prophet the blood of the floods ceased, and the nature of the water returned. The people of Israel were compassed about on every side, on this side with the Egyptians, on the other side with the sea. Moses' lift up the rod, the water divided it self, and congealed in manner of walls, and so between the waters there appeared a foot path. jordan turned backward against his nature, he returned into his well spring. Is it not clear then that the nature either of the waveis of the sea or of the course of the river hath been changed? The people of the fathers did thirst. Moses' touched the stone, and water flowed out of it. Did not grace work besides nature, that a stone should power out water, which nature had not? and after other more examples he concludeth thus: we perceive therefore grace to be of greater Consecration of the B. Sacr. of what force it is. power than nature. And if man's blessing was of such force that it might turn nature, what shall we say of the divine consecration, where the very words of our Lord and saviour do work? For this Sacrament which thou receivest is made by the word of christ. If than the word of Helias was of so great power, that it might put down fire from heaven: shall not the word of christ be able to change the natures of the elements? though havest read of the works of all the world, that he hath said, and they were made: he hath commanded, and they were created. The word of christ then, which could of nothing make that that was not, can it not change those things that be into that they were not? It is nolesse matter to give unto things new natures, then to change natures. Thus much S. Ambrose. In this answer as pithy and plain, as it is long, the Adversary is not one Three notes out of S. Ambr. lie fully answered, but we are also instructed in three things: The first that concerneth this matter is, that in the application of the verity to the figure, he understandeth the verity of the figure Manna to be the body of christ in the Sacrament, by the which he taketh the Sacrament to be moche more excellent than the figure, which although in every part of his sentence he toucheth, yet in this he most plainly declareth it, when he saith The light is more excellent than the shadow: the verity, than the figure. And expounding which is the light and verity, which is the shadow and figure, he addeth: The body of the author, than Manna from heaven. The second thing that he teacheth, is how, and by what means the body of christ is in the Sacrament, which he declareth to be in two points: The one is that it is done by consecration, which is done by the word of christ. Wherefore he saith: We perceive grace to be of greater power than nature. For In the consecration of the B. Sac. the words of our Saviour do work. if the benediction of a man was of so great power, that it might turn nature: what shall we say of the divine consecration it self, where the very words of our Lord and Saviour do work? As who might say. If Moses did cast down the rod, and it was turned into a serpent, and took it up again and it was turned into a rod: and soch like. If Helyseus did make the axe against his nature to swim above the water: If Helyas by his word caused fire to descend from heaven. If the word of these men but servants did work such wonders: how much more may the word of the Lord and master of these men work? The second point is, that he showeth by what means the word of christ worketh the presence of his body in the Sacrament, that is (saith he) by the changing of the natures of the creatures, into the nature of his body and blood, which he signifieth when he saith If the word of Helyas was of such power, that it might bring down fire from heaven, shall not the word of christ be of soch power, that it may change the natures of the elements? And again: the word of christ that could of nothing make that that was not: can it not change those things that be, in to that thing that they were not? The mean then by the which the word of christ maketh the body of christ present in the Sacrament is by changing the natures of bread and wine into the nature of his body and blood, which because the changing of natures, is the change of substances, transubstantiation what it is. therefore the Church doth call it Transubstanciation, forsomuch as the nature or substance of one thing is changed by God's power into the nature or substance of an other thing. The third thing that we are taught of S. Ambrose (which also is deduced of these two) is the very presence of christ in the Sacrament. Which so being (as most certainly it is) we may conclude, that this is in comparablie a more excellent Sacrament, than either Manna or the paschal lamb, notwithstanding the saying of the Adversary. And although S. Augustin saith, that Sacramenta in signis diversa, in re tamen quae significatur paria sunt, Sacraments in signs being diverse: in the thing yet that is signified they are like: Yet that taketh not away the excellency of Difference between Mamna and the blessed Sac. this Sacrament. For although Manna and the paschal lamb did signify the same christ that our Sacrament doth, and so in that respect of signification be like: yet for that the other sacraments did but signify, and this Sacrament doth both contain and give that it doth signify, therefore it doth far excel them. To this that is said, although it be sufficient to prove that that is here intended: yet if the reader will add the saying of S. Ambrose in the eight chapter of the book last; alleged (which to avoid tediousness I overpass) and will remember what the said S. Ambrose saith in the fourth chapter of this book, and Chrysostom in the sixth chapter, and Theophilact and Haymo in the ninth chap: and other treacting of Manna and the body of christ, of which he shall find diverso from the fourth chapter to the eleventh chapter of this book, I doubt not but he shall see so moche, that he will marvel that ever any heretic could so shamelessly teach soch wicked doctrine, so repugnant to the catholic faith, and so direct contrary to the sainges of so many holy Fathers being witnesses of this truth, but above all that they should so blasphemously dishonour the sacraments of God, and his christ. Who for the setting forth of his honour, and hour help and comfort in the peregrination of this life, that we may have strength against hour enemies, which cruelly lie in wait for us, and our assured hope of the mercy of God in the end of our journey, hath instituted these sacraments and by them worthily used and received hath given us many benefits, of all which, as also of God's honour, they would rob both him and us. But, Reader, beware of them, and be not led away with such doctrines, as were born but yesterday. But cleave to that is tried, received, approved, and testified many hundreth years, of the which thou shalt learn that the Sacraments of christ and of the new law are much more excellent, than the sacraments of the old law. THE fifteenth CHAPTER PROVING all our Sacraments generally to be more excellent than the sacraments of Moses. AS ye have heard by sufficient testimony, that the blessed Sacrament of Christ'S body and blood is more excellent, than Manna and the paschal lamb, the figures of the same, of the which I have specially treacted, because this whole rude work is chiefly settfurth for the commendation of the truth of the same Sacrament: Now that the other sacraments be not left in the hands of the enemies, and by them spoiled and over moche wronged, somewhat also shall be briefly said, whereby they may be known as they be, and be delivered from the hands of their enemies, who falsely report of them, and devellislie travail to dishonour them. Among all the sacraments next unto this blessed and most honourable Sacrament of Christ'S body and blood, it is to be marveled that they could Baptism instituted by christ and commended by the whole Trinity. so unreverently speak of the sacrament of Baptism; which was so instituted and commended to the Christian world, as no sacrament more solemnly. At the setting forth of this Sacrament christ himself being present, and baptized, the voice of the Father was heard saying: This is my well beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: heaven was opened, and the holy Ghost was seen in the form of a dove descending from heaven and abiding upon christ. So that in the ministration of this sacrament was present the Father, the Son and the holy Ghost. Which noble presence seemeth to bring with it some more noble gift than a bare sign, or token, as the wicked say that it is. But what shall I need to stand to declare the worthiness of this sacrament against these enemies of God, seeing that heaven and the whole Trintie, testifieth against them. Wherefore leaving to speak any more of this sacrament specially, or of the other particularly for fear of prolixity, and for that it is spoken of here but by occasion, we shall hear saint Augustin speaking of Aug. cont. Faustum li. 19 cap. 13. them generally: Prima sacramenta quae obseruabantur, & celebrabantur ex lege, praenunciativa erant Christi venturi, quae cùm suo adventu Christus implevisset, ablata sunt, & ideo ablata sunt, quia impleta. Non enim venit legem solvere, sed adimplere. Et alia sunt instituta, virtute maiora, utilitate meliora, actu faciliora, numero pauciora. The first sacraments, which were observed and celebrated of the old law were foreshewers of christ to come, the which when in his coming he Sacraments of the new law be greater in power, better in profit, easier to be done then the sacr. of the old law. had fulfilled, they were taken away, and therefore taken away because they were fulfiled. For he came not to break the law, but to fulfil it. And other were instituted greater in power, better in profit, easier to be done, and fewer in number. Thus S. Augustin. Observe gentle reader, these words. He saith that after the sacraments of the old law were taken away, there were other instituted, which were greater in power, and better in profit. Where in be they greater in power, but in this that the sacraments of the old law had no power but to signify only: our sacraments have power not only to signify, but also to give that that they signify? As the Sacrament of Christ'S body signifieth the same body, and it giveth also to the receiver the same body that it signifieth. And as Baptism signifieth by the washing of the body, the cleansing of the soul: so it giveth remission of sins both original, and actual, by taking away of of which, the soul is purged, cleansed, and washed from all her filthiness. And so in other Sacraments, what they signify, that they give, if there be no stop nor let in the receiver. And therefore as they in giving that they do signify, be in power greater than the Sacraments of the old law, for they could but signify, but to give that that they signified they had no power: So to us ward in that they give us such benefits as they signify they are more profitable. The Adversary maketh no more difference betwixt the Sacraments of the old law and new, but that they signified christ to come, and owers christ that is comed, in the which there appeareth to me no difference either in power or in profit. But S. Augustine maketh a great difference. For he saith that our Sacraments are greater in power, and better in profit. How so ever the Adversary will understand S. Augustin, if he will any other way make our Sacraments better and profitablier than the Sacraments of the old law, he must needs also grant that they be more excellent than those. Now therefore he must either deny S. Augustin, or else grant that he hath before denied, and say that our Sacraments be more excellent. To the confirmation also of this matter maketh much the common consent of learned men upon the definition of a Sacrament. Thus do they define it: Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum, ita ut imaginem gerat, & causa existat. A Sacrament what it is. Sacrament is a sign of an holy thing in such manner that it may bear the image, and be the cause. In the which definition are put the two offices of a Sacrament of the new law. The one office is to be a sign, but not only a sign, but an evident, or a lively sign, having some properties or conditions like to the thing that it signisieth, so that it may signify it evidently as the Two offices of a sacrament. image of a man signifieth a man. The other office is that it be the cause of the thing that it signifieth not a cause of the being of it, but a cause of the effectual working of it, in him that receiveth the Sacrament. As for example. Baptism is an evident sign of the washing of the soul, and being ministered is a cause that the washing of the soul is effectually wrought and doen. For if Baptism be not either in fact, or in vow, how moche soever otherwise the party believeth, the soul is not cleansed from sin. Whereby it is evident that Baptism is a cause effectual. But here is to be noted, there be (as to the purpose sufficeth) two causes effectual, one principal, the other instrumental. As for example. The soul is the principal cause efficient of the seight of man: The eye is Two effectual causes one principal, the other instrumental. the organ or instrumental cause efficient of the seight. So both be causes, but the soul the principal, the eye the instrumental, so called, because it is the organ or instrument, by which the soul doth see. So in the giving of grace which cometh to man by the sacraments. God is the principal cause efficient of that benefit or gist or grace, for he is the giver, he is the doer: the sacrament is his instrument or organ, by the which it hath pleased him to take order to work his gracious pleasure and to give his gift of grace to men. So that as the soul (if the eye be not altered from his due order that nature hath appointed) infallibly, and most assuredly doth see by the eye: so God if the sacraments be ministered in that order that he hath appointed them, infallibly, and most certainly he worketh and giveth his grace to the receivers by them if the receivers put no stop nor let to the entry of the grace of God into them. Now where the Adversaries make exclamation for that we say, that the sacraments of christ give grace, and say that we rob christ of his Sacraments of the new law how they give grace. honour, and commit Idolatry in giving the same to dumb creatures, as to bread and wine, water, oil, and such other, ye may perceive how little they see or understand, or else blinded by malice, will not see or understand. For although it be so said and truly said, what catholic learned man yet saith not with all, that God giveth grace by his sacraments? And who is ignorant of this saying, that the sacraments are effectual by the merit of Christ'S passion, and blood shedding? And who being learned and catholic saith not that Baptism of it self hath no such power to give grace, but the power of christ which assisteth his sacraments giveth it according to his pact or promise made in the institution of the sacraments. So that when soever the sacraments be duly ministered to worthy receivers, undoubtedly the grace, which they signify is also given. In the which they give the principality to God christ our Saviour, to whom they give their due honour, and yet withal confessing and acknowledging God's ordinance, that he by his sacraments hath taken order to give his grace, say, that the sacraments as gods organs, do give grace. And this manner of speech is common, to ascribe the effect of the cause principal, to the cause instrumental. For christ himself abhorreth not from it, but useth it. As when he saith: Vestri beati oculi, quia vident, & aures, quia audiunt. But blessed be your eyes, for they see, and your ears for they hear. christ was not ignorant, that their souls did see and hear, as the cause principal, and yet he asscribeth the effect to the eye and to the ear, by the which as by her organs, she doth see and hear. The scripture also useth both these manner of speeches. Saint Paul saith: Secundùm suam misericordiam saluos nos fecit per lavacrum regenerationis & renovationis spiritus sancti. According to his mercy he hath saved us by Tit. 3. the fowntain of regeneration, and the renovation of the holy Ghost. In the which manner of saying, saint Paul declareth that our salvation cometh from God, as from the cause principal, and by Baptism, as the cause instrumental. Saint Peter speaking of the Ark of Noah, in the which Noah and his children were saved, as the figure of Baptism by the which we are saved saith: Nunc similis formae saluos vos facit Baptisma. Now in like manner baptism saveth you. In which manner of speech doth 1. Pet. 3. not saint Peter ascribe salvation to Baptism? Yet was not he ignorant who was, the principal cause of our salvation. Now what is it to say that baptism saveth us, but that baptism giveth us grace of remission of our sins? what then do we offend to speak as the scripture doth, and to say that the sacraments give grace? Doth S. Peter rob God and christ of his honour, because he doth ascribe salvation to baptism? No: no more doth the Church in saying that sacraments give grace. Both be uprightly spoken, and Gods honour uprightly saved. If then (as S. Paul saith) we be saved by Baptism, and (as S. Peter saith) Baptism saveth us: and by the sacraments of the old law no man was saved, neither did they save any man (Nam neminem ad perfectum adduxit Lex, for the law brought no man to perfection) than it may be concluded, that our sacraments are more excellent, than the sacraments of the old law. Neither can Oecolampadius his wicked gloze stand to pervert the true definition Oecolamp. his wicked gloze of the word cause confuted. of a sacrament. Causa non ad efficientiam, sed ad significantiae evidentiam referri debet. 'Cause (saith he) ought to be referred not to the efficiency, or working of the effect, but to the evidence of signification. For as Roffensis both well and learnedly saith against him. This word cause is not referred to the evidence of signification, but to the efficacy, or else (saith he) this particle of the definition (& causa existit, and is the cause) were superfluous. For by that particle that the definition hath (ut imaginem gerat, that it bear the image) the evidence of signification is sufficiently expressed. To have any thing superfluous in a definition is a great inconvenience among learned men. R●ss●n. li. 2 adversus Oecolamp. cap. 29. Wherefore nothing in this definition being superfluous, it must needs stand that the sacraments be causes effectual, and being so they excel the sacraments of the old law. For where they were but only signifying, hour are (as the definition teacheth) both signifying and effectual. Nam efficiunt quod significant, For they bring that to effect which they signify. Aug. in prolog. psal. 73 But let us hear saint Augustine teaching the difference of these sacraments, for he nothing dissenteth from this that is said, but moche consirmeth it. Thus he saith Oportunè non ex nostra, sed Dei dispensatione factum est, ut modò audiremus ex evangelio, quia lex per Moysen data est, gratia & veritas per jesum Christum facta est. Si enim discernimus duo Testamenta, nec eadem promissa, eadem tamen pleraque praecepta. Nam non occides. Non moechaheris. Non furaberis. Honora patrem & matrem. Non falsum testimonium dixeris. Non concupisces res proximi tui, & non concupisces uxorem proximi tui, & nobis praeceptum est, et quisquis ea non obseruanerit, deviat, nec omnino dignus est qui accipere mereatur montem sanctum Dei, de quo dictum est: Quis babitabit in tabernaculo tuo, aut quis requiescet in monte sancto tuo? Innocens manibus & mundo cord. Haec dicimus, fratres charissimi, ut omnes de novo testamento discatis, non inhaerere terrenis, sed coelestia adipisci. Discussa ergo praecepta, aut omnia Comparison of the law and the gospel and of their sacraments. eadem inveniuntur, aut vix aliqua in evangelio quae non dicta sunt à prophetis. Praecepta eadem, Sacramenta non eadem, promissa non eadem. Videamus quare praecepta eadem: quia secundùm haec Deo seruive debemus. Sacramenta non eadem, quia alia sunt sacramenta dantia salutem, alia promittentia salvatorem. Sacramenta novi Testamenti dant salutem: sacramenta veteris testamenti promiserunt salvatorem. Quando ergo iam teneas promissa, quid quaeris promittentia salvatorem iam habens? Haec dico teneas promissa, non quòd iam accepimus vitam aeternam, sed quia iam venit Christus, qui per Prophetas praenunciabatur. Mutata sunt sacramenta, facta sunt faciliora, pauciora, salubriora. In good season it is done, not of hour, but of the dispensation of God, that now we should hear out of the Gospel that the law was given by Moses, but grace and verity was done by jesus christ: If we discern the two testaments, there be not the same promises, but there be many of the same commandments. Forthowe shalt not kill. though shall not commit adultery. Thowe shalt not steal. Honour thy father and thy mother. though shall not speak false witness. Thou shalt not desire thy neighbour's goods. And thou shalt not desire the wife of thy neighbour: it is to us also commanded. And whosoever shall not observe them, he goeth out of the way, neither by any means is he worthy to take the holy hill of God, of the which it is said: Who shall dwell in thy tabernacle, or who shall rest in thy holy hill? He that is innocent of his hands, and of a clean heart: These things we say (dearly beloved brethered) that all you that be of the new testament may learn not to cleave to earthly things: but to get heavenly things. The commaundentes therefore discussed, either they are all found to be the same or else scarce any in the Gospel, which were not spoken of the Prophets. The commandments be all one: The sacraments be not all one. The promesses be not all one. Let us see why the commandments be all Sacraments of the new law give salvation. one. because according to these we aught to serve God. The sacraments be not all one. For they be other sacraments giving salvation, and other promising a Saviour. The sacraments of the new Testament give salvation: The sacraments of the old testament have promised a Saviour. Forasmoch then as though now holdest the promises, what seekest though now, having the Saviour, the things that do promise? I say (holdest the promesses) not because we have now received eternal life: but that now christ is comed, which was spoken of before by the Prophets, the sacraments are changed, they are made easier, fewer, wholesomer, and better. Hitherto S. Augustin. Is it not wonderful that ever men can be so impudent, so shameless to speak the contrary of so manifest a matter, so clearly, and so plainly uttered and spoken by such an notable father, as S. Augustin is? He hath used no circumlocution, no figures, no dark manner of speech, but as it is learnedly, so is it truly and plainly commended unto us. Let me, I beseech thee gentle reader, with thy patience, (although it be as I said, so plainly spoken Assertion of the Adversary touching the Sacraments conferred with S. Aug. his judgement of them. of S. Augustin, that except a man will be a trunk, he can not but perceive it) a little more to the confusion of the Adversary, weigh the parts of this saying, that touch our matter. where as S. Augustin saith that the sacraments be not all one of the new and old testament: the Adversaries will agree with him and us. But they say that although they be diverse in their matters of the sacraments: yet in this they be like for they do all but signify, the one sort christ to come, the other christ already comed, so that there is no difference betwixt them, neither is the one sort better than the other, more than is spoken. This is the assertion of the Adversary. Let is now hear the assertion of S. Augustine. he saith that the sacraments be diverse. There be some giving salvation: other some but promising the Saviour, and opening each sort, he saith: The sacraments of the new Testament give salvation: The sacraments of the old Testament have promised the Saviour. O merciful God is there no difference betwixt these sacraments, more than the Adversary hath said? Is the one sort no better than the other? Among scholars, a pettite, if he be asked, will answer that there is great difference. It is a great difference betwixt giving and not giving, And that that giveth salvation is in many degrees better than it that doth but figure or signify it to come. S. Augustine saith that our sacraments give salvation, whereas the other of the old Testament by figures did but promiss. Wherefore our sacraments be better. If better, then more excellent. That they be better S. Augustin by express words affirmeth afterward saying: The sacraments are changed, they are made easier, fewer, wholesomer, and better. What now can the Adversary say? Is there no difference, where the sacraments of the new law are wholesomer, and better than the other sacraments? Is there, I say, no difference betwixt these sacraments but Oecolampadius difference? Yes, they are better and holesomer than the other, and therefore more excellent, yea so much our sacraments excel the other, that S. Augustin in that same prologue, comparing the sacraments together, calleth the sacraments of the old law children's plays or games in respect Aug. ibid. of our sacraments. For this is his saying: Numquid quoniam puero dantur quaedam puerilia ludicra, quibus puerilis animus avocetur, propterea grandescenti non excutiuntur est manibus, ut aliquid iam utilius tractet quod grandem decet? Non ergo quia illa quasi ludicra puerorum Deus per nowm testamentum excussit de manibus filiorum ut aliquid utilius daret grandescentibuus, propterea priora illa non ipse dedisse putandus est. For so much Sacraments of the old law compared to children's trifles: Sacraments of the new law to things of profit. as unto a child there be given certain childesh plays or trifles, by the which the childish mind may be called away, are they not therefore taken out of his hands when he waxeth bigger, that he may handle some other thing more profitable, as it becometh a bigger: No more therefore God because he hath taken the things as children's plays out of the hands of his sons by the new testament, that he might give them something more profitable now being waxen greater, is he to be thought not to havegeven those former things. In this saying S. Augustin likeneth the sacraments of the old law in respect of the sacraments of the new law unto children's games, and our sacraments he likeneth to the things of more profit, which are to be given to the sons of God, when they wax of more age, knowledge, and ripeness. And is not this a great difference? Are not then the sacraments of christ much better and more excellent, than the sacraments of Moses? Now being testified that they be better, it is to be inquired in what thing, how, or by what mean they be better: as before it is said, they are the better for that they give that, that they signify, As the Sacrament of Christ'S body and blood signifieth the body and blood, and containing the same giveth it also. For in this that it containeth the very presence of the body of christ standeth the excellency of the Sacrament. for else how can a bare, piece of bread, having no other office but that it is a sign of Christ'S body, be better or excel either the paschal lamb, or Manna, the one being so lively a figure, the other so beautified with many miracles? Wherefore we must needs grant the presence of Christ'S body to be in the Sacrament, whereby the Sacrament excelleth those other two of the old law be they never so glorious, or also so miraculous. For the glory of this blessed body passeth the glory of the other, and the miracles of this presence, passeth all the miracles of Manna. And so the rest, for that they give that they signify, and the old sacraments did but signify and not give, therefore they be better and profitabler, and more excellent. I will now out of this that is said, gather the condition of both these kinds of sacraments, and lay them before thy face (Reader) and so end this matter, leaving the judgement of it to thee. The sacraments of the old law did but signify: the sacraments of the new law, do both signify and also give that, that they signify. The old sacraments did promise salvation: the new sacraments do give salvation. The old sacraments were but children's plays, things unprofitable, but for children to dally withal: The new sacraments be profitable things not meet to be in the handling of children, but of such as be well waxed and of knowledge and discretion. Finally if there were any health, virtue or goodness in the old sacraments: yet the sacraments of the new law are (to use the words of S. Augustine) virtute maiora, utilitate meliora, salubriora, faeliciora, greater in power, better in profit, wholesomer, and better. And now as of a matter treacted of beside my pourspose this may suffice. THE sixteenth CHAP. proceedeth TO the next text of saint Paul which is. Calix cui Bened. Having intended to set forth in this book the exposition of such scriptures as be in the epistles of S. Paul, which speak of the Sacrament of Christ'S body and blood, to search out the understanding of the fathers, whether they speak of it as taking it for a bare sign, or figure of the body and blood of christ: or else as a Sacrament containing the thing that it signifieth: I have thought good, if any scriptures do come betwixt such, not to trouble the Reader with the exposition of them, for that they be impertinent to hour matter, but overpassing them to go to the next text to our matter appertaining. Wherefore having now done the scriptures in the beginning of the tenth chapter, I pass over to this text: Calix benedictionis, cui benedicimus, nun communicatio sanguinis Christi est? Et panis, quem frangimus, nun participatio corporis Domini est? is not the cup of blessing which we bless partaking of the blood of christ? is not the bread which we break partaking of the body of christ. For the better understanding of this text it is to be observed, that S. Paul travailing to abduce the Corinthians from certain vices and evils, which he hath remembered unto them, to have been in the jews, and for the which Sacrifice of the church proved by S. Paul. they were punished of God, enombring them particularly, and among other, noting Idolatry, dehorteth them from it saying: Fugite ab Idolorum cultura. Fly from the honouring of Idols: And for that the Corinthians were much defiled, and much offended other by their resorting to the banquets of Idols, and partaking of the Idolathites, they thinking that for asmuch as they had learned that unto the Christian all meats are clean, that they might do so, S. Paul doth not only dehort them from it, but also by argument taken of the sacrifices of the jews, and of the partaking of the same, which might not stand with the partaking of Idolathites, proveth that they may not be partakers of the sacrifice of the Christians, and of the sacrifice of Idolaters. And here entering to speak of an high mystery of the Christian religion, which is not to be spoken to the weak and the carnal, but to the wise and spiritual, as in this epistle he testifieth saying: Animalis homo non percipit●ea quae sunt Spiritus Dei. The natural man perceiveth not the things that belong to the spirit of God. Where of the one he saith thus: Et ego fratres, non potui 1. Cor. 2. loqui vobis, quasi spiritualibus, sed quasi carnalibus, tanquam paruulis in Christo, lac vobis potum dedi, non escam. Nondum enim poteratis. And I could not speak unto you, brethren, as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal. Even as unto babes in Jbibid. 3. christ, I gave you milk to drink, and not meat for ye were not then strong And of the other he speaketh thus: sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos. We speak wisdom among them that are perfect. Even so now intending to speak of an high wisdom he warneth them with this saying: ut prudentibus loquor. vos ipsi iudicate quod dico. I speak unto them that are wise, or have discretion. judge ye your selves what I say. Is not the cup of blessing, which we bless, she partaking of the blood of christ? Is not the bread, which we break partaking of the body of our Lord. As who might say: For as much as ye are called to the Christian religion, and be made partakers of the mysteries of the same, and are now becomed wise in christ judge ye as wise men, what I say: do not ye, drinking of our lords cup in our sacrisices, partake of the blood of our Lord christ, and eating of that bread of the Christian sacrifice do ye not partake of the body of our Lord? it must needs so be. For all that be partakers of sacrifices, are partakers of it, to whom the sacrifice is offered. This I prove unto you: Consider and remember the sacrifice of the carnal Israelites: Altar not they which eat of the sacrifices, which were offered among them partakers of the altars? even so you partaking of the sacrisices of Idols, which sacrifices are offered to devels. But I would not that ye should be joined in fellowship with devels. for if ye so be, ye sustain great damage and loss, and what is that? Ye can not be partakers of christ. For ye can not drink of the cup of our Lord, and of the cup of devels. Ye can not be partakers of the table of the sacrifice of our Lord, and of the sacrifice of devels. Wherefore if ye desire to be partakers of our lords body and blood, in eating of his bread, and drinking his cup in his sacrifice, leave to be partakers of the sacrifices ofred to Idols, Whereby ye are made partakers, and be joined to devels. For as there is no company betwixt light and darkness: so is there no agreement betwixt our Lord God, and the Devil neither may God and belial dwell together. And as he that believeth hath no part with the infidel, neither righteousness fellowship with unrighteousness, no more doth the temple of God agree with Idols, As in this manner of periphrasis the whole mind of S. Paul in this place is settfurth and made clear and plain, how and by what persuasion he laboured to dissuade the Corinthians from Idolothites: So also it is manifest that in his sentences in the process of this chapter, which he useth as arguments ground upon the Sacrament, that he understandeth no trope or figure of the body and blood of christ, but the very things themselves in very deed. And as he by that the carnal Israelites eating of their sacrifices were partakers of the same, proveth that eaters either at our lords table, or at the table of devels be partakers of the same: So doth he as well account that, that is upon the table of our Lord to be a sacrifice, as either the sacrifice of the Israelites offered to God: or of the gentiles offered to devels. If it be not so, what awaileth, or of what force is the argument, deduced from the sacrifices of the jews? For if the eating of the sacrifice of the jews maketh them partakers of the altar, what proveth that that either Idolothites of the table of Idols, or the cup and bread of our Lord his table doth make either the receivers of the one, or of the other partakers of them if that both the one, and the other be not sacrifices, as that is, from the which the argument is deduced, and upon the which it is ground? it is an evil manner of disputation to go about to prove like effects of unlike causes: but of like causes to prove like effects it is a good manner of disputation, if due order and circumstance be observed. To make the matter plain, what is the cause that the Israelites were made partakers of the altar? the answer is because they did eat of the sacrifice. Again, to apply to the other: what is the cause that the christians be partakers of the body and blood of christ? shall the answer be because they eat a piece of bread? and drink a cup of wine? no: the causes be not like, and that cause can not make us partakers of the body and blood of our Lord. As the Israelites and infidels had their sacrifices, so the Christians have their sacrifice even the bread and cup of blessing. What is the cause then? That, that is like the other which is this: Because the Christians do eat of the sacrifice, therefore they be partakers of the sacrifice, which is the very body and blood of christ. For so saying, there is a good argument to be made from the likelihood of the causes in each of them to the like effects of each of them. As thus to say: The Israelites, because they did eat of the sacrifice, they were partakers of the Altar: So the Corinthians because they did eat of Idolathites which were sacrifices of Idols, they were partakers of Idols. Of like manner the christians because they eat of the sacrifice of christ, they be partakers of the body and blood of christ And thus the disputation of S. Paul is of force, and proverh well his intent. And that S. Paul did aswell take the bread of our Lord, and his cup to be a sacrifice of the Christians, as thee, Idolathites, of the Corinthians to be the sacrifice of the Infidels, even this doth strongly prove it. that he setteth the table and the cup of our Lord, against the table and cup of devels. Ye can not (saith he) drink of the cup of our Lord, and the cup of devels. Ye can not be partakers of the table of our Lord, and of the table of devels. In the which manner of speech as by the cup, and table of devels he understandeth the sacrifice done to devels: so must it needs be, that by the table and cup of our Lord, he understandeth the sacrifice done to our lord. As it might in plain manner thus have been said: Ye can not eat and drink of the sacrifice that is offered unto God, and of the sacrifice that is offered to devels. For except they were both sacrifices, the setting of the one against the other were of no great force. And again, if S. Paul did not aswell take the cup and table of our The cup and table of our Lord taken for the sacrifice of our Lord Lord to be a sacrifice, as the cup and table of devels to be a sacrifice, he would not have used like terms to them both, but as he had understanded a difference or diversity in the things: so would he have used a diversity in words and terms, to express and declare the same. But for so much as he understanding thereby the sacrifice of devels called the same the cup and table of devels, it is manifest that he calling the meat of our Lord by the like terms understood the thing also to be like, that is to be a sacrifice. In this opening of the text (gentle Reader) though perceivest two things Real presence and sacrifice proved by S. Paul. to be here learned of S. Paul. The one is the presence of Christ'S body and blood in the Sacrament: the other is that the same body and blood be a sacrifice. But that it may appear to you that this is not my own dream, or fantasy in thus understanding S. Paul, but the common sentence of the Fathers of Christ'S Parliament house, we shall for trial thereof, and for better setting forth of God's truth and the faith catholic hear the sainges of a In, 10. 1. Cor. good number of them, And first of the ancient Father Chrysostom. who expounding this text saith thus: Maximè his sibi verbis, & fidem facit, & horrorem. Eorum autem huiusmodi est sententia. Quod est in chalice, id est, quod à latere fluxit, & illius sumu● participes. Calicem autem benedictionis appellavit, quoniam cùm prae manibus cum habemus, cum admiratione, & horrore quodam inenarrabilis doni, laudamus benedicentes, quia sanguinem effudit, ne in errore permaneremus. Neque tantùm effudit, sed nos omnes eius participes effecit. Itaque si sanguinem cupis (inquit) noli Idolorum aram brutorum animalium coede, sed meum altar, meo sanguine aspergere. Quid hoc admirabilius? Dic quaeso, quid amabilius? Hoc & amantes faciunt, cum amatos intuentur, alienorum cupiditate allectos propriis elargitis suadent ut ab illis abstineant. Sed amantes quidem in pecuniis, vestibus, possessionibus hanc ostendunt cupiditatem: in proprio sanguine nemo unquam. Christus autem & in hoc curam & vehementem in nos dilectionem ostendit. With these words he doth get greatly unto himself both credit and fear. Of those words this is the meaning: That, that is in the chalice is it, that flowed from the side, and we are partakers of it. But he hath called it the cup of blessing. For when we have it before our hands, with admiration, and certain A plain saying of Chrysostom for the Proclaimer. horror of the unspeakable gift, we laud blessing, that he hath shed his blood, that we should not abide in error. Neither hath he only shed it, but he hath made us all partakers of it. Therefore if (saith he) though dost desire blood, do not sprinkle the altar of Idols with the slaughter of brute beasts, but sprenkle mine altar with my blood. Say I pray thee: What is more marvelous than this? What is more loving? This do lovers also, when they see these whom they love alured with desire of strange things, when they have given freely to them of there own, they move them that they abstain from the other. But lovers show this desire in money, in apparel, in possessions, but in his own blood no man at any time hath done it. But christ in this also hath showed his care, and vehement love towards us. Thus moche Chrysostom. God for ever and always be praised, who, although it be his pleasure, Note here that this is the meaning of St Paul's words, that that is in the chalice, which flowed out of Chryctes side. that his church shall be vexed and tried with the fire of tribulation (as at this present it is miserably afflicted, shaken, and torn) yet he leaveth it not destitute of sufficient stay and comfort of truth, whereby it may both defend it self, and impugn the enemy, as in this author expounding this scripture we may well perceive. Dost though, reader, mark the exposition of the text? S. Paul saith: Is not the cup of blessing, which we bless, a partaking of the blood of christ? chrysostom saith: of these words this is the meaning: That, that is in the cup is it that flowed out of the side, and of it we are partakers. If this be the meaning of S. Paul, why then walk we in error in this matter? Why wander we in the mists, and dark clouds of tropes, and figures and significations? where Chrysostom expounding the scripture and minding to show us the very understanding and plain meaning of it, teacheth, that not a trope, figure, or sign of the blood of christ is in the cup, but the blood of christ that flowed out of his side. In the which exposition we may in clear manner see and behold the very, truth even the right catholic faith so set forth, that there is no help for the adversary to cloak his heresy withal. The proclaimer requireth one plain sentence, to prove the real presence of christ in the Sacrament: what more plain speech would any man desire to be spoken in this matter, as wherebily to give him perfect instruction in the same, than to say: that, that did flow once of the side of christ, is in the chalice. If the adversary with forced violence would thrust into Chrysostom words his common gloze, that the figure of it, that did flow out of Christ'S side is in the cup, then should he make chrysostom an untrue man. For chrysostom saith, that that, which he said upon that scripture, was the meaning of the words of S. Paul. Now if the Adversary will expound Chrysostom with an other meaning, than either chrysostom did not give us the true meaning of S. Paul, which is not to be thought, or else the Adversary reporteth untruely of him, which is his common practice: For so far wide is it that these two meanings should be one that the one saith yea, the other saith no, th'one saith it is, tother saith it is not, the one is an heresy and tother a truth. So far I say be these from being one that for these two sentences, this lamentable division, and grievous contention in the Church is raised by heretics. What is a meaning, but a simple and plain opening and declaration of a word or sentence of a man's conceit, or speech doubtfully or darkly conceived or spoken before? Wherefore Chrysostom saying that this was the meaning of S Paul's words, did by plain words simply declare the same This then being the true meaning of S. Paul's words, what truth was there in the saying of Cranmer or the Author of that book, who alleging S. Paul's words abused by Cranmer. this text abused it to a clean contrary understanding? Thus he saith: Neither that wine made of grapes is his very blood, or that his blood is wine made of grapes, but signify unto us, as S. Paul saith, that the cup is a communion of Christ'S blood. How wickedly and untruely this is spoken, and how this scripture is drawn to a false understanding, this exposition of Chrysostom doth well prove, as other also hereafter shall do. That he would have no such meaning upon these his words, as the Adversary would ill favouredly piece and patch upon them, his like manner of speech in an other place declareth, where he saith: Reputate salutarem sanguinem Chrysost. ser. de Euch in Enceniis The blood of Chryst. in the Sacr. how it is to be esteemed. quasi è divino, & impolluto latere essluere, & ita approximantes labijs puris accipite. Regard or esteem the wholesome blood, as to flow out of the divine, and undefiled side, and so coming to it, receive it with pure lips Which words forsomuch as he spoke them in a sermon to the common people, he spoke them in plain manner, in that sense, as they sounded to the hearing of the people, which was that they should account the cup of our Lord to be his blood. And therefore they should come and drink it even as out of his side, as who should say, it is all one. In this also that he willeth them to take it with pure lips, he teacheth the real presence. For the spiritual manner of Christ'S blood is not to be received with lips, but with heart and soul. Whereby it is plain; that Chrysostom would his words no otherwise to be understanded than they were spoken. Wherefore not to tarry long upon this saying of Chrysostom, which is so plain that every child may understand it, I wish it only to be imprinted in the memory of the reader, that is of him said, which is (again to repeat it) that it that is in the cup, is it that flowed out of the side, and of it we are partakers. Chrysost. in 10. 1. Cor. As by this we are taught the truth of the presence of christ in the Sacrament: So in the rest of his sainges upon the same text, he teacheth us, that it is a sacrifice: Thus he saith: In veteri testamento cùm imperfectiores essent quem idolis offerebant sanguinem, cum ipse accipere voluit, ut ab idolis eos averteret. Quod etiam inenarrabilis amoris signum erat. Hic autem multo admirabilius, & magnificentius sacrificium christ commanded himself to be offered, praeparavit, & cum sacrificium ipsum commutaret & pro brutorum caede scipsum offerendum praeciperet. In the old Testament, when they were more unperfect, to the intent he would turn them from Idols, that blood, which they offered unto Idols he himself, would accept, which also was a token of an inenatrable love. But here he hath prepared a much more wonderful, and magnifical sacrifice, both when he did change the said sacrifice, and for the slaughter of brute beasts commanded himself to be offered. In this saying of Chrysostom, there be two notable notes to be observed, which as they do moche declare and confirm the catholic doctrine: So do they as plainly, and as mightily overthrow the wicked heresy of the Adversary. The first is, that declaring the great love of God toward the uperfect people of the old law, that to turn them from Idolatry he was contented to accept to be offered to him in sacrifice such blood of brute God prepared a much more wonderful and magnifical sacrifice for the new Testament than was in. the old. beasts, as they offered to their Idols, when he cometh to the sacrifice of the new law, he saith that here he hath prepared a moche more wonderful, and magnifical sacrifice. What I pray thee, Reader, could be spoken more plainly against the wicked assertion of the Adversary, teaching that the sacrifices of the new law are nothing more excellent, than the sacrifices of the old law, then to say that christ here in the new law hath prepared a moche more wonderful and magnifical sacrifice? Which words Chrysostom speaketh setting the sacrifices of both laws together, and therefore they were spoken, in comparison of the sacrifices, of the old law. And to the intent that the Adversary being here sore pressed with the words of Chrysostom shall not with his common gloze cloak himself, and get a subterfuge, saying that Chrysostom spoke of the sacrifice of christ upon the cross, which he granteth to be moche more excellent than the sacrifices of the old law, the second note of the said chrysostom shall clearly wipe away his gloze, and disappoint him of his cloak. Wherefore observe that when he said that christ prepared this wonderful sacrifice, he opened the time also when he did prepare it. He did (saith he) prepare this wonderful sacrifice, when he did change the sacrifice of the old law and when he commanded A plain saying for M. Juell. himself to be offered. When did he these two things? Reader if thou mark, here be two things: the one is that christ changed the sacrifice: the other that he commanded himself to be offered. When did he these two things? In his last supper when (as saint Cyprian saith) obuiarunt sibi instituta nova & antiqua, & consumpto agno, quem antiqua traditio proponebat, inconsumptibilem Cyp. de Cae. cibum magister apponit Discipulis. The new and the old ordeinaunces met together and the lamb, which the old tradition did settsurth being consumed, the master did set to his disciples inconsumptible meat. De prodition judae. So that for this lamb of the old tradition he gave now inconsumptible meat to his Disciples, which was his body and blood, which was the verity of that shadow as Chrysostom saith: Ille agnus futuri agni typus fuit, & ille sanguis, Dominici sanguinis monstrabat adventum, & ovis illa spiritalis ovis fuit exemplum. Ille agnus umbra fuit: hic veritas. Sed postquam sol justiciae radiavit, umbra soluitur luce, & ideo in ipsa mensa, utrumque Pascha, & typi, & veritatis celebratum est. That lamb was the figure of the lamb to Blood of the paschal lamb figure of the blood of christ in the Sacr. come. And that blood showed the coming of the blood of our Lord, and that sheep was an example of the spiritual sheep, that lamb was the shadow: this the verity. But after the Sun of righteousness did shine with beams, the shadow was taken away with the light. And therefore in that table both the passover of the figure, and of the truth was celebrated. Thus he. In which saying is declared, that the old lamb was a figure of our lamb christ, which were together in the table, as two passovers, the old and the new. But when the new passover, which was the body of christ there consecrated, was settfurth there as a new passouer, which he calleth the son of righteousness, than the old passover was taken away, and this placed in the stead. Then was the old sacrifice changed, and a new sacrifice appointed. So that is true that S. Augustin saith: Aliud Cont. literas Petilia est Pascha, quod judaei celebrant de ove, aliud autem quod nos in corpore. & sanguine Domini celebramus. It is an other Passover that the jews do celebrate with a sheep: and an other, which we celebrate in the body and blood of christ. It can not be said that christ did change the sacrifice of the old lawupon the cross, for that sacrifice was after the manner of the sacrifices of the order of Aaron, a bloody sacrifice, as they were. But this change of sacrifice must needs then be, when the showing of the change of priesthood was. For (as S. Paul saith) Necessarium fuit secundùm ordinem Melchisedec alium surgere sacerdotem, & non secundùm ordinem Aaron dici. It was necessary, that an other priest, Heb. 7. should rise to be called after the order of Melchisedech and not after the order of Aaron. christ never showed himself a priest after the order of Melchisedec but in the last supper, in the which he sacrificed after that order. Wherefore then was the old sacrifice changed, when this new priest after the order of Melchisedec did show himself in sacrificing. The truth of this is well proved by the second note in the saying of chrysostom, which is that he commanded himself to be offered. Let all the volume of the Gospel be turned and searched, and in no place shall ye find that christ commanded himself to be offered, but in the last supper, when he had instituted this holy sacrifice of his and body and blood. Then he said. Hoc facite: This do ye. By which words he gave commandment to all to whom commission of this holy ministration should be given, that they should do that that he had done. In that high and wonderful institution he did three things, that is, he Three notable things done by christ in the iust it ition of the B. Sacr. consecrated his blessed body and blood, he offered it in sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech, and received it with his Apostles. Wherefore saying and commanding that his priests should that do that he then did, forsomuch as among other his doings he did then offer sacrifice. Therefore he commanded that he himself should be offered. And thus it may be perceived that Chrysostom looked to this place when he said that christ commanded himself to be offered. Li. 4. ca 32 Of this same sentence and mind be a number of the holy Fathers. Irenaeus saith: Eum qui ex creatura panis est, accepit, & gratias egit, dicens: Hoc est corpus meum: Et calicem similiter, qui est ex ea creatura, quae est secundùm nos, suum sanguinem confessus est. Et novi Testamenti novam docuit, oblationem, etc. He took the bread (saith Irenaeus speaking of christ) which is a creature, and gave thanks saying: This is my body. And the cup likewise, which is a creature as we, he confessed to be his blood. And of the new Testament, he taught a new oblation, etc. In primaoration. praepar. S. Ambrose also in his prayer saith: Ego enim Domine memor venerandae passionis tuae, accedo ad altare tuum licet peceàtor, ut offeram tibi sacrificium, quod tu instituisti, & offerri praecepisti in commemorationem tui pro salute nostra. I Lord mindful of thy woorshippefull passion, come unto thy altar, although a sinner, to offer unto thee, the sacrifice, which thou havest instituted and commanded to be The Proclamermaie her learn that christ commanded his body to be offered in sacrifice. offered in the remembrance of thee for our health. Ye see these two grave and ancient witnesses testifying with Chrysostom that christ commanded this sacrifice which he instituted to be offered. What the thing is that we offer chrysostom by most plain words declareth, when he saith that christ commanded himself to be offered. So that christ himself is our oblation, and sacrifice, which we offer not upon our own invention, but upon his holy, and most loving commandment. By this latter part then of chrysostom his saying, the two other parts before noted be well proved. For by that, that christ hath commanded us to offer him in our sacrifice, it is most clear, that our sacrifice is more excellent than the sacrifice of the old Testament: it is manifest also that he spoke it not of his sacrifice made upon the cross, but of the sacrifice instituted in his last supper, where and when the old sacrifices were taken away, and this one placed for them all, which Chrysostom well taught, when he said: for the slaughter of beasts, be commanded himself to be offered. So that he commanded himself to be offered, when the sacrifices were changed. But the sacrifices were changed in the last supper, wherefore in the last supper he commanded himself to be offered. THE SEVENTENTH CHAPTER proceedeth upon the same text by the exposition of Chrysostom and saint Hierom. ALbeit this text is very plainly expounded by Chrysostom, and that, that by me was affirmed by the same his exposition fully confirmed, namely that S. Paul here speaketh of the presence of christ in the Sacrament, and therewith also teacheth that it is the sacrifice of the christians: yet that the truth may be the better esteemed, as it is plentiful in it self, so shall it be setforth by plenty of witnesses. And where Chrysostom expounding the first part of the text, hath confessed the catholic faith of the presence of the blood of christ in the cup with these plain words, that it is that which flowed out of the side, which is so spoken, as the Adversary can not once open his mouth to speak against it: And in confessing the blood, there is no doubt but he all so do the like of the body. Yet forasmuch as he proceedeth and expoundeth the other part of the text, which speaketh of the partaking of the body: I shall not for the commodity of the reader, and the setting forth of Gods truth spare my labour to show forth the same. The rest of the text is: Et panis quem frangimus nonne communicatio corporis Christiest? And the bread which we break, is it not a communication of the 1. Corin. 10 of the body of christ? Although the vulgar english bibles doth otherwise english this text: saying that the bread that is broken is a partaking of the body: Yet I being advertised by Chrysostom that communication includeth more than participation: I english it as I may with this word (communication) according to his instruction, which ye shall perceive in his saying. Thus he saith. Quare non dixit participatio? quia amplius quiddam significare voluit, Chrysost. in 10. 1. Cor. & multam inter has convenientiam ostendere. Non enim participatione tantùm & acceptione, sed unitate communicamus. Quemadmodum enim corpus illud unitum est Comunication is a nearer conjunction than participation, therefore the translation of the english bible is to be misliked Christo: ita & nos per hunc panem unione coniungimur. Sed quare addit, quem frangimus? Hoc in Encharistia videre licet: in cruce autem minimè, sed omnino contrà. Os enim eius (inquit) non conteretur. Sed quod in cruce passus non est, id in oblatione patitur, & propter te srangi permittie. Is not the bread which we break, a communication of the body of christ? Why did he not say a particpation or partaking? Because he would signify some more thing, and show a great agreement betwixt these things. We do not communicate by partaking and receiving only, but also by unity. For as that body was united to christ: Even so we by this bread are joined together in an union. But wherefore doth he add: which we break? This may you see in the Sacrament: in the cross not so, but altogether contrary. For (saith he) his bone shall not be broken. But that he suffered not in the cross, that he suffereth in the sacrifice, and permitteth for thee to be broken. Thus he. In this lively exposition of Chrysostom, which so I call because he leaveth no word unquickned and made as it were alive to man's understanding, he giveth us three worthy instructions. And first, he giveth a cause why Three not able instructions out of Chrysost. S. Paul calleth this a communication raither then a participation, because (saith he) by the receipt of this mystery we are joined together in one with christ, as his body was joined unto him. Which union neither participation nor receiving do express or signify. For we may partake or receive a thing, and yet not be made one with it. But duly communicating the body of christ, we are made one with it. For communication is either Communication what it is. a making of one thing common to many, or to make many to be one thing, and all one with it, and it one with them. Of this more in the exposition of the next scripture. The second note is that where he saith, that as that body was united to christ: So by this bread we are joined together in an union. Where he instructeth us again of the presence of christ in the Sacrament, before by his blood, here by his body, and yet in each part full christ. That this may appear plain unto the reader, as it is true in it self, understand this, that the body of christ is united to him really, verily, and substantially, and not spituallie. If then there be an union of christ and us, as of him and his body, than it must be an union real, but this manner of union can not be but by a real communication, wherefore we do really communicate with the body of christ. This is confirmed to us by the saying of Chrysostom, when he saith, that we be joined together in union by this bread. A bare piece of bread can no more make us one substantially with christ, than a piece of beof, or any other victual. Wherefore this bread that he speaketh of is the bread, and the food of his very body which duly received, maketh us to be in christ, and christ, as S. Hylary saith, naturally, and as S. cyril saith, substantially in us. The third note also both confirmeth this that here is said of the presence, Real presence and sacrifice both avouched. and also that is before said of the sacrifice. For here by express words he doth so term it. For he saith thus: that, that he suffered not in the cross, that he suffereth in the sacrifice, and permitteth to be broken for thee. In the which words he declareth two distinct beings of christ: one upon the cross: the other in sacrifice. For he maketh no difference either of christ, or of his substance, or of his being. But even the same that suffered not to be broken upon the cross, even the same suffereth in the sacrifice, and permitteth to be broken for thee. If the very same be in this sacrifice, that was upon the cross, than we must needs confess him to be as verily present, in the sacrament, as upon the cross. And the same so present, for that he is our only and everlasting sacrifice, to be our sacrifice. If we ask where he is a sacrifice, chrysostom answereth, there to be a sacrifice, where he permitteth to be broken. He is broken in the Mass upon the altar, wherefore he is their in sacrifice. But here understand that although Chrysostom saith that christ suffereth, and that the Sacrament is broken: yet he meaneth not that any violence is done to that blessed body, or that it is affected with grief, pain, or passion (for it being passed all these miseries, it is now an impassable body, and what violence soever any cruel heart would infer to it: yet it being impassable no pain can be inflicted to it. Neither think this to be a strange speech seeing that christ himself, when he was in his passable body, and gave his passable body to his Apostles impassiblie, said: Take, eat, This is my body, which is broken for you. For although he so said: yet in giving out of his body, he suffered no violence nor pain. And as that breaking wrought no grief to his blessed body then: no more doth it now. For the same wounds that he bore in his passable body passiblie, he beareth the same after his resurrection and now still impassiblie. And now that ye have heard. chrysostom declaring unto you the understanding of this scripture in the which he hath in no dark speech, but in plain manner with express words taught the presence of Christ'S body and blood in the Sacrament, and it also to be a sacrifice, and that by this scripture: we shall now leave him for this place, and hear S. Hierom. Who for this time shall be joined with chrysostom, that one verity may Hieron. in deci. 1 Cor. be testified on both sides of Christ'S Parliament house S. Hierom is but short, and this is his exposition. Calix benedictionis, ideo primum calicem nominavit, ut possit de pane latius disputare, nun communicatio sanguinis Christi est? sicut ipse salvator dicit. Qui manducat carnem meam, & bibit sanguinem meum, in me m●aet, & ego in eo. The cup of blessing which we bless: therefore hath he first named the cup, that he may more at large dispute of the bread: is it not a communication of the blood of christ? As our Saviour himself saith: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. Thus S. Hierom. This is his brief exposition upon this first part of S. Paul's text, which is not so bare and hungry, but that it bringeth good food with it, to nourish and comfort the faith of a Christian man in this matter of the Sacrament. For when he cometh to the pith of the sentence which is this: is it not a communication of the blood of christ: he addeth this for an exposition to it: as our Saviour himself saith: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him: as who might say: it is such a communication of the blood of christ, that who so doth communicate of it shall have that benefit, that christ himself spoke of saying: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. That he alleging this scripture of christ to expound the saying of S. Paul doth signify unto us, that S. Paul is to be understanded, to have spoken of the very blood of christ in the Sacrament, he that hath red saint Hierom, how he understandeth the sixth chapter of saint john, whose authority hath been used in the second book for the same purpose, shall not need to doubt. But that the reader shall not be driven to seek far for the trial hereof, saint Hierom shall be produced, alleging this same very saying of Christ in the sixth of saint john, Wherein he shall clearly see and perceive the true understanding of it, after In psalm. 109. the mind of saint Hierom. Thus he saith upon the psalm. Quomodò enim Melchisedech Rex Salem, obtulit panem & vinum: sic & tu offeres corpus tuum, & sanguinem tuum, verum panem, & verum vinum. Iste Melchisedec ista mysteria quae habemus dedit nobis. Ipse est qui dixit: Qui manducaverit carnem meam, & biberi● sanguinem meum: secundùm ordinem Melchisedec tradidit nobis sacramentum suum. sacrifice of christ in his supper and Melchisedecs compared. For as Melchisedec King of Salem hath offered bread and wine: so shalt though offer thy body and blood, the true bread, and true wine. This Melchisedec hath given us these mysteries which we have. It is he that hath said: He that shall eat my flesh, and drink my blood: according to the order of Melchise dech be hath delivered unto us his sacrament. Hitherto S. Hierom. Do ye not see that our Melchisedech doth offer the true bread and true wine his body and blood, no● after the order of Aron upon the cross, but after the order of Melchisedec? And hath not he given us these mysteries? And doth not he of these mysteries after the mind of S. Hierom, say: he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him? By this than it is evident that the saying of S. Paul referred and expounded by this, is understanded, of the true wine, the blood of christ, as this is. The other text also is but briefly touched and followed thus: Et Panis quem Hieron. Ibid. frangimus nonne communicatio corporis Domini est? Ita & panis Idololatriae, Doemonum participacio esse monstratur. And is not the bread which we break a communication of the body of our lord? Even so also the bread of Idolotrie is a partaking of devels. Albeit this exposition in the first seight and face seemeth not moche to say to the maintenance of the catholic faith, as touching the matter of the Sacrament: yet if it be well weighed, it shall be found to make much. And for the better weighing of it, it shall be necessary, that it be called to memory, that before is said in the last chapter, that the cause why men be made partakers of devels, is that they do eat of such meats as be offered in sacrifice to devels, for there is no meat accounted to make men in that fellowship, what meat soever it be (in that only respect that it is eaten) but only that that is offered to devels. Now then, when in the exposition the probation is that as the eating of the bread, which is broken is a communication of the body of christ: So the bread of Idolatry is a participation of devels: must not both these be understanded of the things offered in sacrifice? if not, what availeth the application of the one to the other? How can S. Paul prove the Corinthians to be partakers of Idols, but by the partaking of Idolathites? Wherefore this expositor following S. Paul bringeth his argument from the sacrifice of christ as a thing clear and manifest to the Corinthians. As who might say: As the partaking of the bread of christ in sacrifice maketh us partakers of the body of our Lord: So the partaking of meats offered in sacrifice to An argument ground upon the sacrifice by S. Hierom. devels, maketh us partakers of devels. And thus there must be a sacrifice understanded in both sides, aswell in the one, as in the other. Which being so, it must needs be confessed, that the bread which S. Paul speaketh of here by the which we are made partakers of the body of christ, is a sacrifice, and in that it is a sacrifice, it necessarily followeth, that it is the very body of christ, which is hour only sacrifice. And thus it may be perceived that this short exposition well weighed, had good matter in it to commend and settfurth the catholic faith, and to teach the presence of christ in the Sacrament, and it also to be the sacrifice of Christians. And now that you have heard the expositions of these two, we will proceed to hear other two upon the same scripture. THE FICHTTENTH CHAP. proceedeth IN the exposition of the same text by saint Augustin and Damascen. Saint Augustine openeth the mind of S. Paul thus: Nolo vos socios Daemoniorum fieri: eos quip ab Idololatria prohibebat. Propter quod eyes osten dear volebat, ita illos fieri socios Daemoniorum, si Idolothita sacrificij manducaverint, Aug. cont. immie. legis & Prophet. quomodò israel carnalis socius erat altaris in templo, qui de sacrificiis man ducabat. Hinc enim caepit, ut boc diceret: Propter quod, dilectissimi mihi, fugite ab idolorum cultura. Deinde secutus ostendit ad quod sacrificium debeant iam pertenere, dicens: Quasi prudentibus dico, judicate vos quod dico. Calix benedictionis quem benedicimus non ne communicatio est sanguinis Christi? Et panis quem frangimus, nun communicatio est corporis Domini? etc. I will not that ye be made fellows of devels. He did truly forbid them from Idolatry. For the which thing he would declare unto them, that they should even so be made fellows of devels if they did eat Idolathites of the sacrifice, as the carnal Israel, which did eat of S. Aug. calls the bread and cup of the B. Sacr. a sacrifice. the sacrifices in the temple, was fellow of the Altar. By occasion of that he began, that he would say this: wherefore my most beloved, flee from the honouring of Idols. afterward following, he showeth to what sacrifice they aught now to pertain saying: I speak as unto wise men, judge what I say: is not the cup of blessing which we bless a communication of the blood of christ? And is not the bread which we break a comunication of the body of our Lord? Thus far S. Austen. This exposition if it be well marked, and compared to the exposition of this text of S. Paul which is in the xvi chap. of this book, it shall be perceived, that it doth justly agree with the same, and much also confirm it. But leaving all other things therein contained, and only to touch that, that to this matter appertaineth this is here to be noted in S. August. that he saith this to be the mind of S. Paul, that he labouring to bring the Corinthians from Idolothites, by the which they were made fellows of devels, he willed them to flee from them, as (now being of the calling they be of) having nothing to do with them. And therefore leaving the sacrifices of Idols (saith S. Augustin) he showeth them to what sacrifice they should now pertain. And what sacrifice is that? even the cup of blessing, which we bless, and the bread which we break, by the which we are made partakers of the body and blood of christ. By the which words who saith not that the mind of S. Paul is after the Sacrifice avouched by S. Paul after the unstanding of S. August. meaning of S. Augustin, that the Sacrament of Christ'S body and bold is a sacrifice, unto the which, as he would them the Corinthians: So aught all Christians to pertain? For S. Augustin saying, that S. Paul by these words: is not the cup of blessing, which we bless a partaking of the blood of christ etc. did show them the sacrifice unto the which they did now pertain, what can be said but that he meant it to be a sacrifice? That S. Augustine taketh it to be a sacrifice, as it is most plainly showed in the first book, So in this also hereafter it shall be made so evident, that it shall not be denied. Damascen, whom here we will join with S. Austen, although he doth not by way of exposition follow the letter of S. Paul: yet treacting of the Sacrament, he expoundeth the terms, namely participation and communication, which here S. Paul useth and applieth to the Sacrament, of Christ'S body and blood. And forsomuch as the exposition of these terms giveth a great light to the clear understanding of the mind of S. Paul, as whether he meant that the Sacrament were a bare sign of the body and blood of christ, or else verily containing the same: I thought to bring in that his saying. And where as this holy Sacrament, for that it is of infinite virtue can not sufficiently be expressed: devout and godly men, minding, as the measure of our weakness in the capacity of so great mysteries would permit and suffer to signify some part of it, have called it by sundry and diverse names. of the which Damascen remembering some doth thus say of them. Damascen li. 4. ca 14 Et si quidam exemplaria corporis, & sanguinis Domini panem & vinum vocaverunt ut deifer vocavit Basilius: non tamen post sanctificationem dixit, sed priusquam sanctificaretur ipsa oblatio, ita vocabant. Participatio etiam dicitur. Nam per ipsam jesu dininitatem participamus. Dicitur & communio, & est revera, quia communicamus per ipsam Christo, & participamus eius carne & Divinitate, & quia communicamus, & unimur invicem per illam. Although some have called the bread and wine exemplaries of the body and blood of our Lord, as the godly man basil hath called it: yet they Bread and wine called exemplaries of the body and blood of christ before sanctification, but not after. did not so after the sanctification, but before the oblation was sanctified they did so call it. It is also called a partaking. For by it we partake the God head of jesus. It is also called a Communion, and it is in very deed, for by it we communicate with christ, both that we partake his flesh and God head, and also that by it we be united one with an other. I need not to tarry, to open this saying of Damascen, which lieth so open and plain that the simplest may see the true understanding of it. And where S. Paul here speaketh of the partaking and of the communication of the body and blood of christ, which as before is noted, some would wickedly corrupt saying that the bread and the cup are signs that we partake, and communicate the body and blood of christ: This man saith that we partake both the flesh, and Godhead of christ. And that we should not think him to favour the heretical exposition of the Adversary, he declareth the catholic faith, and also rejecteth the contrary opinion in that he dissolveth that, that of the Adversary might be An argument of the Sacramentaries soluted by Damascen. taken for an argument against the truth. For although (saith he) some have called it the exemplaries of the body and blood of christ, that is (saith he) before the consecration or sanctification, not after the sanctification: signifying to us that after the consecration they be the very things themselves that is the very body and blood of christ, and not the exemplaries signs, or figures of them. This author is to plain and to strong to be wrested or by violence to be drawn to make any countenannce toward the signs and figures of the Adversaries. For in the same very chap. expounding the words of Christ'S: This is my body, he saith thus: Hoc est meum, non figurae corporis, sed corpus. & non figura sanguinis, sed sanguis. This is not the figure of Damasc. ibid. my body, but my body and not the figure of my blood, but my blood, whereby he plainly denieth the Devells' exposition settfurth by the Adversary. And yet in the end of the same chapter he calleth the Sacrament exemplaries, but in such sort and manner, as he affirmeth withal the very presence. For this is his saying: Exemplaria autem futurorum dicuntur, non ut non existentia verè corpus & sanguis Christi, sed quoniam nunc quidem per ipsa participamus Christi Divinitatem: tunc autem intellectualiter per solam visionem. They are called Damascen ibidem. the exemplaties of things to come, not as not being the body and blood of christ verily: but that we now thereby partake the God head of christ: but then intellectuallie by only vision. By which sainges, as the reader doth clearly see, that damascen so constantly doth teach and affirm the presence of christ in the Sacrament, that he utterly rejecteth the figures of the Adversary: So may he well understand, that the said Damascen speaking of the participation of the flesh of christ, and his Godhead, of the which participation S. Paul maketh mention, speaketh of the very participation of whole christ, God and man verily, and not figuratively. And uless as this is so plainly taught by Damascen that the Adversary can by no means colour it, nor by any shift or sleight of falsehood avoid it, I would to God that he would see his error, and calling to God to give him the spirit of humility, he would so humble himself, that he would confess his said error, knowing this that it is both more easy, and more profitable to be a little confounded here, then to be so greatly confounded before the judgement seat of christ, in the seight of his Angels and Saints, and all the world, at the day of his fearful and terrible general judgement. THE NINETENTH CHAP. CONTINVETH the exposition of the same text by Isidore and Oecumenius. seeing that of necessity I must be shorter, for that moche is yet to be said, as the one of the witnesses in the last chapter hath directly affirmed the presence the other the sacrifice: So will we hear two breiflie avouching the like. The first shall be Isidorus who speaking of this text now in hand giveth a brief and clear exposition of Isidor. li. of fie. ca 18. The bread that we break us the body of christ etc. the same in this wise: Panis quem frangimus corpus Christi est, qui dicit: Ego sum panis vinus, qui de coelo descendi, vinum autem sanguis eius est. Et hoc est, quod scriptum est: Ego sum vitis vera. The bread that we break is the body of christ, who saith: I am the bread of life, which came down from heaven. But the wine is his blood, and this is it, that is written. I am the true vine. In this exposition that the text might be plain to the reader, where S. Paul said: The bread which we break is a communication of the body of christ: This author giving the understanding of it saith, that the bread which we break is the body of christ. And that he would have it taken for the very body: he saith, that it is the body of christ, who said: I am the bread of life. And who he was, the sixth chap. of S. john declareth that it was very christ. no figurative christ. And what the cup of blessing doth contain he fully declareth when he saith: The wine is his blood. which manner of speech is so plain, and standeth so directly against the saying of the Adversary, that as for the plainness of it I neither can nor need to say any thing to make it more plain: so can I but wonder, that men can err that either know or have read these holy fathers except they be puffed up with such pride, and be brought to such singularity in their own conceit, that they contempn all men's judgements, sainges, and learning besides their own of what faith, truth, ancienty, holiness or learning so ever they be, as this Isidore, who lived well near a thousand years agone, and was famous in all the Christian orb, and as a strong pillar stood against the Arrians which then were mighty in Spain, and hath left learned works as testimonies of his learning and godly zeal, is not to be disdained, but to be reverenced. And although for his learning and ancienty he is to be credited: yet he is the more so to be for that to each part of his saying he allegeth the scripture. For as to the first part he allegeth the sixth of S. john: so to the other part he allegeth the saying of christ in the xv. of S. john, where he saith: I am the true vine. For in deed as he is the true vine: so cometh out of him the true wine. The earthly wine helpeth to maintain the earthly life, which Joan. 15. as S. Gregory saith, compared to the eternal life, is raither to be called death then life. But the heavenly wine that cometh out of the true vine nourisheth to everlasting life, which is the true life. And because we be by faith inserted, and griffed into christ, this blessed wine, which is the juice of that true vine, is of us, as of branches of the same vine, received, and so cyril in. 16. joan. maketh us his lively branches, not only spiritually by faith: but also by nature, which thing holy ciril doth very lively open and declare. Anon convenienter dici potest, vitem humanitatem eius, & nos palmites, propter identitatem We are branches of the vine christ both spiritually and corporally. naturae. Eiusdem enim naturae vitis & palmites sunt. Ita & spiritualiter, & corporaliter nos palmites, & Christus vitis est. May not the manhood of christ be very well called the vine? and we the branches, for that we be all of one nature? for the vine and the branches be of one nature. So both spiritually and corporally, christ is the vine, and we be the branches. Thus cyril. Wherefore Isidore to prove that, that is in the cup, to be the blood of christ, as the wine or juice which should be received of us the natural branches of christ the true vine, did very well allege the saying of christ: I am the true vine. And by this also you may perceive the mind of S. cyril, that we be not only of one Spirit with christ by faith, but we be also of one nature with him. not only that he hath taken our nature upon him, whereby he is one with us, but that we receive his natural flesh and blood, whereby we are of one nature with him. This his natural flesh and blood we receive not but in the Sacrament. Wherefore the Sacrament containeth the natural flesh and blood of christ. And now that we have heard Isidore, who was of the latin church, so briefly and plainly expound this text: we will also hear Oecumenius, who was of the greek church, how he briefly expoundeth the same. He saith: In. decins. 1 Cor. Poculum voeat benedictionis, poculum sanguinis Christi, quod benedicimus, quod prae manibus habentes benedicimus eum, qui gratiosè sanguinem suum nobis largitus est. He calleth the cup of the blood of christ the cup of blessing which we bless, which having before us we bless him, who hath granted us his blood, The cup of blessing is the cup of the blood of christ. Is not this as plain an exposition, as it is brief? is it not wonderful that any man would open his mouth against a truth so plainly uttered as this is? Here may ye see what manner of cup it is that S. Paul calleth the cup of blessing. It is (saith this author) the cup of the blood of christ. And when he hath expounded to you what it is, than he giveth you a cause why it is called of S. Paul the cup of blessing, being in deed the cup of Christ'S blood. It is so called (saith he) because having it before us, we bless and give thanks to him that hath granted us his blood▪ and worthily we bless him, both for that he hath commanded us that as often as we eat of that bread and drink of that cup, we should show forth his death until he come: and also for that besides an infinite number of benefits, which he hath purchased unto us by his passion and blood shedding, there is granted unto us, as a pledge of his unspeakable love towards us (as this author saith) his blood. For asmuch then as the cup of blood containeth his blood, who hath wrought us so great mercy, and quickeneth in us the lively remembrance of the same, we are provoked to The cup of the blood why it is called the cup of blessing. laud, praise, and bless him, by whom these mercies were wrought, and therefore it is very well called the cup of blessing, that is to say, the cup that moveth stirreth, and provoketh to bless christ our Saviour, whose blood it is. And here, Reader, to commend this truth better to thee, I mien, that the cup which S. Paul calleth the cup of blessing, that it is (as this author saith) the cup of Christ'S blood, call to thy remembrance the saying of chrysostom what he said expounding this text: doth not he say this is the meening of S. Paul, that, that is in the cup, is it that flowed out of the side? Now this is a common manner of speech, that the vessel is named by the thing that it containeth, as a cup containing wine, is called a cup of wine a cup containing water is called a cup of water. Now when Chrysostom saith, that the blood that flowed out of the side of christ, is in the cup: and Oecumenius saith, that it is the cup of blood, what difference is there in the thing, that they speak of▪ is it not all one? Therefore thou mayst see that these authors agree and have consent betwixt them. For this author though he differ in manner of speech from Chrysostom: yet in the thing that they speak he saith even the same that he doth. And now as for these two witnesses Isidorus and Oecumenius let not the Adversary attempt to corrupt them with his wicked gloze, for they be already alleged, and again shall be with soch evident and strong sentence declaring their faith, that they can not be altered. THE TVENTETH CHAP. proceedeth upon the same text by Haymo, and Theophilacte. THis being true that our Saviour christ saith, In the mouth of two or three witnesses standeth all truth: these that be alleged might suffice to testify this truth that I have taken in hand to settfurthe, Nevertheless for that it hath pleased him who is the very truth himself, who needed no testimony, to call twelve, and when one of them the child of perdition perished, to have an oiher chosen that the number of twelve. might be continued, it shall like me tofolowe his example, and as I have done in the exposition of the first text of S. Paul, where I have produced twelve witnesses, to do the like here in the exposition of this text. And although the truth of this matter is such that being spoken of him that is the truth himself, as is said, it needeth no other commendation: yet to the confusion of the enemy, and the comfort of the favourer and lover of gods catholic faith, twelve be and shall be called, that it may beseen how largely this truth hath been spread and received and in what diversity of times it hath been ever continued, as I do not hang doubt, but it shall be continued to the worlds end. But to go a bout that, that here is intended, that the rest of this number which remain may give also their testimony, and show their minds in the understanding of S. Paul, we shall first hear Theophilacte, whose exposition Theoph. in to. prioris ad Corin. of this text is this: Calix benedictionis, hoc est, gratiarum actionis. In manibus namque habentes, gratias ei haud dubiè agimus, qui nostri gratia sanguinem sum effuderit, dignatutue nos sit, bonis ineffabilibus. Non enim participatio dixit, sed ut plus alialiquid exprimat, summam scilicet coniunctionem. Quod autem dixit, tale est. Sanguis enim iste, qui calice continetur, ille est, qui Christi è latere profluit. Hunc ipsi cùm sumimus participamus, Communication used of S. Paul to express a nearer conjunction between christ and us then participation can signify. hoc est, Christo coniungimur. The cup of blessing, that is, of thanksgiving. For having him in hands, we give undoubtedly thanks unto him, who for hour sake hath shed out his blood, and hath esteemed us worthy of unspeakable gifts. He did not say participation but communication, that he might express somewhat more, that is to say, a most near conjunction. But that that he hath said is after this manner. This blood which is contained in the cup, is the same that flowed out of the side of christ. This when we take we participate, that is to say, we are conjoined to christ. Thus Theophilact. If thou, reader, desierest to be instructed how this text is to be understanded, and what is the very mind of saint Paul, if ever man did clearly expound it, no man more plainlier than this, although Chrysostom and Oecumenius, as plainly and almost by the same words. Consider therefore Theophilact commended. this exposition well and credit it, and thou shalt attain to the true sense and meaning of saint Paul. There is nothing to be desired in this man, that is necessarily required to one to whom credit should be given. He is so ancient that he was before any controversy as touching the presence of christ in the Sacrament, for he was before Berengarius. And after the council of Sisimius in the tripartite history they are to be called li. 9 ca 19 to the decision or dissolution of a controversy, which wrote before that controversy was risen, and forsomuch as this author did so, therefore he may well be called to this matter. That he is uncorrupted, I suppose, the Adversary will depose. For it is known to all men learned that Oecolampadius did translate him out of greek into latin, whose sincerity and dexterity in the doing of any such matter, they that be of that side, can not asmuch as once suspect. And although he hath in other places offended, and vitiated him: yet here he hath not. Learning there lacketh none in this author for that he doth is by imitation of Chrysostom, whose sentences and matters being setforth at length, this man doth collect, and in a brief manner settfurth. By which fact as we be sure that that is setforth is learned matter: So be we sure that the setterfurth is without all doubt learned, for such a work can not be done of an unlearned man. And besides that the voice of all learned men doth with much estimation, and praise so commend him. And therefore he is so reputed, esteemed, and taken. briefly there was never yet author that ever it happened me to read, that did either for learning, truth, or any other such like matter, make as much as a note of any reprehension, or declared any thing, that was to be desired in Theophilact. Therefore seeing all things be in him, that are required to be in an author, he is without all exception worthy of credit, and in this matter as a witness may justly be produced. The same blood that flowed out of the side of christ, is in the cup, even by the mind of S. Paul. In this exposition then where no tropes, no signs, no figures of the blood of christ be admitted, but the presence of the very blood taught to be in the cup, yea and the very same that flowed out of the side of Christ what can we or may we else do but so take it, that is, that saint Paul, when he said: The cup of blessing, which we bless is a partaking of the blood of Christ, spoke of no figure, nor by no figure: But of the substantial blood of christ to be verily in the cup of blessing, which we also take and receive, and so be verily partakers of the blood of christ, and partaking it be conjoined to christ, as this author saith. And here is to be noted that Theophilact, doth not here speak as showing his own mind but opening unto us the mind and meaning of saint Paul, and therefore saith: Quod autem dixit tale est. That he said is this, or after this manner, as who should say, this is it that he said. So that this exposition is to be taken as the words of S. Paul, for that it doth declare the mind Peter Martyr. his wresting of Theophil. upon the word. (virtue) and meaning of S. Paul. Neither is Peter Martyr to be heard, who would pervert all the negatives of Theophilact, whereby he denieth in sundry and diverse places, that the Sacrament is only a figure of Christ'S body, as in the xxvi of S. Matthew, in the xiiii. of saint Mark, in the vi. of saint john, and there avoucheth the very real presence by express words: The said Peter Martyr would I say, taking a small occasion of a word upon the xiiii. of S. Mark by violent pressing, even turn the face of theophilact backward, and make him look Vide ca 60. li. 2. an other way, and to speak a direct contrary sentence to that, that he spoke within ten lines before. In the xiiii. of S. Mark to prove the words of chest: This is my body, to be no figurative speech he bringeth in the saying of christ in the vi. of S. john, and saith thus: Dominus enim dicit. Panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est, non dixit Theoph. in 14. Marci. figura est carnis meae, sed caro mea est. Et iterum: Nisi ederitis carnem filii hominis, & quomodò, inquis, caro videtur? O homo propter nostram infirmitatem istud fit. Quia enim panis & vinum ex his sunt, quibus assuevimus, ea non abhorremus. Idcirco misericors Deus nostrae infirmitati condescendens speciem quidem panis & vini servat in virtutem autem carnis & sanguinis transelementat. Hour Lord saith: The bread that I will give is my flesh▪ He said not it is a figure of my flesh, but it is my flesh. And The flesh of christ in the B. Sacrament appeareth not for our infirmities sake. again: Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man. And how (sayest thou) is not the flesh seen? O man this is done for our infirmity. For because bread and wine be of these things, unto the which we have been accustomed we do not abhor them. Therefore our merciful God condescending to our infirmity, doth keep the outwards forms of bread and wine, but he turneth the substance into the virtue of flesh and blood. Here would Peter Martyr (as is said) wrist Theophilact that he would have no real presence, and therefore that we receive not the very flesh and blood of christ in the Sacrament, but the virtue of them. But, Reader, I have ascribed the full sentence of Theophilact, to the intent that thou mayst see, that if any such sense should be gathered of him, it may well appear to thee, that it is violently wrested, and not truly according to the mind of the author alleged, nor expounded. And for proof of this, first observe and note, that Theophilact bringeth in, the saying of christ to prove that there is no figurative speech, and therefore he saith, that christ did not say, that the bread which he would give was a figure of his flesh, but his flesh. If Theophilact will not have it the figure of Christ'S flesh, but his flesh in deed, how standeth Peter's exposition, who would no flesh, but the virtue of the flesh, and so denying the very flesh, would have it a bare figure, which Theophilact hath so often denied? And think you Transelementation used of Theophilact. more fully to express the change in the Sacrament. that such an author would in so few lines deny a figure and grant a figure? Secondly note that Theophilact saith that for our infirmity our merciful God doth transelementate into the virtue of the flesh and blood, where I would learn of this man what is the proper signification of this verb (transelementare) and if it be to change, than what is changed? As I can perceive, this verb cometh of this word (Elementum) which signifieth an Element, and so it should signify to change Elements. As the philosophers do teach, the natural constitution of natural things that be compounded is of the four Elements as offoure principles, yet not as primere, of the which the thing hath his being, but as concurring to the due order and disposition of the thing, without the which the natural thing can not abide in his being. As flesh and bone be of the earth, sweat and moistness of the water, breathing of the air, and the natural heat of the fire. Even so the principles of other things, whether they be in learning, or religion be called elementa Elements As in learning the letters of the alphabet be called Elements. Likewise in religion as saint Paul saith to the hebrews. Etenim cùm deberetis magistri esse propter tempus, rursum indigetis ut vos doceamivi quae sunt elementa exordij sermonum He br. 5. Dei, & facti estis quibus lact opus sit non solido cibo. For when as concerning the time ye ought to be teachers, yet have ye need again that we teach you the first Elements or principles of the word of God, and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. In which sentence where he saith that they had need to be taught the elements of the word of God he meaneth the principles of religion. And thus the beginnings of all such things may be called elements. Now to apply this to our purpose, what be the principles of bread and wine? be they not their substances? Then, when Theophilact saith that he doth transelementate, is it not to be said that he doth change their principles, or elements? But their principles be their substances, wherefore he doth change their substances. Although (if I be not deceived) this is spoken according to the rule of An earthly creature can not be transelemented into spiritual virtue. learning: yet if this should mislike the Adversary: yet he must needs grant that some thing there must be, that must be changed. And then I would learn of him what this is that is changed into the virtue or grace of the flesh of christ as the Adversary here taketh this word (virtus) to be understanded? It was never read that ever any thing earthly could be primarelie changed into the virtue or grace a quality spiritual. Wherefore no such change can here bemade as the Adversary would feign to be. But that an earthly substance may be turned into the substance of christ not only we are taught it by that that he took flesh of the virgin Mary: but also as our Theophilact, to prove this that here is to be proved, saith: the food which our Saviour christ took upon the earth was changed into his body and was made like to his holy Of this matter see more in the second book cap. lx. flesh. Wherefore where Theophilact saith here that this transelementation is into the virtue of the flesh and blood of christ, he meeneth into the very flesh, as though it had been said: In veritatem carnis & sanguinis Christi, into the verity or truth of the flesh and blood of christ. And that this was his meaning this proveth: first that in the same sentence he saith, that God condescending to our infirmity, keepeth the outward forms of bread and wine, signifying that the forms remaining the substance is changed. For if the outward forms remain, and the substance (as they say) be not changed, what then is transelemented, or changed? The second proof is, that Theophilact, speaking of the very same matter upon the sixth of S. john, doth by open and plain words prove this that I have said, for better declaration whereof I will bring in his whole sentence. Non enim dixit panis quem ego dabo figura est carnis, sed caro mea est. Transformatur enim arcanis verbis panis ille per mysticam benedictionem & accessionem sancti spiritus in carnem Domini. Et ne quem conturbet quod credendus sit panis caro. Etenim in carne ambulante Domino et ex pane alimonian Theoph. in 6. Joannis. admittente, panis ille qui manducabatur, in corpus eius mutabatur, et similis fiebat sanctae cius carni et in augmentum, et sustentationem conferebat juxta humanum morem. Igitur et nunc panis in carnem domini mutatur. For he hath not said, the bread which I will give, is a figure of my flesh, but it is my flesh. For that bread by the mystical blessing and coming to of the holy Ghost, with the secret words is transformed Arguments of Theophilact to prove the bread in the Sacr. to be made flesh. into the flesh of hour Lord. And least it should trouble any man, that the bread is to be believed flesh: when hour Lord walked in the flesh, and took food of bread, that bread that was eaten was changed into his body, and was made like unto his holy flesh and it went unto the increasing and sustentation after the condition of the nature of man. Therefore now also the bread is changed into the flesh of our Lord. Thus Theophil. In this saying, ye see not the figure only of Christ'S flesh denied in the Sacrament, but withal the very flesh affirmed, and the whole matter how it cometh to pass declared. In the setting forth whereof, where as upon S. Mark he said, that the bread was changed into the virtue of the flesh of christ, he expounding the same saith, it is transformed into the flesh of christ. And that it might appear to you, that this change was a change of the substance of bread into the substance of the flesh of christ, he bringeth in a similitude of the food which christ did take being conversant here upon the earth after the manner of men, which food was substantially changed in to the substance of the body of christ, and thereupon concludeth, that therefore now also the bread is changed into the flesh of christ. Which conclusion must contain as much as the premises of the argument, that as the food which christ received was substantially changed into the substance of the body of christ, so now the bread by the mystical benediction, and coming of the holy Ghost, with the secret words is substantially changed into the substance of the flesh of christ. In this process of the declaration of the mind of Theophilact, is not only Peter Martyr his gloze as plainly overthrown, as it was maliciously devised. overthrown the wicked wresting of Peter Martyr, but also the verity of the Sacrament so sensibly as it were opened, that, as I suppose, there is no place of doubt left to make a Christian to doubt in. For if ye will confer the exposition of S. Paul now here brought in, with the other sainges, it alone will sufficiently teach a man the perfect catholic faith about the Sacrament of Christ'S body and blood. Wherefore so much being spoken of the mind of Theophilact, in the which I have tarried longer than I intended, I will now hast me to infer. Haymo, who is placed here with this Graecian, Theophilact, to declare the faith of the latin In. decim. 1. Cor. Church in his time. This haymo thus expoundeth this text of saint Paul: Et panis quem frangimus in altari, nun participatio corporis domini est? utique, primùm consecratur, & benedicitur à sacerdotibus & spiritu sancto, & deinde frangitur: cum iam, licet panis videatur, in veritate corpus Christi est. Ex quo pane quicunnque communicant, corpus Although there seem baead in the Bl. Sa. it is the body of christ. Christi edunt And the bread which we do break in the altar, is it not a partaking of the body of our Lord? It is so. First it is consecrated, and blessed of the priests and the holy Ghost, and afterward it is broken. And although now it seemeth bread, in very deed it is the body of christ, of the which bread whosoever do communicate, they do eat the body of christ. Thus Haymo. Here ye see an other exposition of S. Paul his text, which although it differ from the other in words: in the thing that they speak of, they fully Haimo and Theoph. their sayings conferred. agree. Theophilact said that the blood that is in the cup is the same that flowed out of the side of christ, so that he teaching the presence of the very blood of christ in the Sacrament, teacheth by the same the very presence of the body of christ. So this man teaching the very presence of the body of christ by the same, teacheth also the presence of the very blood of christ. The order also how the bread is turned into the body of christ is here testified. as it was of Theophilact. For he said that the bread is transformed by the mystical benediction, and the access of the holy Ghost: This man saith, that it is consecrated and blessed of the priests and the holy Ghost. Theophilact saith, that God changeth the bread into the flesh of christ, the outward forms remaining still: This man saith, that although it seem bread, in very deed it is the body of christ. Whereby we may see the goodly consent, and agreement, that the God of unity and peace worketh in them that do love and embrace his truth. Theophilact, also saith that the blood of christ is in the cup: This man saith, that the body of christ is in the altar. Which both manner of speeches prove a real presence. For the spiritual presence is neither in the altar, neither in the chalice, but in the soul of man. Hitherto by all these ancients, we can learn none other but that saint Paul in this scripture spoke of the very real and substantial presence of Christ'S body and blood in the blessed Sacrament. And therefore receiving this said blessed Sacrament we are partakers of the same body and blood of christ. THE ONE twentieth CHAPTER proceedeth yet upon the same text by Anselmus, and Bruno. Now that we have heard S. Paul expounded by the ancient elders, and learned writers, that be of all students of the Christian faith, to be reverenced and so received: to bring the matter even home to our time, for that the later writers be so contemned and without just cause of the adversary rejected, some Anselmus in Deci. 1. Cor. of them shall be produced, that trial may yet be made, whether they agree with these elders, or dissent from them. And first Anselmus his exposition shall be heard, thus he writeth: Panis quem frangimus est participatio corporis Domini, quia ipse panis quem multis dividimus, est verum corpus Domini. Et qui de illo accipiunt de corpore Domini accipiunt, atque fiunt etiam ipsi, quod accipiunt. The bread that we The bread divided to many is the body of our Lord. break is partaking of the body of our Lord, for that bread, which we divide to many is the very body of our Lord. And they that do take of it they receive the body of our Lord, and they also be made that, that they receive. Thus Anselmus. This exposition dissenteth not from the expositions of the elders, but as they taught that S. Paul speaketh here of the very body of christ, so doth this man also. For saith he, the bread which we divide to many is the very body of our Lord, wherefore they that receive it, receive the body of our Lord. And with S. Augustine expounding it that S. Paul saith, that it is a communication of the body of our Lord, he saith that they that receive the body of christ, are made that, they receive. For they, that receive it duly, are made members of the mystical body of christ. But in this exposition the reader is to be advertised that this author, saying that the bread which we give to many is the body of christ, meaneth, not as Luther doth, that the material bread in the Sacrament, is the very body of christ. For after the consecration when we distribute the holy Sacrament their is no material bread, but he that is the heavenly bread, who saith. joan. 6. Ego sum panis vitae. Et panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est, quam dabo pro mundi vita. I am the bread of life, and the bread which I shall give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. So that we distribute in the Sacrament no other bread but that bread. Wherefore he said very well, that that bread is the very body of christ. Not minding to trouble the reader, with long declaration where the authors for their plains in sentences need none such, I shall leave Anselmus, and call the good holy man Bruno, who was more than four hundredth years Bruno in dec. 1 Cor. agone. who upon this text maketh this exposition: Calix benedictionis, id est, quem ipse Deus benedicit, & consecrate, & cui nos benedicimus per officium nostrum. Deus enim hoc efficit per sacerdotem ministrum. Hic itaque calix, nun est communlcatio sanguinis Christi? id est, nun per fanguinem assumptum unimur Christo, ipsiue conformamur? Et panis, id est, verum corpus Christi, qui sub specie sola panis accipitur, panis dico, quem nos in altari frangimus, ut quod unum est in veritate, licet ita videatur, scindi tamen non potest, hic, inquam, panis quem frangimus, nun est participatio corporis Domini? id est, nun per hoc corpus, Deum in nobis capimus? eumue nobis incorporamus? Ideo in duabus substantiis, corporis scilicet & sanguinis, sacrificium Deus hoc instituit, ut per carnem in altari traditam ostenderet se redimere carnem nostram per haec sacramenta in incorruptionem quando ue transferendan: & per sanguinem, quem tradit, insinuaret se similiter redimisse animam nostram. Ad quod de anima insinuandun, quia re incorporali uti non potuit, dignè per sanguinem, qui sedes animaedicitur, animam siguravit. Haec in duas partes distribuit, ut diversas partes eius. Qui enim vel sanguinem tantùm, vel corpus solùm, totum accipit. Qui utrumque accipit, non magis per utrumque quam per alteram accipit. Quod corpus sicut vera caro Christi est sub specie panis, ita per solam speciem atteritur, diminuitur, in parts dividitur, cùm in veritate incorruptibile, indivisibile, impotens diminui permaneat. The cup, of blessing, that is to faith, which By the body of Christ received in the B. Sac. we be incorporated to him: and by his blood we are united to him. God himself doth bless, and which we by our office do bless (for God doth this by his minister the priest) there for this cup, is it not a communication of the blood of christ? that is, are we not, by the blood received united to christ and conformed to him? And the bread, that is to say, the body of christ, which is taken under the form of bread alone, the bread I say, which we break in the altar, as which is one in very deed, although it seemeth so to be, yet it can not be divided, this bread I say, which we break, is it not partaking of the body of our Lord? that is to say, do we not by this body receive God into us? and incorporate him unto us? Therefore God hath instituted this sacrifice in two substances, that is, of his body and his blood, that by the flesh delivered in the altar he would show himself to have redeemed our flesh by these sacraments sometime to be transferred into incorruption. And by the blood which he delivereth he would insinuate himself to have redeemed our soul. Unto the which thing of the soul to be insinuated, forsomoche as he could use no corporal thing, worthily by blood He that receiveth only under one kind, receiveth as much as he, that receiveth both▪ christ being perfectly in both. (which is called the seat of the soul) he hath figured the soul. These things he hath distributed into two substances, that he should understand his diverse parts. For he that receiveth the blood only, or the body, he taketh all. He that receiveth both receiveth no more by both then by one. Which body as the very flesh of christ is under the form of bread so by the only outward form is it bruised, diminished, and divided into parts, when in very deed it doth abide incorruptible, indivisible, and not able to be diminished. Thus far Bruno. In this exposition both catholic and learned are many things, worthy of note, which if I should all touch, I fear I should tarry the reader to long. Wherefore leaving them to his discussion I will only briefly touch them, that appertain to our principal purpose to be learned of S. Paul, of the which first to speak of the bread, which S. Paul saith, that we break, whether it be understanded to be material bread, or bread the body of christ, this author expounding S. Paul, and opening his mind to us faith. that it is the body of christ, taken under the form bread. And of the cup of blessing, he saith: that we receive the blood by the which we are united to christ In that he teacheth, S. Paul by the bread and the cup to signify the body and blood of christ, as he agreeth with the old fathers before alleged, as by conference ye shall easily perceive: So in that he teacheth that we receive Doctors teaching the body and blood of christ to be under the forms of bread and wine. the same body and blood under the forms of bread and wine, though not in their sentences, here upon this text alleged, yet in other places, they are in this matter very plain. S. Cyprian saith: The bread which our Lord gave unto his Disciples, changed, not in outward thape, but in nature, by the almightiness of the word is made flesh. If the nature of the bread be changed, and by the all mightiness of the word of God made flesh: the outward forms remaining still, what is it, but that there is the flesh of christ under the outward form of bread, that remaineth unchanged. S. Augustine also saith under the forms of bread and wine, which we see, we honour things invisible, that is to say, the flesh and blood of christ. Again he saith: Li. Senten. Prosperi. Jbidem. In 26. Matth. It is his flesh which we receive, covered under the form of bread. And it is his blood, which we under the form and taste of wine do drink. And Theophilact saith: It doth appear or seem bread, but it is flesh. All which what do they else but plainly teach that the body and blood of christ be in the Sacrament under the forms of bread and wine, So that in this point this author teacheth nothing diverse or different from the ancient Fathers. Again where he saith that God hath instituted this sacrifice in two substances, that is of the body and blood of christ, as diverse other have before done, teaching that S. Paul in this process, doth take the body and blood of christ in the Sacrament, as a sacrifice: so doth this author also. Wherefore seeing in these points he swerveth nothing from the doctrine of the Fathers, I see not why any man, upon wilful arrogancy should reject him, but receive him as a witness of the catholic faith declaring unto us the faith of the church in his time, which is none other but such as was in the time of the Fathers, as the comparison or conference of this authors and their teachings doth very well prove. Now where the Proclaimer by an article of his proclamation importeth, Here may he see more then one or two, if he list to see affirming the body of christ to be under forms of bread and wine. that we can not show one doctor, that saith that the outward shows or forms of bread and wine remain without their substances: Although it hath been sufficiently proved in that place, where we have treaicted of transubstantion: yet here by occasion of these authors alleged we may note the same again. For when S. Cyprian saith, that the bread is changed in nature, but not in outward show, what doth he say, but that the outward show remaineth, and that the substance of bread is changed. And when S. Austen saith of the Sacrament that it is the flesh and blood of christ that we receive under the forms of bread and wine, doth he not say the same that S. Cyprian said? except the Proclaimer will say, that under the forms of bread and wine, there be both the substances of the body and blood of christ, and also the substances of the bread wine withal, which is to great an absurdity. And to be short, when Theophilact saith that it doth appear bread, but it is flesh: And Haymo saith, that it seemeth bread, but in very deed it is the body of christ: And this author saith, that it is the flesh of christ under the form of bread: All which what do they else teach but that there be in the Sacrament the outward shows of bread and wine, and the substance of Chrysts body and blood, and not the substance of bread and wine. See ye not them, how great a smoke the Proclaimer would make without any fire? See ye not how great reproach he would lay to the Church See the malice of the Prorcl. see in what deep sleep of heresy he lieth, that can not, or will not see all these doctors. without just cause? See you not how great brags he maketh without any ground to buill then upon? Or raither see ye not how he hath provoked matter to be showed to his shame? So that every man that readeth this may well say it is a shame for him to say that the catholics have nothing to show for that they teach: when there is such plenty produced to prove and confirm that they say. But as for himself he hath nothing that is of any substantial authority, to maintain his sainges, but resteth only upon his bare brags, and his own private authority. Neither do I doubt, but the Proclaimer himself knoweth it. Many more may in this matter be produced. Fear not then, Reader, neither be though cast in doubt, to continue the old ancient saying of the church, that if havest seen in the Sacrament christ under the forms of bread and wine, for so much as though we seist S. Cyprian S. Augustin, which were above a thousand years agone and other, which were eight hundreth, seven hundreth. and four hundreth years agone, say that it is so. Whereby we may conclude against this article of this adversaries proclamation, that in the Sacrament, after the consecration remain the outward shows of bread and wine, with out their substances, but not without the substances, of the body and blood of christ. THE TWO AND twentieth CHAP. ENDETH the exposition of this text by Dionise, and Gagneius. IT shall avail to declare the continuance of consent of doctrine in all ages, if we also hear the exposition of Dionise the Carthusian, who was somewhat nearer to our time then the other were. Thus he expoundeth S. Paul his saying: Calix benedictionis. id est, contentum in chalice, ut pote sanguis Christi, per quem sanguinem benedicimur, id cst, dona gratiarum consequimur, cui calici seu Dionysius Carthu. in 10. 1. Cor. sanguini benedicimus, id est, quem consecramus, cùm per prolationem sacrorum verborum, à nobis convertitur vinum in sanguinem Christi. nun communicatio sanguinis Christi est? id est, nun veraciter est sanguis Christi, nobis comunicatus seu datus, faciensue nos comunicationem habere cum Christo, incorporando nos ei, & faciendo nos participes meriti suoe effusionis. Et panis quem frangimus, id est, corpus Christi consecratum ex pane, quem panem consecratum cuius dimensiones seu species frangimus porrigendo eum fidelibus: nun participatio corporis Christi est? id est, nun utique est corpus Christi verè acceptum à nobis, faciens nos unum cum Christo, qui ait: Qui manducat meam carnem, & bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet, & ego in ●eo? The cup of blessing, that is, the thing contained in the cup that is to wit the blood of christ by the which Communication of the blood, is when the blood of christ is verily given to us. blood we are blessed, that is, we obtain gifts of graces, which cup or blood we bless, that is, we consecrate, where by the prolation of the holy words, the wine is turned into the blood of christ, is it not a Communication of the blood of christ? that is, is not the blood of christ verily communicated or given, to us, and making us to have a communion with christ, incorporating us to him, and making us partakers of the merit of his effusion? And the bread which we break, that is, the body of christ Participation of the body is likewise as of the blood is said. consecrated of bread, which bread consecrated, whose dimensions and forms we break, giving it to the faithful: is it not a partaking of the body of christ? that is, is it not also the body of christ verily taken of us, making us one with christ, who saith: he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him? Thus munch Dionise. In this as in the other expositions, as ye see moche plainness: so ye see no part of S. Paul his sentence left unexpownded. But yet as truly: as simply and plainly. That in the cup S. Paul meent to be the very blood of christ, it is so plainly here spoken, as it needeth no addition, for better declaration. In the which his exposition, that he agreeth with all that hitherto have been induced, the matter being so clear, I trust, ye will be easily persuaded, for any further proof to be made by me for the same. And therefore leaving this author to the discretion of the reader farther to be considered, we will descend a little lower to one of this our time, and there end the exposition of this text of S. Paul. This shall be joannes Gagneius, who treating of this text, doth thus open joann. Gagneius in decim. 1. Cor. the same. Calix benedictionis. cui benedicimus. id est, quem cum gratiarum actione sumimus, noun communicatio sanguinis Christi est? id est, nun calicem Christi sumentes, ac sanguinem illius bibentes, cum illo communicamus, & cum illo commercium nobis esse declaramus? Et panis quem frangimus, id est, corpus Christi quod sub speciebus panis sumimus, nun participatio corporis Domini est, id est, nun declarat nos partem bahere cùm corpore Domini, & in illud consentire? The cup of blessing which we bless, that is, which we receive with thanks giving, is it not a Communication of the blood of christ? that is, do not we taking the cup of christ and drinking his blood communicate with him? and declare us to have an entredoing with him? And the bread which we break, that is, the body of christ, which we under the forms of bread do receive, it is not a participation Communication and participation of Christ'S body and blood what they be, of the body of our Lord: that is, doth it not declare us to have part with the body of our Lord, and into it to consent? Hitherto Gagneius Who although he wrote but last day: yet he agreeth in the expounding of S. Paul with them that wrote above thousand years agone. And teacheth (as they did) that S. Paul in this place spoke of the very real presence of the body and blood of christ in the Sacrament, which we receive, and by the which we are made partakers of the same body and blood. For where S. Paul saith: The bread which we break, that is to say (saith this author) the body of christ which we receive under the form of bread, maketh us to have part with the body of our Lord, Now, reader, if thou wilt gather together the expositions of all these famous Fathers and learned men, which to show thee, the understanding A brief rehearsal of the doctors alleged for this text. of S. Paul upon this text▪ I have here alleged, and lay, them in a brief before thy face, if shalt, I suppose, see such a plain declaration of the truth so evident, so manifest, so clear, so consonant, so agreeing, and so consenting one with an other, although spoken in diverse ages, in sundry churches, and in moche difference of times, that I think, if wilt wonder with me that ever men could be so stubbornly blind that they will not see an open truth which can not be so covered, and hidden, with their devilish glooses, but it will always lie above of all men ready to be seen. Chrysoste. chrysostom saith that this is the meening of S. Paul, that that which is in the cup, us it that flowed out of the side. S. Hierom saith, that we partake of the blood of christ, as he himself saith: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood etc. Hieron Which saying of christ (as there is declared) is spoken of the eating of the very body of christ and drinking of his very blood. wherefore. S. Hierom so understandeth S. Paul: Damascen, who can not abide these words of christ Damascen (This is my body) to have a figurative sense, saith, that in the participation, and the communion of the bread we partake the flesh of christ and his Godhead also. S. Augustin saith that S. Paul speaking this text did show them to August. what sacrifice they should pertain, which was to the sacrifice whereby they should be partakers of the body and blood of christ. Oecumenius saith that S. Paul calleth the cup of the blood of christ, the cup of blessing. So that he Oecomen. taketh it for a cup of Christ'S blood. Isidore saith that the bread which we break, is the body of christ. He saith not it is called, but it is the body. Theophilact saith that the blood which is contained in the cup, is the same that Isidorus. Theophil. flowed out of the side of christ. Haymo saith, that the bread which we break in the altar, although it seem bread in very deed, yet it is the body of christ? Anselmus saith, that the bread which we broke, and divide to many is the very body of our Lord, Bruno saith, are we not by the blood received, united to christ Haymo. Anselm. Bruno. and is not the bread, that is, the very body of christ, which seemeth to be broken, and is not in deed, do not we by this body receive God into us? and incorporate him to us? Dionise saith, that, that is contained in the cup is the blood of christ. by the which blood we are blessed, So that it is verily the blood of christ Dionys. given unto us, making us to have communion with christ, and to be partakers of the merits of the effusion of the same his bloodd. And last Gagneius saith: that the bread which we break that is to say, the body of christ Gagneius. which we receive under the form of bread, doth it not declare us to have part with the body of our lord? Doth any of these twelve find any trope or figures in the saying of S. Paul? No, they do all teach it to be a plain speech, and a plain assertion of the very body of christ, and not a bare sign of it. And here to conclude this matter, and to make an end of this exposition of this text, I have thought good to hear the mind of the right godly, and learned Father Roffensis, who, as all things that he did, so doth he handle this text learnedly and pithily. Roffen. in proem. li. 5 Thus he saith: Poculum benedictionis cui benedicimus, nun communicatio sanguinis Christi est? Panis quem frangimus, nun communicatio corporis Christi est? Quid hic audimus? figuras ne corporis, & sanguinis Christi? Nequaquam. sed veritatem corporis & sanguinis, quibus nos verè communicare Paulus asserit. Profectò si figuram solam hic indicasset Paulus, non adeo frequenter haec (nulla uspiam figurarum habita mentione) vocasset corpus, & sanguinem Domini. Sed nec arbitratur Oecolampadius, nos per panem et vinum suum. communicare corpori & sanguini Christi, sed fidem solam buius communicationis causam esse contendit. Et certè qui fieri potest ut merus panis, aut vinum eam efficatiam habeat, ut nos veri corporis & sanguinis Christi reddat participes? Quare consentaneum est ut quum huius panis esu, & liquoris eius, qui in poculo est potatione, verè corpori, & sanguini Christi communicamus, eiusdem corporis, & sanguinis veritatem hic adesse, ceu compertissimum habeamus. The cup of blessing, which we bless, it is not a communication of the blood of christ? the bread which we break, is S. Paul in all his process of the Sacra. maketh not one title of mention of any figure. it not a communication of the blood of christ? What hear we here? Figures of the body and blood of christ? Not so, but the verity of the body and blood of christ, which Paul affirmeth us verily to communicate. Truly if Paul had judged hero to be an only figure he would not so often have called these things the body and blood of christ, no mention in any place being made of figures. But neither Oecolampadius doth think, that we by his bread and wine do communicate with the body and blood of christ, but he doth earnestly affirm that faith alone is the cause of this communication. And surely how can it be done, that the very bread and wine An argument ground on S. Paul to avouch the real presence: may have that efficacy, that it may make us partakers of the body and blood of christ? Wherefore it followeth agreeably, that seeing by the eating of this bread, and drinking of that liquor which is in the cup we do verily communicate the body and blood of christ, that we have it for most assured knowledge, that here is present the verity of the same body and blood. Thus far Roffensis. I pray thee, reader, weigh well the saying of this reverend Father, and thou shalt perceive that here is made an argument so pithy and so strong that all the adversaries power can not stand against it. For seeing the Adversary him sellf affirmeth that by the receipt of his Sacramental bread, we be not partakers of the body and blood of christ, which is true, and S. Paul saith, that by this bread and this drink, we be made partakers of them, it must needs be that this bread, and drink, which the Apostle speaketh of, is the very body and blood, which duly received make us verily partakers of christ: If the Apostle had not meant this bread and this drink to be the very body, and very blood of christ, he would not so plainly have termed them, but in some place he would have called them figures. But so he calleth them not in any place, but always by the proper names of body and blood. Wherefore to end and conclude with all these Fathers thus expounding S. Paul, there is (as he meant) the very body and blood. THE THREE AND twentieth CHAP. beginneth the exposition of this text: Quoniam unus panis etc. IIn the text of S. Paul it followeth; Quoniam unus panis & unum corpus multi sumus, omnes, qui ex eodem pane, et eodem calice participamus. 1. Cor. 10. By cause that though we be many: yet we are one bread and and one body, in asmuch as we all are partakers of one bread and of one cup. forasmuch as this text dependeth upon the other now last expounded, and is inferred as a exposition of that, that the Apostle spoke of there, namely of hour participation and communion with christ, and with ourselves, and speaketh of the same bread and the same cup, that is spoken of there: Therefore it is manifest that it must have the same understanding, as it had, I mien, that the bread and the cup be not Communion with Christ is two ways. taken for bare figures of the body and blood of christ, but for the things themselves, the very body and blood. And where the Apostle speaketh of our communion with christ, it is to be noted that we have a double communion with him. One is spiritual, which we come unto in baptism through the work of the holy Ghost. of the which S. Paul speaketh to the Corinthians, saying: In uno spiritu omnes nos in unum corpus baptizati sumus, sive 1. Cor. 12. judaei, siue gentiles, sive servi, sive liberi. By one spirit are we baptized to make one body, whether we be jews, or gentiles, whether we be bond or free. And again to the Romans: Multi unum corpus sumus in Christo. singuli autem alter alterius membra, We being many, are one body in christ, and every man among us, Rom. 12. one and others members. And other corporal: which we come unto by the receipt of his body and blood in the Sacrament, of which S. Paul speaketh here. By the first we are admitted, and as it were gaffed into the mystical body of christ, to be members of the same: by the other we are nourished as with an necessary food to grow and to wax strong and to be made lusty members of the same body, which thing cometh better to pass, for that by this receipt we are incorporated to Christ'S body, and receive with all many goodly benefits of spiritual nutriment, and spiritual health. For as many meats are both nutritive, and also wholesome, according to the natural qualities of the same, if the party that receiveth them be well disposed in body, and not troubled with diseases, by reason of ill humours: So the food of Christ'S body and blood, is both nutritive and wholesome, according to the good qualities of mercy, grace, and goodness, if the receiver be not evil disposed by the reason of vicious humours, But in this these two foods do differ. For the earthly food being received is incorporated to the receiver, and made one with him. But this heavenly food being duly received doth incorporate us to it: Nec tu me mutabis in te sicut cibum carnis tuae: sed tu mutaberis in me. Neither shalt thou change me into thee, as a meat of thy body: but thou shalt be changed into me. As there is then a spiritual communion, where by we are joined to Christ, and spiritually made one with him: so is there a corporal communion, by We have a spiritual communion with christ by baptism and a corporal by the Sacr. of his body and blood. the which we are joined to christ, and corporally made one with him. If it were not so, why then hath the Apostle taught us the communion that we have with christ by the holy ghost, and Baptism, and now teacheth us of an other communion which we have with christ, by the receipt of his body and blood? If they will say that it is no other neither of any other effect, than the other by Baptism and the holy ghost: then we may say to them, that then it is vainly instituted, for thar it is supersluouse, seeing that this communion is done before and is sufficient for the whole life of man. But that may not be said. for God worketh nothing in vain. Wherefore seeing that S. Paul doth say that all we, that do eat of that one bread, and drink of that one cup be made one bread and one body, there is an other union in the which we are joined all together, than it, that we were joined in before by faith, and Baptism. Holy bread received instead of the B. Sacrament. For it is to be thought that none cometh to receive this Sacrament, but such as be perfect in faith and be baptized. Wherefore in the primitive church, and so to the time of S. Augusting, the Cathecumeni, that is, the young scholars or learners of faith, were not suffered to receive this Sacrament, but instead thereof they received other bread blessed, as our people now do, when they do not communicate, they receive holy bread. And then being baptized, and having faith, the Adversary will not deny, but that they be members of Christ'S mystical body, and have that spiritual communion that is done by faith. Wherefore (as before is said) either by the receipt of the body and blood of christ, they come into an other communion: or else they receive that that they had before. But here the Reader is to be advertised, that as they that receive the spiritual union by Baptism, receive it not but with condition: So none can receive this corporal union to christ, but with condition. The Sacraments be received of many, but not profitably, as touching the final effect to all that receive, but to some. christ hath died not only for our sins, but for the sins of all the world, yet all atteign not remission of sins, which is the effect of the same death: And as God giving us christ, gave us all things with him: yet all receive not all things: Even so though by the receipt of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, we be as it is said united and incorporated to christ, yet not all: for the benefits which God giveth unto us, many of them have conditions annexed, as the benefits before recited have. For as touching remission of sins all they shall have it, that will observe the condition declared by S john: Si ambulaverimus in luce, sicut & ipse est in luce, societatem habemus adinuicem, 1. Joan. 1. & sanguis jesu Christi filii eius emundat nos ab omni peccato. If we shall walk in light, as he also is in light, we have fellowship together, and the blood of jesus christ the Son of him cleanseth us from all sin. Eternal life is given to us by christ, but there is a condition annexed. Si vis ad vitam ingredi serva mandata. If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments. Unity with christ, as that christ shall dwell in them, and they in him, that do eat the flesh of christ, and drink his blood, is promised to them that so do, but not without a condition, that is, that they do eat it worthily. judas eat the flesh of christ, and drank his blood, as hereafter shall be showed. But yet he obtained not the promiss, he enjoyed not the effect, for not christ, but Satan abid in him as the Gospel testifieth. Wherefore S. Paul said not, that you all be one bread, and one body, but many. For indeed as many as shall worthily receive that one bread, and drink of that one cup, all they shall be one bread, and one body, both with christ, and within themselves. But the evil receivers not so. This also is not to be overpassed, that saint Paul saith, that we all eat of one bread, and drink of one cup. Which in my judgement proveth very moche, that he took not this bread for bare material bread (as the Adversary doth) for then it were not true. For all do not eat of one bread. For the greeks eat leavened bread, and the latins fine and unleavened bread. In the catholic Church is given to every communicant a sundry bread. In the schismatical church they have not throughout all one bread, but in every conventicle a sundry bread, and sometime in the same conventicle diverse breads. For it were a marvelous bread that should suffice them all in all their wicked congregations. And as before is noted, their bread hath no such virtue, as saint Paul doth attribute unto this bread, and this cup, which is to make us one body with Christ. Wherefore it can have no other understanding but that the bread which S. Paul speaketh of is no material bread, but it is the heavenly bread of Christ'S body, which being but one is eaten of every faithful, and sufficeth Jnsermone Decana. for all. For he is not so received in one altar, that he is not, nor cannot be in an other. But (as saint bernard saith speaking to christ in the Sacrament) unius horae momento, ab ortu solis, usque ad occasum, ab aquilone usque ad austrum, praesto es omnibus, unus in multis, idem in diversis locis. In the moment of one hour from the rising of the Sun to the going down of the same, from the North to the sooth thou art at hand, which art one in many places, and the very same in diverse places. For (as chrysostom saith) Quoniam in multis locis offertur, multi sunt Christi? Nequaquam. Sed unus ubique est Christus, & hic plenus existens, & illic plenus, unum corpus. In deci. ●. Corn. hom. 17. For that christ is offered in many places, be there many Christ'S? not so, but every where one christ, being full here, and full there, all one body. So that where S. Paul saith, that they are one body, and one bread, that doth partake of that same one bread, and that same one cup, it is not verified, nor can be verified of any other, but of christ the true bread, which (as is said) being one body, one christ, is every where full christ, here full, and there full, of the which one all do partake, and so by that one they all are made one, I mien as many as do duly receive it, as is before said. For by the receipt of that one body, they grow to be one body, both with the body, that is received, and also among themselves. THE FOUR AND TVENTETH CHAP. proceedeth upon the same text by Chrysostom, and S. Augustine. AS among philosophers it is unseemly to avouch any thing without reason: so among divines specially in matters of controversy, it is unseemly to avouch any thing without authority, wherefore to do that, that to a divine is seemly, and withal to give advertisement to the Proclaimer, who in his sermon poureth out many of his heretical devices in matter of controversy without authority, although, I have not hitherto without authority, but with authority expounded this text of S. Paul yet returning to my former order heretofore in other scriptures used, I will prove the same exposition to be good, by farther authority of the fathers, coupled together out of the latin and greek church. In which process I will begin with chrysostom, who thus expoundeth the same text of S. Paul: Quoniam unus panis, & unum corpus multi sumus. Quid enim appello, inquit, communicationem? Idem ipsum corpus sumus. Quid nam est panis? Corpus Christi. Quid autem fiunt, qui accipiunt? Corpus Christi, non multa. sed unum corpus. Nam quemadmodum panis ex multis gravis unitur, ut minimè grana appareant, sed tamen grana sunt, verùm incerta discretione coniuncta: sic & invicem & Christo coniungimur. Non en●m ex altero corpore tu, ex altero illeeducatur, sed ex eodem omnes. Ideo subdit: omnes qui de uno pane participamus. For being many we are one bread and one body. What do I (saith he) call communication? We are the very same body. What is the bread? The body of christ▪ what be they made that receive it? the body of christ, not many but one body. For as bread is made one of many corns, though they do not appear corns, but yet they be corns, yet without certain difference joined together: So we both within ourselves, and with christ are joined together. For though art not fed or nourished of one body, and he of an other, but all of one and the self-same. Therefore he addeth: all which do partake of one bread. Thus much chrysostom. In these words ye see the mind of chrysostom upon saint Paul, and therewith ye may see the mind of S. Paul himself. For in the first entry of the exposition Chrysostom moveth not the question in his own person, but in the person of saint Paul. For after this manner he moveth Three things learned out of S. Paul. it: What do I call (saith he) communication? meaning saint Paul, so that, that is here spoken, is after the mind of saint Paul. Therefore of saint Paul we may here learn three things, as he is opened of chrysostom. The first is, what is communication. What it is we are taught, for it is to be all one body. For when S. Paul had said, is not the bread which we break a communication of the body of our Lord? And showing that it is a communication, and withal what a communication it is, added: For we being many eating of one bread, and drinking of one cup, are one body and one bread. As though he had said: we eating one body, are made the same body. And thus it cometh to pass that chrysostom saith, that communication, is, we be all one body. The second thing, what that is, by the eating whereof we are made one body. Chrysostom expounding S. Paul asketh this question: What is the bread that S. Paul here speaketh of. He answereth that it is the body of christ Note then, Christian Reader, that by Chrysostom it is evident that S. Paul here by the bread meant not material bread, but the true bread, the very body of christ, which is even that one bread, of the which though we be many, we may all receive, and by it being one, we all may be made one both with it, and within hour selves, which can not be done by material bread. And here this is not to be overpassed, that some one either of malice, or ignorance hath corrupted and falsefied chrysostom in this place, that wherein Chrysostom corrupted by the translator. the greek Chrysostom asketh: what is the bread he altered it in translation saying: what doth the bread signify? For the trial of this I have not only seen diverse books in the which this question is thus corrupted, but other also in which it is corrected, and beside I have conferred with diverse well learned in the greek tongue, whose greek books being seen it was in them all found thus: what is the bread? and not what signifieth the bread? Soche is the falsehood of Satan and his Angels to corrupt the doctors to maintain their heresy. And yet if it might so have been juggled in, the devil had been beguiled. For it could not bear the sense that S. Paul should ask what material bread did signify, but what the word bread did in that place signify. Whereunto when S. Paul's answer had been added that that word bread did signify the body of christ had it not made against Satan still? But now that the truth of the question is: what is the bread? and the answer is, that it is the body of christ, is not Satan now laid flat upon his back, and Christ'S presence in the holy Sacrament most plainly taught, so plainly, that the Proclaimer, if he will open his eyes, may here see a plain place to induce him into the plain truth, which truth Chrysostom in that, that followeth in this exposition doth very clearly commend and Christ'S flesh of one nature with our, but free from sin but full of life is mingled with us to deliver us from sin and to make us immortal. setforth? Thus it followeth there Non enim simpliciter corpus suum tradidit sed cùm prior carnis natura, à terra formata, à peccato mortalis facta, à vita deserta esset, aliam (ut ita dicam) massam, & fermentum induxit hoc est carnem suam, natura quidem eandem, verùm à peccato liberam, & vitae plenam, quam omnibus tribuit, ut participes fierent, ut ea nutriti, & priore abiecta, quae mortua erat, per hanc mensam viventem, & immortalem, comisceremur. He hath not simply delivered his body, but where the first nature of the flesh, being form of the earth, was by sin made mortal, and of life forsaken, he brought in (as I might say) an other lump and leaven, that is, his flesh, in nature the same, but free from sin, and full of life, which he hath given to all, that they may be made partakers, that being nourished The immortal table is the immortal food of the table, that is Chrictes flesh wherewith we are nourished to immortality. with it, and the first, which was dead cast away, by this living and immortal table, we should be mixed together. Thus Chrysostom. Dost though not see here Reader what bread it is that we be partakers of, by the which we be mixed together, to be this one body? chrysostom hath plainly taught that it is the flesh of christ in nature all one with our flesh, but that it is free from sin, and full of life, which christ hath brought in an giveth to us to the intent we should be partakers of it. And that there should remain in this matter nothing doubtful, but all scruple taken away, as that this flesh spoken of here should not be drawn to the flesh upon the cross, or to the spiritual flesh, or figurative flesh, or any such other: he doth by express words declare, that he speaketh of the flesh of christ on the table. For (saith he) he hath given us this flesh, that webeing nourished with it, by this living and immortal table we should be mixed together. There is none (I think) so insensate, or without understanding but he knoweth what Chrysostom meaneth by the table. He meeneth the meat of the table. Now this meat of the table, is not (as the Adversary dreameth) a piece of dead bread, but it is a living, and an immortal meat (as chrysostom termeth it) which is the flesh of christ, of which he spoke before, saying, that it was free from sin, and full of life. Calling it then before full of life, and here living and immortal, there saying, that of it we are made partakers, and here by it, we are mixed together: there that by it we are nourished, and here calling it the meat of the table, argueth beside the continuance of the sentence (which proveth the same) that he spoke of one thing, which is the flesh of christ, which is on the table, by the nutriment of which we are partakers of that one bread, and so be made one body and one bread. And now reader, that if havest heard chrysostom so plainly expounding saint Paul, we will leave him and hear saint Augustine, for he also giveth an understanding of this text on this wise: Quia Christus passus est pro nobis, commendavit nobis in isto sacramento corpus & sanguinem suum. Quod etiam fecit & nos ipsos. Name & nos ipsius corpus facti sumus, & per misericordiam ipsius quod accipimus nos sumus. Because christ hath suffered for us he commended unto us in this Sacrament his body and blood, which also he hath made ourselves. For we also are made his body, and August. feria. 2. Pasch christ hath commended to us his body and blood in the Sacr. by his mercy that we receive we be. In this short saying he hath declared both the mean by the which we are made the body of christ, and that we be the body of christ. First he openeth the mean saying, that because christ hath suffered for us, he hath commended unto us in this Sacrament his body and blood. Note the speech of saint Augustin, he saith not that christ hath commended unto us, because he hath suffered for us, a figure for a memorial of that his passion: but he saith by plain words, that christ commended to us his body and blood. And applying the cause to the effect afterward he saith: By his mercy we be that we receive. Which in plain speech is, that because we receive the body of christ, therefore by his mercy we be the body of christ. And to move us to abide in this body of christ, he proceedeth: Dic mihi, quid est, ex quo vivit? Spiritus tuus vivit de corpore tuo, an corpus ex spiritu tuo? Respondet omnis qui vivit: Ex spiritu vivo. Qui autem hoc non potest respondere, nescio an vivat. Quid respondet omnis qui vivit: Corpus utique meum vivit de spiritu meo. Vis ergo vivere et de spiritu Christi? In corpore esto Christi. Nunquid enim corpus meum vivit de spiritu tuo? Meum vivit de spiritu meo, et tuum de spiritu tuo. Non potest vivere corpus Christinisi de spiritu Christi. Ind est quod exponens Apostolus Paulus hunc panem, unus panis (inquit) unum corpus sumus. Tell me, what is that of the which thou livest? doth thy spirit live by thy body, or thy body by the spirit? Every one that liveth answereth: I live by my spirit. He that can not this answer, I can not tell whether he liveth. what doth every one answer that liveth? My body liveth by my spirit. Wilt thou also live by the Spirit of christ? Be in the body of christ. For doth my body live by thy spirit? My body liveth of my spirit, and thy body of thy spirit. The body of christ can not live but by the spirit of christ. Therefore it is that the Apostle Paul expounding unto us this bread, saith: we being many are one bread, and one body. Thus saint Augustine. In whom as we have goodly instruction for our faith: so we have the like for our conversation. But not to be tedious to the reader, S. Augustin shall be left without note here unto him to his farther consideration of this his saying, for that by it that is said, it is easy to perceive the whole mind of him in this matter. THE FIVE AND twentieth CHAPTER proceedeth upon the same text by Damascen and Haymo. AS the Adversary useth all the craft subtlety and falsehood that he can, to deceive the simple, and to abduce him, to lead him away and to carry him a far from the flock and fold of christ to the intent he shall not desire to come home again, and if he do: yet for the distance, he shall not find the way to come, as a sheep, if he be carried but a little way from the flock, that he went in, he will make great shift to return to it again: if he be carried far of, he neither desireth neither for his simplicity can find the way to return, therefore the Adversary (I say) contenteth not himself to bring the simple a little out of the way from the faith into one only error or heresy: but he will carry and The Adversary leadeth the simple into many errors that holden by them he shall not find the way home again. lead him a great way out of the right way, by many steps, and many passes, that is into many errors and heresies. For seldom hath it been seen, that the Devil bringeth a man into one only heresy, but into diverse, wherewith that common enemy oftentimes will so delight him, that he shall have no desire to return home again, or else through plain simplicity, not perceiving the falsehood of heresy, or by malice blinded, he shall be as it were plainly ignorant, not able to find the way to return: but so shall remain in a strange place, and then (which is the worst of all) he shall think himself at home, when he is farthest of. Therefore, I say, seeing the Adversary hath so much falsehood to bring men to such great blindness, in to so great calamity and misery of their souls, it is our part to seek all the help of truth to reduce them that be strayed, and to stay them that be at home, that they perish not in that lamentable danger, neither suffer them to come to it. Wherefore although this truth of our natural, and corporal communion with christ be already sufficiently proved, and testified: yet that the reader shall perceive that it is not a doubtful matter, and testified of a few, but a certain matter of assured truth, and generally received, and testified of many: we shall go forward in producing of more, and of these Damascen shall be the first, who saith thus. Quia ex uno pane participamus omnes, unum corpus Christi, & unus sanguis, & invicem Damascen. li. 4. ca 14. membra efficimur, concorporati Christo existentes. Omni igitur virtute obseruemus, ne participemus participatione haereticorum, neque tribuamus. Nolite enim sancta dare canibus, inquit Dominus noster, neque seminare margaritas vestras ante porcos, ut non participes erroris, & malae fidei eorum efficiamur, atque condemnationis. Si enim omnino unio est ad Christum, & ad invicem: omnino & omnibus comparticipantibus nobis secundùm electionem unimur. Nam ex electione unio ipsa fit, non sine nostra sententia, ac deliberatione. Omnes enim unum corpus sumus, quoniam ex uno pane participamus, etc. Because we do all partake of one bread, we are made one body of christ, and one blood, and members one of an other, being concorporated unto christ. Let us therefore observe with all our power, that we partake not with the partaking of heretics, neither that we give unto them. For our Lord saith give not the holy things to dogs, neither sow precious stones before hogs, that we be not partakers their error, and evil faith and condemnation. For if the union be wholly to christ, and wholly one to an other, we be also united to all that after our election be comparteners with us. For that union is done by election, not without our sentence and deliberation. For we all are one body, because we partake of one bread, as the Apostle of God saith: Thus far Damascen. Although occasion be here given to note many things: yet for that I will not trouble the reader with more notes than be necessarily appertinent: I will here make but only two notes. The first is that this author, according to the text of saint Paul's epistle, saith: that because we partake of one bread, we are one body of christ. Wherein the Adversary still is impugned. For although this author with all good catholic men confesseth, that we be united to christ by faith: yet with them also he affirmeth that we be nevertheless united to christ by a corporal union, for that we do partake his very body and blood. Which he noteth when he saith that we be concorporated unto christ. Which concorporation he doth not attribute to faith, but to the partaking of that one bread, although by faith we are spiritually united to christ. Of which concorporations, this author maketh a plain distinction in an Damascen. li. 4. ca 13. other place saying: Non simpliciter, & fortuito ad orientem adoramus, sed quia ex visibili, & invisibili, id est, intellectuali & sensibili constati sumus natura, duplicem adorationem conditori nostro offerimus, ut & mente psallimus, & corporalibus labiis: & baptizamur aqua & Spiritu: & dupliciter Domino unimur, mysteriis participantes, & gratia spiritus. We are united to our Lord two ways. Not simply, and by chance we do adore unto the east: But because we are made of a visible and invisible, that is to say, of an intellectual and sensible nature, we offer unto our maker a double adoration, as we do both with mind and corporal lips sing: and are baptized both with water and spirit: and to manner of ways we are united unto our Lord, partaking of the mysteries, and by the grace of the spirit. Thus Damascen. Do ye not see that we are two ways united to our Lord? Are we not united to him by the participation of the mysteries (which mysteries be the Sacraments of Christ'S body and Christ'S blood) and by the grace of the spritte? This doth this author plainly teach. Wherefore consider his ground, that we be made of a visible and invisible nature and should therefore by both these parts honour God. And so by means convenient both these parts should be united to God, the invisible part by grace of the holy Ghost, as by faith and charity: the visible part by that that is of like nature, that is by the body and blood of christ. In. 6. joan. ca 14. For as S. cyril saith: Oportuit enim certè, ut non solùm anima per spiritum sanctum in beatam vitam ascenderet, verumetiam ut rude, atque terrestre hoc corpus cognato, sibi gustu, tactu, & cibo ad immortalitatem reduceretur. Truly it behoved, that not only the soul by the holy Ghost should ascend into the blessed life: But that also this rude and earthly body with a taste, touching, and meat of his nature, should be reduced to immortality. Thus S. cyril. As both the visible, and invisible, the mortal and immortal parts of man Both body and soul of man relieved by Christ, and how it is doen. had need of relief, and both these most conveniently might be relieved by his like in nature, therefore christ, having the likes of these two in his person, that is to say, the immortal nature of the Godhead and the mortal nature of man (which mortal nature being still the same nature, was changed in his condition, and by the immortal Godhead was made also immortal) was by these two his parts able to amend the imperfection of our two parts. For where the soul had infirmity by sin, he was able as God to say: Remittuntur tibi peccata tua. Thy sins be forgiven thee. By this part where the soul was spoiled of spiritual gifts, and impoverished for lack of the same, he was able to enrich her, and adorn her, with the first and chiefest gifts, as with faith, hope, and charity. As touching our other part, it received great and singular benefits by the like part of christ, I mean by his body. For by his body be cured many diseases, he raised the dead, and wrought great wonders, by his body now immortal he maketh our mortal bodies duly receiving the same, to In 6. joon ca 14. come, at the time by him assigned, to immortality, as S. cyril saith: Non verbo solùm, sed & tactu mortuos excitabat, ut ostenderet corpus quoque suum vivificare posse. Quod si solo tactu suo corrupta redintegrantur, quomodò non vivemus, qui carnem illam & gustamus, & manducamus? Reformabit enim omnino ad immortalitatem suam, participes sui. Ne velis iudaicé (quomodò) quaerere, sed recordare quamuis aequa naturaliter frigidor sit: adventu tamen ignis frigiditatis suae oblita aestuat. He did not by his word only always raise the dead: but also with his touching, that he might declare that his body also was able to quicken or give life If then by his only touching the corrupted things are restored: how shall not we live which do taste and eat that flesh? He shall wholly reform to his immortality, soche as be partakers of him. Neither ask though jueshlie (how) but remember that although the water be naturally cold, yet by the coming to of fire, forgetting her coldness it waxeth hot. Thus S. cyril. So then according as Damasen said, as to our duty it appertaineth to honour God with the two parts of our compounded body, both spiritually, and corporally: So God of his mercy helpeth both these parts, giving to each of them gifts uniting us spiritually to him by faith and charity, and corporally by his body and blood received in the Sacrament, By the which (as S. cyril hath said) he will reform this mortal body of our to his immortality. Therefore, Reader, look to thy self, and be not seduced with the heresy of the Adversary. Weigh well the sainges of the holy and ancient Fathers, and for lack of faith lose not these goodly gifts of excellency, It is an excellent thing to be ioned to God and christ, and to be as one with him. Which thou shalt be if thou have a perfect faith, and so receive that blessed body of christ. But it is time that I show the second note in the saying of Damascen. The Communion aught not to be had with heretics. second note is his admonition that we beware with all diligence that we do not communicate with heretics. neither ministre the Sacrament unto them, For if we do we partake of their evil faith and condemnation. This admonition, as it is good: so is it necessary to be kept. For it is agreeable to the scriptures. For as this place of S. Paul to the Corinthians, doth forbid them, that they should not be partakers with Idolaters in their Idolathites, for than they should enter into fellowship with devels: so doth it forbid us to be partakers with heretics. For if we do we enter into fellowship with them, we seem to consent to their wicked heresy, and so to be 2 joan. partakers of the same, wherefore S. john gave streict charge, saying: Si quis venit ad vos, & hanc doctrinam non adfert, nolite eum recipere in domum, nec ave ei dixeritis: If any man come unto you, and bring not this learning, receive him not to house, neither bid him God speed. So far wide was it from the mind of the Apostle that we should entre into the house of God with heretics, and their to join with them in the partaking of sacraments, that he would that we should not receive them into our house, neither as much as to bid them God speed. And showing the cause of this his commandment saith: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deed: And to the intent this his admonition should be the better regarded, and the danger of the breach thereof well known to them, and feared, he concludeth thus: Behold I have told you before, that ye should not be ashamed in the day of our Lord., In this saying of S. john it is easy to perceive that it is dangerous to join with heretics, and specially in the communion of sacracmentes. For if we do, we shall be confounded in the day of our Lord. If S. Paul did earnestly require the Thessalonians and that in the name of our Lord jesus christ, they should with draw themselves from every brother that did walk inordinately, and not after the tradition which 2 Tessalon 3. they had received, should we not withdraw ourselves from them, which do not only walk inordinately but do with all that in them lieth labour to subvert the whole order of Christ'S Church, and with all violence and blasphemy impugn not only the traditions which they have received, but the Sacraments and mysteries of the true religion, and the whole faith of christ? S. Paul willeth that with fornicators, adulterers, dronkers, and idolaters we should not asmoch'as eat meat. Therefore with the other it is without 1 Cor. 5. doubt, that we should have no fellowship, nor meddle with them, and specially in the communion of sacraments. And as it is not lawful for the true Christian to communicate with them in the sacraments of the catholic Church: no more is it lawful for him to communitate with any in the new forged sacraments of the congregation of heretics, for like peril ensueth upon both. But let not the reader take me that I mien that they, which ignorantly Heretics how, they must be avoided. not knowing them to be such, incur any such danger, if they communicate with them: But I mien of them who knowing such to be heretics, will yet communicate with them. They undoubtedly incur the danger. For when they be known to be such and will not be reform, S. Paul willeth them to be avoided. Haereticum hominem post unam & alteram admonitionem devita, sciens quia subversus est, qui eiusmodi est, & delinquit, cùm sit proprio indicio condemnatus. A man that is an Heretic after the first and second admonition Tit. 3. avoid, knowing that he who is such is perverted, and sinneth even damned by his own judgement. According to this rule the people knowing Macedonius to be a, notable Eccl. hist. tripar. li. 4. ca 39 & li. 5. ca 30 heretic did both men and women so avoid him, that they would not, although enforced with great and cruel torments, once communicate with him, as in the Tripartite history it is more at large declared. In the primitive Church this matter was so straightly observed, that by the Canons of the Apostles is was ordained, that bishop, priest or Deacon, Can. 45. which did but only pray with heretics, should be put from the communion. if they suffered them to do any thing as clerks, they should for their such permission be deprived from their office. Although there be many histories declaring this avoiding of the communion of heretics to have been much practised: yet I omit them, for that this may suffice to be spoken as but by occasion of the note of the words of Damascen, which although breiflie, yet with dumb silence I could not overpass it, perceiving the note to be very necessary for this time. In. 10. 1. Cor. And now here shall be place for Haymo, whom I have thought good to joing with Damascen because his sentence is but short, and yet doth plainly express the mind of S. Paul. Thus he saith, Divinitas Verbi, quae implet coelum & terram, & omnia quae in eyes sunt, ipsareplet corpus Christi, quod à multis sacerdotibus per universum orbem sanctificatur, & facit unum corpus Christi esse. Et sicut ille panis et sanguis in corpus Christi transeunt: ita omnes, qui in Ecclesia dignè comedunt illum, unum The God head silleth the body of christ, which is sanctified of the priest. corpus Christi sunt, sicut & ipse dicit: Qui manducat carnem meam, & bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet, & ego in eo. The Godhead of the Son which filleth heaven and earth and all that in them is, that same filleth the body of christ, the which is sanctified of many priests, throughout all the world, and maketh one body of christ to be. And as that bread and blood do pass into the body of christ: even so all that in the Church do worthily eat it, they are one body, as he himself saith: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and ●…n him. Thus moche Haymo. Do ye not in these few lines see these two things, that is, that in the Sacrament is the very body of christ and his very blood: and also that all The excellency of the blessed Sacrament. they which do worthily receive the same, that they are one body of christ? As concerning the first, it is worthy of note to see how he doth settfurth the excellency of the Sacrament, which I wish the reader more diligently to observe, that the wickedness of the Angels of Satan may be the better perceived. Behold how little so ever they esteem it, or how barely so ever they term it: yet this author saith, that the Godhead of the Son of God doth fill the body of christ that is sanctified of the priests through out all the world. So that he doth not take it for a bare piece of bread, neither for the body of christ in consideration of his humanity only, but as the body of christ united to the Godhead in unity of person, and so of christ perfectly God and man. And this is the excellency of the Sacrament in deed, how barely soever they set it forth. And if they will reject this author so saying, by cause he was (as some account) Haymo his doctrine conferred with the elder fathers. within the compass of these thousand years: In deed if he were not a full thousand years agone, he is very near. But who giveth this wicked generation authority to reject him now at their pleasure, whom the church hath so long approved and received? And what saith he that the holy elders before a thousand years say not? As touching that he saith, that God is in the Sacrament what is he of the elders that treateth of this mystery and saith it not? In deci. 1. Cor. homil. 24. Among other chrysostom most plainly doth say it even upon this chapter, in this manner: Absterge ab omni sorde animam tuam. Praepara mentem tuam ad horum mysteriorum perceptionem, Etenim si puer regius purpura & diademate ornatus tibi ferendus traderetur, nun omnibus humi abiectis eum susciperes? Verùm nunc cùm non hominis regium puerum, sed unigenitum Dei filium accipias, Dic queso, no horrescis? & The only be gotten Son of God is received in the B. Sacr. omnium secularium rerum amorem abiicis? Make clean thy soul from all filthiness, prepare thy mind to the receipt of these mysteries. For if the kings child decked with purple and diadem were delivered to thee to be born, wouldest not though, all other things cast down on the ground, receive him? But now when thou takest not the child of a king a man, but the only begotten Son of God, tell me, I pray thee, art though not afeard? and casts away the love of all worldly things? In this sentence chrysostom being in exhortation that men should prepare themselves worthily to receive the blessed Sacrament, doth he not by plain words tell them, that they receive the only begotten Son of God? S. cyril also saith: Qui Christi carnem manducat, vitam habet aeternam. Habet enim haec caro Dei Verbum quod naturaliter vita est. He that eateth the flesh of cap. 15. in 6. Joan. The flesh of christ in the Sacr. hath the Son of God joined to it christ, hath everlasting life. For this flesh hath the Son of God, which is life naturally. As the sentences of these two Fathers be, that the Sacrament containeth and hath the body of christ, and the Godhead also, and so very christ God and man: so is the concord sentence of all the rest of the holy ancient fathers. But to show that Haymo is agreeable to the catholic and ancient faith, these two may suffice. Now it were a marvelous kind or manner of teaching, if these fathers meant, that in the Sacrament were no presence, but that it is a bare sign or figure, that they would teach that it is the very only begotten Son of God, as Chrysostom doth. And that it is the flesh of God, that hath the Godhead joined to it (as S. cyril saieh) and never as much as once to teach that it is not christ in deed, or only a figure of him. Can any man whose head and judgement the mad spirit hath not infected and corrupted, think, that these being reputed holy, virtuous, and larned men would always by these terms so have taught, and the truth to be clear, the contrary by the negative? would they always have said: it is the body of God, it is the body of christ, it is his flesh, it is his blood: if the truth were by the negative, as the Adversary saith, that it is not so? Would they have said it is so, if the truth were to say, it is not so? It is not to be thought in them. For all their travail was to plant God's truth in the hearts of people, and to root out error and heresy. wherefore (as is said) observe how this author setteth forth the excellency of the Sacrament, which is done agreeably to the sentence of the Fathers, and therefore repute though it such a thing, as of such men it is commended unto thee, and not as by these inventors of mischief it is discommended to thee. This thing being thus manifested to thee (Reader) the other note (which is, that all that do woourthily receive the Sacrament be one body of christ) can not be obscure. For as christ taking upon him our flesh and our blood, is one with us: so we again receiving his flesh and his blood worthily; are one with him. And now of the expositions of these two upon this text, this may suffice. THE SIX AND twentieth CHAP. proceedeth upon the same text by S. cyril, and S. Thomas. THough the plenty of testimonies may, and (as I am sure) doth offend the Adversary, (for the more testimony against him, the more confusion) yet I doubt it not, but on the other side it doth aswell delight and also comforth the catholic Christian. Therefore we shall not refuse to hear S. cyril, how he understandeth S. Paul in this text. In diverse places he maketh mention of this text, very plainly declaring how he understandeth it, but most plainly upon the xvii. chapter of S. john where he saith thus: Cùm trinitas unum natura sit, consideremus quomodò etiam nos ipsi inter nos corporaliter, & cum Deo spiritualiter Cyril. in 17 joan. unum sumus. Ex Dei patris substantia, unigenitus prodiens, & totum in sua natura genitorem possidens, carofactus secundùm scripturam est, seue ipsum naturae nostrae, ineffabiliter coniunxit atque univit. Qui enim natura Deus est, verè homo factus est: non Theophorus, id est, Deum in se per gratiam habens, ut mysterii vim ignorantes contendunt, sed verus deus simul & homo est. Sic quae inter se plurimum distant secundùm naturam in uno seipso coniunxit, & naturae divinae nos participes effecit. Communicatio enim Spiritus & (ut ita dicam) mansio, primum in Christo fuit, & ab eo in nos penetravit, cùm homo factus, ipse templum suum proprio spiritu perunxit, atque sanctificavit. Origo ergo & via qua Spiritu sancto participamus, & Deo uniti sumus, Christi misterium est. Omnes enim in illo sanctificamur. igitur inter nos & Deum, singulos uniret, quamuis corpore simul & anima distemus, modum tamen adinuenit consilio Patris, & sapientiae suae congruentem. Suo enim corpore credentes per Communionem mysticam benedicens, & secum, & inter nos, unum corpus effecit. Quis eos qui unius sancti corporis unionem in uno Christo uni tisunt, ab hac naturali unione alienos putabit? Nam si omnes unum panem manducamus, unum omnes corpus efficimur: Dividi enim, atque seiungi Christus non patitur. idcirco etiam Ecclesia corpus Christi facta est, & nos singuli membra Christi, secundùm Paulum, uni enim Christo per corpus suum coniuncti, quoniam in nobis illum, qui est indivisibilis, accepimus, ipsi potius, quam nobis membra nostra accommodantur. forasmuch as the Trinity in nature is one, let us consider how we ourselves among ourselves corporally, and with God spiritually are one. The only begotten coming out of the substance of God the Father, and possessing in his nature, the whole Father according to the scriptures, was made flesh, and unspeakably conjoined and united himself to our nature. He that in nature is God, is verily made man, not having God in him by grace (as they that know not the power or virtue of the mystery do contend) but he is very God, and also very man. So he hath conjoined things together in himself being one, which in nature betwixt themselves, are very moche different, and hath made us partakers of the divine nature. The communication, and (as I might say) the dwelling of the spirit was first in christ, and from him hath comed into us, when he being made man, thoroughly anointed and sanctified his temple, with his own spirit. The original therefore, By the B. Sacrament christ maketh us one body in his body and among ourselves and the way by the which we participate the holy Ghost, and be united to God is the mystery of christ. For in him we are all sanctified. Therefore that he might unite every one betwixt our felfes and God, (all though both in body and soul we differ much) yet he found away agreeing to the counsel of the Father and his wisdom, for blessing the believers by the mystical communion, he hath made us in his body, one body both with himself, and also among ourselves. For who shall think them strange from this natural union, which by the union of one holy body are united in one christ. For if we do all eat one bread we are all made one body. For christ suffereth us, not to be disjoined, and divided. Therefore the church of is made the body of christ, and every one of us the members of christ, after S. Paul, being conjoined to one christ by his body, for that we have received him in us, who is indivisible, our members be raither appropriated to him then to us. Thus far S. cyril. Ye have heard the long saying of this worthy Father, and yet in my judgement, as pleasant and profitable, as it is long. For he hath made a full discourse of the union of us to God. For plain declaration whereof, this if you have marked may be perceived, that first he hath taught the unity of God the Son in nature with God the Father. secondarily, the union of the nature of God, and the nature of man, in the person of christ, which although they were so different and distant: yet he joined them together in himself in unity of person, when he became man. thirdly, the union of men senerall and distinct in persons, which although they be distant and different both in body and soul: yet he found away agreeing both to the counsel of the Father, and his own wisdom also, to unite them by the By receipt of the body of christ all worthy receivers are made one. union of his holy body in a natural union, and so they become one body. And to prove this he taketh this text of S. Paul, which is now in hand, saying. Nam si omnes unum panem manducamus, unum omnes corpus efficimur. For if we all eat of one bread, we are all made one. So that as he gave the cause of the unity of the Father and the Son in Godhead, which was for that they be one in nature. And as he showed the mean of the union of the natures of God and man, which was brought to pass by the mystery of the incarnation: So he taught the communion of us among ourselves, and with christ to be by that, that we all receive that his one body. And that there should be no invention added to pervert the truth of his intent and purpose, he saith: that we are all with his body by the mystical communion made one body. By which his saying it is most evidently to be perceived that he teacheth not only a communion by a bare sacrament, but a communion by the very body of christ in the sacrament. Which communion also is not a spiritual communion only, but a natural communion by the receipt of the natural body of christ, which he signifieth by plain words, when he saith: Quis enim cos, qui unius sancticorporis unione, in uno Christo uniti sunt, ab hac naturali unione alienos putabit? Who shall think them strange from this natural communion, which by the union of one holy body are united in one christ? I trust, I shall not need any more to note upon this allegation, but that by this it may well be perceived how he understandeth the text of S. Paul to be spoken of communion of Christ'S body and blood, by the which, besides the communion spiritual, which is by faith and charity, we communicate naturally with christ, by the receipt of his natural body in Communion and union both spiritual and natural by the B. Sa. the Sacrament. And that S. Paul meant that we do so communicate it appeareth most evidently by this holy father, who reasoning against one that said the contrary whose heresy the witnesses of iniquity, the new masters of our time, have nevely scoured, and set abroad as sale ware to the world, as they have a number more, did thus write: Verùm quoniam nulla nos ratione, humanitati Christi posse tribuere ista, arbitratur, quoniam fide ac dilectione non carne, illi conivagimur: cyril. in 15 joan. ca 6. Age pauca de hoc dicamus, ac perversè ab eo sacrarum litterarum sensum exponi ostendamus. Non tamen negamus nos recta fide, charitateue sincera Christo spiritualiter coniungi: sed nullam nobis coniunctionis rationem secundùm carnem cum illo esse, id profectò pernegamus, idue à divinis scripturis omnino alienum esse dicimus. Quis enim dubitavit Christum etiam sic vitem esse, nos verò palmites, qui vitam inde nobis acquirimus? Audi Paulum dicentem, quia omnes unum corpus sumus in Christo: Quia & si multi sumus, unum tamen sumus in eo. Omnes enim uno pane participamus, But sorasmoche as he supposeth that we by no means can apply this to the humanity of christ, for that we are conjoined to him by faith and charity, and not by flesh. Go to, let us say a few words of this matter, and let Conjunction of us to Chrysse by faith and charity spiritually, by his flesh naturally both avouched. us show the sense of the holy scriptures perversely to be expounded of him. Yet for all that we deny not that we be joined spiritually to christ by right faith and sincere charity, but that we have no manner of conjunction with him after the flesh, that truly, we utterly deny, and we say that to be altogether contrary to the divine scriptures. For who hath doubted christ also so to be the vine, and we the branches, which from thence get life unto us? Hear Paul saying, that we all are one body in christ, for alltho we be many: yet we are one in him. For we do all partake of one bread. Do ye not here see that S. cyril bringeth in this text of S. Paul, to prove that we have not only a communion spiritual with christ, but also a communion after the flesh? What plainer exposition can be desired for the understanding of the scripture, than that sense in the which it is alleged in argument to convince an heresy? And if saint cyril did judge him per●erslie to expound the scriptures that said, that we had no corporal The Proclaimer and his fellows setforth that for a truth now, which S. cyril reputed an heresy. communion with christ, but only spiritual, what shall we say of the fautors of the like untruth? Shall we not say, that they also perversely, expownde the scriptures? And shall we not worthily repute them as corrupters of Gods truth, and deceivers of his people, which settfurth that to them for a truth which was so many hundreth years agone reproved as a falsehood, and so of all catholics, and good christians holden and esteemed? no doubt but God will so declare it, when it shall please him to take his time to overthrow their building. Endure it can not. For they have builded upon the sands, and not upon the rock. In the mean time let them bluster out their stinking doctrine, as it shall please God to suffer them, for the punishment of our sins, for the trial of the constancy of his faithful, and for the excercise of their patience, to the honour and glory of God. But veritas vincet. The truth shall overcome, and veritas Domini manet in aternum. The truth of our Lord abideth for ever. It may be impugned, but overthrown it can not be. What the truth is in this matter, I trust it may easily be perceived, and yet there lack no witnesses for the better declaration of the same. S. Thomas a man approved as learned and holy of all the church, hath travailed in the exposition of the scriptures, and that not without his immortal laud and praise. He is a worthy witness in this matter. And for the fuller understanding of him, we will hear his exposition on both the texts jointly as they lie one depending of the other. Thus he saith: Et panis quem frangimus, id est, sumptio panis fracti in altari noun participatio corporis Domini est? faciens no● unum cum Christo? quia sub specie panis, sumitur corpus S. Thomas Aqui. in deci. 1. cor. Christi. Deinde cum dicit: Quoniam unus panis, etc. ostendit quod omnes sumus unum in corpore eius mystico, & tangit duplicem unitatem: primam incorporationis, qua in Christum transformamur, aliam vitae & sensus, quam à Christo capite accipimus, quasi diceret: Per hoc patet quod ununi sumus cum Christo, quoniam unus panis unione fidei, spei, & charitatis, & unum corpus multi sumus, per subministrationem operum charitatis: Corpus seilicet illius capitis, qui est Christus. Multi dico: scilicet omnes qui de uno pane, id est, corpore Christi, & uno chalice, id est, sanguine participamus, digna participatione scilicet spirituali, non tantùm sacramentali. And the bread which we break, that is to say, the receiving of the bread broken on the altar, is it not a partaking of the body of our Lord Under the form of bread is received the body of our Lord. making us one with christ? For under the form of bread is received the body of christ. Then when he saith: For we are one bread, etc. he showeth that we are all one in his mystical body, and he toucheth a double unity: The first is the unity of incorporation, by the which we are transformed into christ. The other is of life, and feeling, which we take of christ our head. As who might say, by this it is manifest that we are one with christ. For we being many are one bread, by the union of faith hope, and charity: And one body by the subministration of the works of charity, that is to say: the body of that head, which is christ. I say, many, that is to say, all we that do partake of one bread, that is to say, of the body of christ, and one cup, that is to say of the blood of christ, with a worthy participation, not only sacramental, but also spiritual. Thus much S. Thomas. In whose exposition we find nothing dissonant from the elders, but in all consonant. The elders before alleged have expounded the bread and the cup which we partake of, to be the body and blood of christ: so doth S. Thomas his doctrine consonant to the elders. this S. Thomas. They have taught that S. Paul's mindeys, that by that participation we are made one body with christ: and the like teacheth he also. Thus as God is the God of peace and concord: so in his house is agreement and consent, in the substantial points of our faith and religion: And this is a truth hitherto constantly, as it were, with one mouth taught that the bread broken in the altar or table of christ, is his body, and all we worthily receiving it, are by the same incorporated to christ and made one body with him. Wherefore, we shall now leave these, and hear other. THE SEVEN AND TVENTETH CHAPTER proceedeth upon the same text by Euthym. and Hugo. AS God hath builded his church upon a Mount to be seen of all men: so hath he caused his truth to be professed of many, that it might be known to all men. He sent his Apostles into all the world to preach the Gospel to every creature. He hath appointed learned men in every part of the world to give the true understanding of the same to every creature. Praised therefore be his holy name, that where now Satan hath sent his wicked ministers to corrupt the truth of the Gospel, and to lead us from the true understanding of the same, our merciful Lord God hath providently before provided such teachers, by whom we may not only see the falsehood of the wicked: but also have sufficient knowledge and testimony to rebuke, detect, and convince their untruth, and their devilish setting forth of the same, and to keep us in in the right way that we err not with them, if we will give ear to good and wholesome doctrine. And therefore seeing God hath sent such plenty of good authors it were pity, but that they should be brought forth, whereby God in his truth may glorified, and his people in the same edified. Of all these that remain first cometh to hand the learned Graecian Euthymius, who without all dark manner of speech openeth to us the true understanding Euth. in 26 Matth. of S. Paul's saying. Thus he writeth: Quemadmodum panis confortat: ita & Christi corpus hoc facit, ac magis etiarn, corpus & animam sanctificat. Et sicut vinum taetificat: ita & sanguis Christi hoc facit, & insuper praesidium efficitur. Quodsi de uno corpore & sanguine omnes fideles participamus, omnes unum sumus per ipsam horum Flesh united to the Son of God by assumption, the same united to us by participation. mist eriorum participationem & in Christo omnes, & Christus in omnibus. Qui edit (inquit) meam carnem, & bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet, & ego in eo. Verbum siquidem per assumptionem carni unitum est, baec rursus caro unitur nobis per participationem. As bread doth comfort, so doth the body of christ also this, and more, it sanctifieth both body and soul. And as wine doth make glad: Even so the blood of christ doth this also, and moreover it is made a defence. And if all the faithful do partake of one body and blood, we are all one by the same participation of the mysteries. For all be in christ, and christ in all, he that eateth (saith he) my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. For truly the Son of God is united to the flesh by assumption. This flesh again is united to us by participation. Thus Euthym. I need not (as to me it seemeth) to say any thing to the opening of this authors mind. For he is both plain in himself, and also plainly doth open the mind of saint Paul unto us. Whose sentence he setteth forth in the plain terms, and leaveth the tropes. For where saint Paul saith, that we that eat of one bread, and drink of one cup are one body. He saith that we that partake of one body and blood are made one. So that where the text calleth Bread and cup in S. Paul mean the body and blood, etc. it bread: the expositor calleth it the body, and what the text calleth the cup, that this author calleth the blood. Wherefore the true meaning must be taken, as the expositor doth expound it. For so much then as the expositor doth expound the bread and the cup, calling them the body and the blood: it can not be avoided but that it is so, except the Adversary will say that the text expoundeth the exposition. For unto that sense that he would wrest all the authors unto, the text is more nearer than the exposition. The adversary would have it bread, and the text calleth it bread. The Adversary would not have it the body of christ: but this author saith it is the body of christ. Wherefore to the sense of the Adversary the text is more clear than the exposition. And so it cometh to pass (as before is said) that the text expoundeth the exposition, which is after the manner of other of their doings. For they turn the cat in the pan, and make light darkness, and darkness light. But thou, Reader, be though sure that christ who hath promised his holy spirit to his Church, which is the pillar of the truth, hath not left it contrary to his promiss destitute of this guide of truth these thousand years, but it was that Spirit, that did lead the mind and the pen of these holy Fathers to understand and perceive the true sense of the scriptures, and so to write it to us. God hath left unto us bread, even the holy scripture to feed us withal: but as he bid his Apostles to break the bread, that he had joan. 6. Bread of the word of God how it is broken. blessed for the siue thousand people: so by his ministers in the church he hath commanded the bread of the scripture to be broken to the people, and what is it to break it but to expound it. And why should they expound it, if their were not places to be opened, and cleared by exposition? And therefore I say these holy fathers, being appointed to break this bread of the word of God unto us, there is no doubt but as they had learned of the master of truth, so they broke it truly unto us, and have given us the true understanding of it. And therefore the bread, and the cup expounded by so many to be the body and blood of christ, it must needs be true that by so many, and so many years hath with concord and consent, without contradiction, been preached, taught, and written. This also is not to be overpassed, that this Author leaveth it not untaught how we are made all one in christ, because (saith he) we do all partake of one body and blood, we are all made one by the participation of the mysteries. So that although he well knew that we are all made one in christ by faith and charity: yet he also saith, that we are made one by the participation of the mysteries. And that it should most manifestly, well be be perceived what manner of union this is, of the which he speaketh here, when he had alleged the saying of christ: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I him: meaning thereby to prove this union, he by most plain words openeth the same, saying. The Son of God is united to the flesh by assumption: this flesh again is united to us by participation, whereby it is very manifest that we are united to christ by the union of his flesh. For that flesh unto the which the Son of God was united, that same is united to us. christ was united to us by his incarnation, we be united to him by participation etc. So that, as christ was united to us by taking of our flesh in his incarnation, and so was made one with us: In like manner, we are united to him by the taking of his flesh in the Sacrament, and are thereby made one with him. Wherefore note that he saith not, that we are in the receipt of the Sacrament united to christ by faith, but by participation of his flesh. And yet this author was not ignorant, that we are also united to christ by faith. But minding to open the peculiar commodity of this mystery he teacheth that by flesh we are united to christ. Consider therefore, Reader, that where the Adversary travaileth to obscure and hide the benefits of God which he giveth to the worthy receivers of his blessed and honourable Sacrament: we on the other side labour to open and declare them unto thee, that thou mayst according to thy duty more reverently prepare thee to the receipt of them, and also more thankfully accept them. For we teach thee by the authority of these scriptures and holy fathers alleged, that if worthily receiving the Sacrament dost not only enjoy the union unto christ by faith (which only union the Adversary teacheth) but also the union by the flesh of christ, by the which thou art verily united to him, being now of his flesh, as he by his incarnation is of thy flesh, as this author hath said. These two points then, I trust, be made clear, that in the Sacrament is The natural flesh of christ in the B. Sac. couseth natural unity of us to christ. the very substantial and natural body of christ, and that the worthy receivers of it are united and incorporated to christ, spiritually by faith: and also naturally by the flesh of christ. Which conjunction is taught of saint cyril to be so necessary, that he thinketh that our mortal body could not attain to immortality if it should not be so joined to this living and immortal flesh of christ. Non poterat aliter corruptibilis haec natura corporis ad incorruptibilitatem & vitam traduci, nisi naturalis vitae corpus ei coniungeretur. This corruptible nature, of the body (saith he) could not otherwise be brought to incorruptibility and life, except the body of natural cyril. 15. cao. in 6. joac. life should be joined to it. And (saith he) if thou believest not me saying these things, I beseech thee believe christ, saying: verily I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you. Whether that saint cyril here speaketh of this natural conjunction of the natural body of christ, to our natural and corruptible body it is more manifest than it needeth either probation or declaration. As for Euthymius if the Adversary would wrest him, and corrupt him, it can not be suffered. For where he speaketh these words here alleged, within a very few lines before he speaketh of the transmutation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of christ, and therewith expounding the words of christ: This is my body: denieth by express words, any figure to be in these words of christ. Wherefore as he is a stout avoucher of the truth of the catholic Church, and a mighty vanquisher of the Adversary, so can not he by any engine be drawn from his assertion. But the Adversary may wax red for shame, when he shall see so manifest testimony against him, that he can not once open his mouth to avoid it. And now that this Graecian hath so notably testified the truth, and opened the very true faith of Christ'S Parliament house, what it was in his time, and before: Behold here cometh one of the latin church, being of these later days, which, to try concord and consent in faith to be in both their sides, and in both their times and ages, showeth what was professed throughout the latin church in his time, who in the exposition of this text of S. Paul saith thus: Dico quod unum sumus cum Christo, per sumptionem sacramenti Eucharistiae, Quoniam omnes quidem participamus, id est, participes efficimur, vel quoad speciem, vel quoad effectus commumonem. unde benè dicit participamus, propter divisionem, quae fit aliquando in specie panis, vel propter effectus diversos, quos habent ipsi sumentes. Altam enim gratiam recipit ille, aliam ille sumendo dignè Sacramentum illud. Qui de uno pane, id est, de corpore Christi & de uno chalice, id est, de sanguine Christi, licet multi sumus participamus. Non dicit omnes, quia non omnes, qui sumunt hoc sacramentum effectum Hugo Card in Dec. 1. Cor. illius recipiunt, & ideo non sunt unus panis, quo reficiatur Dominus, nec unum corpus cum Christo. Licet (inquam) multi, tamen sumus unus panis per unionem fidei, spei, & charitatis. Quae unto initiatur in fide, & consummatur in charitate. Et unum illius capitis, quod est Christus. I say that we are one with christ by the receipt of the Sacrament of the altar. For we do all partake, that is to say, we are made partakers, either as touching the form or else as touching the effect of the communion. Wherefore he saith well, that we partake, for the division All we partake of one bread. that is the body of christ and of one cup that is the blood of Chryst. which is done sometime in the form of bread, or else for diverse effects which the receivers have. For he receiveth one grace, and he another, receiving the Sacrament worthily, which although we be many, do partake of one bread, that is to say, of the body of christ, and of one cup, that is, of the blood of christ. He doth not say, all, for all that do receive this Sacrament do not receive the effect of it. And therefore they be not one bread, with the which our Lord may be fed, neither one body with christ. Although (I say) we be many: yet we are one bread by the the union of faith, hope and charity, which union is begun by faith, and is consummated by charity, and we are one body of that head which is christ. In this author as in the rest before alleged hour two chief points, which are here sought, are plainly taught. For he doth both teach the presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament: and also that by the receipt of that body, we are made one with christ. As touching the first, as the other author last before alleged, expounded these words (The bread, and the cup) to be the body and blood of christ: so this author likewise expoundeth the bread and the cup to be the body and Blood of christ: Wherefore betwixt them is goodly consent, such as although they were so far distant in time and place: yet in this they be not a finger breadeth a sondre, but even jointly together. I need therefore no more to travail in this, the matter is clear in it self. The other point is likewise as plainly settfurth to us. For in the first entry he saith, that by the receipt of the Sacrament, we are made one with Christ, if by the Sacrament, than not by faith only: if by the Sacrament, not by bare bread. For only bread can not make all christians, wheresoever they be abiding, to be one with christ, and among themselves. And the Adversary himself saith that bread hath no such power. And all christians can not be made one, but by that that is one thing to us all, of the which all we be partakers. And in the Sacrament can nothing be imagined to be one to all the Christian church, of the which all they can be parkers, but the body of christ. Wherefore in the Sacrament is the body of christ of the which all christians receiving worthily be (as this author saith) made one in christ. In this union we are not only one bread: but also, by S. Paul, one body. Which distinction of union, this author seemeth to refer or apply to the several unions before treacted of: as to the union spiritual by faith, and to the union natural of us to the natural body of christ. As touching the first, he saith, that although we be many: yet we are all one bread, by the union of faith, hope and charity. As for the second, he saith that we are one body of that head, which is christ. The fitst is mere spiritual, and is and may be done without the Sacrament, although not so certainly, nor so perfectly. For Dionysius Areopagita saith: this Sacrament is omnium sacramentorum consummatissimum, of all Sacraments it is most consummate, both for that it is Dionys. Areop. Eccle. Hielar. 1. part. ca 3. so perfect in it self, and also for that it perfecteth all other Sacraments, as the same Dyonise also more at large saith: Dicimus ergo caetera sacrarum rerum signa, quorum nobis societas indulgetur, huius divinis profectò, consummantibusue muneribus perfici. Neque enim fermè fas est saccrdotalis muneris mysterium aliquod peragi nisi divinum istud Eucharistiae augustissimumue sacramentum complete. We say therefore, that the other signs of holy things, the society of the which is given to us, to be perfected by these divine and consummating gifts. Neither is it lawful almost any mystery of the priestly office to be full done, except this divine Sacrament and most full of majesty do finish or perform it. Wherefore as by Chrysostom and other it may be perceived, in the primitive church they that were baptized, were brought from baptism to the receipt of the blessed Sacrament of Christ'S body as therbie to be perfected in christ, and certainly to be united to him both by faith, and also by his blessed body. Although then by faith we be spiritually united to christ without the Sacrament: yet (as it is said) we be not so certainly united, as when this noble Sacrament, which perfecteth other Sacraments cometh also, but spiritually united we be. Now as touching the second union, which this author speaketh of, it is not likewise mere corporal as the other is mere spiritual, but it is so corporal, as it is nevertheless spiritual. According as the body of christ is, which we receive, which although it be a very true and perfect body, Amb. de init. mist. cap. 9 yet it is spiritual, as S. Ambrose saith: Corpus enim Dei corpus est spiritale. Corpus Christi corpus est divini spiritus. The body of God, is a spiritual body. The body of christ is the body of the divine spirit. It is also spiritually received for that it is done only by the knowledge of faith, and not of any sense. Although the office of senses, and also of the body be required to the receipt thereof. So then as the body of christ is so corporal, as it is also spiritual, and the receipt of the same body so corporal, as it is nevertheless spiritual: Receipt of Christ'S body both corporal and spiritual. so also the union brought to effect by the same receipt, it is verily corporal, although withal it is spiritual. This union he signifieth unto us, when he saith that we be the body of that head which is christ. For as concerning the spiritual union, he said before, that we are all one bread, and therefore for the corporal union he saith that we be one body. For proof whereof that he so plainly meant, the allegation of S. Paul to the Ephesians declareth which he bringeth to open the true sense and meaning of S. Paul here. For (saith he) we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones▪ which words that they be understanded of our corporal union with christ, it is more manifestly declared by Iraeneus, then by the Adversary it can Li. 5. adverse. heres. be denied. Thus hitherto of so many ancient and learned authors, ye have heard no dissonant, but a consonant voice, all sounding one thing, that by the receipt of the blessed body of christ in the Sacrament we be united to christ, and made one with him. THE EIGHT AND twentieth CHAP. proceedeth upon the same text by Oecumenius, and Anselmus. I Read in the fourth book of the Kings, that the King of Syria, 4. Reg. 6. who was in war against the King of Israel, for so much as he understood that Eliseus the Prophet disclosed to the king of Israel the secret counsels, intentes, and purposes of the said King of Syria, that he sent an army of men to the city where the Prophet lay to take him. And when the servant of the Prophet went forth in the morning and saw so great a multitude with horses and chariots compassing the city round above, he cried, and said, Alas master, what shall we do? The Pprophete said unto him: Fear not, here be more with us them with them. And when the Prophet had prayed, the eyes of his seruaint were opened, and he saw the mowntain full of horses, and chariots of fire round about the Prophet. As the Prophet was thus strenghtned with so great a multitude, that his enemies were not able to prevail against him, though his servant knew it not, and therefore feared and cried: Even so the very prophet of God in the Church of christ, who hath given himself over to the service of God, that he is fully become the man of God, therefore is lightened and illumined with the wholesome knowledge of the catholic faith, whereby he seeth God and his holy will and pleasure, he doth well see that though the King of Syria hath now moved war against the King of Israel: that is, Satan against christ the King of very Israel, and his catholic kingdom his Church: and hath for the better expedition of his purpose sent an army to kake away the prophet and godly learned man, that he should not warn the people of Israel of the assault of Satan, which he intendeth to move by heresy, schism, division, and subversion of all good order in the Church of christ: He doth, I say, well see, that the proud and cruel king is not able to carry him away out of the kingdom of christ, into his kingdom. For he is compassed about with a most mighty army of the noble soldiers of God, all the holy catholic fathers, godly writers, and noble Martyrs, which stand by him mightily in the confession of Christ'S holy faith, which number being infinite, he may (as every learned catholic also may) unto the unlearned faithful man, the servant of God, say, Fear not, there be more with us, then with these enemies of Israel, with these Adversaries of Christ'S church. And for that these Adversaries when they knew the truth, would not abide in the truth: and when they knew God, would not glorify him as God, but they have vanished away in their own thoughts, and saying themselves to be wise, they are become very fools. So that as their likes the people of the host of Syria, were stricken with blindness: so, obscuratum est insipiens cor eorum. their Rom. 1. foolish heart is blinded. So that now blinder than Molls, they say, light is darkness, and darkness light. And thus being blind are contented to be carried in to the hands of their enemies, as the Syrians were. But God of his mercy work mercifully with them, that they perish not in the hands of their enemies in the end, but that it may please him, that they may be delivered by the charitable mean of the Prophet of God, by the ministery of the catholic preacher, and that for his persecucon they may sustain no other affliction, but that they may eat in the midst of the city, the bread of the Israelites, the bread of the true Christians the body of christ in the holy Sacrament, and so cease any more to persecute Israel, but to become one with them, in that sort, that Multitudinis credentium fiat cor unum, & anima una in Domino. Of the multude of them that believe, Acto 4. there be but one heart, and one soul. An end they shall have, for to continue God will not suffer them, and if their demerits so require (as now ours do to be afflicted with them) God will withhold that mercy from them, that they may not come to that end, which before I have desired for them: Oh Lord, how miserable then shall be the end? Wherefore, christian reader, be of good cheer, and fear not. For though they have worldly might and power on their side: yet they can not prevail against us. For there be more on our side, then on theirs. All the holy writers be with us, of which thou havest heard a good number, and yet thou shalt hear more, which shall not speak in dark manner, so as though mayst be doubtful what they mien, or how they be to be taken and understanded, if shalt hear them in so clear manner testify the truth, that it shall be easy to say,: this is their meening, and thus they are to be understanded. And for trial hereof, here is first the testimony of Oecomenius to be heard. Which is this upon the text of S. Paul now treacted of. unus panis, & unum corpus sumus. Nam ex uno pane omnes participamus. Ratiovem addit, quomodò corpus Christi efficiamur. Quid enim (inquit) est panis? corpus nempe Christi. Quid autem efficiciuntur Oecum. iudeci. 1 Cor. high, qui participant? Corpus sanè Christi. Nam participantes corpus Christi nos quoque illud efficimur. Quoniam unus panis est Christus. Ex multis namue gravis (ut exempli gratia loquamur) unus panis factus est, & nos multi, ex ipso uno participantes, efficimur Note how Oecum. followeth the words of Chrysostom before alleged, saying what is the bread, and answereth, the body of christ. unum corpus Christi: Quontam enim vetus nostra caro corrupta est sub peccato, opus nobis fuit nova carne. We are one bread, and one body, for we do all partake of one bread. He addeth a reason (saith Oecumenius) how we are made the body of christ. What (saith he) is the bread? Verily the body of Chryst. And what are they made that do partake? truly the body of christ. For we partaking the body of christ, are also made the same. For christ is one bread. for of many grains (As for example we maiespeake) one bread is made. and we being many partaking of that one, are made one body of christ, uless as our old flesh was corrupted under sin, we had need of a new flesh. Thus he. In my judgement I need not any thing upon this exposition to say, as whereby to make it clear or plain, for that it is so plain of it self: but yet in consideration that I writ not to the learned, but to help the unlearned, to whom nothing can be to plain, I will somewhat say, thereby at the least to ministre occasion to the reader, the better to note what this author doth say. S. Paul immediately before this text, had said: that the bread which we break is a communication of the body of our lord. by the which words (as also Chrysost. did note) S. Paul would teach, that near conjunction and union of us, to and with christ, which is no less then that we be made the body of christ. Then S. Paul proceeding to this text which we have now in hand, this author saith that where before he had said, that we be made the body of Christ, Herehe giveth a reason how we are made the body of christ. Among philosophers it is accounted unseemly to affirm any thing without a reason. the scripture also willeth us to be ready to give an answer to every one that asketh us a reason of that hope that is in us. So when S. Paul (as this author implieth) had taught, that we be made the body of christ, here he giveth a reason, how we be made the body of christ. And that this reason of S. Paul may the better appear unto us: the author first openeth the parts of it to us. For where S. Paul in his reason saith: that we do all eat of one bread: to open what that bread is, he asketh a question, saying: what is the bread? he solueth the question forthwith and saith: verily it is the body of christ. 1. Pet. Note this then, Reader, that the bread which S. Paul speaketh of here, is the body of christ. And note farther that he saith not it is a figurative body, but he saith it is the body of christ verily. whereby the adversaries signs and figures are cut of, and in this sentence of S. Paul there is no place for them. For if it be verily the body of christ, it is not figuratively his body. If the Adversary would seek some shift to help to hide and cover his falsehood and wickedness, and say that the bread, which this author asketh this question of, and solueth it to be the body of christ: is the congregation of the faith full, which he will grant to be the very body of christ mystical. This gloss will not serve him, but raither declare him to be The real body of christ partaken: the mystical body the partakers. a violent wrester of this author, as he is of many other more. For this author speaketh of the bread that is partaken and received, and not of us which do partake and receive it. For when he had declared the bread to be the body of christ, then immediately he asketh: what be they made that dopartake it? So that it is most manifest that he speaketh distinctly both of the bread that is partaken, Which bread is the body of christ, and that verily, and also of the partakers, who be made his mystical body thereby. See then, Reader, what a plain document this is, how mightily it confirmeth the catholic truth, and confuteth the Aduerscries heresy. Weigh it well, and thou shalt perceive good ground to stay thy self upon. Consider that the author is an ancient writer of the Greek church, and for that which he hath written, he was never by any godly writer impugned. No man hath inucighed against him, for his assertion of Christ'S presence Catholiqus fathers agree all in one. in the Sacrament. Oecolampadius, Zwynglius, Carolstadius, and that rabble, they have not only been impugned, but also their wicked heresies in this point, have been in many and sundry councils condemned erthey took upon them by the motion of Satan, to pull them out of that filthy and stinking pit, where they and many other heresies lay buried. And now yet again they and their heresies against the blessed Sacrament, have been newly by a general Council condemned. This author standeth upright, clean untouched and undefiled. Consider that he expounding the text of S. Paul last before this treacted of, that there he called the cup of blessing, the cup of the blood of christ So that as there he taught the presence of Christ'S very blood. so here he agreeably teacheth the presence of his body. There is not in his mouth, neither in the mouth of any of the other catholic fathers, whose doctrine we follow, both yea and nay, but only yea. In the mouth of Luther, Oecolampadius, and other, there is both yea, and nay, it is so, and it is not. For Luther hath not only preached and taught the presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, as the catholic Church doth but hath also written it even so: Again he hath preached, taught, and written moche against that that the catholic Church doth teach. In this he agreeth with the catholic church, that he teacheth the very real presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament: But in this he varieth, that he saith, the bread is the body of christ, and the wine is his blood. And here note that heretics falling from the catholic church, as they Heretics descent from the church and among themselves descent and vary from it: so do they among themselves. For as heresy is election so they though they take occasion by some one or other to follow some devilish doctrine: yet they will have in diverse things a special choice, neither agreeable with the catholic Church, neither with these heresiarkes whom they follow. As Luther, who is a great follower of Wicleff. hath not chosen to follow him in his assertion of the Sacrament as he left it, but hath a piece of his proper fancy, as he thought it good. For wicleff affirming Luther. the presence of christ in the Sacrament, but denying transubstantion, taught, that the bread remained with the body of christ, so that there was both the substance of bread, and the substance of the body of christ in the Sacrament. But Luther varieth from this, and choosing to follow his own invention, so affirmeth the presence of christ, that he would avouch the bread to be the body of christ. Now Oecolampadius the disciple sometime of Luther hath in this mouth Oecolampad both yea and nay. For he sometime both taught and preached, yea also did write, that Christ'S body was really present in the Sacrament, even as the catholic Church doth teach. afterward being by his own election the disciple of Luther he began to have a piece of a nay in his mouth to that, to the which before he had said yea. And finally, as his master Luther choose to vary from his Master Wicleff, and to follow his own fantasy: so this Oecolampadius chose to vary from his Master Luther, and to follow his fantasy. For he neither with his master, neither his grant M. Wicleff would fantasy as they did, but all together the contrary, teaching that there was no presence of christ in the Sacrament, but as in a sign or figure. In the which he was so vehement, that he wrote against his master Luther, and that very earnestly. So that in these men's mouths ye may perceive there hath been yea and nay: Their mouths were such of the which S. james speaketh that out of them cometh both blessing and cursing. They are such springs as out of the which come waters both salt and fresh: bitter and sweet: So that as there is no stay in themselves: so can no man be stayed by them, in any good certainty. The masters whom God hath appointed in his catholic Church, they be not inconstant, they be not double tunged, with yea and nay in one matter, they say not now this, and then that. The master saith not one thing, and the scholar an other. The pestilence and destruction of common wealths which be discord, contention, and division, is not among them, But as almighty God said by his Prophet Malachi of Levi. Lex veritatis Malach. 1. fuit in ore eius. & iniquitas non est inventa in labiis eius. In pace & aequitate ambulavit mecum. The law of truth was in his mouth, and there was no wickedness found in his lips, he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many one away from their sins. This (as S. Hierom saith) The office of a persight priest. in three points. being the description of the office of a persight priest, agreeth very well to these holy priests of the stock of spiritual Levi, our ancient Fathers and writers, in whose mouths was the law of truth and they walked with God in peace and equity, and turned many from their sins. This being the office of a perfect priest, and Luther, and his complices taking upon them to reform the state of the whole Church, as though they were the masters of perfection: let us make a proof how it will agree with them. The first point of this office is that the law of truth should be in their mouths. But this point is not in them. For besides that the catholic Church argueth and reproveth them of most detestable falsehood and heresy, they among themselves do reprove one an other of fasheade and untruth. Oecolampadius writing against Luther, and so his whole sect of Sacramentaries against the sect of the Lutherans, wherein the one convincing the other of untruth, they make this true, that the law of truth is not in their mouths. Havoc made in the churches by heretics. An touching the second which is, that a priest should walk with God in peace and equity, in this also they are to far wide: For there it not only a great lack of peace betwixt God and their conscience: But also they be fixed in deadly war against his holy spouse, the church. Which they have most cruelly divided, cut and mangled. They have thrown dowen her houses, destroyed her altars, spoiled her treasures, profaned her ornaments, contemned and cast out her sacraments, violated and broken her laws, infringed her liberties, derided her ceremonies, and with one word to end, everted all her orders. What peace is in them that work these horrible troubles, and destructions? of all wars this is the most cruel, this passeth fire and sword. In the third point, which is that a priest should turn many from iniquity, they are clean contrary. For they turn many, not from but to iniquity. For priests (which as S. Hierom saith) should be so pure in priestly chastity, that they should abstain from all unclean work both in their bodies and their minds spiritually, for that they are ministers to consecrate the body of christ they should be free from all error of filthy thought are now by these masters of wickedness turned to all carnality and corruption of licentious life. And that they should have no conscience of their wicked doings, they cloak whoredom with matrimony. After this sort religious men are polluted, virgens consecrate to God are defiled and so all virginal chastity almost utterly (where they reign) abandoned. Prayer is shortened, fasting is not regarded, obedience to ancient order is extinguished. What shall I stand in rehearsal of the wickedness whereunto men be now induced? As the time will not suffice, no more will my heart abide for woe to rehearse the heaps of evils that be now laid open for men freely to run to. These be to many which be already rehearsed to prove that these masters of wickedness do so little stop men from iniquity, that they open wide gates for them to pass freely to it. And yet I would to God there were no more but these. Thus by these three points of the description of the office of a priest described by God himself, for so much as they be not found in these above mentioned men, it may well appear that they be not of the number of gods priests, as the other holy fathers be unto whom these three points be well applied, as in whom they were found. But I see how I am digressed, I will recall myself back, and go forward in my matter in farther opening of the notes of the exposition of this author, and commit the redress of these evils unto God, whom I beseech not to deal with us according to hour sins, nor to our iniquities, but that his mercieiss may soon come upon us. For we are become in life and religion very miserable. Ye have heard the author before alleged clearly testifying the presence of Christ'S body, which he so opened because the reason of S. Paul might the better appear unto us how we be made the body of christ. And therefore that done, he entereth to the opening of S. Paul's reason with this question saying: What be they made that do partake? He answereth: Truly the body of christ. And giving the reason why they be so made, he saith: For we partaking the body of christ, are also made the same. Note then what ye do partake, and what by the same partaking ye are made. Ye partake the body of christ, not a piece of material bread, and by the partaking of that body of christ, ye are made the body of christ. In this saying it is given us to consider (as by other it is already said) that not only by faith, but also by the receipt of the blessed Sacrament, we are joined and united to christ, which union, for that it is done by the very Our natural flesh corrupted by sin is repaired by the joining of Christ'S natural flesh there unto. body of christ, it is corporal a union. Which corporal union this author doth manifestly declare and prove to us by his last sentence, when he saith: For so much as our old flesh was corrupted under sin we had need of a new flesh. Where without all controversy he speaketh of our natural flesh that was corrupted. Wherefore then to repair this natural flesh corrupted, it was necessary to have a natural flesh uncorrupted and such there is none in that respect but the flesh of christ. Wherefore it is that flesh that must be joined to hour flesh, to relieve the need of it, and so uniting us to it reduce us (as S. cyril saith) to incorruption and immortality, which shall come to our flesh by that uncorrupted and immortal flesh. But of this author upon this scripture here is enough, it is time now briefly to hear his yockfelowe of the latin church, which shall be Anselmus who expounding this text saith thus: Dominus corpus & sanguinem suum in eyes rebus commendavit, quae ad unum aliquid rediguntur ex multis. quoniam aliud in unum Auselm. in deci. 1 Cor. ex multis granis conficitur: aliud in unum ex multis acinis confluit. & ob hoc communicatio corporis & sanguinis Christi societatem sanctorum designat, & facit, ubi pax erit, & unitas plena, atque perfecta. Propter qua omnia rectè dicimur omnes unus panis, & unum corpus, quia & omnes de uno pane corporis Christi participamus. Quod enim quisque svam partem ex hoc pane percipit, significat quia unusquisque juxta mensuram suam, particeps fit huius gratiae. Steut autem unus panis Dominici sacramenti, unum corpus Christi efficit in ecclesia: sic panis Idolatriae Daemonum participatio est. Et sunt omnes, qui de uno pane, ac de uno calice Domini sumimus, unum corpus efficimur● ita si cum idolatris de sacrificio corum sumimus, unum corpus efficimur. Qui comedit idolothitum unum cum Daemone fit, sicut qui comedit corpus Christi, fit unum cum Christo. Hour Lord hath given forth his body and blood in those things, which of many things are brought into one certain thing. For the one is made of many grains into one thing and the other out of many grapes into one thing, And therefore the communication of the body and blood of christ, doth signify and make also the society of saints, where shall be peace and also full and perfect unity. For all which things we are all well called one bread, and one body because we all do partake of the one bread, and of the body of christ. That eveeverie one doth take his part of this bread, it signifieth that every one according to his measure is partaker of this grace. For as that one bread of our lords Sacrament, maketh one body in the Church: So the bread of Idolatry is the partaking of devels. And as all we which receive of one bread, and one cup, are made one body: Even so if with Idolaters we receive of their sacrifice, we are made one body. For he that eateth of that that is offered to Idols, is made one with the Devil: as he that eateth the body of christ, is made one with christ. Thus moche Anselmus. In whom may be perceived, a most godly concord, and agreement, with his yockfelowe Oecumenius. For as he taught that we partaking the The one bread that many be made one by is the body of christ. body of christ, are made one body in christ: So doth this Author teach also. For declaration whereof as also for a note for the better understandinding of Saint Paul, observe that where Saint Paul saith. All we are one bread, and one body, which do partake of that one bread. This Author expounding what that one bread is, doth not say that it is material or Sacramental bread, but with express words he saith that it is the bread of the body of christ. And let not the Adversary think that he may wrest this saying to the spiritual body of christ, after his wicked manner and custom. For neither the evident and plain sentences of this Author which are before alleged, in the which is declared the very real presence of christ in the Sacrament, neither this exposition will suffer it. For where he expoundeth, The one bread, in Saint Paul's saying to be the body of christ: afterward he calleth the same the bread of our lords Sacrament, So that the bread of the body of christ being the bread of our lords Sacrament, we are plainly taught that he speaketh of the body of christ in the Sacrament. For the spiritual manner which the Adversary speaketh of, neither is, neither can be in the Sacrament but in the receiver, Wherefore the other before spoken of must needs be true. And for our union to christ agreeably as before is taught, he teacheth here. For in the end he saith: He that eateth Idolathites is made one with the devil, as he that eateth the body of christ is made one with christ. Whereby it is plain that this Author teacheth that union to be made by the receiving of the body of christ in the Sacrament, for of it he speaketh, as before is proved. We are united to christ, not only after the manner wherewith we are by faith and charity united, but by that special manner, that before is declared out of S. Cyril, and other, which is a natural and substantial union, Which union cometh to us by the nature and substance of the flesh of christ received in the Sacrament, as christ is one with us by the taking. upon him our flesh in his incarnation. THE NINE AND twentieth CHAPTER, treateth of the same text by Theophilact and Dionyse, and endeth with Remigius. Now to finish the exposition of this text in hand cometh the last couple to make up the number of twelve, which number as it is taken, and reputed as sufficient by the laws to determine matters of great controversy, and weight, yea even for the life, and death of man: So it may suffice to any reasonable man to determine this matter now called in controversy by evil men, which of it self is a most plain matter, and so hath been accepted these fifteen hundredth years, although a few light sculkers have somewhat murmured, and whispered against it in corners: yet it hath always prevailed, and shall undoubtedly now also, albeit that Satan so mightily impugneth it, and that with so great an Army, as the like to this time was never seen. But to speak in the boldness of faith with S. Paul. Deus pacis conteret Satanam sub pedibus vestris velociter. The God of peace shall tread Satan under your feet shortly. Rom. 16. And therefore Reader, be strong in faith, and fear not though the Adversary glory a little while, though shalt see it come to pass, that thou mayst say with the Prophet David. Vidi impium superexaltatum, & elevatum sicut Psal. 36. Cedrus Libani, & transiut, & ecce non erat. Quaesivi eum, & non est inventus locus eius. I myself have seen the ungodly in great power, and flourishing like a green bay tree, and I went by and lo, he was gone, I sought him but his place could not be found. Holofernes was mighty over the people of God in Bethulia. He gloried Indich. 13. moche, and spoke great words, but how soddein and short was his destruction? Goliath defied the host of the living God, he reviled and railed 1. Reg. 17. upon Israel, and God suffered him a certain time: but yet was he by little David, whom he contemned soen overthrown, and Israel that day had great and joyful victory upon Goliath and all the Philistines. Therefore let neither their glory dismay thee, or put thee in doubt, neither fear put thee from this faith, but remember the saying of S. Paul, Oportet haereses esse ut qui probati sunt, manifesti fiant in vobis. There must be herseiss or sects among 1. Cor. 11. you, that they, which are perfect among you, may be known. Not (as Sedulius saith) quod haereses Deo placeant, sed quòd per eas fideles exerceantur, ut qui Se dulius in Dec. 1. Co. Deo noti sunt, hominibus manifestentur. Not that heresies please God, but that the faithful may be exercised, and that they which be known to God may also be known to men. Stand therefore strongly in the battle of thy Lord God, abide patiently his pleasure, abide thy trial in this exercise, and God will turn it to thy glory. And for thy better stay, and conforth read the holy writers in which thou shalt find that, that shall much streng then thy faith. Let us now therefore proceed, and hear how Theophilact understandeth Saint Paul. Thus he saith upon this text. Cùm itaque unum sumus, In Dec. 1. Cor. quopacto inter nos charitate seruata, non in unum invicem cohaeremus, praesertim cùm Paulus dicat, cò nobis Dominus proprium corpus impertitur, ut sibi nos copulet, & nexu quodam mutuo, nos reddat propinquiores? At ubi prior illa carnis natura pravis est facinoribus corrupta, & vitae caelestis est effecta expers, suam nobis Deus contulit, nostrae assimilem, quae & peccato careret, & vitam largiretur, ut eius effecti participes, & sibi admisceremur, & vitam duceremus innoxiam, utpote qui unum essemus cum Christo corpus adepti. forasmuch therefore as we be one, why by keeping of S. Paul saith that our Lord imparteth to us his own body charity among us, do we not cleave together in one? specially seeing that Paul saith, that our Lord therefore imparteth to us his own body that he might couple us unto him, and make us nearer together by a band or knot among ourselves. And where that first nature of our flesh was corrupted, and was made void of the heavenly life, he gave us his, being like unto our the which should both lack sin, and should give life, that we being made partakers of it, we should both be mixed with him, and also lead an harmless life, as which have gotten one body with christ. Thus he. Among other things worthy of note in Theophilact, to trouble the Reader with no more than appertain to the declaration of the matters, which be here to be decided, two only shall be noted. As for the presence of christ in the Sacrament, as he doth every where: So doth he here most plainly teach the same. Hour incorporation also to christ by the receipt of the same body, with other Fathers before alleged he doth profess and acknowledge. As for the first, this Author persuading us to the unity of love and charity, induceth for his chief and great argument for that purpose that we should so be, because our Lord hath imparted his own body to us, to the intent we should be one. And if the Adversary would blind the simple reader, that this Author meaneth, that he gave us his own body upon the cross for our redemption, it is true in deed that our Saviour christ gave his body for us to the death of the cross. But that this Author meant here of that his giving of his body, that is most false. For he speaketh of that manner of the giving of the body of christ, that S. Paul speaketh of in this scripture, which he expoundeth. And here Saint Paul speaketh of the giving of christ, as he is given in the Sacrament, as the whole process of Saint Paul doth well prove. So that this Author expounding Saint Paul, speaketh as Saint Paul doth of the Sacrament. Then speaking of the Sacrament this Author saith, that christ giveth us his own body therein. And here by the way note, that he saith not this as of himself, but saith that Saint Paul saith so. Wherhie he signifieth that this text of Saint Paul speaketh not of material bread signifying or figuring the body of christ, but of the very real body of christ, and therefore saith, that he Argument upon the word (bread) in S. Paul refelled. imparteth to us his own body. He giveth us not his own body if we have but a piece of bread. For the bread is but a sign or figure of the body of christ, not present to be given, but absent. So that where the Adversary buildeth (as he thinketh) his strong towers and bulwarks against the verity of this blessed Sacrament upon this and other places of Saint Paul, of the which some be already treacted of, and the rest by the help of God's grace hereafter shall be: saying that it is but bread because Saint Paul calleth it bread, ye may well perceive what a false ground he taketh, and how unsure his building is. For this Author saith, that Saint Paul in this place saith, that christ giveth us his own body, whereby it is evident, that though Saint Paul calleth the Sacrament bread, yet he meaneth not nor understandeth thereby material bread, as the Adueasarie dreameth, but meaneth that it is that bread which is christ, in that sense that christ calleth himself, when he said. Panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est, quam dabo pro mundi vita. The bread which I will give joan. 6. is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. This sentence, as chrysostom, Theophilact, and many more (as it is declared in the second book) do testify, is spoken of the Sacrament, and then would I ask the Adversary, whether christ calleth himself material bread here or no. If he should answer that he did so, than the saying of christ must needs have this sense: that material bread, which I will give is my flesh. And so shall he both grant a presence of Christ'S flesh in the Sacrament, and also condescend to Luther's heresy, who saith that this is a good and true proposition: This bread is my body, and this wine is my blood. If he say, it that is not taken there for material bread, but in the general signification for food, as the scripture calleth Manna: as when it saith: Panem caeli dedit eyes, panem Angelorum manducavit homo. He gave them bread of heaven, Man hath eaten the bread of Angels. Of the which in the Psal. 77. same signification christ saith: Non Moyses dedit vobis panem de coelo. Moses' did not give you bread from heaven. Why then may not Saint Paul joan. 6. S. Paul calleth the body of christ bread, as christ called himself in the 6 of S. john 1, Cor. 2. speaking of the Sacrament, use the same term in the signification, that his master christ did, when he spoke of the same Sacrament, and yet the same not to be taken for material bread, but for food, as it was in the sense of his master? Saint Paul was no such disciple to vary and change the signification of a word, whereby he should vary from his master in sense. For he well knew the mind of his master, as he said. Nos sensum Christi habemus. We understand the mind of christ. If than christ used this word Panis, not for material bread, but for food, when he spoke of the Sacrament, that he would give forth, and leave to us: will not (trow ye) his chosen vessel, who understandeth the mind of his master, when he speaketh of the same thing that his master spoke of, and useth the same word that his master did, will not he use the word in the same signification that his master did, to keep the mind of his master, and not to vary from it? He should have varied from the mind of his master all the heaven wide (as they say) if he should take this word, panis, for material bread. For then this great mystery of our incorporation to christ, and this gteat benefit of the incorruptibility and immortality of our flesh and body, which cometh to us by the partaking of Christ'S flesh, should be attributed to a piece of material bread. Which thing what is it but plain idolatry, giving the divine honours of christ to a creature, a dumb piece of bread? Wherefore to join with this learned Author we must say (for that otherwise we can not truly say) that Saint Paul saith here that christ imparteth to us his own body, And so Saint Paul speaketh here of no material bread, but of that high and godly food, the body of our Lord and Saviour jesus christ. Where then now is the force of the herculeouse argument of the Adversary, who by this process of Saint Paul would prove that the Sacrament The argument of the sacramentary over thrown, for S. Paul speaketh not of material bread. is but bread. because Saint Paul calleth it bread after the consecration. For he speaketh (saith he) of the bread broken to the use of the communion, which is after consecration. Wherefore seeing Saint Paul calleth it bread after the consecration, it is after the consecration but bread. If this word bread were not used in the scripture in an other signification then for material bread, and were not also of our Saviour christ himself speaking of this Sacrament otherwise used, as it is declared, the argument might seem to have force but now it is to vain: it is as good an argument as the heretic might make that denied the Son of God to be incarnate, because the scripture saith directly against him. Verbum caro factum est, The word was made flesh: that because, Verbum, signifieth a material word, therefore he shall argue that it doth none otherwise signify there, and so as he thinketh overthrow the faith of the incarnation of the Son of God, and maintain his heresy, as this Adversary would overthrow the faith of the presence of christ in the Sacrament, and by this word, bread, maintain his heresy. But as the one hath small force or strength, so hath the other. Wherefore now leaving this note in this Author as which mightily destroyeth one of the foundations of the Adversary, and confirmeth the catholic faith, I will in few words touch the other note, which is for our incorporation to christ, by partaking of his body in the Sacrament, which incorporation he so plainly setteth forth, that if his saying be considered, very few words shall need to explain it. Note therefore that thus he saith: And where that first nature of our flesh was corrupted, and was made void of that heavenly life, be gave us his nature of flesh, being like unto owers, the which did both lack sin, and should give life, that we being made partakers of it, we should be mixed with him. Dost though not Reader, see here that he saith, that christ hath given us the nature of his flesh, not the figure of his flesh, but the nature of it, the substance of it, but to what purpose hath he given us his natural flesh? he declareth, to this purpose that we should be partakers of it. If we proceed and ask, what commodity or profit have we by the partaking of his What profit we have by partaking Christ'S flesh. flesh? He answereth by the partaking of his flesh we are mixed with him in such sort that we receiving his body, and now being joined to the same the great virtue and poower of that body turneth our bodies into his body, So that now we are be come one body of christ. Neither let the gross Capharnait say, that if all faithfulll and worthy partakers of the Sacrament be one body of christ, that then christ hath an huge great body: but let him remember that the natural man having twenty children, every one of them is his flesh and blood, and yet the Father is never the greater: So, many of the faith becoming the flesh of christ by partaking of the Sacrament, yet the flesh of christ is nothing bigger of the person of christ. And how soever this Adversary listeth grossly to dally in such divine mysteries: yet this is the truth, as by this Author ye have perceived it clearly to be testified, and the like shall you see in him that followeth: who is Saint Dionise, who expoundeth this text of Saint Paul, almost word by word in this manner. Quoniam unus panis per proprietatem, & unum corpus mysticum unitate fidei, spei & charitatis, Dionysius Carthus. cuius corporis caput est Christus, multisumus, videlicet, omnes qui de uno pane, & de uno calice participamus: id est, de singulari & vero corpore, & sanguine reficimur, & Sacramentum tantum dignè recipimus. For we are one bread by property and one body mystical by the unity of faith hope and charity of the which body christ is the head, we being many, that is to say, all we which do partake of one bread and one cup, that is, all we which be refreshed of the singular, and very body and blooode of christ, and worthily receive so great a Sacrament-Thus Dionyse. In this exposition let this be diligently noted against the Adversary, that the bread which all we receive, and by the which we are made all one bread and one body: it is not material bread, but the singular, and very body and blood of our Saviour christ, and so did Saint Paul mien it, as this Author agreeably with all other before alleged, doth testify, expounding and declaring the mind of Saint Paul. Where then is the great argument that the Sacrament should be nothing Argument of the word (bread) overthrown but bare bread, Because Saint Paul calleth it bread? What bread it is, and what the cup containeth not only this Author, but also one, many hundreth years elder than he doth declare. Which ancient Author shall end the exposition of both these last texts, and join them together. Thus he saith: Calix benedictionis cui benedicimus, Remigius in 1. Cor. nun communicatio sanguinis Christi est? Idcirco primùm calicem nominavit, quia de pane posteaplus erat disputaturus. Calix autem benedictionis dicitur, qui benedicitur à sacerdotibus in altari. Appellatur & ipse calix communicatio, quasi participatio, quia onmes communicant ex illo partemque sumunt ex sanguine Domini, quem continet in se. Et panis quem frangimus in altari, nun participatio corporis Domim est? utique, primùm consecratur, & benedicitur, à sacerdotibus & spiritu sancto, & deinde frangitur, cùm iam licet pants videatur in veritate corpus Christi est. Ex quo pane quicunque communicant, corpus Christiedunt. Quoniam unus panis, subaudis Christi, & unum corpus, Christi, multi sumus qui comedimus illum panem. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it Cup of blessing how it is called. not a communication of the blood of christ? Therefore did he first speak of the chalice, because he would afterward more at large treacte of the bread. It is called the cup of blessing because it is blessed of the priests on the altar. The same cup also is called the communication, for that it is a participation, because all do communicate of it, and do partake of the blood of our Lord which the cup containeth in it self. And the bread, which we break in the altar is it not a partaking of the body of our Lord? It is so, for first it is consecrated of the holy Ghost, and of the priests and afterward it is broken, when now although it seem to be bread, yet in very deed it is the body of christ, of the which bread as many as do communicate, do eat the body of christ, it is one bread of christ, and one body of christ, and we being many do eat the same bread. Thus moche Remigius Who being about the year of our Lord 511. lived before this our time about 1050. Whose confession yet of the verity of the presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, is as plain as if it had been made in this our time. What can be more plainly spoken then to say that the cup containeth the blood of christ? Who can better open the truth then to say, although it seem bread: yet in very deed it is the body of christ? and so much he saith thereby not only declaring his own faith, but also the faith of the Church he lived in. Now reader when thou seest so ancient and with all so evident testimony of and for the truth, lay hand to it and be not carried, away with the vain words of this Proclaimer. And thus ending this text we will go to an other. THE THIRTETH CHAPTER BEGINNETH THE exposition of this text. Ye can not drink of the cup of our Lord, and of the cup of devels, By S. Cyprian and Chrysost. forasmuch as in the sixteenth chapter of this book. Where I began the exposition of this disputation of Saint Paul with the Corynthians, the dependence of these scriptures, the one of the other and also the mind of Saint Paul is opened, what he here intendeth: I will not trouble the Reader with that argument again in this place, but remit him thither. Only this I wish him to observe that Saint Paul dissuading the Corynthians from Idolathites useth three means to do the same. One is the declaration of the grievous punishment of the jews which S. Paul useth three means to dissuade the Corinthians from Idolathites. they sustained for Idolatry. Which being laid before their faces, they might be moved to fly the like offence, for fear of like pain. The second is upon the communion of the body and blood of christ that where by the communion of that, that they did communicate they were united to it, which they did communicate. And united they could not be both to christ, and to devels. Therefore forsomoche as by the communion of Christ'S body and blood, they were united to him, they must forbear the communion with devels by Idolathites, by which they should be separated, and divided from christ again. The third is (as Saint Thoms saith) by the similitude of the legal sacrifice, which Saint Paul bringeth in as an argument of like, to prove this communion or participation, when he saith: Nun qui edunt hostias, participes sunt altaris? Are not they which eat of the sacrifice partakers of the altar? To join the parts of the similitude together, and to make it fully to Thomas Aqui. in dec. prima Cor. appear, thus Saint Thomas doth set it forth: Are not they which eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar, as they which eat of the flesh of christ are partakes of the body of christ? forasmuch as each of these be so, and christ and Baal can not dwell together, neither can we serve two masters. Therefore as a perfect conclusion he inferreth and saith. Non potestis calicem Domini bibere, & calicem daemoniorum. Ye can not drink of the cup of our Lord, and of the cup of devels. Where note this conclusion depending upon the premises, must include in it terms of the same signification that were in the premises. forasmuch then as the premises spoke of the partaking of sacrifices: it must needs be that Saint Paul speaking here of the partaking of the table of our Lordre, and of the table of devels, speaketh of the sacrifice of our Lord, and the the sacrifice of devels. That he teacheth the bread and wine to be a sacrifice, it shall be opened to you, after the exposition of the doctors, although this is sufficiently testified Sacrifice avouched by S. Paul before from the sixteenth chapter unto this place: yet that it may well be perceived of the Reader, that my saying is agreeable to the holy Fathers and that this text was spoken of Saint Paul, as of the sacrifice of the body and blood of our Lordre on the altar, the holy Fathers shall be brought forth as before they have been upon the other scriptures, by whose testimony this matter shall be made clear. And for that Saint Cyprian rebuketh the same offence, that Saint Paul doth, and useth the same words that Saint Paul doth, whereby the true meaning and understanding may the better be perceived, we shall first let his saying be heard. This it is. Contra evangelii vigorem, contra Domini, ac Cyp ser. 5. de lapsis. Dei legem, temeritate laxatur incautis communicatio, irrita & falsa pax, periculosa dantibus & nihtl accipientibus prosutura, Non quaerunt sanitatis paenitentiam, nec veram de satisfactione medicinam. Paenitentia de peccatoribus exclusa est. Gravissimi, extremiue delicti memoria sublata est. Operiuntur morientium vulnera & plaga laetalis altis & profundis viseeribus infixa dissimulato dolore contegitur. A diaboli aris revertentes ad sanctum Domini, sordidis & infectis nidore manibus accedunt. Mortiferos idolorum cibos adhuc penè ructantes, exhalantibus nunc etiam fcelus suum faucihus, & contagia funesta redolentibus Domini corpus invadunt, cùm occurat scriptura divina, & clamet & dicat. Omnis mundus manducabit carnem, & anima quaecunque manducaverit ex carne salutaris levit. 7. sacrificij, quod est Domini, & immundicia eius super ipsum & peribit anima illa de populo. Apostolus item testetur, & dicat: Non potestis calicem Domini bibere, & 1. Cor 10. calicem' daemoniorum. Non potestis mensae Domini communicare, & meusae daemomorun. Against the force of the Gospel, against the law of our Lord and God, through the rashness of some, communication is freely genen to the negligent, being a false peace and of no force, yet perilous to the giver, and which shall nothing profit the receiver. They seek not the penance of Penance of health, and the medicen of satisfaction S. Gp. terms. health, neither the true medicen of satisfaction, penance is excluded from sinners, the memory of the extreme and most grievous offence is taken away. The wounds of them that be dying be covered, and the deadly plague stricken into the deep bowels is with a dissimuled sorrow hidden. Returning from the altars of the Devil with filthy and infected hands with the savour they come to the holy thing of our Lord. they yet almost breathing out the deadly meats of idols their cheeks puffing out even yet their mischievous deed, and smelling of the deadly infection, they violently come upon the body of our Lord, When yet the scripture of God cometh against them, and crieth and saith Every clean person shall eat the flesh. But if any eat of the flesh of the wholesome sacrifice, which belongeth to our Lord having his uncleanness upon him, the Levit 7. same soul shall perish from among his people. The Apostle also witnesseth and saith. Ye can not drink the cup of our Lord, and the cup of devels: Ye can not communicate of the table of our Lord, and of the table of devels: Thus moche Saint 1. Cor. 10. Cyprian. Who being moche offended with the negligence of such priests, as did admit them to the receipt of the holy Sacrament, which had defiled themselves with Idolathites, before they had sufficiently done penance, and made amends for the same, rebuketh them both, the priests that they suffered it, and the receivers, for that they presumed to receive it. Whose rebuke, if you mark, is very sore, sharp, and terrible, which of so grave, and godly holy martyr should not have been done, if the thing that they received had been but a piece of bread. For such grave men as holy Cyprian was did with moche gravity and godly wisdom rebuke offences with just measure, a small fault gently and easily, a great fault severely and sharply. Wherefore this rebuke of S. Cyprian being sharp and sore, it argueth that their offence was great, and so in deed it was. For they being so filthily desiled, presumed to come to receive the blessed body of christ: For they yet Table of our Lord, the body of our Lord. smelling of the deadly infection (saith S. Cyprian of the eating of the Idolatites) came violently upon the body of our Lord, to receive it. By which his words as ye may perceive, there was a great offence committed, justly deserving so great a rebuke: So may ye perceive, that by the table of our Lord spoken of by S. Paul, he understandeth the body of our Lord. So that when S. Paul saith: Ye can not be partakers of the table of our Lord, it is asmuch to say: as ye can not be partakers of the body of our Lord. In this then the one part heretofore in the former process taught, is confirmed namely that S. Paul rightly understanded, taught the presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament. I shall not need to make farther proof of this, seeing that it is manifest, that S. Cyprian correcting them that being defiled with Idolathites did presume to receive our lords body, doth touch them with the saying of S. Paul: Ye can not be partakers of the table of our Lord. Which text in deed should nothing touch them, if the thing that S. Cyprian spoke of, were not the same that S. Paul spoke of. And so contrary wise it is manifest then that S. Cyprian speaking of the evil receiving of the body of christ, that S. Paul also spoke of the body of christ, and so both of them of the very presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament. The other part also, namely that he speaketh of the body of christ, as of a sacrifice, is also easy in him to be pceaved. For to what purpose else should Saint Cyprian allege that place of Leviticus forbidding the unclean person to receive any part of the sacrifice of our Lord, but that that prohibition being spoken of the sacrifice that was the figure, should directly be applied to the sacrifice which is the thing, which is the body of christ our sacrifice, and so teach us that every unclean person is forbidden to eat of this holy sacrifice? For to that purpose did S. Cyprian allege that text, as a scripture by the which we are forbidden to be partakers of our lords sacrifice, if we be joined in any folowshippe with Satan. I mind not to stand long upon this matter, for that I have said moche of it already, both in the first book, and also in this book. Wherefore thus leaving Cyprian, I will call in Chrysostom, as one of the other side of Christ'S parliament house, of whose judgement in the matter of the Sacrament, such a number of his sainges being produced, I trust the Reader is not ignorant, of the which also diverse produced upon this Epistle of Saint Paul, which we now treat of, be so plain and clear, that none can be desired more clear. But for that upon this text I find him not by express words speaking so plainly as the matter may fully appear to the Reader, for the opening of the matter that is here to be spoken of, I will produce him where he speaketh of the same sense, that S. Paul doth, and withal openeth our matter very plainly. Thus he writeth: Quomodò sacrum videbimus Pascha? quomodò sanctum suscipiemus sacrificium? quomodò mirabilibus communicabimus mysterijs, lingua Chry. hom. 11. ad pop. Antioch. illa, qua Dei legem conculcaverimus? lingua illa, qua animam contaminaverimus? Si nemo namue purpuram regalem manibus accipere inquinatis auderet: quomodò Dominicum corpus lingua polluta suscipiemus? juramentum enim maligni: Sacrificium verò Domini: Quae igitur communicatio luci ad tenebras, vel quae convenientia Christo ad Belial? How shall we see the holy Easter? how shall we receive the holy sacrifice? how Sacrifice plainly avouched with real presence. shall we communicate the wonderful mysteries with that tongue, which we have contemned the law of God withal? with that tongue wherewith we have defiled our souls? For if no man would be so bold, with defiled hands to take the kings rob: how shall we with a defiled tongue receive the body of our Lord? Swearing is of the wicked. The sacrifice is of our Lord. What folowshippe then is there betwixt light and darkness? or what agreement betwixt christ and belial? Thus Chrysostom. Who dissuading the people from vain and superfluous swearing (Whereunto Swearing to much used. wicked custom, hath at these days also to much brought our people) saith in effect, that they can not receive, and become partakers of the body of our Lord, with the same tongue, with which they blaspheme Gods holy name, and contemn his holy law. Which is even the same that S. Paul saith here: ye can not be partakers of the table of our Lord, and of the table of devels. And here note that as S. Paul by the table of our Lord understandeth the sacrifice of our Lord, of the which the wicked can not be partakers: So here chrysostom by express words saith, that the wicked blasphemer can not be partaker of the sacrifice of our Lord: By the which sacrifice he understandeth the body of christ. For the better perceiving whereof, note that he termeth the holy Sacrament with these terms. He calleth it, the holy sacrifice. He calleth it, the wonderful Excellent titles of the blessed Sac. mysteries. He calleth it, the body of our Lord: He calleth it, light: Yea he calleth it christ himself. By which terms he declareth unto us the excellency of the Sacrament, as in which is the very presence of Christ'S body, verily and substantially, which is also our sacrifice. These two parts we shall briefly open in this Author. The very real presence he teacheth when he saith: How shall we with Real presence proved by Chryso. a defiled tongue receive the body of our Lord? It is manifest that with our mouth and tongue we can receive nothing, but that that is substantial, and corporal, but with these (saith Chrysost,) we receive the body of christ. Wherefore we receive the substantial and corporal body of christ. And therefore this being well known to the Adversary, he with might and main, denieth that we receive the body of christ with hand or mouth, but only with heart. But how shamefully he doth it thou mayst perceive, both by this famous and notable Author, and also by Saint Cyprian, by Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustin, and a number more. Which do plainly by express words say, that the body of christ is received both with hand and mouth. But now to stay upon our Author this one may suffice against the Adversary that he by express words saith, that we receive the body of our Lord with our mouth and tongue. For the other part also he teacheth that the same body of christ is Sacrifice proved by Chrysost. a sacrifice: For he asketh: Quomodò sanctum suscipiemus sacrificium? How shall we receive the holy sacrifice? Now if ye compare these two sainges of chrysostom together, namely that we receive the body of our Lord with our mouth, and that even so also we receive the wonderful sacrifice: it shall be without all doubt easy to peaceave, that this wonderful sacrifice is the body of hour Lord, and that these two sainges be spoken of one thing. And thus these two parts stand clear being here avouched by Chrysostom, that both there is the very corporal presence of christ in the Sacrament, and that the same body so being in the Sacrament, is our sacrifice. By this saying of chrysostom shall ye perceive how vain the general rule of Cranmer (Or of him that settsurth that book in his name) is, who Cranmers general rule resuted. in his fift book treating of the sacrifice saith, that the sacrifice of the priests, and the people, is only a sacrifice gratulatory, that is of thanks giving, and a sacrifice commemorative remembering the body of christ, that suffered, but not having christ really, and substantially present. And this is his answer to the Nycen Council, and to Petrus Lombardus and so generally to all. But now consider what is the nature of a sacrifice of thanks giving, or as he calleth it gratulatory. A sacrifice gratulatory is not received of Sacrifice gratulatory, or of thanks giving. us, but offered and given of us and from us. For we giving thanks to God our heavenly Father, that he so loved us, that he spared not his own Son but for our sakes delivered him to suffer most cruel death for us. And to that his Son also we gaving thanks, that he hath vouchsafe to wash away our sin with his blood, and to cancel the obligation that was against us, whereby he hath made us free from sin, hell, and death, and hath made us heirs to the kingdom of his Father, and coheirs with him of the same kingdom? we offer a sacrifice of thanks giving. But this manner of sacrifice aught to be given from our hearts to our Lord God, and to our Saviour jesus christ: And is so, if it be reverently and devoutly done of us. This sacrifice of the altar is such a sacrifice, that it is received, of us, saith Chrysostom. Now there is a great difference betwixt these two things, Sacrifice of the altar. of the which the one we may in diverse respects both offer, and also receive: The other we can only but offer. another difference there is also. The sacrifice of thanksgiving, is no wonderful sacrifice. For it is no wonder, but a duty to give God thanks, for his manifold benesittes. But the sacrifice of the altar (as Chrysostom saith) is a wonderful sacrifice. In an other place he calleth it also an holy, and a terrible sacrifice: This sacrifice of thanks giving is holy but it is not terrible. Many such other Homil. 30. De prodit. judae. terms he giveth to the sacrifice, which will not be applied to the sacrifice of thanks giving. But to be short, by these few differences it is easy to perceive, that the general rule of Crammer, that he would all the doctors, where they call the Sacrament, a sacrifice, should be understanded to have spoken only of the sacrifice gratulatory, will not stand. For the sainges of the holy doctors, can not bear that rule, as hereafter shall appear more clear to you. Whereunto even in this place also, the conclusion of Chrysostoms' saying giveth good light, and plain understanding. For after he had declared that the blasphemous mouth can not receive the sacrifice of our Lord: he setteth these two together, and saith: An oath is of an evil, The sacrifice is of our Lord. What folowshippe betwixt light and darkness, and what agreement betwixt christ and belial? In which manner of speech if you note, as blasphemy, darkness, and belial be of one side, and signify one thing: So is the sacrifice of our Lord, light, and christ set on the other side, and signify one thing. So that our sacrifice is here also called light, and christ himself. Which names can not be attributed to Cranmer his sacrifice of thanks giving, but to the sacrifice of Christ'S body. Which is in very deed that thing, that both is and may be called the sacrifice of our Lord, light and christ. Of the which I need to make no proof to a true Christian. This then being proved, that Chrysostom teacheth here the presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, and that the very same is the sacrifice of our Lord: Let is return to our text, and somewhat more open it, for the better understanding of it in all the process that followeth, and of the doctors also that shall be produced for the exposition of the same. Where Saint Paul saith here: Ye can not drink of the cup of Hour Lord, S. Paul's words here are to be understanded, with a condicional negative, not with an absolute. and of the cup of devels: Ye can not be partakers of the table of our Lord, and of the table of devels. He doth not speak these as absolute negatives, but as conditional. For he meaneth not that they could not do so in very deed, but that they could not so do, if they would do well. For he well knew that the Corynthians went both to the table of christ, and also to the table of Idols. And to dissuade them from the table of Idols, he saith that they can not without the offence of God partake of both tables. There is a saying: Hoc possumus, quod de iure possumus. That may we do, which we may do by the law. Even so may it be said on the other side. Hoc non possumus, quia de iure non possumus. This we can not do, because we can not do it by the law. Which manner of saying implieth not an absolute negative, utterly denying the fact to be done: but (as is said) a conditional negative, that it can not be done by the law. For S. Cyprian, who rebuketh them that impenitently came defiled with eating of Idols meat, to eat of the meat of our lords table, and saith also to them with Saint Paul's sentence. Ye can not be partakers of the table of our Lord, and of the table of devels: Yet he accuseth them, that they so were, and in fact they did so: but to God's pleasure, and the wealth of their souls, they could not do so. For it is properly said, that we may do that, that we may do well. And that we can not do, which we can not do well. To this sense also chrysostom by his interrogative including soch a negative said: The blaspbemers of God's name could not with the same mouth and tongue that they blasphemed with, receive the body of our Lord, receive the sacrifice of our Lord. Which his saying yet rebuketh them because they did so. Wherefore it is not a negative absolute. A like saying is there ascribed to Origen, for it is uncertain whether it Origenes. be his work or no, out of the which it is taken, and it is this. Multa porrò & de ipso Verbo dici possunt, quod factum est caro cibusue verus, quem qut comederit, vivet in aeternum, quem nullus malus potest comedere. Many things also may be said of the Son of God himself, that it was made flesh, and very meat, which whosoever shall eat, shall live forever, which no evil man can eat. Thus moche Origen. As S. Paul and S. Cyprian said, that they that were partners of Idolathites A place of Origen opened. could not be partakers of our lords table: And as Chrysostom said, that vain swearers by Gods holy name, could not with the same mouth, and tongue receive the holy sacrifice, which is the body of our Lord, which is the table that S. Paul and S. Cyprian spoke of in which their sainges they have made mention but of two vices, that should let them from the partaking of the holy and blessed meat of our lords table: So Origen declareth that all vices that be mortal, and which make a man an evil man, do divide him from the same table. And saith that such a man can not eat of the meat of our Lord, not that such a one doth not eat it, but that such a one doth not eat it to his profit, but raither to his condemnation, because with the offence of God he doth abuse the body of christ, with moche irreverence, joining it, as it were in the house of his body with Satan: betwixt whom and christ, as betwixt God and belial, is none agreement. A lively argument whereof is declared in the first book of kings, where 1. Reg. 5. we read that the Azotyans having the Ark of God, put it into the temple of Dagon. And uless as they accounted it as the Ark of the God of Israel, of whose great might and power they had heard moche, they set it by their Idol Dagon. But in the morning when the Azotians came into the temple, they found Dagod lying groveling upon the ground. They set him up again, and the next day coming into the temple, they found him lying before the Ark of God like a trunk, cast down to the ground, his head and palms of his hands cut of. By this is signified unto us, that although it pleased God through his great sufferance so to be abused, as to be joined with Satan, Behall, or Dagon: yet to declare that he is offended withal he throweth down Dagon, and causeth him to be found lying like a stock, or trunk, and with all striketh the people with a great glague. By this then (as by that that is before said) it may be perceived, how this scripture of S. Paul's epistle is to be understanded, and the doctors also, which have been hitherto alleged for the exposition of the same, or shall hereafter be alleged. THE ONE AND THIRTETH CHAP. ENDETH the exposition of this text by Theophilact and Anselmus. I Should not need to allege so many holy Fathers and doctors upon every scripture as I do, so to seek out the true understanding of them, but that the impudency of the Proclaimer hath thereunto enforeed me. He saith the catholic Church hath not one scripture nor doctor for them, but it is and shall be made manifest, that it hath not one in deed alone, but it hath all the scriptures, and holy doctors, that treacte of the blessed Sacrament. But because upon this tenth chapter of Saint Paul a long exposition by diverse, and many doctors is already made, by whom being made plain how these scriptures going before are to be understanded, it is the easier to perceive the understanding of this now in hand, depending of them, therefore I will cuttof some part of my purpose, and now upon this text bring in but one couple more, of the which Theophilact shall be the first, Who for that that S. Paul willed the Corinthians to consider the jews, who used to offer sacrifices and be partakers of the altar to the intent that they being Christians might perceive that of such sacrifice as they offered, they were partakers by express words openeth and declareth what S. Paul meant that the Corinthians were partakers of. Thus he saith: De judaeis namque nil intulit, Theoph. in Dec. 1. Cor. quod de eo participarent, sed Altaris sunt participes dixit, in quo, quod immolandum suisset, impositum igni consumebarur. De Christi autem corpore haud quaquam res ita se habet, sed Christi corporis fuit participatio. Non enim altaris sumus, sed Dominici corporis ipsi participes. Of the jews he said nothing, that they should partake of it (meaning the sacrifice) but he said that they are partakers of the altar. We are partakers even of the body of our Lord offered on the altar. upon the which altar that, that was to be offered in sacrifice, when it was put upon it, it was consumed with fire, But of the body of christ the matter is not so: but there was a participation of the body of christ. For we are not partakers of the altar. But we are partakers even of the body of our Lord. Thus moche Theophilact. In whom this cometh worthily to be noted that S. Paul speaking of Why S. Paul said not, that the jews were partakers of their sacrifices as the Christians of theirs. the sacrifices of the jews, doth not name any thing by special name whereof they should be partakers, but only useth the general term of the altar, saying that they be partakers of the altar. And why? because in some of these Sacrifices it was ordained that they should be burnt, and consumed. And therefore he said not that they should be partakers of the thing offered but of the altar. But when he spoke of the body of christ (saith Theophilact) he did not handle the matter so, but by express and special words said allwais that there was a partaking of the body of christ. Now if the body of christ by his ascension were absumed from us, as the sacrifice of the jews was consumed from them by fire, so that we did no more by no nearer partaking by presence receive christ, than they did their sacrifices: by the meaning of Theophilact it should some, that S. Paul would have said of the Christians that they are partakers of the altar, as the jews, and not by special word have said, they are partakers of the body of christ. Now in the disputation of S. Paul it is plain to see that speaking of the sacrifice of the christians, he nameth, whereof they are partakers. As when he saith: The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not a partaking of the blood 1. Cor. 10. of christ? And the bread which me break, is it not a partaking of the body of christ. Where by special words he nameth the things their received and partaken. But speaking of the sacrifices of the jews throughout all the disputation he nameth no special thing, but useth (as I said) the general term of the altar. Whereby we may conclude with Theophilactes words. Non enim altaris sumus sed Domini corporis ipsi participes. We are not partakers of the altar, but we are partakers of the body of christ. If the body of christ were absent from the sacrifice, we should be by Theophilactes judgement partakers of the altar: but because the body of christ is present in the sacrifice, and is the sacrifice it self, that is offered, therefore are we partakers of the body of christ. By which process of Theophilact it is plain to be perceived that he understandeth Saint Paul here to have spoken of the very body and blood of christ, of the which we are very partakers. The blood of christ is not only in heaven, but also in in the chalice. Of this who can doubt, that remembreth his exposition of the first text of this disputation of Saint Paul where he saith, speaking of him. That, that he said, is after this manner: This blood that is contained in the cup, is even the same that flowed out of Christ'S side. This blood when we receive, we do partake, that is, we are joined to Chryst. Who can doubt of the faith of this man, and how he understandeth Saint Paul, that so plainly expoundeth him? He saith that we receive, not a figure only, but the blood of christ. And this blood is not only in heaven, whether only, the Adversary saith, we must by faith lift up our eyes and heart, but it is contained (saith Theophilact) in the cup, where also by faith we must behold it. And this is not only a Sacrament of Christ'S blood, so called because Sacraments have the names of things whereof they are Sacraments, but it is (saith Theophilacte) even the same blood that flowed out of Christ'S side, and not a thing bearing the name of the blood of christ Now Christian Reader, judge if the Adversary have not plain authority against him, that where he would that it should be proved, that Christ'S natural and substantial body is in the Sacrament. If that body upon the croosse, out of the which for man's redemption did plentifully flow out blood, were natural, uless as this blood in the holy Sacrament is even the same blood, it must needs follow, that the natural body, and natural blood of christ, is in the Sacrament. Why stand I so long upon so clear a matter, seeing that Anselmus who is joined with him to show the faith of the latin church, as Theophilact hath done of the greek church, is even as plain as he? Thus expoundeth he Saint Paul. Non potestis calicem Domini, in quo sanguis est eius, bibere, & calicem Daemoniorum, in quo vinum est sacrilegae superstitionis. Nec potestis mensae, id est, altaris Ansel. in 10. 1. Cor. Domini, in quo corpus eius est, participes esse, & mensae, id est, altaris Daemoniorum. Ye can not drink the cup of our Lord, in the which is his blood, and the cup of devels, in which is the wine of sacrilegall superstition. Neither can you be partakers of the table, that is of the altar of our Lord, in the which is his body, and of the table, that is, of the altar of Devils. Thus he. In this Author, who lived within xvi. years of five hundredth years agone, ye see a very plain exposition, fully agreeing, yea almost using the same words that Theophilact did. Who was living almost three hundredth years before him. Which Theophilact useth the words of chrysostom, who lived more than four hundredth years before Theophilact. Whose saying ye shall find in the xvi. chapter of this book. I say in this Author here alleadhed, ye have a plain exposition of Saint Paul's words. For first, he expoundeth what S. Paul meaneth by the cup of our Lord, and saith that it is the cup of our Lord, because the blood of our Lord is in it. Then teaching what he meaneth by the table of our Lord he saith, he meaneth the altar of our Lord. Which is so called because the body of our Lord is upon it. So that as the cup is called the cup of our Lord, because his blood is in it: So is the table called the altar of our Lord, because the body of our Lord is upon it. I think these words be plain enough, where by express words is taught the presence of the very body and blood of christ in the Sacrament, and that in no other sort of words, than Theophilact before him, and chrysostom before him, as ye have heard did teach. Peradventure ye will say he expoundeth the table to be an altar, which A proof of the use of altars even from the Apostles time. Dion. Are. eccles. Hie. par. 3. ca 3 cometh in but of late days, and is a term not used among the ancient doctors. That both the word and the thing, was in use in the time of the ancient doctors, it shall be made manifest to thee, gentle Reader, and that even from the Apostles. Saint Dionyse the disciple of S. Paul declaring the order of Christ'S Church in his time, among other declarations of the blessed Sacrament, maketh mention of the same set upon the altar, saying thus: Sed & illud sacratius intuere, quod impositis altari venerabilibus signis, per quae Christus signatur & sumitur, adest protinus sanctorum descriptio. But reverently behold that, that when the honourable signs be put upon the holy altar, by the which christ is both fignified and received, forthwith their is a description of saints. In these words ye perceive both the name of the altar, and the use of it. For the use of it was to put upon it the holy Sacrament, for the which use sake, this ancient holy Father called it the holy altar. Which would be noted of them, who in these our days, give the altar much base terms, if I shall say no worse of them. And herwithall note that this Author doth not only call this Sacrament honourable, but also forthwith addeth the cause, for because (saith he) christ is both signified, and received. So that by the outward forms he is not only signified, but also verily under them received. Of the which two parts of the Sacrament we have more at large spoken before. Of the altar and the use of the same also Saint Ambrose maketh mention saying: Ego Domine memor venerandae passionis tuae accedo ad altare tuum licet Amb. orat. praepar. Altar and sacrifice both mentioned by S. Amb. and used. peccator ut offeram tibi sacrificium quod tu instituisti, & offerri praecepisti in commemorationem tui pro salute nostra. I (o Lord) being mindful of thy honourable passion come unto thine altar although a sinner, to offer unto thee the sacrifice that thou diddest institute and command to be offered in the remembrance of thee, for our health. Here may ye perceive that S. Ambrose came to that altar, of whom also ye may learn the use of the altar, for he came to offer sacrifice upon it, so that the use of the altar was to have sacrifice offered upon it, which thing S. Ambrose his fact doth well declare. For so holy a man as he was would notabuse the altar. Wherefore it doth well appear that it is the right use of the altar. The name and the use of the altar is likewise declared unto us by his disciple S. Augustine, who showing the godly zeal of his Mother lying on her death bed, and what she desired to be done for her, saith. Illa imminente die resolutionis suae, non cogitavit corpus suum sum ptuosè contegi, an't condiri aromatibus, aut monumentum electum concupivit, aut curavit sepulchrum patrium. Non ista mandavit Aug. lib. 9 confess. ca 13 nobis, sed tantummodò memoriam sui ad altare tuum fieri desideravit, cui nullius diei praetermissione seruierat, unde sciret dispensari victimam sanctam, qua deletum est chyrographum quod erat contrarium nobis. She, the day of her death being at hand, was not mindful to have her body sumptuously buried, or to be spiced with Altar served where sacrifice was done. spices, nor coveted to have a solemn monument, neither desired to be buried in her own country. These things did she not command us, but only desired she to be remembered at thine altar, which she without any days omission had served, from whence she knew that sacrifice to be dispensed, by the which the hand writing was put out that was against us. Thus of Saint Augustine also ye hear the name of the altar and the use. The use is like as ye have heard in S. Ambrose, that is, to offer sacrifice upon. For S. Augustins' mother knew that that sacrifice was dispensed or given from the altar which redeemed us and washed us from our sins in his blood, which every true Christian will confess to be the body of our Lord jesus christ. The same S. Augustine also is a plentiful withnesse of this matter of the altar, ad Casulanum. And in his sermon to the infants, of which place also The proclaimers false sleight in his allegation of S. August. the Proclaimer in his sermon maketh mention: but with such sleight, and crafty falsehood, as I can not overpass it, but note it to the Reader. For first, where S. Augustine useth the plain term or name of the altar, this man not liking that name corrupted S. Augustine and putteth in to the place of it the name of table. Secondly where S. Augusten plainly teacheth the presence of Christ'S body and blood. He to deceive his audience bringeth three or four words of the place to make them believe that S. Augusten reputed the Sacrament but as a piece of bread, and leaveth out all the rest. But I shall first allege S. Augustine as his own words be. Thus he writeth: Hoc quod videtis in altari Dei, etiam transacta nocte vidistis. Aug. serm. ad infant. Sed quid esset, quid sibi velit, quam magnae rei Sacramentum contineret, nondum audistis. Quod ergo vidistis panis est, & calix, quod vobis etiam oculi vestri renunciant. Quod autem fides vestra postulat instruenda, panis est corpus Christi, calix sanguis. Dominus noster jesus Christus novimus unde acceperit carnem, de virgine Maria, infant lactatus est, nutritus est, crevit, ad iwenilem aetatem pervenit, à judaeis persecutionem passus est, in ligno suspensus est, in ligno interfectus est, sepultus est, tertia die resurrexit, quo die voluit in coelum ascendere, illuc levauit corpus suum, unde est venturus ut indicet vivos & mortuos, Ibi est modò sedens ad dextram Patris: Quomodò est panis corpus eius? & calix, vel quod habet calix, quomodò est sanguis eius? Ista fratres ideò dicuntur Sacramenta, quia in eyes aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur. Quod videtur speciem habet corporalem, quod intelligitur, fructum habet spiritualem. This that ye see in the altar of God, ye did also see it the last night. But what it was, what ytment, Where S. Aug. here nameth the altar, the Proclaimer a shamed of so honourable a name calleth it a table. of how great a thing it containeth a Sacrament yet have not yet heard. That then that ye have seen is bread and a cup, which thing also your eyes do tell you: but that your faith requireth to be instructed, the bread is the body of christ, and the cup his blood. Hour Lord jesus christ, we know from whence he took flesh, even of the virgin Marie, being an infant he sucked: he was nursed, he grew, he came to the age of a young man, he suffered persecution of the jews, he was hanged upon the cross, upon the cross he died, he was buried, the third day he rose, what day he would he ascended into heaven: Thither did he cacrie up his body from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead: There is he now sitting at the right hand of God the Father. How is the bread his body? and the cup, or that is in the cup, how is it his blood? These things brethren are therefore called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, an other thing is understanded. That that is seen hath a corporal form, that is understanded, hath a spiritual profit. This is the whole saying of Saint Augustine. The Proclaimer allegeth him thus: Quod videtis in mensa, panis est. That ye see in the table, is bread. In which his allegation first ye may perceive, that where Saint Augustine put and used this word, altar. This man to make him appear to have said to his purpose, was contented to corrupt him, and falsify him, in stead thereof to put his word, table. In deed it could not but have sounded to his shame in such a wise and learned audience if he should have alleged Saint Augustine making mention of the altar, and not only calling it the altar, but also the altar of God, the which Altar of God. altar with the mention and whole remembrance of it, he hath laboured to deface, and utterly to wipe away. What ye may think and judge of the doctrine of this man, that to maintain it doth so manifestly falsify the doctors, and dare not allege them as they be written, but as he listeth himself, I leave to be considered. What sincerity also he useth so truncatelie alleging Saint Augustine, that where he taught the two S. August. truncathe alleged by the Proclaimer to deceive the people and to rob the B. Sacr. of the presence of Christ. parts of the Sacrament, namely the outward corporal form, and the inward substance of Christ'S body and blood: the one known by the eye of the body, the other by the understanding of faith, this man snatcheth the first part, and runneth away with it, leaving the other part behind him, and so truncating Saint Augustin deceiveth the people, and abuseth the holy doctor. I shall not need to give farther advertisement here. Saint Augustine as he did write, and as this man allegeth him lieth before you, ye may compare them, and try the truth. Wherefore I will leave to speak of them any more and proceed in my matter. As of these Fathers before alleged we have learned that in the primitive Church the altars were in use: So now learn withal what in those days was thought of them that did abuse altars. To give us understanding in this matter, we will hear Optatus, the holy ancient Bishop, who lived before Saint Augustine, Saint Hierom, or Saint Ambrose, and was almost xii. hundreth years agone. This learned Father and Bishop writing against the Donatists who threw down the altars, and spoiled the Churches, saith thus: Quid est tam sacrilegum quam altaria Dei, in Optatus li. con. Donatist. quibus & vos abquando obtulistis, frangere, radere, & removere, in quibus vita populi, & membra Christi portata sunt, quo Deus omnipotens invocatus sit, quo postulatus descendit Spiritus sanctus, unde à multis pignus salutis aeternae, & tutela fidei, & spes resurrectionis accepta est? Alcaria, inquam, in quibus fraternitatis munera non jussit salvator poni, nisi quae essent de pace condita. Depone, inquit, munus tuum ante altar, & redi, priùs concorda cum fratre tuo, ut pro te possit sacerdos offer. Quid est enim altar, nisi sedes corporis & sanguinis Christi? Haec omnia furor vester, aut rasit, aut fregit, aut removit. Quid vobis secit Deus, qui illic invocari consueverat? Quid vos offenderat Christus, cuius illic per certa momenta, corpus & sanguis habitat? Quid vos offen. ditis etiam vos ipsi, ut altaria frangatis, in quibus ante nos per longa temporum spatia, 3. Reg. 19 sanctè (ut arbitramini) obtulistis? Hoc modo judaeos estis imitati. Illi iniecerunt manus Christo in cruce: à vobis pereussus est in altari, De quibus apud Dominum Helias Propheta quaerelam deponit, ijs enim locutus verbis, quibus & vos inter alios ab ipso accusari meruistis. Domine, inquit, altaria tua confregerunt. Dum dicit tua, indicat quia res est Dei, ubi Deo aliquid à quocumque oblatum est. What is so great sacrilege, as to bread See here the use, the regard, the estimation and reverence of altars in the ancient church. raze, and remove the Altars of God, in the which your selves sometime have offered in which the prayers of the people and members of Christ were born: where almighty God is called on: where the holy Spirit desired descendeth. from whence of many the pledge of everlasting health: and the safeguard of faith: and the hope of resurrection is taken? the Altars isaiah, on the which our saviour commanded the offerings of the brethren not to be put, except such as were seasoned with peace. Lay down, (saith he) thy offering before the Altar. and go first and agree with thy brother, that the priest may offer for thee. What is the Altar but the seat of the body and blood of christ? But all these hath your fury either razed, broken, or removed and taken Altar what it is, and the spoil of altars. away. what had God done to you, who was wont there to be called on? What had christ offended you, whose body and blood sometime dwelleth there? what do you your selves offend your selves, to break those altars in the which a long time before us ye have offered, as ye think, godly. By this ye have followed the jews. They smitte christ upon the cross: of you he is smitten on the altar, of whom the Prophet Heltas maketh complaint to our lordre. For he speaketh such words, where with you also are worthy to be blamed. Lord (saith he) they have broken down thine altars. When he saith (, Thine) he declareth that that thing is gods or belongeth to God, where any thing of any man is offered to God, thus much Optatus. Who was not born yesterday to tell us the fashion of religion in the latter days. But he talleth us the religion of the ancient Church, which was almost twelve hundreth years agone at which time he lived and in that time it was thought that there could be no Let the Proclaimer and his follows see and say how they agree in their doings with the ancient church whereof in words they brag so much. greater sacrilege then to break and pull down the altars. In those days (as by this author it may be perceived) it was religion to say that the altar is the seat of the body and blood of christ. Whereby as the presence of the very body and blood in the Sacrament may evidently be perceived to have been faithfully believed and taught: So may it that the altars, for that they were accounted the seat of the body and blood of christ, were reverently used. It is easy also to perceive how that in those days the use of the altar was to offer upon, as ye may perceive by his allegation of Chrysts saying. If then to pull down and destroy altars be so heinous and great an offence, that there is no sacrilege greater than it, and this was so thought above eleven hundreth years agone, I wish them that find themselves guilty of such facts to have consideration of their doings, if they have any regard to the judgements and advertisements of the ancient Fathers. If they will not credit their judgements let them credit the judgements of God. who in times passed hath evidently declared the same. Wherefore as ye have heard the use of the altars testified by diverse Fathers, and the abuse of them also reputed as an heinous crime and offence, yea more heinous than sacrilege: So shall ye now perceive the contemptuous abuse of them to have been sore and grievously punished of God, thereby well appearing such abuse moche to offend him. Lib. 6. cap. 23. The impudens fact of julianus in possing against the holy altar. In the tripartite history we read that in the tlme of julianus Apostata, one called julianus being the ruler of the east parts under the same wicked julian then Emperor, entered in to a church, and pissed against the altar. The words of Theodorete be these: julianus praefectus impudenter contra sacrum altare minxit, quem cùm Euzoius prohibere tentaret, eum ille percussit in capite. julian the precedent impudently pissed against the holy altar, whom when Euzoius would have forbidden, he struck him upon the head. Here by the report of this author, ye see the impudent fact of this wicked julianus, where by the way note that the author calleth it an impudent fact, and also calleth the altar an holy altar. And now hear the punishint of this fact. The author reporting the wicked doings of the said julianus, and of one Felix together, shewing both their punishiments saith thus: Sed pro ijs impietatibus vesanisque praesumptionibus non post multum paenas exacti sunt. Name repent julianus saevo morbo correptus viseribus putrefactis interijt. & excrementa non per meatus egestinos emittebat, sed scelestum os, quod blasphemijs ministraverat, organum huius excretionis est factum. But Abuse of altars and spoiled of churches punished. for all these wickednesses, and furiose presumptions, they within a little while after, suffered pains. For julianus being suddenly taken with a sore disease his bowels being putrifieddied, and he did not void the excrements by the lower parts of his body. But the wicked mouth, that had been an instrument to blasphemies, was now made an organ of excretion. Thus much the ecclesiesticall history. In which, as before we saw the offence of the man: So now perceive Arrius his filthy death. we the punishment. Arrius was a blasphemous heretic whose heinous offence, was (by his death inflicted of God) declared to all the world, to be to God very grievous, and displeasant, and yet it was not more grievously punished then this. For that man though he in easing of nature, by gods plague powered out with thexcrements the bowels of his body, and so died a filthy death: Yet this man, whose bowels, by the like plague of God were putrefied, and rotten in his body, and thereby God so disposing, the filthy and stinking excrements, that should have been voided by the lower parts of his body were voided and powered out at his mouth, and so dying, died yet a filthier death, than tother. If than the contemptuous abuse of altars were so grievously punished of God, and the reverent use of altars was never reproved, easy it is to judge that the well users of altars, are of God praised, and the abusers of them, of God dispraised. the use of altars of God and ancient Fathers well liked the abuse of them much misliked. But once, to finish this matter, and to return to our text, and to Anselmus whose exposition we alleged: ye may by this that is said well peceive that both the name of the altar, and also the use of it, is comed to us from the primitive church. So that this author Anselmus is not the first author of it. But he speaketh of it as he hath learned of the Fathers. And therefore doth very well expound the table of our lord in S. Paul, calling it the altar. For the altar in deed is the table of our lord, wherein is the meat of the body of christ which is the sacrifice of our lord. of the which the faithful people be partakers, and where upon we feed, to repair this corruptible flesh that it may once come to incorruption, ad from mortality to immortality. Neither only are we moved by the exposition of this author to understand Altar wherefore it serveth. S. Paul to speak of the altars: but also to understand him to have spoken of the sacrifice of the same altar of christ. for that therein he implieth the sacrifice of Chrysts body and blood, by cause an altar generally serveth to bear a sacrifice: wherefore particularly the altar of christ serveth to bear the sacrifice of christ. To this understanding of S. Paul the very letter leadeth: S. Paul's own argument made to the Corinthians enforeth. For when he saith unto them: Ye can not drink the cup of our lord, and the cup of devels: ye can not be partakers of the table of our lord, and of the table devels. In both parts he calleth it indifferently the cup. So that to the vessel of our lords table he giveth no other term than he doth to the vessel of the table of devels. If then it be the cup of the devels because it was offered to devels, in sacrifice: then is the other the cup of our Lord, because it is offered to him in sacrifice. Likewise for the second sentence: If the table of devels, be so called because it serveth to the sacrifice of devels: Even so must the table of our Lord be so called, because it serveth to the sacrifice of our Lord. Thus than ye see that of the very letter, and of Saint Paul's argument, if it shall have any force by the comparison, which he here maketh, that as he spoke of the sacrifice of devels on the one side: so he spoke of the sacrifice of our Lord on the other side. For as Hilary saith. Omnis comparatio ad intelligentiae formam praesumitur, ut id, de quo agitur, secundùm exemplum propositum assequamur. Every comparison is taken to the form Hilar de Trinit li. 8 of understanding, that we may attain it that is spoken of according to the example that is proposed. Now if Saint Paul making his comparison should in one part speak of one thing, and in the other part of an other thing, how should the comparison help our understanding? Wherefore according to Saint Paul's example we understand him speaking of the cup of our Lord. to have spoken of it, as of the blood of christ offered in sacrifice (of the which, as before is said we be partakers) as in the same example speaking of the cup of devels, he speaketh of it as of a sacrifice offered to devels, of the which Idolaters are partakers. Otherwise what should the comparison avail, when betwixt a thing offered in sacrifice and a thing not offered in sacrifice there is no proportion. Wherefore as the example is understanded of a thing sacrificed: So must the thing compared to the example be understanded of a thing sacrificed, that there may be proportion and similitude betwixt the things joined in comparison. Then must it be concluded that as Saint Paul spoke of sacrifice in the example: So spoke he of sacrifice in the thing compared to the example. And so it is evident that the body and blood of christ in the Sacrament, of which we are partakers, after the mind of Saint Paul, is a sacrifice. To this if ye add the sainges of Saint Cyprian and chrysostom in the last chapter, and the expositions of all the doctors upon these texts of Saint Paul: The cup of blessing, etc. and, The bread which we break, etc. Which ye shall find before alleged in this book, which all so show the mind of Saint Paul, as that he spoke not only in these places of the body and blood of christ in the Sacrament, as there verily present: But also as it is a sacrifice, ye shall if ye will, easily perceive and understand the truth of the matter, that Saint Paul in this disputation with the Corynthians, treacted of the body and blood of christ in the Sacrament as of a sacrifice. To the understanding of which truth moche light is added by that is declared, that the ancient Fathers of the primitive Church accepted both the name and the use of an altar, which argueth a sacrifice. For a sacrifice, and an altar be (as it were) Correlatives: Altar and Sacrifice be correlatives. So that whether it be extern or intern sacrifice, it hath answetablie an altar, so that we may say: If here be an altar it presupposeth to do sacrifice on. If we say, here is a sacrifice, it presupposeth to be done on an altar. This the Adversary knew right well. Wherefore to compass his purpose to take away the sacrifice he removed and took away altars. But what soever the Adversary hath done, it is plainly proved, that the primitive Church used both, and had both in honour and reverence. THE TWO AND THIRTETH CHAP. UPON OCCAsion that it is proved, that the primitive Church used the altar, and reputed the body and blood of christ to be a Sacrifice, beginneth to treact of the same sacrifice, which we commonly call the Mass. AS the Sacrament of Christ'S body and blood is (as Dionysius Areopagita saith) of all Sacraments most excellent, and most honourable, perfecting and consummating all other Sacraments: Even so is there none that Satan more cruelly persecuteth by his ministers in these our days than this. For of all the parts or members ●… this he leaveth none untouched and not impugned: The presence he utterly denieth: transubstantion he derideth: Adoration as Idolatry he detesteth reservation he contemneth: Communion either private (as he termeth it) or under one kind, he flieth and despiseth: The sacrifice as a pestilence he abhorreth and hateth: the hatred, whereof he hath so fixed, and fired in the hearts of his disciples, that not only the thing, as the sacrifice it self, and the Ceremonies thereunto appertaining: but the very name is unto them so odious, as nothing can be more odious. This sacrifice and the whole ministration of the same is called the Mass, which how it hath been mocked and scorned, what raiginges and railings have been used against it, it is raither to be lamented, then rehearsed. After the which sort this Proclaimer bendeth himself chiefly to inveigh against the Mass. But uless as S. Paul hath taught us that the body and blood of christ be our sacrifice, and the Fathers of the primitive Church did so receive it and believe it: by breaking and drinking of which in the altar of our Lord, they trusted fastly and inseparably to be united to christ: I will somewhat more specially (being thus as is said occasioned) speak of the same sacrifice and the ministration of it. And first of the name. Secondly of the whole ministration. Thirdly of certain parts of the Canon, which the Proclaimer impugneth. Forthlie of the valeu of it to the quick and dead. As for the name, I can but marvel what they mien that so furiously rage Mass the word how it cometh. against it, considering that it was not yesterday begun or invented: but used in the primitive Church, and from the primitive Church in the same signification as it is at this present day. For this word, Mass, which is used in the english tongue: And Missa, which to signify the same is used in the latin tongue, be (as the learned in the tongues say) Hebrew words. In the which tongue of this word (Mass) cometh Missa, which in signification is all one with the greek word (Liturgia) insomuch that if a man would translate or interpret this word (Missa) into greek, he can have no meeter word, than this word (Liturgia) lively, and fully to answer, and express his signification. Likewise if a man will interpreter or translate this word (Liturgia) into the Hebrew tongue he can have no apt term than this word, Missah. And if you will translate both these into the latin tongue, it shall be rightly and justly done by the word (officium) as it signifieth our duty in doing sacrifice and divine service to God. Missa. Liturgia. Officium. And although these words, Missa, Liturgia, and officium, be of more large signification: yet have they been by great ancient Fathers of Christ'S Church restreigned, and limited to signify only our sacrifice, and service to God. Wherefore in the greek Church the Mass of Saint basil war called Liturgia, the Mass of Saint Chrysostom was called Liturgia. So is this word, officium, used in Saint Luke's Gospel where he speaketh of Zacharias the priest and father of Saint john Baptist: Et factum est, ut impleti sunt dies officij eius, abijt in domum suam. And when the time of his service was Luc. 1. expired, he went home. In which saying this word, service, is taken for the sacrifice and divine service done in the time of his course in the temple. And that this word Missa, which the latins have borrowed of the hebrews, hath been used of the Fathers of the latin Church, for the sacrifice and service of God, which we call Mass, few that have used to readd those Fathers be ignorant. And here to begin with that holy Leo the first, who was, as ye have before heard, more than a thousand years agone, he willing two Masses to be had in one day for the commodity of the people, saith thus: Necesse est ut quaedam pars populi sua devotione privetur si unius tantùm Missae more seruato Leo epi. 79 sacrificium offerre non possunt, nisi qui prima diei part convenerint. It must needs be that some part of the people shall be hindered of their devotion, if the manner of one Mass only being kept, none can offer sacrifice, but they that come together in the first part of the day. By this saying of Leo, we are taught, two things: The one is, that Mass here is taken for the common sacrifice and service of the people to God. Which is easy to be perceived by that he saith that a great part of the people should be hindered of their devotion, and should not offer sacrifice, if there should be but one Mass. For the Mass being a common service and sacrifice to God, is or ought by joinct affection and devotion of the people to the priest (who is the common ministre of the Church, and offereth for them all) to be offered of them all. And therefore the priest saith plurally, offerimus, we offer. And when he hath done he likewise saith plurally, obtulimus, we have offered. And this common offering or sacrifice is commonly called Mass. The other is that there may be more Masses than one in a Church on one day. Which number of Masses in one church, the Proclaimer impugneth There may be more masses than one in one church and one day. by a member of his proclamation, and chargeth the catholic Church with an abuse in that there have been in one Church more Masses than one in one day. If he say that it was done that the people might communicate: I content me, let it be so (though the truth is, is was done that all the people might sacrifice) Then for communion there may be no Masses then one in one day. Then if there be five ten, or twenty communions in one day there may be five, ten, or twenty Masses in one Church in one day. For why not aswell twenty as two, and those aswell for thoffering of sacrifice, as for communion? what scripture hath the Proclaimer to the contrary? But thus much out of the principal matter by occasion, as the like shall happen again when we shall allege Telesphorus. But now as touching the name of Mass, we find it also used of Saint Ambrose. For he saith of himself: Ego mansi in munere, missam Ambrose epist. 33. facere cepi, orare in oblatione Deum, ut subveniret. I did abide in my office: I began to say Mass: to pray God in the sacrifice, that he would help. In which saying Saint Ambrose useth the name of Mass to express to us the sacrifice of God, that he began to do. Which by plain words he openeth when he said, he began Mass to pray God in the sacrifice to help. So that to say Mass, was to offer sacrifice, and the oblation of it to make prayer to God. So familiar was the name of the Mass, that as it is thought, Saint Ambrose making two godly prayers to be said before Mass, he entitled them: the prayers preparative before Mass. It is not unlike that the name of Mass was familiar in Saint Ambrose days, seeing it was in use in the time of Telesphorus. Who being the seventh bishop of Rome after Saint Peter, was wellnigh three hundredth years before Saint Ambrose. This man made a statute that in the feast of the nativity of our Lord there should three Masses be song. The first, at midnight, when christ was born in Bethleem: The second, in the morning, when he was seen of the shepherds. The third, about the hour, that christ suffered his passion. And ye may perceive that it was the Mass now in use for a Telesphor. Three masses commanded to be done on christ maesse day. 140 years agone. great part of it, calling the Mass the whole Ceremony, that was by this man appointed. For by him, was Gloria in excelsis, commanded to be song before the sacrifice should be offered. From this man's time who lived more the fourteen hundredth years agone, not only the name of Mass hath been in the Church: But also on the day of the Nativity of our Lord, three Masses have been used in the Church. For some proof whereof we have Saint Gregory, who upon the Gospel of Saint Luke read that day in the Church, making an homely or sermon to the people saith thus. Quia missarum solemnia ter hody celebraturi sumus, diude Greg. hom, evangelica lectione loqui non possumus. Because this day we must sing three solemn Masses, we can not long speak of the evangelical lesson. That this hath been also observed in these later days, there is no doubt. Then seeing it hath been solemnly observed so long time, to sing three solemn Masses upon the day of Christ'S birth, who can be so blind not to see the name to have been from the primitive church used? Now here by the way note how true the article of the Proclaimer is, where in he avoucheth that it can not be showed, that more Masses than one were said in one day. It is I suppose, lawful to have more than one on a day, when first we find it by so ancient, and so holy a Martyr commanded, and that so near to the beginning of the Church. secondarily, for that Leo gave order that in one day, and in one Church more Masses should be celebrated then one. thirdly, we may judge it lawful, forasmuch as we find it so observed to Saint Gregory's time. In all which time, who can doubt the Church to have been in good perfection. And if the Church did repute it well done that time: If so many learned men, as were in that flourishing time, which was for the space of four hundredth years, in the which time lived: Tertullian, Cyprian, Hylary, Hierom, Ambrose, Augusten, and a number of men both famous in holiness of life, and excellency of learning did practise the same, did observe, and follow the same: What may we, or can we say, but it is lawful to have more Masses said then one in one day, and in one Church? For if three be commanded, to be said: Why may not five be said? Why not ten? Why not not fifteen, and so forth, where the number of priests and denotion of the people suffice and require. The Proclaimer brageth moche of the primititi●e church, but his doings be against it. Thus ye may see how the Proclaimer bragging of the primitive Church, is confounded by the primitive Church. He would with words of the primitive Church, bleer the eyes of men, when the doings of the same Church shall cause them to see him overthrown. And thus by shameful speaking against the truth he giveth occasion to his own shame, to have the truth showed, And here also it is to be observed, that this impugnation of the nnmbre of Masses can not proceed out of any godly or virtuous principle. For if it be godly, and to our duty appertaining highly to esteem Christ'S passion and death for our redemption therein wrought, to render to God and our Saviour christ, most humble hearty and often thanks, and often also to do that solemn memorial that christ himself hath appointed to be done, all which be done in the Mass, what should let, or what likely or apparent dissuasion can this Proclaimer make that the Mass should be seldomer, and not raither oftener done? Soche doctrine as moveth to virtue, to the setting forth of God's honour, is to be embraced. Soche as dissuadeth from virtue, and causeth a decay of devotion, and slackness of our duty in remembering of Christ'S passion, and death and thanks giving for the same, is not only to be suspected, but to be judged evil devilish and abominable. And truly in this is a farther matter intended by Satan and his ministers, then is yet opened. But this The final mark that Satan shooteth at. may be conjectured, that where they beginue to diminish the memory of christ they will afterward clean extingnish it. And so at the last altogether wipe christ from all memory. But to return to our chief purpose: Although this sufficeth to prove the name of Mass, the use of Mass, and the use of more Masses then one in one day and one place, to be right ancient, yet we shall ascend somewhat higher, and come nearer to the Apostles time. Before Telesphorus, was Sixtus, who commanded that when the priest began the solemn action of the Mass (whereby is meant the prayers going before the consecration) the people should sing Sanctus, Sanctus etc. Which we see to this day observed in the Mass, where it is used. Before Sixtus was Alexander the Martyr, a Roman borne, and about the year of our Lord cxix. bishop of Sixtus in Decret. Alexan. in epist. ad orthodox. Rome. Who made such a decree, as I find it in the sum of decrees. In sacrificio missarum, panis tantùm & vinum aqua mixtum offeratur. In the sacrifice of Masses, let only bread and wine mixed with water be offied. This man being a Roman borne, an ancient of the Church, and an holy Martyr with his plain speech of Mass presseth the Adversary so sore that he is fain to sly to his common solution. Which is to deny the Author. In which his doing he doth not degenerate from his fore grand Fathers. Martion for the maintenance of his heresy rejected the old Testament and the Prophets, all the Evangelists saving Saint Luke. The manichees also rejected the old Testament. Martin Luther rejected the Epistle of Saint james. The Sacramentaries reject Saint Ambrose books of the Sacraments. And why have all these denied these books? Because they be directly against their heresies and do confute them. So, I say, the Adversary denied Alexander, because he maketh so express, and plain mention of Mass, which he would overthrow. But let us see what proof he hath to prove that Alexander did not make this above mentioned constitution, Because (saith he) The charche in the time of Alexander, did not know this word Mass. And therefore it is like not to be his saying. This saying shall be divided in to two parts, and to answer the first part of it, I say, it is a marvelous thing, that he will say of himself without all authority, yea even against plain authority, that the Church did not know Alexan. his authority approved and delinered from the cavile of the Adverse. this word Mass, when by authority the contrary is proved. If he will refuse it, let him counteruaill it with like authority, and then we shall give him place. But naked words without proof in matters of controversy are not of weight able to prove any thing. For the second part, where he saith: it is therefore like not to be his saying: I must say that out of a fainct antecedent, cometh but a weak consequent. Every likelihood hath not the very verity, no more hath his. And therefore in case it were like (as he saith) yet it proveth not. But to prove that this is the saying of Alexander, we will use neither bare words, neither fainct likelihoods. But authority, and probable matter. For authority we have a council held more than sex honderth yearesagon, Conc. Constantine. 6. which testifieth this to be the saying of Alexander. and never yet against said by any council that since hath been celebrated, or by any famous learned catholic man. Probable matter we have, that for asmuch as the name of Mass was in use in the time of S. Gregory, as is already testified. In the time also of Felix the fourth who was before S. Gregory, in whose time the use of the thing it self with the name was so much in use, that he made a decree that no priest without a great necessity should say mass but in places hallowed and dedicated to God, where by it is clear that it Felixquartus epistola. ad Episc. was used also before his time. Now if the name of Mass or the thing were so strange in that time, as the Adversary would bear us in hand, there should no such commandment have been made to will the priests to celebrate only in churches, For by this restraint it may be conjectured, that it was commonlic used in profane places, I mien in their houses, no necessity enforcing them thereto, but their own private devotion. Now if I were in the adversaries case and should perceive the use and continuance of the Mass, and the name of it to have continued but for so long time as from Felix hitherto, which is almost a thousand year. I should be ashamed to take upon me, to reprehend the doing of the whole christian world so long used, and the judgement of so many holy and learned men, as in so much time have lived: And contemning all them to setforth mine own phantafie. But pity it is to behold, he doth not only so, but (arcogancic so leading him) he reproveth the whole christian world and all the Church and learned men that have been these eleven hundreth, and three score years and more. For even by his own confession it is evident that the name of Mass hath been in use since four hundreth years after Christ For these be his words towards the end of The Proclaimer himself granteth the name of Mass to have been used from four hundredth years after Christ. his sermon: I assure ●owe brethren, in the time of Peter and james, neither was there any man that ever heard the name of Mass. For Missa was never named until four hundredth years after Christ. And yet then was it no Private Mass neither. By which words it is evident that he acknowledgeth the name of Mass to have been used, from four hundredth years after Christ, and if it hath continued but so long, what arrogancy may be thought in him? Not only arrogancy, but manifest untruth maic be perceived in him. For it is already use within one hundredth and a few years after christ. For better declaration whereof, we have showed the use of it in the time of S. Gregory and Felix. But yet here is not the beginning of the matter. For as ye have heard Leo, who was before this Eelix. and S. Ambrose, who was before, do make express mention of it. Thelesporus also and Sixtus that were very near the time of Alexander (as it is before showed) made decrees for the Mass. Seeing then it is proved that the name of Mass was in use from hour time to Sixtus, who was next Bishop of Rome to Alexander: is it not a probable matter, or raither doth it not prove in deed, that it was in use in the time of the same Alexander. For when Sixtus made the addition of Sauctus to the Mass, it presupposeth that the Mass was before his time. If before his time than needs in the time of Alexander, who went next before him. Now Reader if seist substantial proof against the Adversary whereby is proved this to be the saying of Alexander? as some account the fift Bishop of Rome after Saint Peter, whom the Adversary would reject by cause he so planlie impugneth his heresy. But this being thus proved, the truth appeareth that the name of Miss hath been in the Church assuredly without all double more than fourteen hundreth years. And if vainglorious pride did not to much prevail in the Adversary, such reverence should be given to antiquity, and specially to so holy a Martyr as he was, that that is said of him with the approbation of the whole Church should be embraced and humbly received, and not arrogantly and contemptuoslie rejected and despised. And yet this is to be thought of so holy and ancient a Martyr, that he himself would not invent a novelty of himself but raither that he took it of his Fathers as the manner of his writing doth in good part prove. And now that we have driven the matter thus far, let us here rest with S. Augustins' rule and counsel, which is this: Illa quae per orbem universa observat Ecclesia, datur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis, vel à plenarijs Concilijs, quorum Ad janua. epus. ● 18 est in Ecclesia saluberima authoritas, statuta retineri. Soche things as the whole Church through the world doth observe, we may understand that they are retined as ordained either of the Apostles themselves: or else of general councils, whose authority is in the Church most wholesome or profitable. Then uless as the name of Mass is retained through This his false assurance declareth both untruth, and arrogancy. untruth for it was in use before four hundreth year: arrogancy that confessing the use for Mc. years, he doth now reject it. all the Church, For that which the Greeks call Liturgia, the Latins call Missa, and in the english tongue both be called Mass, and that name was not appointed by any general council, but was in use before the first general council that was holden, we may say by S. Augustine's rule, that it cometh from the Apostles. And now where is the great assurance that this Proclaimer made unto you, when he said. I assure you brethren, that the name of Mass was never named until four hundreth years after christ? And among us english men I would see what other name either the Proclaimer, or any other learned or unlearned man, can show to have been in this realm generally used since it received the faith, but only this name. If they have none other name but this: and this name they received when they first received the faith as english men, and have from that time till within these few late years continued the same: What now moveth the english man to reject that name that he received with his faith? With the grief of my heart I tell the cause: The cause is that he rejecteth the faith that was first received. And therefore I fear that the english man rejecting the faith, whereby he was first made a christian man, and the names of things to that faith appertaining, he will also reject christ, and the name also of a christian man. But God of his mercy turn his face from our sins, and turn us home again to him, that we perish not in our unfaithfulness: but by his grace acknowledging our offence, we may every one of us determe with the prodigal Son and say: Surgam & ibo ad patrem meum, & dicam ei: Luc. 15. Pater peccaut in coelum & coram te iam non sum dignus vocari filius tuus etc. I will arise and go to my Father, and I will say to him: Father I have sinned against heaven, and before thee: I am not worthy to be called thy Son. Which determination God grant shortly to come to pass. THE THREE AND THIRTETH Chapter treateth of the Mass it self. forasmuch as Mass hath a larger and straighter acception or signification: Mass hath two significations. meet it is that both be declared, that it may be discerned which of them it is that properly is called Mass. Of Mass in his large signification the Proclaimer, though more like a sycophant, than a man of true and sincere report, saith, that it consisteth in four parts. If he had added the fift, or if in the holy consecration, he also understandeth holy oblation he hath declared what Mass is in the large signification. For the holy prayers that go before consecration, oblation, and receiving. and that follow them: holy doctrine also as the epistle, the Gospel and other scriptures there placed and read, with all the Ceremonies thereunto appertaining added and putto of diverse holy Fathers, to increase, nourish, and conserve the devotion of the people, for the more reverend use of the Sacrament to the honour and glory of God (whose honour is moche maintained by the reverend handling of his mysteries) are not properly called Mass, but largely forasmoch as they be annexed and joined to that that properly is called Mass, and be not the Mass it self. For the Mass it self is the holy consecration of the body Mass prophelie what it is. and blood of christ, the holy oblation and offering of the same, in the memorial and remembrance of his passion and death with humble and lowly thanks, lawdes, and praises for the same, and holy receiving, of that body and blood so consecrated. This is it that properly is called the Mass, because thus moche is instituted of christ himself. For he in his last Supper when he had consecrated and offered his blessed body and blood, he said. Accipite, comedite. Hoc in mei memoriam facite. Take and eat, do this in remembrance of me. So that consecration oblation with thankful remembrance of Christ'S death, and holy receiving, of his blessed body be the things that properly be called the Mass. Nam per reliqua Ambr. de Sar. lib. 4. cap. 4. omnia quae dicuntur, Laus Deo defertur, oratione petitur pro populo, pro Regibus, pro caeteris. Vbi venitur ut conficiatur venerabile Sacramentum, iam non suis sermonibus sacerdos, sed utitur sermonibus Christi. For by all the other things that be said (saith Saint Ambrose) laud and praise is given to God, prayer is made for the people, for kings, and for other, but when the honourable Sacrament shall be consecrated, than the priest useth not his own words, but the words of Christ. So moche then as is of Christ'S institution, is properly called the Mass, by the proper signification. And the rest that of godly men is added for considerations before mentioned, is generally called the Mass by a general signification. As baptism properly is no more, nor properly extendeth it self any farther then to the washing of the body in the name of the Father, and Baptism used in two significations. of the Son, and of the holy Ghost and to the washing of the Soul from sin by grace given in the ministration of the same Sacrament: yet the whole ministration and prayers aswell before batisme as after used in the same, by a general signification is called Baptism. So is the consecration and oblation of the body of christ with all prayers and Ceremonies either going before or following the same, by general signification called Mass. This brief description of the Mass being made, let us examine the parts of it, which of them or how many of them be against the word of God, and the example or practice of the primative Church (as it is pretended) that it may be perceived what just cause the Proclaimer hath so moche to exclaim against the Mass. The first part is consecration. This part for that by it is taught the Parts of the Mass. presence of Christ'S body and blood, which the Proclaimer can not abide, is one cause why he rejecteth the Mass, But how justly he doth it it may be perceived through out all this book, in which is proved the presence, which the catholic Church teacheth, and the figure is improved, which the Adversary maintaineth. another part is oblation or sacrifice, wherein the Church offereth christ to God the Father according to the commandment of the same own master christ in the memorial of his passion and death. That this part is not against the scriptures, and the holy Fathers it is already proved in the declaration of the prophecies of Melchisedech, Daniel, and Malachi in the first book, whereunto is made an addition, which thou shalt find in the xxxvij. chapter of that same book, sufficient I trust to answer and satisfy any reasonable man. another part is receiving of the Sacrament. In the which two things do offend the Proclaimer: The one is that the people do receive under one kind: The other that the priest receiveth alone. Whether the receiving under one kind be against the Scriptures, or the practice of the Primitive Church, it is disputed, and the truth declared in the second book from the lxiiij chap. to the. end of lxvijchap. As for the receiving which the Proclaimer termeth private, it shall be hereafter treacted of. In doctrine, which is an other part, I know not what fault he can find. In prayer the first and last part of the Mass he findeth two faults. The one that prayer is made to saints: The other that prayer is made for the dead, for these two we shall have recourse to the primitive Church, and there make trial whether the Church doth well in so doing: or the Adversary evil in denying the same to be lawful and good. Now for the first part of the Mass which is consecration, I will not much otherwise here treact of it, but only laying forth the practice of the Apostolic and primitive Church therein, compare the doings of the catholic Church now therewith, that it may be perceived how justly it followeth the example thereof. As for the effect of consecration, which is the presence of Christ'S body, there needeth here no special treactice, for that the will book treateth thereof so fully, that if the Proclaimer will find fault in the Mass forthat the presence is taught there to be, he may in other places of this work find sufficient matter for the proof of the presence which if it will not satisfy him, neither may a few words here spoken moche help him. As for the second part, which is the oblation or sacrifice of Christ'S body, as before it is declared, that it is offered according to the will and commandment or christ himself, and that by the testimony of the Scriptures, as they be understanded of a number of the most ancient Fathers, and by diverse other grave authorities: So shall it be now set forth and commended to you by the practice of the Primitive Church. Which we have differred to this place. And uless as the Proclaimer to extenuate and abase the honourable estimation of the Mass, which it ought to have in the hearts of the people, doth for shame, and with shame conceal the names of such ancient Authors as do testify that both Saint Peter and Saint james said Mass, the one at Rome the other at Jerusalem, and doth also to When truth and learning serveth not, mocking and scorning be their best arguments. bring the matter in contempt ask by way of scorn, why raither we say not that christ himself said Mass, for that were the nearer way to bring the Mass in credit: I shall by good and sufficient authority show that not only Saint Peter and Saint james, but also christ himself did say Mass. And so beginning at christ descend to three or four hundredth years after christ, and show the practice of the Church. And for this time I will overpass the farther mock and scorn that he maketh against the blessed Mass, ask why we do not raither say that Aaron and his chaplains said Mass, For in deed (saith he) as it hath been used, the Church hath had much more of the Robes of the Ceremonies, and of the sacrifices of Aaron, then of the institution or ordinance of christ. For is I should touch him for that, I should cause Aaron's garment worn for a Bishopporke, and the Communion ministered in a cope. him to be perceived to impugn and in that behalf to scorn the ministration of the Communion. For that is ministered in copes and other such garments as before were used in the Church, and he himself refuseth not to wear Aaron's garment for a Bishoppericke. So well agreeth his doing and his preaching together. And thus scoffing at the garments that be now yet used, he seemeth to me not to like this order of Religion that he liveth in, but raither to reprove this as he doth the other: For in this point by his judgement they hold both of Aaron. But letting this pass I will return to my matter, and wish the Reader to remember, what this word Mass doth signify, as it is declared in the last chapter and therewith to have in mind, as it is said in this chapter, christ said Mass. that Mass is the action of the consecration, oblation and receiving of the body and blood of christ, and so understanding Mass, I say that christ did say Mass. For he in his last Supper did institute Mass, and did there consecrate his body and blood, and offered them in sacrifice, and gave them to his Apostes to be received, and commanded that so it should be done in the remembrance of his passion and death. In this matter who listeth to be satisfied (forsomuch as one ancient Author may satisfy a man) let him read the Epistle of Saint Cyprian to Cecilius, Epist. li. 2. Epist. 3. and he shall there find every part of the Mass here reckoned, to be done by christ. First for the consecration he saith thus: in Genesi per Melchisedech Sacerdotem benedictio circa Abraham possit ritè celebrari, praecedit antè imago sacrificij in pane & vino scilicet constituta. Quam rem perficiens & adimpleus Dominus panem & calicem vino mixtum obtulit, & qui est plenitudo veritatem praesiguratae imaginis adimplevit. That the benediction in Genesis by Melchisedech the priest might be celebrated accordingly about Abraham, the image of the Sacrifice appointed in bread and wine goeth before. Which thing our lotde perfecting and fullfilling offered bread and the cup mixed with wine, and he that is the fullness, hath fulfiled the verity of the presigurated image. Holy Cyprian teacheth here that the bread and wine offered by Melschisedechi, were the prefigurated image of the verity fulfiled by christ. What the verity is he doth in the same epistle declare when he saith: Obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedec obtulerat, id est panem & vinum, suum scilicet corpus & sanguinem. He did offer even the same that Melchisedech offered, that is to say, bread and wine, that is to wit, his own body and blood. Christ then fullfilling the verity of Melchisedechs bread and wine, made bread and wine his body and blood, which fullfilling of the verity, and making the bread and wine his body and blood, what is it else, but that we call consecration? This body so consectated, is offered of us in sacrifice, as the same Saint Cyprian disputing against them that used only water in the Sacrifice, testifieth and saith: Quaerendum est enim ipsi quem sint secuti. Nam si in sacrificio quod Christus est, non nisi Christus sequendus est: utique id nos obaudire, & facere oportet, quod Christus secit, & quod faciendum esse mandavit. It must be asked, whom they have followed. The Sacrifice in the Mast is christ himself. For if in the Sacrifice which is christ, none is to be followed but christ, we must then obey and do that that christ did, and that he commanded to be doen. Mark well these words: that in the Sacrifice which is christ, none is to be followed But christ. The sacrifice then that the christian Church in the time of holy Cyprian did offer was the body of christ, it was christ himself. In the Sacrifice (saith he) which is christ. That the Church is commanded by christ to offer this sacrifice, in the remembrance of him, the same Saint Cyprian by most express and plain words doth teach, saying: Quodsi nec minima de mandatis Dominicis licet solvere: quanto magis tam magna r tam grandia, tam adipsum Dominicae passionis & nostrae redemptionis Sacramentum pertinentia, fas non est infringere, aut in aliud quàm quod Divinitus institttum est, humana traditione mutare? Nam si jesus Christus Dominus & Deus noster, ipse est summus sacerdos Dei Patris, & sacrificium ipse primus obtulit, & hoc fieri in sui commemorationem praecepit, utique ille Sacerdos vice Christi verè sungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit, imitatur. Et sacrificium verum & plenum tunc offered in Ecclesia Deo Patri, si sic incipiat offer, secundùm quod ipsum Christum viderit obtulisse. If then it be not lawful to break the least of the commandments of our Lord, how moche more it is not lawful to infringe or break things so great, so weighty, so appertaining to the very Sacrament of the passion of our Lord, and of our Redemption, or else by man's tradition to change it into any other thing, then that that by God was instituted. For if jesus christ our Lord and God if he be The same sacrifice that Christ did is commanded to be offered in his church. the high priest of God the Father, and he first did offer this sacrifice, and commanded this to be done in the remembrance of him: that priest doth the office of christ truly, that doth follow that, that christ hath doen. And then doth he offer in the Church unto God the Father a true, and a full sacrifice, if he so begin to offer, as he hath seen christ himself to have offered. Thus much S, Cyprian. Many things are in this saying of Cyprian to be noted which I shall briefly touch and passover First, it is to be observed, that to alter the institution of christ is a great and a weighty matter, which he accounteth to be altered, when either water alone or wine alone is ysed in the ministration, and not both together mixed. Wherein I wish the Adversary to weigh whether he offend not in a weighty and a great matter, when he breaketh and altereth the institution of christ, as Saint Cyprian saith, in that he useth but wine alone in the ministration. And farther observe The Communions in england test ifie the breach of these ordonnances and more to. that if to take away wine or water from the ministration be a great and a weighty matter, how moche greater and more heinous matter is it to take away the blessed boodie of christ from the Sacrament? Which Saint Cyprian teacheth not only in this place but in diverse other, as before may be seen, that christ aswell instituted his body and blood there to be present, as he did the matters of bread wine and water there to be used. And yet in these two points to alter the institution of christ the Proclaimer thinketh it no great matter. And here by the way to note, it is marvelous to behold how the Devil bewitcheth this man. For he sindeth great fault with the Church, and would make those which he reputeth faults to be as Mowntaines in the seight of the people, as the using and wearing of ornaments in the ministration, the speaking of the words of consecration high or low, and such other: And yet the denial of the presence of Christ'S body and blood to be in the Sacrament, he accounteth it but a small matter. In the Apology of the Church of england, which seemeth an arrow The apology and the Proclamation both like bolts. that came out of the same quoiver that this Sermon did, and to be both feathered the feathers of one Goose, of like manner, and colour, I mien, of phrase and matter, so near and so like are they or raither the same, that a man may well think, they be one man's bolts. In that Apology, I say, the Author being so desirous to hide and cloak the famous and notable dissension in weighty matters of Faith betwixt Luther, and Zwinglius, saith that they were both good and excellent men, and they did not (saith he) vary in great matters of faith, as of justification, and such like, but they varied in a little matter, a matter of no great weight. And yet that little matter was the matter of the Sacrament. For Luther taught the presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament. But Zuinglius denieth it, as this proclaimer doth. And so that, which Saint Cyprian accounteth a great and a weighty matter: this man being blind on the one side can perceive it but a small matter, but opeining his eyes to the other side he seeth it to be a great and horrible fault. For the ministers of Christ'S catholic church teaching according to Christ'S institution and word, saying this is my Body, that his body is in the Sacrament, are by this man not a little exclaimed at. For here are we Papists: here are we Capharnates: Here are we Idolaters, and the Authors of detestable Idolatry: here are we makers of Gods: here are we blasphemers: here are we the Robbers of God's honour, and what are we not that evil is, so great and wicked is our offence teaching Christ'S body in the Sacrament, and yet the same in Luther was but a small matter. Soche is the partial judgement of this man. But how soever he judgeth, holy Cyprian judgeth him and all such as he is grievous offenders and brakers of the institution of christ, that do so alter Christ's institution, that where it pleased him of the abundant and unspeakable love that he beareth to us, to ordain his own blessed body to be ministered unto us in the holy Sacrament, as a pledge of that same his love to our great consolation and comfort, and to our great benefit both in body and soul: they will ministre and give unto us not his body, but a piece of bread and a cup of wine. But that christ did give forth his own body and blood, and not bread and wine ye have before heard it declaretd. For christ fulfilled that in verity (saith Saint Cyprian) that Melchisedeth did in figure. Melchisedech offered bread and wine: christ perfecting that figure offered bread and wine, that is (saith holy Cyprian) his body and blood. Note then that Saint Cyprian expounding the fullfilling of the figure of bread and wine offered by Melchisedech saith not that christ offered bare bread and wine, but bread and wine, that was his body and blood. which blessed bread and wine of his body and blood being made present by his almighty power, by the turning of material bread and wine into his body and blood is the right fullfilling of the figurative bread and wine offered by Melchisedech. Ita nunc sanguinem suum in vino consecravit, qui tune vinum in sanguine Tertull. con. Martionem. Consecration the word used by Tertul. figuravit. So now (saith Tertulian) he hath consecrated his blood in wine, who then figured wine in his blood. Thus than ye perceive that christ did consecrate his body and blood, which word of consecration ye see that Tertulian abhoreth not, although it mislike many in these days, but useth it as the Church now useth it, and saith that christ did consecrate his blood in wine. another note we have which is this, that jesus christ our lord and God the high priest of God the Father did first offer this sacrifice. In which words we are taught not only that he did in his last Supper offer a Sacrifice, but that he did then offer a Sacrifice, that was never offered before. Let us therefore discuss and search what sacrifice that was. It was not a sacrificie of figurative bread and wine, For that also was offered by Aaron's priests: it was not a sacrifice of thanks giving only, For that was both in the law of nature, and by the law of Moses, and also by christ diverse times doen. What sacrifice was it then? was it a sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech? It was a sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech. But it may be said that that sacrifice was ofred by Melchisedech thousand of years before christ, so that christ was not the first that did offer after that manner, wherefore it should appear, that it was not that manner of sacrifice. True it is, that Melchisedech offered sacrifice in bread and wine, as it is proved in the first book. But Melchisedech offered bread and wine in figure, christ offered after the same order, bread and wine in verity. What did he offer in verity? That that the bread and wine of Melchisedech did figure, what christ in his last Supper offered his body and blood in sacrifice. did it figure? If figured the very bread and wine of Christ'S body and blood. Then christ offered in sacrifice his body and blood. True it is. And this sacrifice was never offered before christ himself did offer it. For never man did offer it before in verity, though Melchisedech and other did offer it in figure. For as Saint Ambrose saith: Christus formam Sacrificij perennis instituens, hostiam se primus obtulit, & primus docuit offerri, christ instituting Ambro. in praesaction Miss in cana Dom. the form of the everlasting sacrifice, he first offered himself a sacrifice, and first taught it to offered. And that christ did offer his own blessed body in sacrifice Saint Cyprian hath taught us. For first he said that christ offered bread and wine, that is (saith he) his body and blood, and now teaching how it is offered, he saith that it is offered in sacrifice. Thus, if I be not deceived, the matter is plain that christ did offer his body in his last Supper in sacrifice. And if the Adversary can show what sacrifice it was else that christ did first offer, it may somewhat make for him. if he can not (as I am sure he can not) let him give place to the truth taught by the holy Fathers in the ancient Curche. Thus moche then for this note being said, let us farther consider what is said of this holy Father. He saith not only that christ did first offer this sacrifice, but he saith also: Et hoc fieri in sui commemorationem praecepit. And he commanded this to be done in the remembrance of him. Here I would learn of the Adversary which shall be the substantive to the pronoun This, it is manifiest to him and to all that have but their grammar rules, that this word, Sacrificium, is the Substantive. Then must it of necessity follow that our lord and God jesus christ hath commanded us to offer We acc commanded by christ to offer the same sacrifice that he offered. this sacrifice in remembrance of him, that he offered in his last Supper, which sacrifice is his blessed body and blood. Wherefore I wish this to be well noted, that howsoever the enemies of christ do rail at the catholic Church, and at the ministers of the same, for that they do teach that in the Mass they offer sacrifice to God: yet we are so commanded to do by the authority of christ, as here by holy Cyprian ye see it testified. Neither is this to be overpassed, but diligently to be noted, that where the same enemies of christ in their sundry works do triumph against certain learned catholic men, for that they say that power is given to Christ'S Church to offer sacrifice by these words of christ, This do ye in the remembrance of me: for asmuch as holy Cyprian saith, that christ hath commanded us to offer his body in sacrifice, and before him so said Irenaeus, and after him so said Saint Ambrose, and diverse other holy learned Fathers, I would learn of them, what place else in the scripture there is whereupon these ancient Fathers, do ground these their sainges. But let them mock and scorn at Christ'S truth as the Phariseis and Scribes did at himself, yet as christ remained, and remaineth, and shall for ever remain, and shall condemn the wicked generation: So doth and shall this truth remain to their condemnation. And howesover they will labour to obscure it: yet the holy doctors, who very well knew by the doctrine of the primitive Church, how the scripture is to be understanded, shall always open the same, and make it clear. As now Saint Cyprian in declaring the commandment of christ, doth almost speak the very words of the commandment. christ said: Hoc facite in meam comm●morationem. This do ye in the remembrance of me. Cyprian saith: he commanded this sacrifice to be done in the remembrance of him. Saint Ambrose likewise growndeth himself upon these sane words of christ, when he said: I lord being mindful of thy honourable passion, come unto thing altar, although unworthy and a sinner, that I may offer unto thee the sacrifice, that thou diddest institute, and commandest to be offered in the remembrance of thee. The Ambr. oratione praepar. ad Missem. same allusion have other Fathers also. So that it is as clear as the day light among the ancient doctors, that christ by these words commanded his Church to offer his body and blood in sacrifice. Now once to end the notes that may be made upon Saint Cyprian, and to stop the mouths of them that speak wicked things, as saith the spalmist: Note well the last part of Saint Cyprian'S sainges, and ye shall see, that both christ did offer sacrifice in his last Supper and that we also do òffre sacrifice, if we do observe, and keep the institution of Christ. For Saint Cyprian saith: Sacerdos vice Christi verè sungitur, si id quod Christus secerit imitatur. & sacrificium verum & pleanum tunc offered in Ecclesia Deo Patri, si sic incipiat offerre secundùm quod ipsum Christum viderit obtulisse. The priest doth truly exercise the ministration of christ, if he follow that that christ hath done, and then doth he offer in the church unto God the Father a true and full sacrifice, if he so begin to offer, as he hath seen christ to have offered. In which sentence this may be noted, first that christ did offer sacrifice in the last Supper, which the Adversary denieth. secondarily, that the Church following the institution of christ, offereth to God, a full and a true sacrifice, which also the Adversary denieth. By this than ye perceive these two parts of the Mass, that is, holy consecration, and oblation, to be done by christ in his holy ministration. As for the third, which is holy receiving, there is no controversy betwixt us and the Adversary. It is more than needeth to be spoken of, that both christ himself, and all the Apostles present at the board of christ, did eat of that holy oblation or sacrifice. These three being the substantial parts of the Mass, and the very true Mass in deed, and being by Christ instituted, ordained, and appointed, as you have perceived, what can we else say, but that christ is the Author of the Mass, that he instituted the Mass, and that he said Mass? If any desire to be better satisfied in these two parts namely consecration and oblation, for the first let him repair to the second book, and there from the xli chapter to the end of the book he shall find enough to satisfy him. For the other in the first book from the xxxiij chapter to the end of that book he shall likewise find that may content him. THE FOUR AND THIRTETH Chapter showeth, the use of the Mass used and practised by the Apostles. THe Mass (as is said, and proved) being instituted by christ, and by him also commanded to be practised and used of his Church: it shall be expedient and necessary that we see how and in what manner that his commandment was executed, and his institution practised, first, by the Apostles, and after by the holy Fathers of the primitive and ancient Chruche. For they well knowing Christ'S very mind, their doings are to us a perfect exposition and declaracionof the same. Wherefore minding to see them, they shall yet so be seen, as both the practice of the Mass of the catholic Church now in use, and the practice also of the Schismatical Church may be plainly laid forth and compared to the former practices, that therbie trial may be made, whether of these two agree or disagree with the Apostolic and primitive Church. If we of the catholic Church descent either from Christ'S institution, or from the Apostles and Fathers as touching the substantial parts of the Mass or any other weighty matter of the faith, let us suffer the reproach? If the Proclaimer and and his complices have swerved from them, let them repent and seek gods mercy. This I promiss before God, that I will lay forth the matter as simply for the declararation of the truth, as I can devise, that the fault may be found where it is. And before I enter to declare this practice. I wish the reader to be advertised, and to have this for a general rule, that where in this Process we shall treact of the Mass and call it the Mass of S. Peter, of S. Andrew, of S. james, of S. Clement. or S. Dionise Mass, S. basil's Mass, Chrisostomes' Mass, S. Ambrose Mass, and such other, that we do not neither is it so to be betaken, that these distinctions be upon the proper signification of the Mass that is, that these Masses be distincted in the substantial parts of Mass: as that the Mass of S. Peter should be substantially distincted from the Mass of S. james, and the Mass, of S. james substantially different from the Mass of S. basil, and so forth: But the difference is taken of the general acception or signification of Mass, that is, that they be different in extern things, as in some ceremonies, in prayers, and in other gestures or manners, but not in intern or inward substantial things. For in them all ye shall find one thing only consecrated, one thing only offered in sacrifice, one thing only received. And therefore in Consecration, oblation, and receiving they being not different, Mass of the Apostles and Fathers, and that is used now in the Church, all one in substance. But all one, are not called S. Peter's Mass, nor S. james Mass and so forth: But Christ'S Mass. For these things be of his institution, and not of theirs. The diversity of Ceremonies, prayers, and other manners, is of them by the magistery of the holy Ghost instituted, and not of christ. In this process then be diligent to see the agreement in the substantial matters of ministration, be it either Mass or Communion, and if any be found to vary in the substantial parts from the doctrine of the Apostolic and primitive Chruche, discredit them, and reject them: and soche as shall be found to retain like doctrine in inthose parts to the primitive Church receive them, and embrace them. So upright and indifferent will I be, that other thing than truth will, I will not require. And that the matter, as it is confessed on either part, may clerlie appear, and as it were lie flat before you, understand, that the catholic, Mass what it is Church retaining the name of Mass, confesseth it, as is said, to be a consecration and oblation of the body and blood of Christ in the memorial of his passion and doth, to the relief and comfort both of the living, and of the dead, and the holy receiving of the same blessed body and blood. And although the Proclaimer and his complices much rail against the name of Mass: yet the thing that they shoot at and wherewith they are most grieved is the presence of Christ's body and blood, and the sacrifice of the same, Take away these two, and they will not force what name is put to it. But frasmoche as the catholic Church teacheth these things, and these be they that the Adversary impugneth, if we can show these two things to have been used of the Apostles, and their disciples, and the Fathers of the primitive church we shall caselie prove them to have used Mass, which thing by Gods help I doubt not to do. And doing this, I must to each of these add one other thing, as it were an handmaidden to wait upon them. For to consecration, must be added intention: and to sacrifice, prayer for acceptation. Foyes so shall we see a great part of the order of the Apostolic and primitive Church in this holy ministration: understand therefore that of these four, that is, of the two principals, and their handmaids, we will severally treat after this order. First, of consecration: then of the intention of the consecratours: after that of oblation, last of prayer for acceptation of the same. In treating of every of which I will lay to the practice of the Apostolic and primitive Church the doings of the catholic Church in these days, and of the schismatical Church, that just trial may be made which agreeth with the Apostles and Fathers, which dissenteth from them. To enter into this matter, let us first see the manners of the ministration of the Apostles. And uless os the Proclaimer with a certain skof or scorn of (some say) beginneth with the chief Apostle S. Peter, saying that some say, he said Mass at Rome: I will also first begin with him. And albeit, as is said, it is spoken with scorn that he said Mass: yet if it be well weighed, the scorn turneth to the proclaimers own head. For if some say that he said Mass, and none say the contrary, I mien among the catholic writers, than that S. Peter said Mass, because it is of some affirmed, it is a truth: And that he said no Mass which this Proclaimer saith, because it is of no catholic writer affirmed, is an untruth. And thus (though in scorn) he hath confessed more for the truth, than he is able to bring to maintain his untruth. For if we have some to say for us, and he none to say for him, whose cause is best, it is easy to judge. That S. Peter said Mass at Rome I can not doubt, for that he and S. Paul being the founders of the Church there, as Irenaeus witnesseth and Peter being their Bishop resident xxv years, as both Eusebius, and S. Hierom do testify, it may not be thought of such an Apostle, so fervently Irenaeus li. 3 cap. 3. Euseb. eccl. hist. lib. 3. cap. 2. Hieron. li. eccl. scriptorum. Hugo de S. Vict. lib. 2. de Sac. part 8. cap. 14. professing, and following Christ, for so long time to have neglected that part of his duty. And that he thersaied Mass it proveth well, that before being resident at Antioch he is of diverse testified so to have doen. Wherefore it well followeth that he saying Mass at Antioch, where he was first resident, did the like at Rome, where (as Irenaeus saith) he founded the church, and was all the rest of his life resident. That he said Mass at Antioch Hugo de S. Victories a plain witness, who saith thus. Celebratio Missae in commemorationem passionis Christi agitur, sicut ipse praecepit Apostolis, tradens eis corpus & sanguinem suum dicens, Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Hanc Missam beatus Petrus Apostolus primus omnium Antiochiae dicitur celebrasse, in quae tres tantùm orationes in initio fidei dicebantur. The celebration of the Mass is done in the commemoration of the passion of christ, as he commanded the Apostles, delivering unto them his body and blood, saying: This do ye S Peter said Mass at Antioch. in remembrance of me. This Mass S. Peter the Apostle is said first of all to have said at Antioch, in the which in the beginning of the faith there were oneli three prayers said. Thus much he. In whom besides his testimony that S. Peter said Mass at Antioch, it is also testified and taught, that christ did institute the Mass, in the which he delivered his body and blood. And that it should not be left in doubt what Mass S. Peter said, this author saith that he said this Mass wherein is delivered the body and blood of christ, which is the Mass of the catholic Church. A much like testimony giveth Remigius. But it shall suffice to hear the testimony of Isi lorus, who is the eldest of these three, for he lived more than Jsid. li. 1. de off. ecl. cap. 15. nine hundredth years agone, who saith thus: Ordo Missae vel orationum, quibus oblata Deo sacrificia consecrantur, primùm est à sancto Perro institutus. The order of the Mass or of the prayers, with the which the sacrifices offered to God are consecrated, was first instituted of S. Peter. Thus Isidorus. In which his saying it is to be noted, that he maketh not S. Peter the institutor or author of the Cap. ultim. Mass. For (as it is showed in the first book) he doth attribute that to christ, but he maketh him the author of a certain order of the Mass, and of prayers to be said at the consecration, oblation, and ministration done in the Mass, but not of the Mass it self. Thus much being said to answer the Proclaimer for S. Peter's Mass, let us now proceed. It may perchance seem strange to the Proclaimer, to say that S. Paul said Mass: but that he did so, to the faithful Christian considering the weight of that, that shall be said, it shall be made manifest. It is therefore to S. Paul said Mass be remembered that Mass, as it is taken in the proper signification is no more, but the consecration oblation, and receiving of Christ'S blessed body and blood. Mass largely taken is both the consecration, oblation, receiving, and also a certain order of rites, ceremonies, prayers, and reading of scriptures added thereunto. Now that S. Paul did consecrate the body of christ and sacrificed the same his doctrine in the x. and xi. of his epistle to the Corinth. hath and shall so declare the same, that the Proclaimer by no honest mean shall deny it, this being presupposed that he did as much as he taught. But he taught the body and blood of christ to be consecrated and sacrificed. Wherefore he did the same, if he did that, than said he Mass as of christ it was instituted. But to this institution S. Paul also (as S. Peter) added a certain manner and order of prayers and ceremonies, and therefore it may be said, that he said Mass in the large manner of the acception of Mass 1. Cor. 11. That he made a certain order, his own words will prove it. For when he had travailed to reduce the Corinthians to the right institution of christ, that is, to the honourable manner of the ministration of his body and blood, which is the consecration, oblation, and godly receiving of the same, in the end of all he saith: Caetera cùm venero disponan. Other things I shall set in order when I come, As who might say: I have now given instructions as touching the substantial parts of the Mass about the well doing of the which lieth the great weight: I have put you in mind of the very institution of christ: I have taught you how ye aught to examine yower selves, before ye come to receive that blessed bread the body of christ. I have let you understand what horrible danger abideth them, that unworthily receive that body and drink that blood: and that ye might perceive some foreshow and feel (as it were) a foretaste of the wrath and displeasure of God upon them, that unworthily receive the body and blood of christ, I have certified you, that for such unworthy receiving God hath plagued many with diverse diseases, and sicknesses, yea and many with death. Thus have I instructed you in the weighty points of this honourable ministration. As for the extern manner of ceremonies and prayers to be used thereat after the manner of some other Churches, to bring you to one form, when I come, I shall make that order for you. That thus S. Paul did mien, the expositors of the scriptures bear witness. Hugo Cardinalis saith thus: Caetera necessaria ad sumptionem Eucharistiae, et ad ordinationem ecclesiasticam, cùm venero disponam. Other things necessary for the receipt of the Sacrament, and the ordinance of the Church, I shall dispose Hugo in 11 1. Cor. and set in order when I come. But though this exposition may like the quiett man: Yet it is like not to please the contentious sacramentary. Wherefore we will hear S. Hierom who briefly saith thus: Caetera de ipsius mysterii sacramento, cùm venero disponam. Other things as concerning the sacrament Hieron. ibid. of that mystery when I come. I shall take order for them. Thus S. Hierom. The necessary, substantial, and weighty parts of the Sacrament being spoken of in the, x. and xi. chapters, it is easy to gather and perceive, that here he speaketh of the ordinance of the rites ceremonies, and prayers to be done about the ministration. But that all cavil of the Adversary may utterly Aug. ad januar. be removed, the plain exposition, and sentence of S. Augustine shall be heard upon this place, who saith thus. unde datur intelligi, quia multum erat ut in epistola totum agendi ordinem insinuaret, quem universa per orbem observat Ecclesia, ab ipso ordinatum esse quòd nulla morum diversitate variatur. whereby it is given to be understanded, that it was to much that in an epistle he should declare all that order of ministration, which the universal Church throughout the world taketh to be ordained of him, forasmoch as it is not by any diversity of manners varied, or altered. If then S. Paul delivered to the Corinthians both the substantial parts of the Mass, as is said, and also by this testimony of S. Augustine delivered unto them the ceremonial part, that is, the order and manner of celebration, and ministration, what can we else say, but that he delivered and taught them the order of Mass? And that he did so, S. Augustine's words prove invincibly. For he saith, that he speaketh of that order which the universal Church Ad Januar. epist. 118. observeth. But the universal Church observeth the order of Mass. Wherefore it is the order of Mass that S. Paul speaketh of. And what should we think but that these two chief Apostles and the other also should setforth the order of the ministration of the Sacrament, the order of the Mass, sith that Christ instituting the thing, left the order and manner of the ministration to them, christ himself instituted the substantial parts of the Mass, but left the order of ministration to the Apostles. as S. Augustine is a strong and a plain witness saying: Non praecepit quo deinceps ordine sumeretur, ut Apostolis, per quos ecclesias erat dispositurus, seruaret hunc locum. christ gave no commandment after what order it should afterward be received, because he would leave that place to his Apostles, by whom he would set his Church in order. In this saying of S. Augustin note that christ instituting the holy ministration, did, as is said, only institute the substantial parts of the Mass the thing it self, and not the order and manner how it should be doen. whereby may be perceived the vanity of the railing of the Adversary against christ catholic Church for the rites and ceremonies used in the Mass. For (saith he) christ commanded no crouching no kneeling, nor no such dumb ceremonies as thee, Papists do use. It is true he commanded none such, but he left the order of them to his Apostles, that they in those matters should take order. Wherefore the Adversary may not draw the Church to do nothing more in the holy ministration, than christ did. For so, as by S. Augustine it may be perceived, christ himself would not, but he would have an order and manner therein, which he would should be made by his Apostles, and Church, wherefore let not the Adversary use any more his vain argument: christ did not this, or, christ did not that, therefore we should not do it. For such doings he left to the order of his Church. And forasmuch as he so did we must with reverent obedience accept and regard, that by her is ordained. And now seeing that christ hath left such order by other then by himself to be made, what should it offend the Proclaimer to hear that S. Peter, and S. Paul did make a certain order, and certain prayers to be used in the Mass, and so likewise S. Andrew, S. james, S. Dionyse, S. Basil, and S. Chrysostom, and other, by reason of which ordeinaunces and prayers by them severally made they should be called S. Peter's Mass. S. Andrews Mass, S. james Mass, and so forth. As S. Peter and S. Paul are testified to have said Mass, So is S. Andrew the S. Andre as Apost. ad Aegean. brother of S. Peter, who after he had with much travail and many miracles preached Christ'S faith in Scythia in Europe, which country happened to him when the Apostles divided themselves to preach throughout the woorld He came to Patras in Grece, where being resisted by Aegeas the Proconsul, and by him apprehended, in giving an account of his doings, said thus to the same Aegeas: Omnipotenti Deo, qui unus & verus est Deus, ego omni die sacrifico, non S. Andrew offered sacrifice daily. thuris fumum, nec taurorum mugientium carnes, nec hircorum sanguinem sed immaculatum agnum qnotidie in altari crucis sacrifico, cuius carnes postqaam omnis populus credentium manducaverit, & eius sanguinem biberit, agnus qui sacrificatus est, integer perseverat & vinus. Et cumm verè sacrificatus fuerit & verè carnes eius manducatae sint à populo, & verè sanguis eius sit bibitus: tamen (ut dixi) integer permanet. & vinus. Unto the almighty God, which is one and the very God, every day do I sacrifice, not the smook of franken cense, neither the flesh of roaring bulls, nor the blood of kids, but an undefiled lamb do I daily offer in sacrifice in the altar of the cross. whose flesh after that all the believing people have eaten, and have drunken his blood, the lamb that is sacrificed doth remain whole, and alive. And when he is verily sacrificed, and his flesh verily eaten of the people, and his blood verily drunken, yet for all (as I have said) he doth remain whole, and undefiled and alive. Thus he. Although in this saying of S. Andrew here is no mention made of the word Mass what it is. Mass: yet he hath reported himself to have done that thing that he should have done, if he had said that he said Mass. For call to remembrance what we have said Mass to be: it is to consecrate the body and blood of christ, to offer the same in sacrifice, and to receive it. These three S. Andrew reporteth himself daily to have doen. For he saith that in the altar he sacrificed the immaculate lamb, etc. wherebily declaring the blessed and innocent lamb christ to be on the altar, he declareth the consecration: and saying that he did on the altar sacrifice it, he doth open the sacrifice, and expressedly also confessing the receipt, the whole three parts of the Mass be confessed to have been by him doen. Now let not the Adversary reject the saying of S. Andrew as of none authority, for it hath been in the Church received many hundredth years, and written in an epistle by the priests and deacons of Achaia, of the passion of S Andrew, and to this day of no catholic to my knowledge reproved. To these three Apostles, we shall add one other Apostle S. james by name, whom with the skoff of somsaie this Proclaimer would have made his audience believe that he had never said Mass at Jerusalem, as he would have persuaded that S. Peter never did at Antioch, or at Rome. But afterward correcting himself, as a man waking out of a shape or dream, and better advised, perchance not knowing when he preached his sermon that the Mass S. james Mass allowed and praised by the Proclaimer. of S. james was a broad in print, but before he penned it coming to knowledge, he corrected his Some say spoken in his dream and unadvisedly, and being now waking and better advised changeth his phrase, and saith that it is constantly affirmed that S. james said Mass at Jerusalem. And finally he himself confessing the same and magnifying and highly extolling it by such comparison as it liketh him to make, he abaseth, depresseth, and dispraiseth the Mass of the catholic Church that is now used, but how, well he handleth the matter thou shalt hereafter understand. Let us now examen the Mass of S. james, and see whether his manner of consecration agreeth with ours. Dominus jesus ea nocte qua tradebatur, vel potius seipsum tradebat pro vita & salute mundi, accipiens panem in sanctas, immaculatas, inculpabiles & immortales manus suas, in coelum suspiciens, ac tibi Deo & Patri ostendens, gratias agens, sanctificans, frangens dedit nobis Discipulis suis dicens: Accipite, comedite, S. james directed his speech in the consecration to God the Father Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis frangitur, & datur in remissionem peccatorum. Our Lord jesus the same night that he was betrayed, or raither in the which he delivered himself for the life and salvation of the world, taking bread into his holy, undefiled, innocent, and immortal hands, looking up into heaven, and showing it unto thee God and Father giving thanks, sanctifying, and breaking, gave it unto us his Disciples saying: Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you, and given in the remission of christ mixed his cup with wine and water sins. Then he took the cup and said: Similiter postquàm coenavit accipiens calicem, & permiscens ex vino & aqua, & aspiciens in coelum, ac ostendens tibi Deo & Patri gratias agens, sanctificans, benedicens, implens Spiritu sancto, dedit nobis Discipulis suis, dicens: Bibite ex hoc omnes. Hic est sanguis meus novi Testamenti, qui pro vobis, & multis effunditur & datur in remissionem peccatorum. Likewise he after he had supped taking the cup and mingling it with wine and water, and looking up into heaven, and showing it to thee God and Father, giving thanks, sanctifying, blessing, filling it with the holy Ghost, he gave it unto us his Disciples, saying: Drink ye all of this. This is my blood of the new Testament, which for you, and for many is shed and given in the remission of sins. This was his manner of consecration. And uless as all the holy Apostles preached one christ, one faith one religion, and did all see christ setting forth this one institution, it is to be thought in so weighty a matter, christ before the consecration of his body lifted up hiseys, and gave thanks to his Father. that they all used one form, which may well be proved to be this, for that S. james being an Apostle would not in this high ministration vary or dissent from other Apostles, but use the same order and manner that they did. Now then let the Mass of the catholics, and the Communion (as it is termed) of the Schismatics, be compared to his manner of consecration that trial may be made, which of the two joineth nearest unto it, and best agreeth with it. S. james approaching to the holy consecration abideth in devout prayer, and proceeding in his purpose directeth his whole talk to God the Father, as christ in his proper person before the same consecration did, both lifting up his eyes, and giving thanks to the same his Father. The catholic Church even so approaching to the holy consecration abideth and continueth in devout prayer, and proceeding in the same purpose directeth all her words to God the Father after the example of the Apostles Mass, thus saying: Who the day before he suffered, took bread into his holy and honourable hands, and lifting up his eyes unto thee, God his father The manner of the Apostles and catholic priests inconsecration. almighty, and also giving thanks he blessed it, etc. In the which words by the way note, that as in the Mass of the Apostles these words were used as directed to God the Father: He lifted up his eyes, and gave thanks to the God and Father: So in the Mass of the catholic Church it is said to the Father: He lifted up his eyes into heaven unto thee God his Father almighty, and to thee giving thanks blessed it, etc. Wherein is made direction of words to God the Father, as was in the Apostles Mass. And here also this may be noted that the rule of the Apostles Mass was, that when the priest came to the consecration, following the example of christ, who took the bread into his holy hands, he took also the bread into his hands: So the priest of the catholic Church coming to the consecration, taketh the bread into his hands, and followeth both the example of christ, and of his Apostles. Now the minister of the Schismatical Communion approaching to, I can not tell The manner of new ministers in their Communion. what (for that church not bearing the name of consecration, I know not how to term their doings) hystorically rehearseth the words of Chrysts supper, not as christ himself and his Apostles did directing his communication to God the father, but passeth forth as one that would tell a tale, saying thus: Who in the same night that he was betrayed, took bread and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and gave it, to his Disciples, saying: Take, eat, this is my body, which is given for you, do this in the remembrance of me. In these words ye see no such direction of speech to Words of the communion. God the father, as christ and his Apostles made, and as the catholic Church useth following them. The minister saith, not to the Father these words: he looked up into heaven to thee, God and father, and giving thee thanks, but only maketh a bare rehearsal of the history. It is evident then that in this part, the schismatical church followeth not the manner of the Apostolic Church, but the catholic Church doth. The rule of the Apostolic Church was to take the bread that should Conference of the Apostles and new ministers in consecration of the bread. be consecrated into their hands: The breach of rule in the Schismatical Church that they take not the bread into hands, but let it lie on the table, as though they had nothing to do withal. In this also they fall not only from the order received of the Apostles, but also from the doing of christ, who (as in S. james Mass it is said) took bread into his holy immaculate hands, etc. before he did consecrate it. And although the words of the Evangelists be not so full as to say that he took bread into his hands: yet in that they, and S. Paul also say that he took bread, it importeth as much as S. james saith, that he took it into his hands. The conference thus far being made about the bread and consecration of the body of christ: let us proceed to make conference also about Conference of the same in the consecration of the wine. the wine, and the blood. First, as touching the wine, it is manifest that the Apostles used to mixed it with water. For it is in the Mass of saint james said, that christ took the cup and mixed wine with water, etc. The catholic Church both Latins, and Greeks in all ages preparing the cup of our Lord for the holy ministration mixeth, water with wine in the same cup. The Schismatical Communion (if it may be so well termed, as to call it a Communion, when in deed it is raither a disunion) dissenteth here from the doing of christ, of the Apostles, and of the primitive Church, for in it is not used to mix water with wine. The Evangelists say, that christ likewise took the cup, that is, as he took the bread into his holy hands: so took he the cup into his holy hands. The priest in the catholic Church following Christ'S example, and the Apostles, and Fathers of the primitive Church taketh the cup into his hands before he consecrateth it. The minister of the shismatical Church herein also followeth not the doing of christ, nor of the Apostles and primitive Church, but letteth the cup stand as a stranger to him, not taken into the hands. christ entering toward the consecration of his blood continueth his communication to his Father with thanks giving. The Apostles beginning the same direct their words to God the father, as it is seen in the Mass of saint james, where they speak to him saying. giving thanks to the God and Father. The primitive Church did the like. The catholic Church following christ, the Apostles, and primitive Words of the Mass. Church entereth the consecration of the blood with these words: In like manner after he had supped taking this cup into his holy and honourable bands, giving thee also thanks, he blessed it, and gave it to his Disciples, etc. In which words it is easy to perceive that the catholic Church continueth her prays to God the Father, and directeth her speech to him, as christ the Apostles, and the primitive Church did. The late found Church, as about their sacramental bread: so about their sacramental wine leaving the manner used of christ, the Apostles, and the primitive Church, proceedeth only historically rehearsing the words of christ Words of the Communion. thus: Likewise after supper he took the cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying: Dirnke ye all of this, etc. In which manner how moche soever the Proclaimer braggeth for himself and his Church, that they follow christ, and the primitive Church, it may be perceived that these are but words, For their doings do almost in nothing agree. But let us see more of the consecration of the cup of our Lord. The Apostles did not only say that christ gave thanks to his Father, but also that he did sanctify and bless it. The catholic Church following them saith likewise that he gave not only thanks, but also that he blessed it, The proclaimers Church saith no more but that he gave thanks, and liketh not to say that christ blessed it, or sanctified it. And wot you why? Because they feared that the truth might be sooner perceived, that by the blessing and sanctification of christ, his very body and blood were consecrated (as they were in deed) which by all shifts and means they labour, to hide. But I wish the whole words of S. james Mass not only to be well noted, but also continually to be remembered, that he saith that christ gave thanks, he sanctified, he blessed, and filled the cup with the holy Ghost. For these words not only impugn the wicked assertion of the sacramentary, but also commend to us the excellency of the B. Sacrament, and Words of S. James. Mass. prove the presence of that blessed blood which the catholic Church teacheth there to be present. For who can say that after these great doings of christ, of sanctifying, blessing and filling with the holy Ghost, that there is nothing else made but a bare hungry figure? This godly act of christ the Apostles and Father's following, as S. james in his Mass, S. basil, and Chrysostom in their Mases, did not only make mention of his blessiing and sanctifying, but did themselves sign and bless the Sacrament, as in their Masses it is plain to see. Which act of christ, of the Apostles and fathers, the catholic church embrancing signeth with the sign of the cross, and blesseth the Sacrament, signifying the sanctification their done to be done by the power of him that by his cross sanctified all the faithful. But these wicked brethren of the late found Church give as few terms of excellency to it and use as few gestures and acts signifying blessing and sanctification, as they may, that the estimation of that glorious Sacrament may be impaired. Thus now ye have seen the conference made, ye see the catholic Church Conference of the catholeque authority of priests with the lack of authority of new ministers. in every point agreeing with christ, with Apostles, and with the pritive Church. Contrary wise ye see the new found Church almost in all points disagreeing. Finally I think it expedient that as I have here spoken of consecration, and conferred the doing of the catholic Church, and of the new Church, with the Apostolic and primitive Church: So to say a few words of the priest of the one, and of the minister of the other. And here not much to tarry the reader, it is to be remembered that christ, when he had instituted this divine and noble Sacrament, willing it to be continued gave his Apostles, and in them to all their successors power, authority, and commandment to do that, that he had doen. By which commandment every catholic priest duly executing this ministration, doth consecrate the very body and blood of christ, by virtue of Christ'S ordinance, and words duly pronounced. The ministers of the new church not being of the catholic succession, as they have no such power, authority or commandment from christ New ministers have no authority to consecrate. to consecrate his body and blood, and as their monstrous heads neither can give them such, neither mindeth that they should do any such thing, but raither as they find it bread and wine so to let it remain, and so to receive it: they do not so rehearsing Christ'S words, consecrate his blessed body, no more than they do that read those words upon the book in their common studies. For if the history of Christ'S supper rehearsed of a minister not endued with lawful authority, descending to him by catholic order, did consecrate then should consecration have been done in many a querulous and contentious dinner, and supper, aswell in Taverns as else where, where the like words have been spoken and rehearsed of men of as good authority for that purpose, as the minister. Be not deceived therefore (gentle readers) to think that of sochemens' hands you receive the body of christ. It is to much that you receive there schisinaticall bread: it were lamentable therewith also to committee Idolatry. And now although this might suffice to prove the Mass to have benused of the Apostles, yet for thy better confirmation (gentle reader) I shall add Addias hist. Apost. li. 7. the testimony of Abdias Bishop of Babylon, and a Disciple of the Apostles who writeth thus of the Mass and death of S. Matthew. Cumue respondissent amen, & misteria Domini celebrata & Missansuscepisset omnis Ecclesia, retinuit se ut juxta altar, ubi corpus ab eo fuerat Christiconfectum, illic martyrium Apostolicum exultaret. S. Matt hue said Mass. And when all had said Amen, and all the Church had received the Mass, and the ministries that were celebrated, he stayed him sem self, that by the altar, where the body of christ was by him consecrated, there should his martidom be solemnized, Thus ther. In this place ye hear plain mention made of the Mass done and celebrated by S. matthew, which if the Adversary will seek to avoid, as put in by the translator: yet he can not deny these two things, which be in effect equivalent, that is, the altar, and the consecration of the body of christ. Now if he did clerebrate at the altar, and on the altar did consecrate the body of christ, it followeth that he did celebrate the Mass. And here I wish these two things to be well noted, forsomuch as they were written of one that was disciple to the Apostles, and did write diverse books of their lives. The one is, that S. Matthew did celebrate at the altar: the other that he did consecrate the body of christ. If these two were to be written as in use them, it may easily be judged who doth offend: he that doth use both in these days, or he that refuseth both. And where the Proclaimer as is of late said provoketh so moche to the primitive Church, judge now again, Reader, how well it liketh him to follow the order of the primitive Church, when he abandoneth and flieth from these two things, as from a serpent, and yet both used, as ye perceive, of the Apostles and the Primitive Church. Having now said sufficiently for the use of the Mass in the Apostles time, to conclude this chapter, this may be said, that as it pleased our Saviour Christ to commend to the world the truth of his holy Gospel principally by four evangelists, and S. Paul his choose vessel: So it hath pleased him to commend the truth of the holy ministration of his body and blood called the Mass, by four Apostles, namely S. Peter, S. Andew, S. james, and S. Matthew and also by S. Paul. He of his mercy grant that as by the Evangelists his Gospel was received and believed: so by the testimony and doings of these Apostles the truth of the blessed ministration may be embraced. THE FIVE AND THIRTETH CHAPTER Showeth the manner of consecration used and practised by the Disciples of the Apostles and the Fathers of the primitive and ancient Church. Having now said of the consecration used in the Apostles time, and to it conferred the manner of consecration of the cathollque Church that now is, and the disordered manner of the schismatical church: it shall give good light to the atteigning of the truth if we see also the order of the same consecration used of the eldest fathers of the privitive Church. Among the which, as among the Apostles we began with S. Peter, and S. Paul so shall we here begin with their disciples S. Clement, and S. Dionise. That S. Clement said Mass, and consecrated the body and blood of christ in the same manner that S. Peter, and the rest of the Apostles did, not only his Mass, which is extant, and the words of consecration there in contained, but also Nicolaus Methonen: by express words doth testify it. Whose words for the clear declaration of the matter I shall at large allege. Thus he saith: Offerimus panc perfectum vivum, sive corpus Christi quod perfectum etiam post passionem permansit & integrum. Neque enim os eius contritum est, & à divina vita inseparabile, planè quale ipse primus noster ac magnus Pontifex & sacrificus victimaue suis ipsius Discipulis tradidit, iiue denuo, qui ab initio suis ipsis oculis verbum intuiti sunt, eiue ministrarunt, catholicae Ecclesiae ab extremis ad extremos usque orbis terrarum limites tradiderunt: Omnes quidem, Hierosolimitanae, ubi & D. jacobus primi magniue Pontificis frater ac successor mysticam incruentanque bturgiam exposuit. Petrus autem et Paulus Antiochensi. Paulus verò peculiariter orbi universo. Marcus Alexandria. joannes & Andreas Asiae & Europae. Omnesue universae Ecclesiae ubicunque sit per eam, quam S. Clemens conscripsit hturgiam, tradiderunt, in qua haec ita ad verbum habentur: Memores igitur eorum quae propter nos passus est, gratias agimus tibt omnipotens Deus, non quantum debemus, sed quantum possumus, ut ●ius statutum adimpleamus. In qua enim nocte tradebatur, accipiens panem in sanctas & unmaculatas suas manus & elevatis oculis ad te Deum & Patrem suum fregit, deditue nobis dicens: Accipite ex eo, comedite, hoc est corpus meum, quod pro multis comminuitur in remisstonem peccatorum. Similiter & calicem ex vino & aqua temperatum sanctisicavit deditue nobis dicens: Bibite ex eo omnes. Hic est sanguis meus, qui pro multis essunditur in remisstonem peccatorum. Hoc sacite in meam commemorationem, We offer a perfect lively bread, that is, the body of christ, which The body of christ ossred in the Mass. remained also perfect and whole after his passion, for there was no bone of his broken, and plainly such body as our high and great Bishop, who is both priest and sacrifice, delivered to his own Disciples, was from the divine life inseparable, and they again, which from the beginning did with their eyes see the Son of God, and did wait upon him, delivered the same to the catholic Church, even from one end of the world to an other: even all of them at Jerusalem, where also S. james the brother and successor of that chief and great Bishop settfurth the mystical and unbloody sacrifice, or Mass. Peter and Paul at Antioch, but Paul peculiarly to the The Mass of S. Clement the same that all the Apostles used. whole world. Mark at Alexandria. john and Andrew in Asia and Europe. And all of them delivered it to the universal Church, where soever it be, by that same Mass, which S. Clement setforth, in the which these words be had word for word Being mindful of those things, which he suffered for us, we give thee thanks, almighty God, not asmuch as we aught, but asmuch as we can, and we fulfil his ordinance, In the night that he was betrayed taking bread into his holy and undefiled hands, and lifting up his eyes unto thee God and his father, he broke it, and gave it unto us, saying: Take of it, eat, This is my body which is broken for many in the remission of sins. Likewise also the cup mixed with wine and water, he sanctified and gave it to us saying drink ye all of this. This is my blood, which is shed for many in the remission of sins. This do ye in the remembrance of me. Thus much this author. I have produced this part of the Mass setfurth by S. Clement under the authority and testimovie of this man, both for that he being of the greek church is not to be suppected of Papistry by the evil brethren, and also living some hundredth years agone is to be thought the freer from corruption. And albeit I judge this that he saith that Peter, Paul james and all the Apostles said the same Mass that S. Clement afterward used and commended also to the churches, to be a very notable saying, even so notable that both catholic and protestant may well note it, the catholic for joy seeing the catholic religion well testified: the protestant for fury and grief seeing his untruth impugned, and his falsehood detected: yet I shall in consideration that of this matter much is said in the last chapter, overpass it, and apply myself to that, that is in this chapter to be spoken of. This then in this place is to be noted that the Mass that S. Clement used is even the same that Peter, Paul and all the Apostles did use. This Mass useth not anhistoricall narration in the rehearsal of the words of christ at the consecration, but entering into it by prayer made to the heavenly father, abideth and continueth in the same, using the like direction of words, as were used in the Mass of S. james, as by confernce it shall be easily perceived. This also here, as in S. james Mass, it to be noted, that the cup of christ was not a cup of wine only, but it was a cup of wine mixed with water. S. Proclus tractatu de tradi. divina liturgy. But perchance the Adversary will demand how we prove that it is S. Clement's Mass God be praised we lack no proofs, for besides this Grecian, whom we have already produced, we have an other Grecian Proclus Bishop of Constantinople who lived about 1100 years agone testifying that many did setforth the Mass in writing among which he numbereth saint Clement his words be these. Multi quidem & alii divini pastors, qui Apostolis successerunt, ac Ecclesiae doctores sacrorum illius divinae liturgiae mysteriorum rationem explicantes, scriptis mandatam Ecclesiae tradiderunt. In quibus primi & clarssimi sunt beatus Clemens, summi illius Apostolorum Discipulus, ac successor, qui sacro sancta illa mysteria à sanctis Apostolis sibi revelara in lucem edidit, & D. jacobus, qui in sortem Ecclesiae Hierosolimitanae administrandae vocatus fuit, quiue huius primus Episcopus à primo illo & summo Pontifice Christo Deo nostro constitutus est. Many other godly pastors also, which succeeded the Apostles and doctors of the church, setting forth the order or manner of the Godly Mass of the divine mysteries left it unto the Church in writing. Among the which the chiefest and most famous be S. Clement the Disciple of him that was chiefest of the Apostles, and successor, who did setforth these holy mysteries, as they were delivered or taught unto him of the Apostles: And S. james who was called to rule the church of Jerusalem, who also was ordained the first Bishop of that chief and high Bishop christ our God. Thus he. In this testimony ye hear that not only S. Clement did setforth the order of Mass, but other doctors, and pastors of the church also, and that not by their own authority, but as they had learned of the Apostles, And note here also an evident testimony for the Mass of S. james, whereof we have spoken in the last chapter. Now to proceed, to hear more of the manner of consecration in the primitive Church. S. Dionysius Areopagita Disciple to S. Paul, as S. Clement was to Peter, that he said Mass it is more evident, than need to be declared. His book of the ecclesiastical hierarchy is extant, wherein the whole order of Mass is at length setforth and declared. But forsomuch as that book to the learned is well known, and to the unlearned although he were alleged, yet for his obscurity he would be still unknown, I have thought good here to over pass him as a witness famously known, and bring in other more plain, and yet right famously known. Among the which holy basil shall be first, who in his Mass used this form of consecration, entering into it by prayer made to the heavenly father, in the which he thus spoke Bassil. in Miss. of christ. Debens enim exire in voluntariam & beatiss. & vivificam, suam mortem in nocte qua tradebat seipsum pro mundi vita, accipiens panem in sanctis suis & immaculatis manibus, & ostendens tibi Deo & Patri gratias agens, benedicens, sanctificans, frangens, dedit sanctis suis Discipulis & Apostolis, dicens: Accipite & manducate, hoc est corpus meum, christ took the bread and cup mixed with wine and water in to his hands and blessed and sanctified them. quod pro vobis frangitur in remissionem peccatorum. Similiter & calicem de genimine vitis accipiens, miscens, gratias agens, benedicens, sanctificans, dedit sanctis suis Discipulis & Apostolis dicens: Bibite ex hoc omnes. Hic est sanguis meus novi Testamenti, qui pro vobis & pro multis effundetur in remissisnem peccatorum. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Willing to go forth to his voluntary and blessed death giving life, in the night in the which he delivered himself for the life of the world, taking bread in his holy and undefiled hands, and showing it to thee God and Father, giving thanks, and blessing sanctifying breaking, he gave it to his holy Disciples and Apostles, saying. Take and eat, this is my body, which is broken for you in the remission of sins. Likewise also taking the cup of the juice of the wine, mixing, giving thanks, blessing, sanctifying he gave it to his holy Disciples, and Apostles saying drink ye all of this. This is my blood of the new Testament which shall be shed for you and for many in the remission of sins. This do ye in the remembrance of me. Thus moche in the Mass of S. basil. Which if ye confer and compare to the consecration used by S. james Chrysost in Miss. and S. Clement, so moche shall it see them agree that ye shall iustilie say that they be all one. Therefore leaving him to be considered with the notes made upon S. james and S. Clement, we shall proceed to see what manner of consecration was used in S. Chrysostoms' Mass. Chrysostom (as the rest before mentioned) entereth into it with prayer made to the Father, and coming to speak of our Lord and Saviour jesus christ instituting this most holy and noble sacrament, saith: Qui veniens, completo pro nobis omni mysterio, nocte qua tradebatur, magis autem tradebat seipsum pro mundi vita, panem accipiens cum sanctis suis & immaculatis & impolutis manibus, cùm gratias egisset, benedixit, sanctificavit, & frangens sanctis suis Discipulis & Apostolis tribuit dicens: Accipite, & comedite, hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur in remissionem peccatorum. Similiter autem & calicem postquam caenavit dicens: Bibite ex hoc omnes. Hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro vobis & pluribus effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Who coming, when all the mystery for us was fulfiled, in the night in the which he was be traied or raither in the which he delivered himself for the life of the world, taking bread with his holy, undefiled and impoluted hands, when he had heaven thanks, he blessed it, sanctifying it, and breaking it, gave it to his holy Disciples, and Apostles, saying: Take, and eat, this is my body, which shall be delivered for you in the remission of sins. Likewise also the cup after he had supped saying: Drink ye all of this. This is my blood of the new testament. which shall be shed for you and for many in the remission of sins. Thus moche in Chrysostom's Mass for the consecration, which that it agreeth with all before alleged, it is easy to perceive. S. basil and Chrysostom not the first founders of Mass but setters forth of such order there in as they had received by tradition. But that the Proclaimer seem not with his skoff of somsaie to weaken or call into doubt the authority of the Mass of S. basil, and S. Chrysostom, as I have by authority proved the Masses of S. Peter S. james and other Apostles, and also of S. Clement, by good and sufficient authority: so also shall I do these two of S. basil, and S. Chrsyostom. And here I wish the reader first to be advertised that S. basil and S. Chrysostom did not make the ordinance of the Mass as the first founders of the ordinance, for that, as ye have heard, was done by the Apostles, and used by S. Clement, and so by liveall tradition brought to the time of these two fathers. But the Mass of the Apostles being very long as the holy Father Proclus witnesseth, and the devotion of the people waxing short, and cold, these holy Bishops basil and Chrysostom were compelled to bring it into a shorter form of prayers and ceremonies (the substance always standing and abiding) which so being setforth were called the Masses of basil and chrysostom, so that not the lack of an ordinance of Mass, as though there were none before, moved Proclus ubi supra. them to make this order, but the lack of devotion in the people, as you shall perceive by the testimony of the ancient Father Proclus thus reporting. Posteri, abiecta fidei firmitate & feruore, negotiis huiusce seculi & curis mundi mancipati & immersi, Missae longitudinem (ut dixi) pertaesi, vix conveniebat ad audienda Domini verba. Quare D. Basilius medica quadam ratione usus, breviorem eam & concisiorem reddidit. Haud multò post Pater noster joannes, cui aurea lingua cognomen dedit curam ovium, ut pastorem decet magna alacritate animi suscipiens, ac hominum naturae socordiam, atque ignaviam prospiciens, fibras omnes & radices huius praetextus sathanici prorsus avellere voluit. Quare multa praecidit, & ut brevior esset constituit, ne sensim homines libertatem & ocium maximè amplectentes fallacibus, & furiosis Aduersarii sermonibus decepti ab hac Apostolica & divina traditione deficerent, quod multis saepe accidisse variis in locis ad hunc usque diem deprehendimus. Men of later days leaving the fervency and sowndnesse of faith being seruilelie given, and drowned in the business and cares of this world, as I have said being weary of the length of the Note the decay of devotion the cause of the shortening of the Mass by S. basil ad Chrysost. Mass, they scantly assembled or came to hear the word of our Lord. Wherefore S. basil using the way of a good physician, made it breifer and shorter. Not long after, our Father john, whose golden tongue hath given him a Surname, taking upon him the charge of the sheep as it becometh a good shepherd, beholding the slackness and sluggishness of the nature of men, he would utterly remove or pluck away all the roots and small strings of this intention of Satan. Wherefore he cut of many things, and ordained that it should be shorter, lest by little and little men embracing liberty and idleness, and by the deceitful and furious words of the Adversary deceived, should fall from this divine and Apostolic tradition, which thing even unto this time we have perceived to happen to many. Thus much he, in whom you perceive plain testimony to be made both of the Mass of S. basil, and of S. Chrysostom. And not that only, but also (as I have noted) you may perceive the cause why these two holy men made these ordinances of Mass. Tradition of the order of Mass observed from the time of the Apostles. Last of all it is to be noted, as well worthy it is so to be, that the Masses of these two holy Fathers, be not new Masses, but they be both even that same Mass, that by the divine and Apostolic tradition, was first setforth and commended to the catholic Church to be practised, but that by these men, the small devotion of the people there unto enforcing them, they be drawn shorter. wherebily we may learn how the ancient Church did retain, and abide in the traditions of the Apostolic and primitive Church, and did for no other purpose make the order of the Mass received from the Apostles shorter, but to keep the people, that they should not for lack of faith and devotion by the temptation of Satan fall from the divine and holy tradition of the Mass, as now by the like means england hath doen. Concil. Cstantin. sext. can 32. Of these Masses as also of the Mass of S. james, we have yet not one or two, or twenty witnesses only, but we have a number even the whole, vi Council of Constantinople, where the Father's making a canon against the Armenians and Hydroparastas, which seemed to misunderstand chrysostom, for the true unperstanding of the matter say thus of Chrysostom: Non docet sanctus Pater per solum vinum oblationem fieri, quandoquidem & suae Ecclesiae, ubi est illi pastoralis administratio tradita, aquam vino miscendam tradidit, quando incruentum peragi sacrificium oportet, & precioso & honorando nostri redemptoris sanguine & aqua contemperationem attendens, quae in totius mundi vivificationem effusa est, & peccatorum redemptionem. Et in omni Ecclesia ubi spiritalia luminaria refulserunt, hic ordo divinitus Wine and water why they were mixed in our lords cup. traditus servatur. The holy Father teacheth not that the sacrifice should be done with wine alone, forasmuch as he gave order to the Church where he was Bishop that water should be mingled with wine, when the unbloody sacrifice is to be done considering the contemperation of the perciouse and honourable blood and water which was shed for the life of the world, and the remission of sins. And in every Church where spiritual lights did shine, this order setforth by divine tradition is kept. In that the Council saith that Chrysostom gave order to the Church where he was Bishop, to mengle water with wine: they understand his Mass, wherein such order was used. And let the Proclaimer and all his complices note this saying well, that this order setforth by divine tradition was kept in every Church where spiritual lights did shine: whereby may be gathered that in england where this order is contemptuously banished, there be no spiritual lights, but carnal and earthly smoking Turfs. Of S. james and S. basil thus it followeth in the same Council: Nam et jacobus Domini nostri jesu Christi secundùm carnem frater, et Basilius Caesariensis Archiepiscopus, cuius gloria omnem terrarum orbem pervasit, mystico nobis in scripto tradito sacrificio, ita peragendum in sacro mysterio ex aqua et vino sacrum poculum aediderunt, et qui Cartagine convenerunt ita apertè tradiderunt. james the brother of our Lord jesus christ after the flesh, and basil the archbishop of Cesaria, whose praise is gone throughout all the world, in the mystical sacrifice delivered unto us in writing, did setforth the holy cup so to be used with water and wine. And the holy Fathers which were together at the Council of Cartage did even so apertly and openly setforth. Thus the Council. Here now in the whole, ye see that not only S. james, and S. Basil, and also Chrysostom did se●surth the holy ministration in writing, but also taught that the cup in the same ministration should be mixed with water and wine as a divine tradition coming from the Apostles, which tradicionalthogh used of the Apostles, and received of the ancient Fathers, this Proclaimer and his fellows do reject And yet to bleer the eyes of men he is ever provoking to the Apostles and the Primitive Church, when yet he himself will not come near it. And here, reader, consider, that if this Proclaimer intended the restitution of religion to the manner of the Apostles and the primitive Church, why doth he not observe this, which he can not deny there to have been observed, and by the Counsels of Cartage, and Constantinople decreed accordingly to be received? But it is not the primitive Church that he travaileth for to be regarded, but it is his fantasy and will that he seeketh to be received. God give him a better mind. This also is not to be overpassed that the Council of Constantinople testifying that S. james did setforth in writing the holy ministration, doth call it by the name of Sacrifice, saying that he did setforth the mystical sacrifice, Mass called a sacrifice by the Counc. of Constantin. which name the Proclaimer abhorreth. But what do I tarry so long about the settingfurth of these witnesses, seeing there be diverse other that testify the same? As Nicolaus Metbonen. S. Bernard. Algerus, Bessarion, and other whom for brevity sake, I think it sufficient to have named. Now, Reader, where the Proclaimer in the second place that he speaketh of S. james, saith that we constantly affirm that S. james said Mass, I pray thee, may we not so do, and do truly? And if he and his complices say the contrary, shall they not say falsely? we have witness and good authority to maintain that we say: He deskanteth voluntarily with many discords all out of tune. For he singeth without his rule, having nothing well alleged to maintain what he saith. Thy part therefore shall be, Reader to lean and cleave to that side that groundeth it self upon substantial authority, and not upon fantasy and wilful affection. But it is time that we also see the manner of consecration used in the latime Church in time of the ancient Fathers of the same, of the which one may now suffice for all, which one shall be S. Ambrose, who thus reporteth it: Vis scire quia verbis coelestibus consecratur? Accipe quae sunt verba. Dicit sacerdos: Fac nobis (inquit) hanc oblationem ascriptam, rationabilem & acceptabilem, quod est Ambr. li. 4 de sac. ca 5 figura corporis & sanguinis Domini nostri jesu Christi. Qui pridie quàm pateretur, in sanctis manibus suis accepit panem, respexit ad coelum ad te sancte Pater omnipotens aeterne Deus, gratias agens benedixit, fregit, fractumue Apostolis suis & Discipulis tradidit, dicens: Accipite, & edite ex hoc omnes. Hoc est enim corpus meum, quod pro multis confringetur. Similiter etiam calicem postquàm coenatum est pridie quàm pateretur accepit, respexit ad coelum ad te sancte Pater omnipotens aeterne Deus, gratias agens benedixit, Apostolis et Discipulis suis tradidit, dicens: Accipite, et bibite ex eo omnes: Hic est enim sanguis meus. Wilt thou know that the Sacrament is consecrated with heavenly words? Mark what be the words. The priest saith: Make this oblation (saith he) Confer this prayer with the Mass book and it agreeth near confer it with the Communion and it dissenteth far. allowed, reasonable and acceptable, which is a figure of the body and blood of our Lord jesus christ. Who the day before he would suffer, took bread in his holy hands, and looked unto heaven to thee holy Father almighty everlasting God, giving thanks, he blessed it, he broke it, and broken he delivered it to his Apostles and Disciples saying. Take ye, and eat ye of this all. For this is my body, which shall be broken for many. Likewise also the day before he would suffer, he took the cup after they had supped, he looked to heaven unto thee Father, almighty everlasting God, giving thanks he blessed it, and gave it to his Apostles and Disciples saying: Take and drink ye all of this. For this is my blood. Hitherto S. Ambrose hath opened the prayer used in the Church immediately before the consecration, and the consecration also. Which done he maketh a certain exposition of it, and saith thus: Vide, omnia illa verba Euange listae sunt, ad Accipite sive corpus, sive sanguinem, inde verba sunt Christi. Vide singula: Qui pridie (inquit) quàm pateretur, in sanctis manibus suis accepit panem. Antequàm consecretur panis est, ubi autem verba Christi accesserint corpus est. Christi: Denique audi dicentem: Accipite, & edite ex eo omnes, hoc est corpus meum. Et ante verba Christi calix est vini & aquae plenus, ubi verba Christi operata fuerint, ibi sanguis efficitur qui plebem redemit. Mark, all those words be the words of the Evangelist unto these words: Take either body or blood, from hencefurth they be the words of christ. Note enerie thing: Who (saith he) the day before he would suffer took bread in his holy hands. Before it is consecrated it is bread: when the words of christ have comed to it, it is the body of christ. For hear him saying: Take and eat ye all of this, This is my body. And before the words of christ it is a cup full of wine and water, when the words of christ have wrought, there is made the blood that redeemed the people. Now of S. Ambrose ye have heard the prayer preparative to the consecration: Ye have heard the consecration it self, which be the words of christ: Ye have heard the effect of consecration, as it was believed of the holy catholic Church before and in the time of S. Ambrose, and of S. Ambrose himself, as his own words not only here, but in diverse and sundry other places do declare. Who among other expounding the Pater noster, saith thus Memini sermonis mei cùm de sacramentis tractaren, dixi vobis, quòd ante verba Christi quod offertur, panis dicitur, ubi Christi verba deprompta fuerint, iam non panis dicitur, sed corpus appellatur. Ambr. in oratione dominica. I remember my saying, when I treacted of the Sacr. I said unto you that before the words of christ, the thing that is offered, is called bread: when the words of Christ be uttered, now it is not called bread, but is called the body of christ. The like words hath S. Augustine. Now what the manner of consecration hath been among the Fathers of the primitive and ancient Church, as we have learned it in the last chapter by All one consecration in the Mass used by the Apostles their Disciples, the Fathers of the primitive Church, and of the Church now. four Apostles, and S. Paul: so in this we have learned it by four Fathers, and S. Dionyse the Disciple of S. Paul, all which do well agree, that it may well be perceived that Proclus said: that it is all one consecration of one Mass varied in shortness or length in some prayers or extern ceremonies or gesturs only, for the variation of the manners of the people, but not in the substantial parts. For proof whereof, note (gentle reader, as before is said) that as S. james, and S. Clement direct their communication in prayer to God the Father: so doth S. basil, Chrysostom, and S. Ambrose, so also doth the catholic Church: The schismatical Church of the Proclaimer and his fellows doth not so, but rehearseth historically the words of the scripture. If it should be asked why the Proclaimer and his likes refuse to follow herein the ancient manner of the primitive Church, the imitation, of which Protestant's why they follow not the manner of primitive Church. they so much pretend, and so often have it in their mouth: it is easy to answer that they so do, because innovation (which delighteth it self with thown inventions and desireth novelties, and liketh almost nothing that before was founded and settled by the Fathers, which also pleaseth the people thirsting changes of things) occupieth their heads. Other cause why they should not keep the same form manner and order of consecration, as the Apostles, their Disciples, and the Fathers did: why they should not continue their petition and prayer in the time of consecration, to god the father, as they did: why they use not such phrase and manner of words as all or most, or some of them did: why they put not water to the wine, as all they did, I can none assign. But to conclude, hitherto it may be perceived that the catholic Church in nothing varieth from the Apostolic primitive and ancient Church, and that the heretical Church in nothing, as touching consecration agreeth. THE SIX AND THIRTETH CHAP. DEclareth what was the intention of the Apostles and Fathers in and about the consecration in the Mass. THe order by me appointed now requireth, that we search what was the faith and intention of the Apostles and Fathers of the primitive Church aswell Greeks as Latins in and about the consecration. It is a world to see how the Proclaimer like a commoniester trifleth with such a weighty matter. Ah merciful God, that wise men can not see the devilish wicked intents of this heretical brood. Brentius and Caluine contemn the words of the forms of Sacraments: The Proclaimer mocketh and scorneth the intention of such as minister the sacraments. Yet when these two be taken away, what sacrament have you? But that I tread not out of my path, leaving to enter the disputation of intention and faith generally in all sacraments, I will only here declare the intention of the consecration of the B. Sacrament by the practice of the Apostles and fathers. And without all circumstances briefly to enter into the matter, we will first see the intent, and faith of S. james, what he thouht to be wrought in the consecration of the Sacrament. Which his goodly prayer wilfully declare wherein he prayeth thus: Miserere nostri Deus omnipotens, miserere nostri Deus seruator noster, misere nostri Deus secundùm magnam misericordiam tuam, & demitte super nos, et super haec dona proposita, Spiritum tuum sanctissimum, Dominum vivificum, S.. Jacobus in Missa. unà tecum Deo Patre, et unigenito Filio tuo, assidentem, simul regnantem, consubstantialem, ac coeternun, qui locutus est in lege et Prophetis, et in novo tuo testamento, qui descendit in specie columbae super D. n. jesum Christum in jordanis stwio, & mansit super eum, qui descendit super Apostolos tuos in specie ignearum linguarum in coenaculo sanctae & gloriosae Zion in die Pentecostes: Ipsum spiritum tuum sanctiss. demitte nunc quoque Dumb in nos, & in haec dona sancta proposita, ut superueniens sancta, et bona, et gloriosa sua praesentia sanctificet, et efficiat hunc panem corpus sanctum Christi tui, et calicem hunc preciosum sanguinem Christi tui, ut sit omnibus ex its sumentibus in remissionem peccatorum, et in vitam aeternam. Have mercy upon us, o God almighty, have mercy upon us, o God our Saviour, have mercy upon us, o God according to thy great mercy, and send down upon us, and upon these proposed gifts thy most holy Spirit our living Lord sitting, and reigning, and everlasting together with thee S. james believed by the work of the holy Ghost, the bread and wine to be consecrated into the body and blood of christ. God the Father, and thy only begotten Son, who hath spoken in the law, and in the Prophets, and in thy new testament, which came down in the shape of a done upon our Lord jesus christ in the flood of jordane, and abid upon him, who came down upon thy Apostles in the shape of sierie tongues in the parlour of the holy and glorious Zion in the day of pentecost: The same thy most holy Spirit o Lord send down also upon us and these holy proposed gifts, that he coming upon them may with his holy good and glorious presence sanctify and make this bread the body of thy christ, and this cup the precious blood of thy christ, that it may be to all that receive of it, remission of sins, and life everlasting, etc. Although in this prayer of S. james many things might be found worthy of note: yet it shall suffice for this present that we observe that he upon the consecration had the same manner of intent and faith that the catholic Church how hath, that is, that the bread and wine set upon the altar, by the miraculous work of the holy Ghost be made the body and blood of christ. Which thing is so lively and fully spoken and uttered, that it needeth no farther declaration. This only may be added that if there were no more done by the consecration, but that the bread and wine be made a sacramental bread and wine, that is, only figures and tokens of the body and blood of christ, S. james would never have so earnestly prayed for the coming down of the holy Ghost to sanctify that bread and wine, he knowing that the bread and wine might without the special sanctification of the holy Ghost very well be figures of Christ'S body and blood, as many other things were in the old law. Neither would he have prayed that the holy Ghost by his holy presence should make the bread and wine the body and blood of christ, if he had intended or believed Chrysts institution to have but figures. It were in my judgement a mockery of God to desire, that the body and blood of christ might be there, and would not have it in deed, but only the figures of it. But why do I say so much in so plain and clear a matter. As ye now perceive by S. james his prayer that his intent and faith was that Christ'S very body and very blood were consecrated on the altar: so shall ye see that S. Clement came to the altar with, the same faith, and intent, whereupon he prayed thus: Rogamus ut mittere digneris sanctum tuum Spiritum super hoc sacrificium, testem passionum Dom. jesus, ut efficiat panem hunc corpus Christi tui, & ealicem hunc sanguinem Christi tui. We pray thee that thou wilt vouchsafe to send thy holy Spirit upon this sacrifice, a witness of the passions of our Lord jesus, that he may make this bread the body of thy christ, and this cup the blood of thy christ. Thus moche S. Clement. If in any place the faith and intent of holy men may appear, that should it most chiefly do in their holy prayers devoutly and simply powered out in the seight of God. S. Clement then S. Clement beliu●… the bread and were to be made the body and blood of christ by the work of the holy Ghost. making his devout prayer in the holy divine ministration of this blessed and glorious Sacrament, and desiring God that the holy Ghost might be sent to make by his divine power the bread and the wine upon the altar the body and blood of christ, his intent and faith was that it should so be. No man will say that he prayed against or contrary to that, that he believed, and intended. His faith therefore and intent was, that by consecration there was made present the body and blood of christ. As in the last chapter I referred the reader to S. Dionyse to see his ministration in his book: so do I here also And therefore the practice of the Apostles perceived by S. james, and of their Disciples by S. Clement, thinking that it will do well to understand the like in the Fathers, that by the receiving and continual practice of the same one thing in diverse times, in diverse churches, and of diverse Fathers, the more adsured and perfect knowledge may be had, and so occasion may be taken for the reader to stay, and confirm himself in the verity of Christ'S Sacrament: we shall descend to the Fathers that were more than two hundredth years after them, to make trial whether they kept like order as the Apostles and their Disciples did, or varied from them. And in this process we will first see what S. basil intended, and what he believed to be wrought in the Sacrament, what he intended and believed his own prayer will lively and fully declare. Thus in his Mass, he prayeth: Tepostulamus, & te obsecramus sancte sanctorum beneplacita tua benignitate venire Spiritum sanctum super nos, & super proposita munera ea, & benedicere ista, & sanctisicare, & ostendere panem quidem istum, ipsum honorisicum corpus Dom. Dei, et salvatoris nostri jesu Christi: quod autem est in chalice isto ipsum sanguinem Dom. Det & salvatoris nostri jesu Christi, qui effusus est pro mundi vita. We beseech and desire thee, o most holy of all holy that by thy well-pleasing goodness thy holy Spirit may come upon S. Basil by the sanctisicacio of the holy Ghost believed the bread and wine to be made Chrysts body and blood. us, and upon these proposed gifts, and to bless and sanctify them, and to show this bread to be the very honourable body of our Lord God and Saviour jesus christ. And that is in this cup the very blood of our Lord God and Saviour jesus christ, which was shed for the life of the world. Thus much S. basil. If ye call to remembrance the manner of S. james his prayer in his Mass, and compare it to this, so little difference is there between them, that they might be thought all one, so well do they agree in words, so well in faith that as they speak all one thing: so they believed all one thing, namely the consecration of Christ'S body and blood to be wrought in the holy ministration by the work of the holy Ghost. And yet thus moche hath S. basil more than S. james, that he doth not only desire that the bread and wine may be made the body and blood of christ, but that the holy Ghost will make them ipsum corpus, et ipsum sanguinem Domini, the very self same body and blood of our Lord. So that there is no doubt, but that in the Mass, he believed by the consecration, the body and blood of christ to be made verily present. That the reader be not long detained from the pleasure and godliedelight that he may conceive and have by the heavenly harmony of the just consent and agree meant of the holy fathers briefly laid together: we will also hear Chrysostom, and by his own words learn of him, what intention and faith he had about the ministration of the blessed Sacr. Thus he like unto other prayed: Precamur et Chrysost. in Missa. supplicamus, ut mittas Spiritum sanctum tuum super nos, et super haec apposita munera, et fac panem istum quidem preciosum corpus Christi tui, et quod in chalice, est preciosum sanguinem Christi tui, permutans ea sancto Spiritu tuo. We pray and beseech thee, that thou wilt send thy holy Spirit upon us, and upon these gifts setforth, and make this bread the precious body of thy christ, and that is in this cup the precious blood of thy christ, permuting or changing them by thine holy Spirit. Thus far Chrysost. It is not hard to perceive either his agreement will other before alleged, or his like intention and faith when he useth the same manner of words that they did, and the like request or prayer? saving that where they desired Chrysostom believed the bread and wine by sanctification to be the body and blood of christ. Li. 4. de Sacram. ca 5 the bread and wine to be made the body and blood of christ by the high and great work of the holy Ghost, he declareth also by what mean the holy Ghost doth it, saying: Permutans ea spiritu tuo sancto, changing them by thy holy Spirit, meaning that it is done by the holy Ghost changing the bread and wine into the body and blood of christ. To proceed by as many in this matter as we did in the other treacted of in the last chapter, we must than also hear S. Ambrose, who declareth the faith and intent of the Latin Church about the consecration saying thus: Vis scire quia verbis coelestibus consecratur? Accipe, quae sunt verba. Dicit sacerdos, Fac nobis (inquit) hanc oblationem ascriptam, rationabilem, & acceptabilem, quod est figura corporis & sanguinis Do. n. jesu Christi. Wilt thou know that the Sacrament is consecrated with heavenly words? Mark what be the words. The priest saith. Make this oblation (saith he) allowed, reasonable and acceptable which is a figure of the body and blood of our Lord jesus christ. As S. Ambrose willeth you to mark the words of the prayer of the priest, whereby ye may perceive, what intent and faith was in S. Ambrose and in the holy Fathers, that ministered and consecrated the holy Sacrament in those days: So wish I you to mark them that ye may confer them, with the prayer of the catholic Church that now is, declaring the intent and faith of the same. The prayer of the Church is thus: Facere digneris hanc oblationem, tu Deus omnipotens, in omnibus quesumus, benedictam, ascriptam, ratam rationabilem, acceptabilemue, ut nobis corpus & sanguis fiat filii tui Do. n. jesu Christi. Vouchsafe, we beseech thee, o God Almighty, to make this oblation blessed, allowed, approved, reasonable and acceptable, that it may be made unto us the body and blood of thy beloved Son our Lord jesus christ. If ye note the first part of this prayer it agreeth almost word for word The prayer in the Mass now used agreeth with the Apostolic and primitive church. with the prayer of S. Ambrose, if ye note the second part, where it saith and desireth that it may be made the body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ it agreeth with S. james S. Clement. S. basil and Chrysostom, all which desired the like. So that the prayer of the catholic Church declaring the intent and faith of the same agreeth fully with the Apostolic, primitive, and ancient Church, every one of them desiring that the bread and the wine may be made the body and blood of our Lord jesus christ. But the intention without faith of the new feigned Church is soon perceived to dissent and disagree from all these princes, pillars, and Fathers of the Church for such a countenance of prayer they make. Hear us, o merciful Father, we beseech thee, and grant that we receiving these creatures of bread and wine according to thy Son our Saviour jesus Christ's institution in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood. Thus they. Here first let us, before we have of other, make conference of this prayer with the prayers of the Apostles, words of the Communion. and primitive Church, and then after we shall examen the truth of it, and of their intent. Remember, gentle reader, observe and note, that S. james, S. Clement. in remembrance of his death. If any place be, it must be the place of the S. basil. S. Chrysostom. S. Ambrose and so of all the Church which they lived in both greeks and latins for the space of four hundredth years immediately The prayer of the new Church varieth from all the prayers of the Apostolic and primitive Church after christ, prayed not that they might receive the creatures of bread and wine, but that the creatures of bread and wine might be made the body and blood of jesus christ. Wherefore the new Church making to themselves a new found prayer, so far dissenteth here from the Apostolic and primitive Church, that I can not properly make a conference between them, but raither show the great difference of them. The Apostolic and primitive Church desire the bread and wine may be made the body and blood of christ: The new Church, that the bread and wine may remain to be received, and so of consequent contrary to the other church, desireth that they may not be made the body and blood of christ. See ye not then how far these two prayers are different? They are so far different as two contraries, even as yea and nay, I will, and I will not: so neerlie and justly doth this new found Church follow the primitive Church, of the which this Proclaimer so moche braggeth. The Apostolic and primitive Church desireth not to receive the creatures of bread and wine in the B. Sacrament, but the very body and blood of christ, as their plain words do plainly testify: This erring Church desireth not by expesse words to receive the very body and blood of christ in the Sacrament, but the creatures of bread and wine, and then to be made partakers of the body and blood of christ, but how, or which way, where or by what means, what manner of body, spiritual or corporal, real or fantastical, they ourpasse with silence. Thus still ye see, that they in all these weighty matters altogether dissent from the Apostolic and primitive Church, and do no less vary from it then they do from the catholic Church now being, which they so feercelie persecute. And that they so do, this shall well prove it, that never yet did any catholic Father or author, greek or latin, young or old use this phrase The prayer of the new Communion never used nor heard of before of words of theirs, either in prayer, sermon or writing. Which if it had been agreeable, it must needs have been found in some of them, and learned of some of them. But this new prayer of this new church is so new, that the like of it could never until this new degeneration be seen heard or known. If it were let the Proclaimer, and all his complices learned and unlearned bring forth some precedent. If they can, I will join this issue with them, that I will pray and receive with them. If they can not, as I am sure they can not, let them pray and receive with us. We have brought forth precedents for our prayers: let them bring forth precedents for theirs, I provoke them to it. What authority hath the Proclaim or all the Protestants to show, that the eating and drinking of bread and wine is of Chrysts institution Thus moche being said of the difference of the prayer of the new Church from the prayer of the Apostolic Church: let us now examen the truth of the same prayer. Their prayer hath these words: that we receiving these they creatures of bread and wine, according to thy son our Lord jesus Chrysts institution in remembrance of his death etc. I would learn of the masters of this Church, where that institution of christ is, that we should eat the creatures of bread and wine in remembrance of his death. The proclaimer requireth some plain and express sentence of the Catholics to prove what they affirm against his articles: I require of him and his company some plain sentence in the scriptures to prove that, that he and his company affirm, that christ by express words commanded us to eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of his death. If any place be, it must be the place of the institution of the Sacrament, in which place although it be testified that he took bread in his holy hands: yet it testifieth withal that he sanctified and blessed the same bread, and when he had so done, it was so far changed from the nature of bread, that christ who is the truth, and in whose mouth was no guile might and did boldly say, Take and eat, not a piece of bread, but my body, even the same that shall be delivered for you. And likewise of the cup he said: Take and drink ye, this is, not a cup of wine, but even my blood that shall be shed for your sins and the sins of many. This eat ye, and this drink in the remembrance of me What should they eat? That that he took unto them. what did he take unto them? The Evangelists do testify: Take eat, this my body. They should drink in the remembrance of him. What should they drink▪ That also that he did take them. What did he take them? The Evangelists likewise declare. Drink ye all of this, saith christ, for this is my blood of the new testament etc. Here be the words of the institution. Here is instituted that the body and blood of christ should be received in By Chrysts institution we should receive his body and blood in 〈◊〉 etc. the remembrance of his passion and death, that bread and wine should be so received, here is not one title. christ said not, eat this bread, and drink this wine in my remembrance. Where then be we commanded to receive the creatures of bread and wine according to the institution of christ, if it be not commanded here? As touching the institution of christ, it is at the full treacted of in the second book, where be produced xii couples of the higher house of Christ'S Parliament, and vi couples of the lower house, of the which a great number declare the very substance of Christ'S body and blood to be verily dispensed and given in the Blessed Sacrament The new church chargeth christ with an untruth. and a good number of them deny the same Sacrament to be a figure only. If it be not a figure, then is it not bread and wine: If it be not then we eat not bread and wine, as they say, according to Chrysts institution. Behold them the impudency of these men see their notable untruth, that fear not before men only (which in so weighty a matter were to much) but also as it were) even to the face of God to make a stout lie against his only begotten son charging him with that, that they be not able to prove. But that this their untruth where with they charge our Saviour christ may more fully appear, and the truth of the catholic Church clearly be seen, ye shall not only when ye come to the next chapter, note what is done according to Chrysts institution, but also here the practice of the Apostolic and primitive Church shall teach you, what christ instituted to be received for the remembrance of his death. S. james prayed thus in his Mass: Misericors Deus dignum me fac gratia tua ut citra condemnationem particeps fiam sancti corporis, & preciosi sanguinis in remissionem peccatorum etc. O merciful God make me by thy grace worthy that without my condemnation, I may be made partaker of thy holy body, and precious blood, to the remission of sins. S. basil thus: Nullum nostrum ad judicium aut condemnationem facias accipere sanctum corpus & sanguinem Christi tui. Make none of us to judgement or condemnation to receive the holy body and blood of thy christ. S. Chrysostom prayed thus: dignare potenti manu tua tribuere nobis immaculatum corpus tuum & preciosum sanguinem, & per nos omni populo. Vouchsafe with thy mighty hand to give unto us thy undifiled body and thy precious blood, and by us to all the people. Thus they, It is not to be doubted, but that all these, and the Church that they lived in received the sacrament according to Christ'S institution. But these creatures of beead and wine omitted, they show them selves by express words, to receive the body and blood of christ. Wherefore Chrysts institution is to receive his body and blood, and not the creatures of bread and wine. And that they speak not of the spiritual body only, but of the real body in the blessed Sacrament, two things in these fathers prove it in vinciblie. The one is in S. james and S. basil. They both desire that thoy not to condemnation may receive the holy body and precious blood of christ. That 〈…〉 body then is here received, that may be received both to salvation and damnation. The spiritual body can be received but to salvation, the real body both to salvation and damnation, wherefore they receive the real body of christ, that may be received to condemnation. The other is in Chrysostom, who desireth christ that he would vouchsafe both to impart unto him his body and blood, and also by him and the priests to the people. Where upon we may thus reason: That body was received of Chrysostom and the priests, which by them also might be delivered to the people, But thereall body of christ, and not the spiritual might by them be delivered to the people. Wherefore Chrysostom and the priests received the real body of christ. That the spiritual body of christ, or christ spiritually can not by the priests be delivered to the people, it is so manifest that it needeth no probation, it standeth them certain and sure that chrysostom received the very real body of christ. To conclude then this disputation upon the principal part of that, that here is intended: S. james, S. basil. S. Chrysostom received that, that was according to Chrysts institution to be received in the remembrance of his death: But they received not the creatures of bread and wine, but the very real body of christ: Wherefore they received according to Chrysts institution his very real body in the remembrance of his passion and death. It is evident then that it is not Chrysts institution to receive the creatures of bread and wine in the remembrance of his death, wherefore we may conclude that the pretenced prayer of the lare erected Church hath a foul and a wicked untruth in it, and for the maintenance of an abominable heresy, doth untruly report and say of our Saviour christ, and that not only Of intention of the new ministers. to the world, but even, as it were to the face of God. Now remaineth the last thing appointed here in this chapter to be spoken of, which is the intention and faith of the ministers of this new Church, in the which a sew words, may and shall suffice. The intention and faith of this Church is not only perceived by their common profession: Two sorts of ministers of the Communion. but also by this their prayer. Their common profession denieth the presence of Chrysts body in the Sacrament, their prayer confirmeth the same. For desiring to receive the creatures of bread and wine, they exclude the body and blood of christ, into whose substance (as Euseb. Emis. saith) the invisible creatures are turned. Understand that in this new founded Church be two sorts of ministers that do minister this Communion. One sort is of priests, which lausullie consecrated in the catholic Church, have fallen to heresy, who although they have authority by their holy orders to consecrate the body and blood of christ: yet now having neither right intention nor faith of the catholic Church, they consecrate not. The other sort is of ministers made after the schismatical manner. These men though they would unwisely have intention to consecrate: yet laking the lawful authority they neither do nor can consecrate, but (as it may be justly thought) having neither authority, nor due faith and intention they neither receive nor distribute to the people any other thing than bread and wine. Which their doing and intention compared to the Apostolic and primitive Church soon showeth it self to be nothing like it, to have nothing to do with it, nor nothing to follow it. The condition of this matter being such, what case be those priests in, which having catholic authority and catholic faith, and think but well of the catholic mysteries and religion, for fear, or for living sake, leave The miserable state of catholic priests following the schism that they know to be good, and do that they know to be evil? What trembling hearts shall they have before the terrible judgement seat of God, when their own consciences shall accuse them, saying: we were called to serve the altar, we had authority given us to confecrate Chrysts body and blood according to his holy institution, we might have offered the same in sacrifice to the memorial of Chrysts death, to the comfort of our own souls, and releiff of many. We might have received that blessed food to the nutriment of our souls to everlasting life. Thus might we have spent our time in the service of God, thus might we have lived in our calling, where omitting all these, we have joined with schismatics and heretics, and been as it were in arms against Christ'S ordinance, against his catholic Church and the holy religion of the same, woe be to us, woe be to us, what shall we do? This or such like or much more bitter and grievous accusation will your consciences make against you. Awake therefore and look a bout you in time. It is yet the time of mercy, the time of justice will come in which repentance shall come to late. Thus having here to speak of intention and faith, for that I see you in countenance to decline form the execution of that intention and faith that should be seen in you, and professed of you, I have a little digressed from my principal intention to add monish you to return to your deutifull intention. And here to conclude with you as I do with schismatics and heretics, which is a grief to my heart that I may so do, I say that having intent to receive the creatures of bread and wine in the Sacrament, ye fulfil not Chrysts institution, neither do ye follow the intention and faith of the Apostolic Church, neither of the primitive and ancient Church. THE SEVEN AND THIRTETH CHAPTER treateth of the oblation and sacrifice of the Mass as it was used of the Apostles and Fathers. SO moche being all ready spoken of the oblation and sacrifice of the Mass, I should not need, but that the special order here taken so requireth, to speak any more of the same. I mind therefore no otherwise here to treact of it, but only as I have done in the matters of consecration and intention to show forth the practice of the Apostles and fathers used in their Masses. And here first for the practice used among the Apostles, we will see what was done by S. james being well assured that he did in this weighty matter of faith no otherwise then all the rest of the Apostles did. For what he did, all they did: and what they did he did jacob. in Miss. such was their conspiration, common consent, unity and agreement. In his Mass immediately after consecration, thus he proceeded: Memores igitur & nos peccatores passionum eius vivificarum, crucis salutaris ac mortis, sepulchri & resurrectionis à mortuis tercio die, ascensionis in caelos, & assessionis eius ad dextram tuam Dei Patris, & secundi, glortosi, & tremendi eius adventus, cùm veniet cum gloria ad indicandùm S. James of fredsacrifice in the memorial of Chrysts Death vivos & mortuos, cùm reddet unicuique secundùm opera evis, offerimus tibi, Domine, hoc sacrificium verendum & incruentum, orantes ne secundùm peccata nostra nobiscum agas. We sinners also therefore mindful of his lively passions, of his wholesome cross and death, burial and resurrection from the dead the third day, of his ascension into the heavens and of his sitting at the right hand of God the Father, and of his second, glorious and fearful coming, when he shall with glory come to judge the quick and the dead, when he shall give to every one according to his works: We offer unto thee, o Lord, this dreadful and unbloody sacrifice, praying that thou do not with us according to our sins. In this part of S. james Mass we may perceive three things. The first that Chrysts body is offered in sacrifice: The second, that it is offered in remembrance Three things notable in S. James Mass. of his passion and death, resurrection, ascension etc. The third, that it is done for the remission of sins. For the first, it is to be noted that immediately after consecration, by the which is wrought the presence of Chrysts body (as is said) having it present he forthwith saith: We offer unto thee, o lord, this dreadful and unbloody sacrifice. This said S. james immediately upon the consecration, when nothing else was before him to offer but the body of christ. Wherefore he then offered the body of christ. To this understanding many things do enforce us in the words of S. james. first, that he useth the demonstrative (thus) saying this sacrifice, which spoken at the altar upon the consecration of Christ'S body, which is the very true sacrifice, signifieth unto us, that he offereth it. Farther, that he calleth the sacrifice which he offereth a dreadful sacrifice. What sacrifice, that by man can be offered to God, is dreadful, but only the body of christ, the body of God and man? which for the majesty of Godhead, whereunto this body is joined in unity of person is dreadful, other sacrifices what soever, be not of themselves. Wherefore the dreadful sacrifice that he offered was the body of christ. lastly, he calleth it an unblooddie sacrifice. Which very well agreeth with the sacrifice of Chrysts body offered on the altar. For that body being now glorified is impassable, and immortal, and never shall shed blood to be sacrificed by death again, but is now offered to the Father with remembrance of that passion and death, and blood shedding, which he once suffered, and shall never suffer again, and is so set before the face of his Father to procure us mercy of the remission of our sins, and to obteign for us the grace of God, and the gifts of his holy Spirit. Now the oblation perceived in this holy Apostle, and by him in all the Apostles: let us descend to the Disciple of the chief Apostle, to see in him whether he and other Disciples did in the Mass make oblation and offer sacrifice as the Apostles did. This man (S. Clement I mien) even as S. james did, immediately after the holy consecration prayed thus: Memores igitur passionis eius, mortis, resurrectionis, reditus in coelos, & futuri eius secundi adventus, in quo veniet iudicaturus vivos & mortuos, redditurusque cuique secundùm opera sua, offerimus S. Clemens in Missa ut refert Methon. ibi Regi & Deo secundùm eius institutionem panem hunc, & hunc calicem, gratias tibi per eum agentes, quod nos dignatus fueris astare, coram te, & tibi sacrificare. Being therefore mindful of his passion, death, resurrection, ascension into heaven, and of his second coming, in the which he will judge both quick and dead and will give to every one according to his works: We offer unto the King and God according to his institution this bread and this cup, giving thee thanks by him, that thou have vouchsafe us to stand before thee, and to offer sacrifice to thee. Thus S. Clement. Let not the good Christian be dismayed, nor the sacramentary triumph S. Clement offered Chrysts body and blood in sacrifice. that he saith we offer this bread, but let them both understand, that as our Saviour christ in the vi of S. john, and S. Paul in the x of the first to the Corinth. which is already declared, and in the xi of the same, which here shall be declared, do call the body of christ bread: So doth S. Clement here. For proof whereof have recourse to the prayer of S. Clement in the last chapter before and see his faith what he believed to be in the Sacrament, where ye shall find him desiring that the holy Ghost may be sent, who may make the bread the body of christ and the wine the blood of christ. If than the bread by the work of the holy Ghost be made the body of christ, then there is no other bread there after consecration to be offered in sacrifice but the bread of the body of christ and the cup of his blood. Neither can the sacramentary with all his wresting malice understand this of material bread. For this that is here offered, is offered according to the institution of christ: but as the sacramentary can not but confess, christ never instituted material bread to be offered in sacrifice. Wherefore it can not be understanded of material bread. It is evident than that S. Clement offered Chrysts body, and blood the very true bread, and true wine in sacrifice. This being made plain, we shall descend to S. basil and see what he did, whether he offered in his Mass or no. He as S. Clement, immediately after S. basil offered the like sacrifice to S. Ja. and S Clem. the consecration continued his holy talk to God, saying on this wise: Memores ergo, Domine, & nos salutarium eius passionum, vivificae crucis, triduanae sepulturae, ex mortuis resurrectionis, in caelum ascensionis, in dextra tua Dei Patris sessionis, & gloriosae ac terribilis secundae eius praesentiae, tua ex tuis tibi offerimus. We also therefore, o Lord, being mindful of his wholesome passions, lively cross, three days burial, his resurrection from the dead, his ascension into haven, his sitting at thy right hand, God and Father, and of his glorious and terrible second presence: we offer thine to thee out of thine. Thus he. See ye not here, as in S. james and S. Clement an oblation of the body and blood of christ, which be things of God, consecrated of his creatures bread and wine, and so offered unto God? Hitherto than ye see the holy Fathers, to have offered Christ'S body and blood, and therefore in their words and writings not to have abhorred the terms of offering, or making oblation and sacrifice, as the new brothers do. But for farther proof of the practice of the Sacrifice we will proceed and see what Chrysostom did in his Mass. For he keeping the order before mentioned immediately upon the consecration addeth this prayer: Memores igitur salutaris huius mandati & omnium eorum, quae pro nobis facta sunt, crucis, sepulchri, chrysostom offered sacrifice in Mass. resurrectionis, ad caelos ascensionis, sessionis ad dextram, secundi & gloriosi rursus adventus, tua ex tuis tibi offerimus. Remembering therefore this holy commandment and all those things that have been done for us as the cross burial, resurrection, ascension into heaven sitting at the right hand, the second and glorious coming again: we offer thine unto thee of thine own. Thus ther. It can not be that they that so justly agree in words and sentence should vary and disagree in sense and understanding. Wherefore Chrysostom, as the other did, did in his Mass offer sacrifice. I labour not here to seek the deapt of this matter, for that I have done already in diverse places of this work, but I chiefly seek by the words of these Fathers to declare that all S. Ambrose and the church that he lived in offered sacrifice in the Mass. they did offer sacrifice. What they offered, and to what effect, it is and shallbe declared, and, as it may for this place suffice, by S. Ambrose it shall be made evident, what he and the ancient Church in his time did offer. Whereby also we shall be assured what the former Fathers did offer, this being certain that holy Ambrose did nothing contrary to the holy faith of the primitive Church. Thus he reporteth, of the practice of the ancient Church of his time and before: Sacerdos dicit: Ergo memores gloriosissimae eius passionis, & ab inferis resurrectionis, & in coelum ascensionis, offerimus tibi hanc immaculatam hostiam rationabilem hostiam, incruentam hostiam, hunc panem sanctum, & calicem vitae aeternae. Being therefore mindful of thy most glorious passion, and resurrection from death, and ascension into heaven, we offer unto thee this undefiled sacrifice, reasonable sacrifice, unbloody sacrifice, this holy bread and cup of life everlasting. Note here what manner of sacrifice was offered in the Mass. Do ye not here see by the testimony of S. Ambrose that the priest did offer sacrifice in the remembrance of Chrysts passion, resurrection and ascension? But note and mark well what manner, of sacrifice: An immaculate or un defiled sacrifice, a pure sacrifice. What sacrifice is it that man can offer to God, that he may boldly so term and call? No pure man dare so far presume of his own doings of offerings to God. This pure and undefiled sacrifice than can be none other, but that pure and innocent lamb of God, that purifieth and cleanseth us by taking away the sins of the world, even jesus 1. Joan. 1. Ibid. 6. christ his very body and blood. Which manner of understanding the later words of this offering sentence doth also enforce us to take, determining this pure and undefiled sacrifice to be the holy bread on the altar lying before the priest, in that he saith: hunc panem sanctum, this holy bread, and that he termeth the cup to be the cup of everlasting health. For as the bread is holy, and the fountain of holiness, from whence to us floweth all holiness: so is the cup the cup of everlasting health. For sanguis jesu Christi emundat nos ab omni delicto. The blood of jesus christ doth cleanse us from all sin, and so purging the gross and filthy humours of sin, which make the soul sick giveth us everlasting health, and where everlasting health is, there is everlasting life. And so cometh to pass that christ saith: Qui manducat meam carnem, et bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam aternan. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life. Thus then may it be perceived, that this holy bread and cup of life everlasting, Chrysts body in the Sacr is the unbloody sacrifice of the Church is the holy undefiled and unbloody sacrifice, which S. Ambrose testifieth to be offered in the Church, which (as is said) well considered and weighed, and these terms: the undefiled and unbloody sacrifice, and the holy bread and cup of life everlasting, compared and joined together as meaning one thing (as they do in deed) can signify no other thing to us but the very body and blood of our Lord and Saviour jesus christ, offered as the undefiled and unbloody sacrifice of his Church. And Reader in case the Adversary would bleer thine eye, expounding this word of S. Ambrose Mass, panem sanctum, holy bread, to be the sacramental bread, and the bread of their holy communion, so to delude thee, and to elude the argument, and to avoid the presence of Chrysts blessed body in the Sacrament yet the words adjoined, which be, that the cup is called the cup of everlasting life, do and shall so streict him, that he can not but understand then of the body and blood of christ, and not his sacramental bread, and cup. For the one by the confession of Oecolamp. and Crammer can receive no holiness being a dumb creature, and the other will be confessed of all men, if it be but a cup of wine, that it is not the cup of everlasting life. It remaineth then that they are understanded of the body and blood of christ, which be the holy bread, and cup of everlasting life, and the undefiled and unbloody sacrifice of the Church. Hitherto ye have perceived that S. Ambrose agreeth with S. james, S. Clement, S. basil, and S. chrysostom in this point, namely in the oblation of sacrifice. And now that by S. Ambrose it is perceived that he and the Church that he lived in did offer sacrifice, and that that sacrifice was the body and blood of christ, there remaineth now that we confer with him and the rest, the doing of the catholic Church now in their Mass, and of the heretical Words of the Canon in the Mass. congregation in the Communion, as they untruely term it. The catholic Church as in the practice of all the Fathers it was used, immediately after the consecration is done proceedeth thus saying: unde & memores nos Domine, servi tui, sed & plebs iva sancta eiusdem Christi Filii tui tam beate passionis, necnon & ab inferis resurrectionis, sed & in caelos gloriosae ascensionis, offerimus praeclarae maiestati tuae de tuis donis ac datis, hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam, panem sanctum vitae aeternae, & calicem salutis perpetuae. Wherefore, o Lord, we thy servants, and the holy people also being mindful of the blessed passion of the same christ thy Son, and of his resurrection, and also of his glorious ascension into heaven, we offer to thy excellent majesty of thy gifts, and grants a pure sacrifice, and holy sacrifice, an undefiled sacrifice, the holy bread of everlasting life, and the cup of everlasting salvation. Thus the Church. Where ye perceive that as S. james. S. Clement S. basil, and other did offer sacrifice and that in the remembrance of Chrysts passion, resurrection, etc. So doth the catholic Church now likewise offer in this prayer, which forasmoch as it dependeth of something going before, understand, that as in the Mass of S. james and the other, so in this Mass rehearsal is made of this commandment of christ: Do ye this in remembrance of me. Whereupon this prayer, wherein in every of these Masses oblation is made of the sacrifice of Christ'S body and blood, is forthwith added as the fulfilling of that commandment, and therefore saith: Wherefore we mindful, o Lord, of the blessed passion, etc. Which is as much to say, forasmuch as thy Son our Lord and Saviour hath commanded us to offer in sacrifice his blessed body and blood in the remembrance of that death, which he did once suffer in that body, and of other his great and wonderful acts that he did in the same, as his resurrection, ascension, etc. Therefore, o Lord, according to this thy Son his commandment, being mind full of those great and wonderful acts, we offer unto thee this holy sacrifice. And here by the way let the Proclaimer note, that where he would be certified, where we be commanded to offer christ in sacrifice, he may by all these Masses be taught that we are so commanded by Chrysts own word, we be commanded to offer christ in sacrifice. whereupon, if he will see, he may perceive that oblation is made of the body and blood of christ in each of them, even by his commandment as is already said That the body and blood of christ is the sacrifice that is here offered it may suffice to repeat a few words of S. Sames our first witness, and of S. Ambrose our last witness for the proof of the same, this being out of all doubt Sacrifice offered by S. James. that the Fathers between them dissented not from them. S. james said: Offerimus tibi, Domine, sacrificium verendun, et incruentum. We offer unto thee, o Lord, this dreadful and unbloody sacrifice. This sacrifice being dreadful and unbloody can be none other, as there it is proved but the body of Christ. And in that he calleth it an unbloody sacrifice, he beateth down the gross heretical objection of the enemies of Chrysts everlasting sacrifice, saying: that if he be offered in sacrifice, he must be slain again, and his blood as often shed, as he is offered, where the faith of all holy Fathers acknowledgeth, it to be an unbloody sacrifice, for that no violence is now wrought to the shedding of Chrysts blood. S. Ambrose saith: Offerimus tibi hanc immaculatan, rationabilem, incruentan, hostiam. We offer unto thee this pure reasonable and unbloody sacrifice. And determining what this sacrifice is he addeth: Hunc panem sanctum, & calicem vitae aeternae. This holy sacrifice was offered in Mass by S. Ambr. blood, and cup of everlasting life. In that he calleth it a pure sacrifice, he alludeth to the Prophet Malachi calling it an unbloody sacrifice, he followeth S. james: in that he calleth it the holy bread, and the cup of the everlasting life he perfectly determineth it to be the blessed bread of Christ'S body, and the cup of his blood giving everlasting life. Now the catholic Church embracing the faith of the Apostles and Fathers, saith as they said, and doth that they did. For as S. Ambrose said we offer this pure sacrifice, so saith the catholic Church now, we offer this pure sacrifice. As S Ambrose said, we offer this holy bread and cup of life everlasting. So saith the Church, we of The catholic church now offering sacrifice in Mass followeth Christ his holy Apostles, and the primitive Church the new Church offering none do contrary to them all. free the bread of everlasting life and the cup of everlasting salvation. Thus ye see how justly he catholic Church in this our time followeth in this point the faith and doing of the ancient Church. But now the degenerating church maketh no one title mention of offering christ in sacrifice, neither would that her ministers should have such intent, therefore can therebe no comparison here made of her faith and doing. For comparison must be made between two things or more that be or have a being. For Inter ens & non ens nulla est comparatio. Between a thing that is, and that that is not there is no comparison. Thus thenwe may end this part that the new Church not offering sacrifice neither keepeth Christ'S institution, neither followeth the practice of the Apostolic primitive, and ancient Church, but omitteth the commandment of christ in his institution, and doth clean contrary to the examples of the Apostles, and holy Fathers. THE EIGHT AND THIRTETH CHAPTER TREAteth of the prayer for acceptation of the oblation or sacrifice made in the Mass, and used aswell by the Apostles as the Fathers. Now remaineth to show what manner of prayer was used of the Apostles and of their Disciples, and of the primitive Church after the offering of sacrifice in Mass, for the acceptation thereof. The holy Apostles and Fathers thought it not enough only in bare manner to offer the sacrifice to God: but also their condition considered thought it appertaining to their duty most humbly by devout prayer to crave and desire at God's hand that their service in so doing might be mercisullie accepted. And her to observe the order before used we shall first see how the Apostle S. james made his prayer to God for the acceptation of his service in offering of the sacrifice. Thus he prayed: Pro oblatis & Jacob. in Missa. sanctificatis, preciosis, supercoelestibus, ineffabilius, immaculatis, gloriosis, tremendis, horrendis, divinis donis Dom. Deo nostro oremus, ut Dom. Deus n. acceptis iis in sanctum & super coeleste, mentale, & spiritale altar suum, in odorem spiritalis fragrantiae, rependat ac mittat nobis divinam gratiam et donum sanctiss. Spiritus: Oremus. Let us pray to our Lord God for these offered and sanctified, precious heavenly, unspeakable, immaculate, glorious, fearful, horrible, divine gifts: Let us pray that our Lord God accepting these into his holy and heavenly, mental and spiritual altar to the savour of spituall fragrance or sweetness, may give again and send to us the divine grace, and the gift of the most holy Spirit. Thus he ther. S. Clement after he had offered sacrifice prayed thus. Rogamus ut propicio ac sereno vultu respicias supra haec proposita dona coram te, tu qui nullius indiges Deus, & tibi complacitum sit in eyes ad honorem Christi tui, etc. O God, which neadest no other man's goods we beseech thee, that with a merciful and pleasant countenance In Missa Apost. thou wilt look upon these present gifts set before thee, and that thou mayst be well pleased with them to the honour of thy christ. S. basil prayed thus: Dominum postulemus pro oblatis & sanctificatis, honorificentis simis muneribus Domini Dei nostri & commoditate bonorum nostrarum animarum, ut clementiss. Deus, qui accepit ea in sancto & super caelesti, intelligibili altari in odorem suavitatis emittat nobis gratiam et communionem sancti sui Spiritus. Let us desire our Lord for the offered and sanctified most honourable gifts of our Lord and God, and Basil in Missa. the commodity of the goodness of our souls, that our most merciful God who hath received them in his holy and heavenly and intelligible altar in the savour of sweetness, may send unto us the grace and communion of his holy Spirit. Thus he. S. Chrysostom followeth S. basil, and after the oblation of sacrifice prayeth thus: Pro ablatis et sanctificatis preciosis donis Dominum deprecemur, ut clemens Deus qui ea suscepit in sancto coelesti intelligibili altari suo mittat nobis propterea gratiam, et donum sancti spiritus. For the offered and sanctified precious gifts, letus pray to our Lord Chrysost. in Missa. that our merciful God, who hath received them in his holy and heavenly intelligle altar, may sand us therefore grace, and the gift of the holy Ghost. Thus he. I wish that all these alleged Fathers praying to God for the acceptation of their service in the offering of sacrifice, might be so diligently noted, that their phrase may hereafter be remembered. For if they be well noted, they seem in manner of speech to pray for their sacrifice, which manner of speech S. Ambrose also useth, and after him the catholic Church S. Ambrose in this manner. Ambr. li. 4 ca 6. de sacr.. Petimus et precamur ut hanc oblationem suscipias, in sublimi altari tuo per manus Angelorum tuorum, sicut suscipere dignatus es munera pueri tui justi Abel, et sacrificium Patriarchae nostri Abrahae, et quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedec. We desire and pray thee that thou wilt receive this oblation by the hands of the Angels into thy high altar, as thou have vouchsafe to receive the gifts of thy child Abel, and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham, and that, which thy priest Melchisedech did offer unto thee. The catholic Church maketh the like request in this manner: Supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris, et accepta habere, sicuti accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri justi tui Abel, et sacrificium Patriarchae nostri Abrahae, et quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedec, sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam. Upon which things, vouchsafe to look with a merciful and pleasant countenance, and to accept them, as thou diddest vouchsafe to accept the gifts of thy child Abel the just, and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham, and that which thy high priest Melchisedec did offer unto thee, an holy sacrifice, and an undefiled host. And immediately it followeth thus: Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens Deus, iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altar tuum, in conspectu divinae maiestatis tuae, ut quotquot ex hac altaris participatione, sacrosanctum filii tui corpus et sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione coelesti Words in the Mass now used. repleamur et gratia, per eundem Christum Dominum nostrum. We meek beseech thee (o almighty God) command these to be carried by the hands of thy holy Angels unto thy high altar in the seight of thy divine majesty, that as many of us as do by this participation of the altar, receive the most holy body and blood of thy Son, may be fulfilled with all heavenly blessing and grace by the same our Lord jesus christ. These be the prayers that the Proclaimer in his sermon derideth, mocking withal the godly doings of the catholic Church. Here he triumpheth, here he showeth his trifling toys and merry conceits to delight himself, and such as were of light heads and graceless hearts in his audience. Here his dissembled gravity failing, he showed himself in his own colours, even like a man of his profession, that is to misconstrue, to misunderstand, to wrest, to distort to adulterate such things as they read, and yet shamelessly with bold countenance to utter it, to compass thereby a mischief. But that he be no otherwise charged then his own words will require we shall report them as they be. Thus he saith as touching these prayers. Moreover the priest desireth God so to accept the body of his Son jesus Christ as he The words of the Proclaimer See what blind judgement blind malice pronounceth of all the Christian world once accepteth the sacrifice of Abel, or the oblation of Melchisedec. It is known that Abel offered up of his fruit of his slocke a lamb or a sheep, and that Melchisedec offered unto Abraham and his company returning from the battle bread and wine. And think we that Christ the Son of God standeth so far in his Father's displeasure that he needeth a mortal and miserable man to be his spokesman to procure him favour? or think we that God receiveth the body of his only begotten son none otherwise, than he once received a sheep or a lamb, at the hands of Abel? or than Abraham received bread and wine of Melchisedec? If no: why doth the priest then make this prayer in the Canon immediately after consecration? Supraquae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere, digneris, & accepta habere, sicuti accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui justi Abel, & sacrificium Patriachae nostri Abrahae, & quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedec, that is to say: Look down with merciful countenance upon these sacrifices (that is, the body of christ thy Son, and the cup of his blood) and vouchsafe to receive them, as thou sometime vouchsafest to receive the oblations of the child Abel the just, and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham, and that thing that was offered to thee by thy high priest Melchisedec. Besides this he desireth that an Angel may come, and carry Chrysts body away into heaven. This is the prayer that he maketh: jube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altar tuum. What a fable is this that christ should be born upon an Angel, and so carried up away into heaven? Thus much the Proclaimer. How say you? Have not seen him play his part? Have ye not seen a marvelous mockery of God's holy mysteries? Have ye not heard the phrase of The prayers of the Canon of the Mass be the prayers of Fathers of the primitive Church. the prayers of the holy Apostles, and of their Disciples, of the ancient Fathers of the primitive Church and of all the catholic Church derided and scorned? For thus scorning and abusing the prayers of the canon of the Mass usednow in the catholic Church, he scorneth and abuseth the prayers of all them a foresaid. For the prayers of the Canon contain their words, and are compiled of them. The beginning of these words produced by the Proclaimer, that is, Supra quae propitio ac seren, etc. is taken out of S. Clement, who prayed thus: Rogamus ut propitio serenoque vultu respicias super haec dova. The Church saith: upon which vouchsafe, with a merciful and pleased countenance to look upon, etc. S. Clement said: We beseech thee that with a merciful and pleased countenance thou wilt look upon these gifts or sacrifices, that that followeth in the prayer of the Canon it is wholly in S. Ambrose, saving that it is there divided as it were into two prayers, that S. Ambr. comprehendeth in one. For where in the prayer of the Church it followeth thus: & accepta habere sicuti accepta, etc. And vouchsafe to receive these, as thou vouchsafest to receive the gifts of Abel the just, and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham, etc. it is in S. Ambrose word for word in effect. For thus he prayed. Petimus & precamur ut hancoblat, etc. supra. We desire and pray thee that thou wilt receive this oblation by the hands of the Angels into thy high altar as though vouchsafest to receive the gifts of thy child Abel the just, and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham, and that, that thy high priest Melchisedec offered unto thee. See ye not now that the catholic Church useth the very same words that S. Ambrose and the ancient Church in his time did use? well let us proceed to see and compare the rest. The Church goeth further in the Canon and prayeth thus: Suplices te rogamus omnipotens Deus iube haec perferri, etc. We humbly beseech thee, o almighty God, that thou wilt command these sacrifices to be carried by the hands of thy holy Angel into thy high altar in the seight of thine divine Majesty S. Ambrose prayeth, thus: Petimus et precamur, ut supra. We desire and pray, that thou wilt receive this sacrifice by the hands of the holy Angels into thy high altar. Now ye see the prayer of the Canon of the Mass used in the catholic Church, with which the Proclaimer hath found such fault, ye see also the prayers of S. Clement and S. Ambrose, and by conference ye perceive them so to agree, that the words of the prayer of the Church now be none other than the words of S. Clement and S. Ambrose. May it not then be truly said, that the Proclaimer deriding and scorning the prayer of the Church now used, doth deride and scorn S. Clement and S. Ambrose and the church that they lived in? But let us consider the great enormities and abuses that the Proclaimer pretendeth to be in these prayers of the Canon in the Mass. Three feigned faults found in the Canon of the Mass by the Proclaimer. There be in all three principal and horrible blasphemies, as he feigneth and setteth them forth, committed in these prayers: The first is, that Christ should so stand in the displeasure of his heavenly Father that he needeth a mortal and miserable man to be his spokesman. The second, that the body of the only begotten Son of God should in no better wise be received of the father then a lamb at the hands of Abel. The third, that desire is made that an Angel may come and carry away Chrysts body into heaven. Answer to the first. As touching the first, hath the Proclaimer no more learning and knowledge in the phrasis of the scriptures and doctors, than here his railing blasphemy declareth? Or where the Fathers in the scriptures upon the oblation of their sacrifices were it ox, calf, kid, or lamb made their prayers for acceptation, will he also mock them and say that they unsemelie prayed to God to receive an ox, calf, kid or lamb at their hands, or that they prayed for such brute beasts as they offered to be received into his favour? But to discuss this point within the list and compass of our own matter: When S. james in his Mass prayed as is before alleged, saying: For these offered, and sanctified, precious, heavenly, unspeakable, immaculate, glorious, dreadful, horrible, divine gifts, let us pray that our Lord accepting these into his holy heavenly mental and spiritual altar, unto the savour of spiritual fragrance: And when S. basil said: For the offered and sanctified most honourable gifts of our Lord and God, let us pray: And when Chrysostom likewise said: Let us pray to our Lord for the offered and sanctified precious gifts: where undoubtedly by these sanctified, precioufe, dreadful offered gifts, they understood and meant the body and blood of christ, there on the altar offered in sacrifice: Will the Proclaimer, I say, mock all these and other holy Apostles and Fathers, and scorning their phraseiss say that they pray to God the Father for the body of his Son jesus christ to be accepted? Is this the learning and gravity wherewith a matter of so great importance of so great, weight, of so long continuance, of so great estimation, reverence and honour, shall be overthrown May so great a mystery of christian religion be without scripture against said, without authority convelled without grave reason impugned, without strong argument convinced, and without formal process clean defaced. Trust me, gentle reader, in all his vehement invective against this part of Mocks and scoffs the only arguments of the Proclaimer in this matter. the Canon of the Mass, he hath impugned it with no other good learning or authority, no other grave reason or argument, then only gibing mocks. This is one that is worthy to occupy the place of a Bishop, this is one that is reputed a famous preacher: this is a jewel to help to pluck down the Church of christ and to set up the synagogue of Satan, that can with a false feigned skoff seem to stick down all that stand in his way doctors, Fathers, bishops, Disciples, Apostles, and all. Can any Christian heart think that S. james S. Clement S. basil S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, and all other holy father's using these alleged prayers, did think themselves spokesmen to entreat the Father for christ? If it can not be thought of them, how can it be thought of the catholic Church using the same prayers. To conclude therefore this first part against the malicious mock of the Proclaimer, I say, that if the Apostles and Fathers using this manner of phrase in their prayers were spokesmen to the Father for christ his Son, then is the Church so now likewise: if they were not, no more is the Church. The meaning of the Curche in the first point. The Apostles and fathers, and the Church did always and doth well know christ, as he is the only begotten, so is he the well-beloved Son of the Father. They believe, they teach and preach that it is he, in whom the Father is well pleased: yea they believe that in him the Father is so well pleased, that whatsoever they ask of the Father in his name, he will give it them. Where upon the church in this prayer making humble intecession (as the Apostles and fathers before have done) not for christ, but by christ, not to procure favour for him, but to procure mercy to themselves from God the Father, cocludeth their petitions and requests in these same prayers, which the Proclaimer skoffinglie abuseth, with these words, Per Christum Dominum nostrum. By christ our Lord, which is as much to say: All this we desire for christ our Lord his sake. In this first part then behold the slanderous vanity, and so let us examine the next pretended fault. Answer to te the second fault. In the second he accuseth the Church that it would Chrstes body no better to be accepted of the Father, than the sacrifice of Abel, of Abraham, of Melchisedec. Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedec were men acceptable to God, whose sacrifices were also acceptable, not for the things themselves that were offered by them, as a sheep a ram, bread, wine, for of these things as God hath no need being the Lord of the whole earth and all that is there in: so of them, as of themselves he hath no pleasure. In these sacrifices then not the things but the service of them which offered those things, was acceptable God looked not on the thing offered in the old sacifices, but on the devotion of the offerers. and pleasant unto God. Abel offered sacrifice to God, so also did Cain. But respexit Dominus ad Abel, & ad munera eius. ad Cain autem & ad munera eius non respexit. God did look unto Abel and to this gifts, but unto Cain and to his gifts he did not look. He looked first to Abel himself, then to his gifts He beheld his hearty devotion and for that looked to his service in his ductifull sacrifice: he saw in Cain a slackness or coldness of devotion, wherefore he neither looked favourably to him nor to his service in offering sacrifice. Noen offered sacrifice and God smelled a sweet savour, saith the scripture, not that God was delighted with the kitchen savour of meat as here the Proclaimer might in his licentious manner skoff at the phrase of the scripture as he doth at the phrase of the catholic Church, but God smelled the sweet savour of his devout and dutiful service. As God then was not desired by Abel to receive his sheep in to heaven, nor by Melchisedec to take up thither bread and wine, nor by Abraham to take the ram that he offered, but that their humble service and obedience thereby showed and declared might be accepted: So the Church desireth not that her sacrifice which is christ might be accepted (being most acceptable in it self, and all other made acceptable by it) but that her devotion, humble service and obedience in doing that sacrifice may be such, that it may be accepted as was the service of Abel, of Melchisedec, and of Abraham in the offering of their. In this same sense prayed the Apostolic and primitive Church. S. james Jacob. in Miss. in this manner: Respice in nos, o Deus, & ad nostrum hoc rationabile obsequium in tuere, idue accipe ut Abel dona accepisti, Noen sacrificia, Moysis & Aaronis sacerdocia Samuelis pacifica, Davidis poenitentiam, Zachariae incensum. Look upon us, o Lord, and be hold this our reasonable service, and receive the same as though diddest receive the gifts of Abel, the sacrifices of Noah, the priestly oblations of Moses and Aaron, the peace offerings of Samuel, the penance of David, the inceuse of Zacharie. S. basil in his Mass prayed almost with same words: Respice in nos, Deus & vide super servitutem nostram hanc, & suscipe eam sicut susepisti Abel munera, Noah, Basil in Miss. sacrificium, Abrahae horocaustum, Moses & Aronis sacrationes, Samuelis hostias pacificus, sicut susepisti de sanctis tuis Apostolis verum istud mysterium, sic & ex manibus nostris peccatorum suscipe munera ista in benignitate tua Domine. etc. Look upon us, o God, and look upon this our service, and receive it, as thou diddest receive the presents of Abel, the sacrifice of Noen the offering of Abraham, the oblations of Moses and Aaron, the peace offerings of Samuel, even as though havest received this true mystery of thy holy Apostles, so, o Lord, receive these sacrifices of our hands being sinners, in thy benignity. S. Ambrose and the ancient latin Church that he lived in, as ye have heard it already testified, used a moche like phrase. We beseech thee, o Lord, saith he, vouchsafe to receive this sacrifice as though havest vouchsafe to receive the gists of thy child Abel the just, the sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham, and that which thy high priest Melchisedec did offer unto thee. Thus have ye now seen the prayers for acceptation of sacrifice, that were prayed by the Apostles, used of the greek Church, received of the ancient The service in doing of sacrifice is desired to be accepted, not the sacrifice it self. latin Church, and continued by the catholic Church even to this our time. Now did S. james and the Apostles pray for the acceptation of christ their sacrifice? Did S. basil and the greek Church desire that the body of christ might no otherwise be accepted them the sacrifices of Abel, Noen, Abraham, etc. Did S. Ambrose and the fathers of the latin Church for these xii hundredth years so basely think of the worthiness of Chrysts body and sacrifice, that they thought a sheep, an ox or breadand wine as acceptable as the body of Christ? No, they thought nothing so, but they desired (as is said) that their service in offering this sacrifice might be accounted as the service of those other was accepted. This acception than hath respect to the offrers, and not the sacrifice off. And that the Proclaimer shall not say, that this exposition is feigned by me, let him understand that this same exposition hath been made by diverse learned fathers some hundredth years agone, of the which for proof I will allege the saying of one which shall be Hugo de S. victore, who expounding the canon of the Mass, upon, this prayer which the Proclaimer by his mooking so blasphemously Lib. 2. de. eccl. off. ca 33. abuseth and derided saith thus: Quasi per gradus scalae ascendens come morat munus Abel pueri, sacrificium Abrahae Patriarchae, oblationem Melchisedec sacerdotis, qui in pane & vino speciem veri sacrificii eleganter expressit, sicut Abraham veritatem in filio, et Abel invocentiae munus in agno. Quod dicit: Sicuti accepta habere dignatus es munera, etc. non optat similiter acceptari oblationes (haec enim multo est acceptabilitor) sed offerentes. As one going up by the steps of a ladder he maketh mention of the gift of Abel his child, of the sacrifice of Abraham the Patriarch, and of the oblation of Melchisedec the priest, who in bread and wine did well setforth the figure of the true sacrifice, as Abraham the verity in his Son, and Abel the gift of innocenty in a lamb. That he saith: As though havest vouched safe to accept the gifts of thy child Abel etc. he desireth not the oblations or sacrifices to be in like accepted (for this sacrifice is moche more acceptable) but the offerers. If of this understanding the Proclaimer would see more he may read Gabriel and other which treacte of the Canon of the Mass, and The meaning of the Church in the second point. he shall see so much that he may have just cause to be ashamed of his vain and wicked sayings and false imaginations against the godly doings of Chrysts catholic Church. To conclude then this second part also it is evident that the Church desireth not the sacrifice of christ to be equally taken with the sacrifices of Abel, Abraham. Melchisedec, but raither the offerers of these sacrifices, that is, that the priest and people offering this sacrifice may so do it, as both they and their service in so doing may please God and be accepted as were Abel, Abraham, Melchisedec, and their service in offering their sacrifices to God. Answer to the third fault. The third fault that the Proclaimer falsely (I will not say folishlie) pretendeth to be in the Canon, is, that (as he fableth) desire is made that an Angel may come and carry Christ'S body away into heaven. Is not this a fond devised toy of a man pretending gravity? Did ever man as much as dream any such fantasy that had his wits not intoxicated with the poison of heresy, and his heart not fired with the furious flames of malice? Ah good Lord, who would have thought that ever such time would have comed, that a Christian man should be so deeply drowned in heresy, that by force of malice thereof he should blow out such blasts of contempt of honourable antiquities, and such horrible blasphemy against God's blessed sacrrfice, and ministery and that in so honourable audience, and not so to cease, but afterward in print to publish the same to the notice of the world? or that Christian people could ever have patiently heard soche vain invented toys so far vide from all good reason and learning, such wicked untruths so far abhorring from all godly pity and religion? or that ever they should like to read them? So far hath this Proclaimer presumed, so clean hath he cast away all reverence and seemly judgement of all holy forefathers and their doings, following therein Melhoserus, Zuin glius and such like, that he judgeth them insensate men and very fools, and thinks himself only wise. But that thou (gentle reader) may, not by my words only, but by good substantial matter judge these malicious false imaginations to be his invented toys void of all learning and rrueth, and aswell impugning and scorning the phrase of holy scripture and ancient fathers, as of the catholic Church in these days, understand that the scriptures have this manner of speech that an Angel doth carry our prayers into the seight of God. For the Angel Raphaël said unto the holy father Tobias, Quandò orabas cum lachrimis, & sepiliebas mortuos etc. ego obtuli orationem tuam Domino. when thou diddest pray with tears and diddest bury the dead etc. I did offer or present thy prayer to God. Now will the Proclaimer here skoff at the saying of the Angel Raphaël and Tob. 12. ask in his histrionical manner whether he carried Tobies prayers in a cart or a whelebarow, or will he ask him whether God could not know the prayers of Toby except he had brought them up into his seight? Soche fond frivolous questions might he aswell here move against the saying of the Angel in the holy scripture, as he doth against the same manner of speech in the Canon of the Mass. S. Ambrose prayed in this point as the Church doth now. S. Ambrose, as before is seen, declareth that he and the Church where in he lived, used the like manner of speech in their prayer within the Canon of the Mass, saying thus: We desire and prate thee, that thou wilt receive this sacrifice into thy high altar, by the hands of thy holy Angels. Now did S. Ambrose and the Church that he lived in desire by this manner of prayer as the skoffing Proclaimer fableth, that their sacrifice (which was he body of christ) might be carried a way into heaven by Angels? Was S. Ambrose of so small learning and knowledge, or of so little wit and understanding as to judge or think that? Nay, the lack of learning knowledge wit and grace also is raither in the Proclaimer, who of so learned and holy a man, and of the whole Church withal, so rashly and wickedly judgeth. S. Ambrose so praying followeth the manner of speech used in the scriptures, and the Church now using the same phrase followeth both the scriptures and S. Amhrose, and the ancient Church, wherefore in the using of such phrase there is no such fable intended, as the Proclaimer maliciously pretendeth and feigneth. But that the right sense of this phrase may be here more fully declared: Of the ministery of Angels. understand, that, as S. Paul saith, the Angels of God are all ministering spirittes sent to help them, that shall atteing the inheritance of salvation. In the old law they did to Abraham, to Isaac, to jacob, to the parents of Samson, and to diverse other innumerable ministries. To holy Toby the Angel Raphael was the minister to conduct his son to Raguel in Rages. and there to him he was Gen. 22. ibid. 28. Judic. 13 Tob. 3. 4. 5 the counsellor, not only to take Sara to wieff, but also by chaistusage of her, and by other means to restreign and debar the wicked assaulting and molesting spirit, that infested that house. To the same father Toby the Angel so ministered that his seight was restored. His prayers also and other good Ibid. 10. 11. 12. deeds he did present in the seight of God. In the new testament the Angel Gabriel was the messenger of the joyful conception of the Saviour of the world. An Angel was the Messenger to Luc. 1. ibid. Ma. 2. Act. 5. 8. Zacharias to tell him before of the birth of his son john the Baptist. An Angel was messenger to the poor shepherds to give them to understand that they had a Saviour born. An Angel attended upon Peter and opened the doors of the prison, guided him out and dismissed him in safety. What shall I stand to enombre the number of the places of scripture to this matter Every man hath a proper Angel appertaining, which be almost immunerable? This is certain, that both men and children have their Angels to keep them, help them, and to offer up their prayers to God for them. Angelis suis mandavit de te &c. He hath Psal. 90 Math. 18. commanded his Angels (saith the Psalmist) to attend thee, that they may keep thee in all thy ways, they shall carry thee in their hands, that thou hurt not thy foot with a stone. And for children christ gave monition Bern. ser. 7 in Cant. saying: Nolite scandalizare unum ex his pusills. Do not offend one of these little ones. I say unto you that their Angels do always see the face of my Father Angels offer up our prayers to God. which is in heaven. diverse of these scriptures are treacted of by S. Bernard and expounded to the same sense that I have alleged them for. Of the place of Toby thus he saith: Credimus Angelos sanctos astare orantibus, offer Deo preces & vota hominum ubi tamen sine ira & disceptatione levari puras manus perspexerint. Probat hoc angelus ita loqueus ad Tobiam: Quando orabas cum lachrimis etc. We believe that the holy Angels be present with them that do pray to offer to God the prayers and Idem sir 12 in psal. 90. desires of men, where they see clean hands to be lifted up without wrath and disceptation. This doth the Angel prove thus speaking to Toby: when thou diddest pray with tears and diddest bury the dead etc. I did offer thy prayer before God. And upon the saying of the Psalmist he saith thus: Quantan tibi ibidem debet hoc verbum inferre reverentiam, adferre devotionem, confer fiduciam? reverentiam pro praesentia, devotionem pro benevolentia, siduciam pro custodia. Cautè ambula, ut videlicet cui adsunt Angeli etc. How moche reverence, how moche devotion, how moche trust aught this word to bring to us? Reverence for the presence, devotion for benevolence, trust for their custody, walk wisely forafmoche as Angels be present. Adsunt, & adsunt tibi, non modò tecum, sed etiam prote. Adsunt ut protegant, adsunt ut prosint. They are present, and unto thee they are present, not only with thee but also for thee. They are present to defend, they are present to profit thee, and to do thee good. That the saying of christ teacheth that Angels attend young children, S. Bernad doth also witness thus: Parum est, quod facis Angelos tuos spiritus, facis & Angelos paruulorum. Denique, Angeli eorum semper vident faciem Patris. It is but a small matter to thee, o God, that thou makest thy angels spirits, if makest them also the Angels of little children. To conclude with S. bernard speaking of the ministery of Angels about us in the service of God, thus he saith: Attendite principes vestros cùm statis Jdem sir 7. in Cant. ad orandum, vel psallendum, & state cum reverentia, & disciplina, & gloriamim quiae Angeli vestri quotidie vident faciem Patris, nimirum missi in ministerium propter Angels what ministries they do for us. nos, qui haereditatem capimus salutis, devotionem nostram in superna ferunt, reserunt gratiam. When ye stand to pray or to sing praises to God, remember your rulers (meaning Angels) and stand with reverence and good order, or seemly manner, and rejoice that your Angels do daily see the face of the Father. For they being sent in ministery for us, which receive the inheritance of salvation, do carry up our devout service into heaven, and bring us again grace. That Angels than be present with us, that they keep us, that they help us, that they carry up our prayers and devout services and offer them to God, not withstanding the proclaimers apish mockery, it is evident both by scriptures and Fathers. But that the reader may understand how they offer our prayers, and what is thereby meant, and to the intent also that both he may be delivered from all scruple of that matter, and the proclaimers untrue feigning upon this place of the Canon, perceived to be all together against the mind of the Church, as a thing never by any of them there thought or spoken, I shall for this time produce one of the same Church, expounding the same prayer of the Canon which the proclaimer so shamefully abuseth and wickedly wresteth to a devilish sense. This shall be the reverend Father Hugo de S. Victore, who expoundeth it thus: Sacrificium per manus Angeli perferri nihil aliud intelligimus, li. 2. ca 34. the ossic. ecl quàm ipsum cooperari nostrae devotioni. Cooperatur autem nobiscum pro nobis orando, modoue inenarrabili et invisibili bona mentibus nostris suggerendo. The sacrifice to be carried by the hands of the Angels, we understand to be no other thing, but the Angel to work with our devotion. He worketh with us both praying for us, and also by a merueilouse and invisible manner putting good things into our minds. The Angel then, after the mind of the Church, to carry our sacrifice, is to help us by godly suggestion to do our service therein humbly and devoutly, and by faith and charity effectually, and therein to pray with us and for us, that our doing may be acceptable and pleasant in the seight of The meaning of the Church in the third point God. This is and ever hath been the mind of the Church in this prayer of the Canon. And here will I join issue with the Proclaimer, that if he bring forth any one catholic writer, be he never so slender, never so unlearned, never so ancient, or never so young, that saith that the prayer of the Canon is to be understanded as he hath most vainly and falsely (after his heretical manner following Melhoferus) feigned and devised, I will yield to him and say, that the whole Church hath offended: if he can bring no one (as certain I am he can not) and I dare say he himself knoweth that he can not, let him blush and be ashamed of this his wicked toieng: and let the reader see his vanity, and beware of his false heretical subtlety, knowing that this is but a vain imagined, and malicious devised understanding of heretics, never asmuch as once dreamt of any good catholic. And here I say farther to the Proclaimer, that it can not be but that he hath uttered this feigned understanding either of ignorance or of malice. If of ignorance, it is to much shame for him occupying the place of a Bishop so fierelie and in such audience to impugn that he is ignorant of: If of malice (which is more like) then must it needs be of the Devil, who so leadeth men, that although they know the truth, he maketh them maliciously to impugn and deprave it, they know to be the truth, and so to speak directly against their knowledge, and their consciences. By which of these the Proclaimer hath thus depraved the godly prayers of the Church, I will not here certainly pronounce, but leave it to his conscience, which I dare say, doth grievously accuse him. Thus these prayers being delivered from wicked understanding, and opened according to the true meaning: and so finally consecration, intention, oblation, and acceptation by full declaration from the Apostles and Primitive Church, proved, I shall here cease of them any farther to treact, and go to other Matters of the Mass. THE NINE AND THIRTETH CHAPT. treateth of the value of the Mass to the quick and the dead NOw followeth the fourth thing I purposed to speak of, namely of the value of the sacrifice for the quick and the dead. For the which also I will have recourse to the time of the Apostles and the Fathers of the primitive Church, as here tofore I have done in the proof of matters reproved by the Adversaries, and the proclaimer. If it shall be made evident that S. james in his Mass, S. basil in his Mass S. Chrysostom in his Mass, and other ancient Fathers in their writings do say that the sacrifice of the Mass availeth all that be faith full both the quick and the dead, and not one can be brought that denieth it, reason would that our cause should be approved and allowed, and the cause of the Adversaries disproved and disallowed. And for that the Adversaries will sooner grant it to be profitable to the quick then to the dead, and the proof of the value of it to the dead, proveth well the value to the quick, I shall stand the more upon it, and so by proof of the one, make good the other. And first to see what was done of and among the Apostles, we will see what was done in S. james Mass, thus prayed he: Recipe munera haec proposita pertuam benignitatem, & fac ut oblatio nostra grata et acceptabilis sit, per Spiritum sanctum sanctificata, in propitiationem peccatorum nostrorum, & eorum, quae populus per ignorantiam admisit, & in requiem animarum eorum, qui ante nos dormiunt, ut & nos abiecti, & peccatores, & indigni servi tui, digni habiti, qui sine dolo ministremus sancto altari tuo, mercedem, accipiamus fidelium & prudentium dispensatorum, gratiamue inveniamus et misericordiam in die illa tremenda retributionis tuae iustae et bonae. Receive through thy mercifulness these gifts of our hands which be sinners, and grant that our oblation may be pleasing and acceptable, sanctified by the holy Ghost, unto the S. James prayeth both forth quick and the dead forgiveness of our sins, and of those which thy people hath committed by ignorance, and unto the rest of the souls of them, which sleep before us, and that we also abjects and sinners, and thy unworthy servants, may be accounted worthy, which may without guile minister at thy holy altar, and that we may receive the reward of the faithful and wise stewards, and that we may find grace and mercy in that fearful day of the just and good reward. Thus much S. james Mass. Not minding to tarry upon the beginniug of the prayer, where ye may perceive that like manner of prayer is used, as in the last chapter is spoken of, namely that this sacrifice may be received gratefully acceptably, etc. Which I do but touch, wishing it to be noted the better to perceive the malice of the Proclaimer, who (as ye have heard) reproveth and scorneth that in the Church, that was used of the Apostles. I mind not, I say, to tarry, but to hast me to note these things, that now we have to speak of, namely that the sacrifice of the Mass is available both to the quick and the dead, which both be here testified, when the Apostle prayeth that this sacrifice may be pleasing and acceptable unto the remission of sins, and to the rest of the souls of them that sleep before us. Do not these words teach us, that S. james took this for a sacrifice propitiatory, when he desireth that the sacrifice may be accepted to the propiciation of our sins? And did he not think it available to the dead, when he prayeth that it may be to the rest of the souls of them that be dead? The words be so plain, that it can not be denied. And as Caiphas, though he were an evil Bishop spoke one truth of the S. James Mass is full of knowledge even by the judgement of the Proclaimer death of christ: so the Proclaimer though he be an evil man spoke one truth of S. james Mass. For he saith that S. james Mass is full of knowledge. If it be full of knowledge by the testimony of the Adverse. them fear if not, whether thou be catholic or other, to say that this is good knowledge, that the sacrifice of the Mass is avaleable to the quick and the dead. For such is the knowledge in S. james his Mass. And that thou mayst be farther assured that the Apostles taught prayer and the Mass to be profitable to the dead, hearken first what Dionyse the Disciple to saint Paul, saith for the one, and what chrysostom testifieth for both. S. Dionyse describing the manner Dionys. eccles. Hier. cap 7. part prim. of the burial and exequys used in his time and before his time in the church, for part of it saith thus: Accedens venerandus Antistes, precem sacram super mortuum peragit, precaturue divinam clementiam ut cuncta dimittat, per infirmitatem humanam admissa, peccata defuncto, eumue in luce statuat, in sinibus Prayer for the dead used in S. Dionyse time. Abrahae, Isaac, et jacob, in loco ubi aufugit dolor et tristicia, et gemitus. The reverend Bishop coming, maketh holy prayer upon the dead, and prayeth the goodness of God, that he would forgive the dead person all his sins which he hath through infirmity committed, and that he will place him in the place of light in the Bosoms of Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, in the place from whence flieth sorrow, heaviness and morning. Thus much S. Dynise. See you not prayers here made for the Sins of the dead? See you not petition made for him that he may come to the place of light, to the place where he may feel neither sorrow nor heaviness? If this manner of prayer was used in the time of the Apostles, in whose time this Dionyse lived, what shall we think, but that S. james being one of them, prayed for the dead as the other Apostles did. Objection. Perchance it may be said that if the Apostles had thought it necessary to pray for the dead they would have left it written in some of their epistles. To this I say, that it needed not. For first among the jews it was before the coming of christ in use, to pray and offer sacrifice for the dead, as the second book of the Machabies doth testify. Which book although the Adversary doth reject: yet S. Augustin saith it is in the Canon of christian men. And August. de cura promortu. Lib. univers fid. Indaeorum. Antonius Margarita one converted from a jew to a Christian man, in a book that he made of the faith of the jews, declareth the prayer that they made for the dead which is not, much unlike to this prayer of S. Dionyse. And over he saith that they have a book wherein be written the names of them that be dead, which thrice in a year be red and so prayed for. Which order is yet amongst them. so that then needed not. As for the Gentiles although they used funeral obsequies: yet for that they were ungodly after the heathen manner, the Apostles gave them commandment by tradition to bury their dead, and to pray for them after the Christian manner. Of the which commandment S. Clement maketh mention, how it was given by S. Peter. And so doth chrysostom that it was done by the Apostles. Clemens epist. 1. Hom. 3. Philip. pri. For he saith thus: Non frustra ab Apostolis sancitum est, ut in celebratione venerandorum mysteriorum memoria fiat corum qui hinc decesserunt. Noverunt illis multum hinc emolumenti fieri, multum utilitatis. Stante siquidem universo populo manus in coelos extendente, coetu item sacer dotali verendoque posito sacrificio quomodò Deum non placaremus pro istis orantes? It was not but to good purpose decreed of the Apostles that in the celebration of the honourable mysteries (whereby he meaneth the Mass) a memory or remen The Apostles decreed that the dead should be prayed for in the Mass. branch should be made of them that have departed hence. They knew that much commodity should come from thence to them, and much profit. For all the people standing, and holding up their hands into heaven, the company also of priests, and the fearful sacrifice being settfurth, how shall we not appease God praying for these? Thus chrysostom. As before ye have seen the prayer of the Apostle. S. james praying for the dead: so now ye see it testified by chrysostom that the Apostles commanded the dead to be prayed for in the celebration of the holy mysteries, which is the Mass, where the holy and blessed body and blood of Saviour christ is setforth in the seight of the Father: whereby his passion and death being lively remembered, and humble petition in the presence thereof, and for the merit thereof by the priests and people being made, it can not be (saith Chrysost.) but that God will be appeased and mercy for the souls obtained. For (as S. Cyprian saith) In huius praesentiae non superuacuè mendicant lacrimae veniam, nec unquam patitur contriti cordis holocaustum repulsam. In the presence of this (understand sacrifice) tears do adsurediebegge pardon, neither doth the sacrifice of acontrite heart at any time suffer repulse. There for in this sentence chrysostom doth not only testify the Cypr serm. de coena. dead to be prayed for by the decree of the Apostles, but also that they are to be prayed for in the celebration of the honourable mysteries. Which mysteries after, when he speaketh of the prayers of the priests, and the people, he calleth the fearful sacrifice, whereby is fully taught that this holy celebration is a sacrifice. Finally howsoever the devil hath bewitched some, that they in their death beds make special request not to be prayed for when they be dead, and at the burial of the dead prayer is abandoned: yet of S. Chrysostom we may learn, that it is highly beneficial to the dead, that the priests and the people should in the presence of the blessed sacrifice, which is Christ'S body and blood, pray for the dead. But let us go to S. basil's Mass, and see whether he did therein pray for the dead. In his Mass Basil. in Missa. I find, this prayer: Nos autem omnes de uno pane & de uno calice participantes, coadunari Spiritus sancti communione, & nullum nostrum ad judicium aut condemnationem facias accipere sanctum corpus, & sanguinem Christi tui: Sed ut inveniamus misericordiam & gratiam in coetu omnium sanctorum, qui à seculo tibi placuerunt, Auorun, Patrun, Patriarcharun, Prophetarù, Apostolorum Euangelistarum, Martyrum, Confessorum, Doctorun, & omnis spiritus justorum finem in fide habentium. Praecipuè sanctae & intermeratae, benedictae dominatricis nostrae Dei genitricis, & semper virginis Mariae, sancti joannis praecursoris & Baptistae, Sancti illius, cuius memoriam facimus, & omnium sanctorum tuorum, quorum postulationibus visita nos Deus. Et memento omnium dormientium in spe resurrectionis vitae aeternae, & refrigera eos ubi visitat lux vultus tui. Make all us partaking of one bread and cup to be made S. Basil praeied in his Mass for the dead, and made intercession to Saints one together in the Communion of the holy Ghost, and make none of us to receive the holy body and blood of thy christ, to judgement and condemnation, but that we may find mercy and grace in the company of all saints which have pleased even from the time of hour Graunfathers, Fathers, patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, Martyrs, Confessors, doctors, and of the spirittes of all righteous men having their end in faith, specially of the holy and undefiled our blessed Lady, the Mother of God, and ever virgin Marie, of saint john the forerunner, and Baptist, and of that Saint whose memory we make this day, and of all thy saints, by whose prayers visit us (o God) And remember all them that sleep in the hope of resurrection of everlasting life, and refresh them, where the light of thy countenance comforteth. Thus far S. basil. In this prayer it not only request made for them that be dead, which jacob in Missa. S. James made intercession to Saints is one thing among other for the which the Adversary raileth at the Mass: But there is also intercession made to saints, which is an other matter that misliketh him therein, which intercession also is in the Mass of saint james. For thus shall you find there: Commemorationem agamus sanctissimae, immaculaiae, gloriosissimae, benedictae Dominae nostrae Matris Dei, & semper virginis Mariae, ac omnium sanctorum, & justorum, ut precibus atque intercessionibus eorum, omnes misericordiam consequamur. Let us make a commemoration of the most holy, undefiled, most glorious, our blessed lady the Mother of God, and perpetual virgin Marie, and all holy and just men, that by their prayers and intercessions, we may all obtain mercy. See ye not petition here made that by the intercessions and prayers of all saints and just men mercy may be obtained. Now if the knowledge of S. james Mass teacheth us the consecration of the body and blood of christ, if it teach us the same body and blood there to be offered in sacrifice: if it teach us it to be avaiable to the quick and the dead: if it teach us the intercession of Saints: and if the same things be in the Mass now used in the Church, how happened it that the Proclaimer could make that to be ignorance in our Mass, that is knowledge in saint james Mass, sithen theridamas is one knowledge in them both? If you will know how it happened, I shall show you. It happened by the same mean that he in an other comparison saith, that saint james in his Mass preached and setforth the death of christ: but they in their Mass (speaking of the catholic Church) have only a number of dumb gestures, and Ceremonies, which they themselves understand not, and make no manner mention of Christ'S death. The mean that he spoke this by was the spirit, but wilt thou ask me what spirit? For there be two spirittes: Spiritus veritatis, qui docet omnem veritatem: The spirit of The spirit of the Proclaimer. truth that teacheth all truth: And Spiritus mendax in ore prophetae, the lying spirit in the mouth of the Prophet. To the question than I say, that it can not be the spirit of the truth, that teacheth all truth. For that spirit can teach and utter nothing but truth, and with untruth he meddleth not. But it is the lying spirit, who although sometime he utter a truth: yet it is to maintain an untruth, and to set a countenance of a truth upon an untruth, and so by that countenance of truth, to make sale of his brag and untruth. For in the comparison under this truth that S. james in his Mass preached, and setforth the death of christ, he uttereth three untruths against the Three untruths uttered in one place by the Proclaimer. catholic Church. First, he saith that they in their Mass have only a number of dumb gestures and ceremonies. How far wide this is from the truth it is easy to perceive by his one testimony. For he saith that in the Mass is holy prayer holy doctrine of the word of God, holy consecration, and holy receiving. But contemning his testimony there is (as in S. james Mass) the sacrifice of lawd es, and thanksgiving: there is the holy sacrifice of Christ'S body, with prayers for all states and such other: there is a remembrance of Christ'S friends, the holy Apostles and Martyrs, and Sainetes, What things be contained in the Mass now used. to the settingfurth of God's honour in them, who so mercifully hath wrought in them, that in their weak bodies, he would work the strong confession of his holy name, even to the shedding of their bloods for the same, there is charitable prayer for the souls departed, according to the tradition of the Apostles: all which be more than only dumb gestures, and ceremonies, wherefore by this he is convinced to have spoken and written an untruth. The second untruth is that he saith that we ourselves understand not these dumb gestures and ceremonies. This is not only an untruth. For he knoweth that there be learned Fathers, that have written books of the ceremonies of the Mass, and farther have declared what every p cercell or piece of the garments that the priest doth wear in ministration do signify and have fully and plainly expounded every part of the Mass and the canon of the same, as Isidorus, Rabanus, Hugo de Sancto Victore, Gabriel, Hoiffmister and Garetius with other. But it is also arrogantly slanderous, For he generallieaccuseth the whole Church of ignorance, thereby seeking to win to himself the praise of singular knowledge, and to blot all other before him with the grossness of ignorance, to make himself to be seen wise, and all other to be reputed as fools but dicentes seesse sapientes stulti facti sunt. The third, which is so manifest an untruth, that even a plain man would by plain word call it a lie, as he may do the rest before mentioned, is that the Mass maketh no manner of mention of Christ'S death. Who would having knowledge so say except he were so far past shame, that he regarded not what he said? Who would so say that were not forced by devilish malice, The Mass setforth the death of christ more lively than the new Communion that wittingly he would impugn the truth and say that not to be that is, and that to be that is not? What is he that knoweth not, that the Mass is the memorial of Christ'S passion and death? Why is the consecration, and oblation of the body of christ done, but to the remembrance of his passion and death? Farther when the priest saith, that the day before our Lord jesus suffered, he took bread into his holy bands, and gave thanks and said, take, eat, this is my body which shall be given for you: maketh he no mention of Christ'S death? When he saith also, This is my blood of the new testament which shall be shed for you and for many: is there no mention made of Christ'S passion and death? what hath the new Communion to settfurth the death of christ more than this? but in the Mass besides this, when the body and blood of christ be lifted up, as once that same his body was upon the cross: is there not a lively mention made of his exaltation upon the cross, and of his death? when the priest in doing of this speaketh the words of christ, As often as ye do this ye shall do it in the remembrance of me: is there not good occasion given to remember Christ'S passion, and death by the rehearsal of his own commandment? After all this the priest immediately prayeth and saith: Wherefore we Lord being mindful of the passion, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord, offer unto thy noble majesty this pure sacrifice: and be these words spoken without any mention of Christ'S death, where his passion, resurrection and ascension be called to mind, and spoken by express words? Is not the prophecy of S. Peter fulfilled in this man and his likes when he saith: Erunt in vobis magistri mendaces, qui 2. Peter. 2. introducent sectas perditionis, etc. There shall be among you lying masters which shall bring in sects of perdition, denying the God, that bought them, bringing upon themselves hasty perdition? But leaving his untruths and slanders to himself, and wishing this only here to be noted that such untruths come not from a good spirit, I will return to holy basil, of whose spirit there is no doubt, and remember that he in his Mass doth both make intercession to Saints, and doth also pray for the souls of them that be departed. chrysostom also in his Mass prayeth likewise in this manner. Offerimus tibi MissaChrisost. rationabile hoc obsequium pro fideliter dormientibus, pro patribus & pro avis nostris, interuenientibus Patriarchis Prophetis, Apostolis, Martyribus, confessoribus, et omnibus sanctis. We offer unto the this reasonable service for them that sleep in faith, for our Fathers and great grandfathers, the holy patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, and confessors, and all saints praying for us. And shortly, after he prayeth thus again: Sancti joannis Baptistae prophetae & praecursoris, sanctorum & nominatis simorun Apostolorum, et sanctihuius cuius memoriam agimus, et omnium sanctorum supplicationibus visita nos Deus, et memor esto omnium in Domino dormientium, in spe resurrectionis vitae aeternae Chrysostom desurethin tercession of Saints and prayeth for the dead. ac requiem praestaeis, ubi lumen vultus tui superintendit. By the supplication or prayers of S. john the baptist the prophet and forerunner, and of the holy and most famous Apostles, and of this Saint whose memory we make, o God viset us, and be mindful of all that sleep in our Lord, in hope of the resurrection of everlasting life, and give them rest where the light of thy countenance overlooketh all. As in the other, so in Chrysostons' Mass you see oblation made for the dead, you see prayer made for them to obtain them rest, and that also by the intercession of Saints. By this than ye may perceive the malicious and slanderous railing of the Adverse. against the Church, who saith that the Papists have made the Mass a sacrifice for the quick and the dead, to the intent they might make their merchandise therewith, and so robbing the people fill their Aug. li. de heres. Aerius accounted an heretic deniengthe sacrifice of the Mass to avail the dead. purseiss, with soul pence. But ye see it not invented of the Papists as the Adversary termeth the catholic Christians, but ye see it used and practised of the Apostles and the holy Fathers in their Masses, and so delivered to us. Now as we have seen the practice of the ancient Church, for the doing and affirming the thing: so let us see the practice of the same for denying and refusing the thing. S. Augustine, and before him Ephiphanius, declare that there was one called, Aerius, who as our new masters do now a days, denied the sacrifice of the Mass to be profitable to the dead, for the which and certain other doctrines, he was of the holy learned Fathers numbered among heretics, and of the Church so esteemed and reputed. The practice of the Church then upon them that denied the sacrifice of the Mass to be available to the dead, was to esteem them, and repute them as heretics, and this estimation and reputation was before the time of Epyphanius, and S. Aug. Concil. Cartha. 4. Let us now proceed and see yet a little farther. In the fourth Council of Cartage, in the which S. Augustine was one, such a decree was made: Qui oblationes defunctorum. aut negant ecclestis, aut cum difficultate reddunt, tanquam egentium necatores, excommunicentur, they which deny unto the church the oblations of the dead, or else do slackly pay them, let them as the slears of the neadie be excommunicated. What shall I stand longer in so plain a matter, sithen the practice declared unto us by holy Cyprian, doth both teach us that sacrifice was offered for the dead as to their relief, and that to some it was denied, as a pain inflicted? Thus in ascertain epistle we find this practice to be reported, Episcopi antecessores nostri religiosè considerantes, & salubriter providentes censuerunt ne quis frater excedens, ad tutelam vel curam clericum nominaret. Ac si quis hoc fecisset, non offerretur pro eo, nec sacrificium pro dormitione eius celebraretur. Neque enim ad altare Dei meretur nominari in sacerdotum Gip. li. epist. 9 prece, qui ab altari sacerdotes, & ministros suos levitas avocare voluit. Et ideo Victor, cumm contra formam nuperin concilio Turrian sacerdotibus datan, Geminium Faustinum ausus sit actorem constituere, non est quo pro dormitione eius apud vosfiat oblatio, aut deprecatio aliquae nomine cius in ecclesia frequentetur, ut sacerdotu decretum religiosè, & necessariè factum, servetur à nobis. The Bishops our predecessors, godly considering and holsomlie providing, made a decree, that no brother departing this life should appoint If it be the altar of God what a wicked de de is it to throw them down? any one of the clergy to be his Guardian. And if any did so, neither should oblation be made for him, nor sacrifice celebrated for his death. Neither doth he deserve to be named in the prayer of the priests at the Altar, of God, that would call away the ministers, the priests and Deacons from the altar. And therefore sithen Victor contrary to the order of late given out by the priests in the counsel, hath been so bold to constitute Geminius Faustinus, the priest his Guardian, their ought not among you, any oblation to be made for his death, or that any prayer should be used in the Church in his name that the decree of the preistcs godly and necessarily made may be kept of us. Thus much S. Cyprian. Of whom as we may learn the decree and practise of the Church before The denial of prayer for the dead of fending proveth the use thereof to be good. his time, that such as made priests their Guardians, for the punishment of their so doing, there should neither sacrifice nor prayer be done or made for them in the Church after their death: so may we very well perceive, that for them that died in the obedience of the Church there was both sacrifice and prayer offered and made for them at their burials, and so after their deaths were remembered in the prayers of the priests. By the same also are we instructed that as the denial of oblation, sacrifice and prayer was to the pain of them that were dead: so was the doing of the same to the emolument relief and profit of them that were dead. What shall I need after so many practices of the holy Apostles, of the primitive Church, and of the Church in the time of the ancient Fathers to setforth Amb. ad Faustin. the practice of the Church in the time of S. Ambrose, who writing an epistle of comforth to Fustinus, for the death of his sister saith, that he thinketh her not so much to be lamented, as with prayers to be relieved: not moche Li. 9 Confesca. 13. to be made sad with tears, but raither with oblations to be commended to God? Or of S. Augustine, whose mother (as before is said) desired in her death bed to be remembered at the Altar, which is, there to be prayed for? which her doing being recited of S. Augustine to her immortal laud, and praise, well proveth the thing to be according to the order of the church that then was, and also that to desire to be prayed for after death is well done and woorhie of praise. And if they be worthy of praise that so desire, what be they that desire not to be prayed for, or they that deride the prayer for the dead, or take away the order of praying for them? it is easy to judge. The practice of the church in this matter being so far brought forth as to the time of S. Augustine, I shall therein now no farther encumber the reader, August. de Verbis Ap. serm. 32. but staing upon a place or two of the same S. Augustin, end this chapter In one place thus he saith: Orationibus verò sanctae Ecclesiae, & sacrificio salutari, & eleemosinis quae pro eorum spiritibus erogantur, non est dubitandum mortuos adiwari, ut cum eis misericordius agatur, quam eorum peccata meruerunt. Hoc enim à patribus traditum universa observat Ecclesia, ut pro eis qui in communione corporis & sangutnis Christi desuncti sunt, cùm adipsum sacrificium loco suo commemorantur, oretur, ac pro illis quoque id offerri commemoretur. It is not to be doubted, that the dead Prayer, sacrifice, and almose profitable to the dead, decessing in the Coinon of the body and blood of christ. by the prayers of the holy Church, and the wholesome sacrifice, and the almoses which are given forth for their souls, be helped, that they may be more mercifully dealt with all then their sins have deserved. For this as delivered of the Fathers the universal Chuhch doth observe, that for them which are dead in the communion of the body and blood of christ, prayers should be made, when at that sacrifice they are remembered in their place, and that remembrance be made, that that sacrrfice also is offered for them. Thus he. In this saying of S. Augustine first note the manner of his speech. that it is Prayer for the dead banished out of Euglond. not to be doubted but the dead are helped with the prayers of the holy Church, with the wholesome sacrifice, and with almose. If by the judgement of S. Augustin it is not to be doubted, merciful God, why is it called in question at the bare saying of a railing heretic, and not only called in question, but utterly denied, and almost with scorn hissed out of the Church The universal Church in and before the time of S. August. prayed for the dead. of Inglonde? secondly, note that in the time of S. Augustine, the universal Church did receive this order of praying for the dead. For asmuch as the universal church did accept it in S. Augustine's time, and before (for they received it of the Fathers) and then was the flourishing Church both in holiness of life, and excellency of learning how doth now a piece of the church that is in holiness far unlike, in learning moche inferior, reject and contemn that, that (as is said) the whole church hath in the ancient time reverently August. in Enchi. ca 110. received? thirdly, mark what was received, namely that both prayer should be made for them that died in the Communion of Christ'S body and blood, and also that sacrifice should be offered for them. This doctrine S. Augustine saith, Sith it can not be denied but that prayer for the dead is good it cannot again be denied. but they be nought that say it is evil should not be doubted of: yea it is so certain a doctrine that in an other place he saith it can not be denied. Thus he writeth: Neque negandum est defunctorum animas pietate suorum viventium relevari, cum pro eye sacrificium mediatoris offertur, vel eleemosinae in ecclesia fiunt. Neither is it to be denied, but that the souls of the dead are relieved by the godliness of their friends living, when the sacrifice of the mediator is offered for them, or else almose deeds be done in the Church. If by the judgement of S. Augustine it be not to be denied, than it is a doctrine to be received and holden of a good Christian. And wicked may he be judged that rejecteth it, contemneth it, and derideth it. The time shall come that such shall desire to be refreshed as did the rich glotten, but they shall not be heard. But that I may once make an end of this matter of the value of the Mass to the dead, though a just volume might be made of that that therein may be said: yet this may suffice to him that will be satisfied. For first is showed that the prayer and sacrifice for the dead, was used of the Apostles. For proof whereof is produced the prayer of S. james Mass, and to confirm that, there is added both the testimony of Chrysostom, and also the manner of praying for the dead described by S. Dionise S. Paul's Disciple. Asterwarde for the farther declaration of the practice of the Church the authorities of the Masses, aswell of S. basil as of Chrysostom be alleged. And that the continuance and general receipt of this practice may be perceived to be good, and the refusal of it to be evil, aswell in the greek Church as in the latin, Epiphanius and S. Augustine be brought forth as witnesses testifienge that Aerius maintaining the contrary doctrine, was reputed esteemed and numbered among heretics. Against such like persons did the Council of Carthage publish a decree. And that this practice might most clearly be perceived to be frequented in the church, the decree reported by S. Cyprian, and the practice of the same decree by S. Cyprian upon Geminius Faustinus and Victor is added, which invincibly proveth prayer and sacrifice to be used for the dead in the holy ancient church. Finally for the proof of the countinuamce of this sacrifice from the Apostles time to the time of S. Ambrose and S. Augustine not only mention is made what S. Ambrose would have done toward and for Faustinus sister, and what was done of S. Augustine's Mother, but also two places be alleged, in the which the certainty of this matter is so taught, that it is neither to be denied nor doubted. And good cause why we should neither deny it, nor doubt of it. For it was received and observed of the univerfal Church. Now, reader, when thou seist this matter so plainly and so evidently testified to thee, that thus it hath been taught, thus it hath be done: thus it hath been used: and yet all this not withstanding, that the Adversary raigeth and raileth against it, and that, that by these Fathers was taught to be heresy of him to be taught to be averitie: that the Apostles and Fathers commanded to be used, that he commandeth to be refused: that the holy Fathers had in reverence, that he hath in contempt, I suppose, if neadest no farther advertisement, but when though seist him so stoutly, so arrogantly, and therefore hereticallie impugn this being so certain a truth, thou mayst justly think, that he is not led of the spirit of truth, who meddleth not (as is said) with falsehood, but he is led with the lying spirit. And therefore just cause have though to suspect all that he saith, and to no part of it to give creditte as spoken of him, but as spoken of other whose doctrine agreeth with the doctrine of the Spirit of truth, taught in his school the holy Church. And now to end, I will join this issue: if either the proclaimer, or any Issue joined with the proclaimer for prayer for the dead. other of his adherentes can bring any one catholic and ancient Father, that saith that such as depart in the saith of christ, are not to be prayed for, or that sacrifice is not to be offered for them, or that charitable almost doth not profit them: Let them I say bring one ancient and catholic Father so writing, and I dare and will not only for myself, but for asmanie as be catholic and learned, promiss that we will subscribe. Again, reader I beseech thee, if if be learned mark: if thou be unlearned inquire if ever any Adversary in any book made any argument of authority against this matter, other then mocking, lying, denying, and reproving by voluntary reason, and will warrant: if thou wilt weigh and mark, if shalt find none. If then in that side is nothing but wilfulness: and on this side though seist grave ancient and weighty authority: call unto God for his grace, and stay where authority is, and flee from thence where noisome wilfulness reigneth. THE fortieth CHAP. treateth OF private Masses (as the Proclaimer termeth them) and solueth his arguments. Having now somewhat said of two principal parts of the Mass, namely consecration and oblation: there remaineth the third principal part to be spoken of, which is receiving. As touching that the Sacrament should be received there is no controversy, betwixt us and the Adversary. For on both sides it is affirmed that it should be received. But the controversy is about the manner of receiving. Which standeth in two points: The one whether of necessity it must be received under both kinds: The other whether of necessity it must be received of more than one at once. Of the first we have spoken at large in the second book. Of the other shall be reacted here. In this matter, for that the catholic Church permiteth priests in their common ministration to receive the blessed Sacrament alone, and sekemen for their necessity to do the like, it liketh the Proclaimer (as it hath done other his likes) with might and main to accuse the Church of transgression and breach of Christ'S ordinance. And here we be all that evil is, for our so doing. Here the Proclaimer triumpheth upon us in his own conceit, pressing and crushing us, as he suppseth, even to the ground, so low, that he thinketh we shall never be able to stand on foot again against him, and hath (as to him appeareth) so stopped our mouths with scriptures and the practice of the primitive Church, and the authorities of ancient Fathers, that we shall likewise never be able to open our mouths against him. But as Horace saith: Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus: so here be great brags, but we shall have but cold roast: here is a great cowntenance, but small is the force. The Priclamer his arguments against sole receiving. christ (saith he) ministered not to one alone, but to all the twelve Apostles. Paul commanded that one should tarry and wait for an other, invicem expectate. S. Clement willed that so many hosts should be offered upon the Altar, as might be sussicient for the people, S. Dionise saith that the priest when he had received himself and delivered the holy communion to all the people, giveth God thanks and maketh an end of the mysteries. justinus the holy Martyr saith that in his time the Deacon exhorted the people that they will be partakers of those things that be laid forth before them S. Ambrose rebuketh his people that were then grown negligent in receiving the lords supper, and used to excuse the matter for that they thought themselves not woorrhie, saying to them: If tbowe be not worthy every day, them art though not worthy once in a year. And again S. Ambrose expounding these words of S. Paul: Alius alium expectate, writeth thus: He commanded them to tarry one for an other, that the oblation of many may be celebrated together, and so be ministered unto them all S. Hierom, S. Augustine, and the ecclesiastical history, witness, that until that time commonly every where, but specially in Rome, the people used to communicate every day. Leo wrote to Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria, and willed him, that where the church was not able to receive all the people to communicate together, that the priest should ministre two or three communions on one day, that as the people came in, and had once filled the Church: so they should receive the communion, and afterward give place to other. S. Hierom writing upon the elementh chapter of S. Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians saith that the supper of the Lord must be common to all the people. For christ gave his Sacraments to all his Disciples that were present. These be the proclaimers scriptures, these be his Doctors, these be his authorities. And now, gentle Reader, weigh with one, what force these authorities have, to prove that he intendeth. His intent is to prove that of necessity Solution of the proclaimers arguments. there must be more communicantes then one at every place and time, where and when it happeneth Mass to be said. Now these places prove no such necessity, only they prove that the Sacrament in the beginning was ministered to the people, that were disposed to receive, and thereby he may prove that many may receive, and that the Sacrament ought to be common to all that will orderly desire to receive. And that it can not be denied to such as so require it, because christ hath instituted it be a common Sacrament of all his faithful, that be meet and able to receive it, to be received, as he hath also instituted Baptism. For these sacraments were not instituted for Kings, Princes, bishops and the mighty of the earth only, but answearablie to their figures, for all people. For as all the jews, as well high as low, rich and poor did all (as S. Paul saith) pass through the Read Sea, and all did eat of one meat and all drink of one drink: so (as Chrysostom saith) it is in the church. Non aliud quidem corpus dives, aliud verò Chrysoft homil in dictum Apost Nolo vosignor pauper, neque alium quidem sanguinem ille, alium autem iste. Sic & tunc, non aliud accipiebat quidem dives Manna, aliud verò pauper, neque alterius fontis iste participes erat, alterius verò indigentoris ille. For so it is now in the Church. For he rich man receiveth not one body, a poor man an other, neither he one manner of blood, and this man an other. So also then the rich man did not eat of one Manna and the poor man of an other, neither of one fowntain was this man partaker, and of a worse the other man. So these two sacraments, I say, are common to all, both Baptism, and the Sacrament of Christ'S body and blood. And to this purpose said S. Hierom, where the Proclaimer allegeth him, that the supper of our lord must be common to all people. For christ gave his sacraments equally to all his Disciples, that were present, and not to the purpose that the Proclaimer allegeth it, which ye may perceive by this word (equally) whereby is signified that christ gave his body and blood as well to the inferior Apostles, as to the higher, and so equally to all. The Proclaimer both falsely interpreteth S. Hierom and misunderstandeth him. And here note that the proclaimer in his translation left out this word equally, and said thus: that christ gave his sacraments to all his disciples that were present, minding by that phrase of words to make it appear that all that be present must communicate, which was not saint Hieroms' mind, but raither after the mind of S. Paul to show that both the supper of the rich, and the Sacrament of christ should be common to all that were present equally, as christ made his supper of the paschal lamb and the supper of his body blood common to all his Disciples, equally giving it as well to the lower, as to the higher. But such is the sleight of this man. But to return: Baptism is a common sacrament for all, Now shall we say that we may not ministre it to one alone, but to many at once? Nay: the community of it standeth well if all receive it, though but one at once receive it. But you urge and say, that he bringeth the practice of the primitive and ancient Church, that it was received of many. To this first I say that he may do the like for the ministration of the sacrament of Baptism. It is known to all that be learned, that there were in the primitive She wing that many received together, it proveth that the like may be done now, but enforceth no necessity that it aught so to be, or that any is forbodden to receive alone. Church two special assigned times for Baptism: Easter and whitsuntide, at which times not one alone, but many were baptized, and commonly in that time Baptism was ministered to many, and not to one alone. But yet no good argument can of that be deduced that Baptism is not to be ministered, but to many together, and not to one alone. So though he bring many practices of the Church, that many did receive the sacrament together, yet it proveth not that it can not be received of one alone at one time. For though the Sacrament be common, it nothing hindereth the community of it (when all may and do receive it) though but one at one time do recave it. And so received it may very well be called, and is in deed a communion, uless as one thing is made common to all, and one thing is received of all, and in that one thing all the receivers being many be made one. And therefore doth the Proclaimer against all truth call the Mass, where one alone doth receive, a private Mass. For the thing there received is it, by which all we be made one. Again I say, these allegations prove well the devotion and godly zeal of the people in the primitive church, which I wish were like now in Fabiamus made a law that people should receive thrice in a year. our people, but they prove no law. For if it had been a law that the people as often as Mass was said, should communicate, Fabianus the ninetenth Bishop of Rome and holy Martyr, who lived about the year of our Lord two hundredth forty and two, and therefore in the pure time, would not have made a law, that the people should receive the Sacrament at the least thrice in a year, that was, at Easter, Whit sontide and Chrystenmasse. And yet after this the devotion of people decaing, and waxing colder and colder, that law was remitted, and a new decree made, that the people should once in the year, at Easter, receive the Sacrament, which is yet observed. Now I would ask of the Proclaimer whether holy Fabian when he or deined that the people should communicate thrice in the year, meant that the priest also should say Mass but thrice in the year. And when the other decree was made, that they should receive once in the year, whether it was meant that the priest should also say Mass but once in the year: if he say it was so meant, the practice of the church proveth the contrary. For Chrysostom saith: Nun per singulos dies offerimus? offerimus quidem, sed ad recordationem facientes mortis eius. Do we not every day (saith he) make oblation? we make oblation in deed, but doing it to the remembrance of his death. And who doubteth but the holy fathers of the latin Church did the like? if he say that he meant not but that the priest might oftener say Mass, than it is manifest that he meant that the priest might say Mass without communicantes. For none by law, but priests, were bound oftener to receive then thrice in the year, and afterwards once in the year. Thus may ye perceive, that all these alleged authorities prove not that the priest may not, if he be disposed, receive alone, when none of the people will but they show us the godly devotion of the people in those days (as is said) and the diligence of holy Bishops and priests in rebuking the slackness of the people in receiving, whereunto serveth the place of S. Ambrose alleged by the Proclaimer, and not to that he maketh the cowntenance of. Likewise he allegeth against the order of the Church the decree of that holy man and ancient Father Leo Bishop of Rome, But how sincerely and truly I shall cause thee to understand, when I have produced the very words of the same Leo and the words of the Proclaimer, and conferred them together. These be the words of the Proclaimer: Leo writing un Note this false trauslation of M. Juell. to Dioscorus the Bishop of Alexandria, gave him this advise, that when the church was so little, that it was not able to receive all the whole people to communicate together, than the priest should ministre two or three communions in one day, that as the people came in and had once filled the church so they should receive the communion, and after give place to other. Thus the Proclaimer. In reporting of this author first note this in the Proclaimer, that alleging S. Clement, Dionise. justine, Ambrose and Hierom in this matter, he allegeth A common sleight of heretics to allege the fathers where they may wrest them or else to falsisie them. them in the latin tongue as being bold by sleight to make them appear to his hearer or reader, that they made somewhat for his cause and purpose. And being desirous to have a number of authors for the better comen dation of his matter, he would also allege Leo. But here he followed his ancient Father Cranmer, who alleging certain Authors, alleged such as he might with some cowntenance wrest, in the latin tongue: other, which he could not well wrist he would report as it pleased him in the english tongue, but so as apparently they should seem to be of his side, when in deed they were altogether against him Even so this man, not daring for very shame, to allege Leo, with his own words, reporteth him as he would have had him to say, and not as he said in deed. The very words of lo be these: autem in omnibus obseruantia nostra concordet, illud quoque volumus custodiri, ut quum solemnior festivitas conventum populi numerosioris indixerit, & ad eam tanta multitudo convenerit quam recipere basilica simul una non possit, sacrificii oblatio Leo epla 79. ad Dioscorun. indubitanter iteretur, ne his tantùm admissis ad hanc devotionem, qui primi advencrint, videantur high, qui postmodum confluxerint non recepti, cùm plenum pietatis atque rationis sit, ut quoties basilicam, in qua agitur, praesentia nonae plebis impleverit, toties sacrificium subsequens offeratur. Necesse est autem ut quaedam pars populi sua devotione privetur, si unius tatùm Missae ordine seruato, sacrificium offerre non possint, nisi qui prima diei part convenerint. Studiosè ergo dilectionem tuam & familiariter admonemus, ut quod nostrae consuetudini, ex forma paternae traditionis insedit, tua quoque cura non necligat, ut per omnia In stead of oblation of sacrifice and Mass the proclaimer hath communicate and Communion and for so often he hath twice or thrice. nobis & side, & actibus congruamus. That our religion may in all things agree we will that this be kept, that when a solemn feast shall cause a great number of people to come together, and to that solemn feast so great a multitude shall come, as one Church can not receive at once, that the oblation of the sacrifice be without all fear done again, least these which came first being admitted to this service, they that came afterward may seem not to be received, sith it is right godly and reasonable, that as often as the church where the service is done is replenished with a new people, so often the sacrifice following be celebrated. It must needs be that some part of the people shall be hindered of their devotion, if the order of saying of one Mass being kept, none can offer sacrifice, but they which come together in the first part of the day. Diligently therefore and familiarly we advertise your loving gentleness, that the thing which hath remained in our custom, by form of tradition of our Fathers, thy care would not neclect, that in all things, both in faith and doings we may among ourselves consent and agree. These be the very words of Leo. This is the place which the Proclaimer taketh in hand to report. judge now I say, gentle Reader, whether he hath truly reported him or no. And first where he alleged Leo, to prove his communion, view well, I pray thee, the author and observe diligently if there be in him any one word of communion or communicantes, and See here the impudency of the Proclaimer. thou shalt perceive that there is no mention made thereof. What truth then is to be thought either in the man, or in the cause that he defendeth, when to maintain it, he is fain to falsify the authors that he allegeth? Is it not lamentable to see his shameless boldness that he would wittinglieutter in an honourable audience, and also publish the same in print to an whole realm that he knew to be false and clean otherwise, then was the intent or mind of the author which he alleged? That it was not the mind of the author thou shalt easily perceive: For first, where the Proclaimer useth these words communicate and communion, The author hath these See here his false, sleight. words, the oblation of the sacrifice, and the sacrifice. Now because the Proclaimer hateth this word sacrifice as a scorpion, as being applied to the holy Sacrament of Christ'S body and blood, therefore to ease his malicious affection, and to delude his hearers and readers, it liked his Christian sincerity, properly termed heretical malignity, to corrupt and falsify the author, and report such matter to be in him, as there is in deed no word toward it in him, I mean to that sense and understanding. Again if seist that in all that sermon (if it be worthy of that name) his chiefest purpose is to inveigh against that holy ministration, which is called the Mass in so much that he saith that this name, Mass, was not in use many years after christ, which is before improved, yet in this author Leo even in this place: which he alleged, there is express and lively mention made of the Mass, and he calleth it Mass, that this man calleth Communion. And these two words, sacrifice and Mass, Sacrifice and Mass cause the Proclaimer to falsify Leo. used of this author, caused (as I have said) this man to falsify the author, so that he durst not allege him as he wrote, but as it might serve to help his wicked cause. To end this note of the falsifying of this author by this Proclaimer, this also is to be observed and marked, how God suffereth Satan and his Disciples to be blinded, that they shall bring forth and allege places, which being well weighed, and taken as they lie according to the mind of the author, shall not only overthrow their matter (as this author in testifying both sacrifice and Mass) but shall also give and minister occasion, that their falsehood, their corruption of authors, their blinding of the people, shall be perceived, as now already it hath been perceived in saint Hierom, and this author, and shall more hereafter in this matter. But the Proclaimer proceedeth and proveth by the Mass book, that there should be a Communion, because the priest saith, orem●is, Let us pray. I see this man would play small game raither then he will set out, he would content himself with some ssender show or countenance of proof, raither then maintaining an evil matter to seem to be destitute of all proof. I prayer thee (good reader) weigh with me what proof is it of the communion of the Sacrament that the priest saith (oremus) Let us pray? what dependence is there of that word to prove the communion of the Sacrament? If he can by that word prove the communion of the Sacrament: Let us pray, is said in the morning and evenning prayer whenther is no Communion he may do the like in the Sacrament of Baptism, and in other sacraments also, for there the priest saith (Oremus) Let us pray. If by it he had travailed to prove a communion in prayer, he had done right, but to abuse it to prove the necessity of the Communion of the Sacrament in such sort as he meaneth, it is raither a declaration of his malice against the church, than any proof of his purpose. That there is a Communion in prayer, the other words of the priest, which he also allegeth for his purpose, do manifestly declare. The priest (saith he) saith: The Lord be with you, and the people answer: And with thy spirit. Do ye not see here how the priest and Communion in prayer at Mass. the people join themselves together, one praying for the other? Which manner of Communion is also lively settfurth by that that he afterward produceth out of the order of the Mass. The priest (saith he) turneth him to the people and saith: Orate pro me fratres, & sorores. Pray for me brothers and sisters. Here (as before ye have perceived and shall hereafter perceive) he useth a sleight, he durst not for shame tell you, why the priest desireth the people to pray for him, but as traitors clip the kings coin, and deceive the people, so he clippeth many of the places which he allegeth to deceive gods people. But that his falsehood may be perceived, and the cause known why the priest desireth the people another sleight of the Prolamer. to pray for him, I shall lay before your eyes the whole prayer. Thus he prayeth. Orate fratres & sorores pro me, ut meum pariter & vestrum acceptum sit omnipotenti Deo sacrificium: Which is thus much to say in english: Pray for me brothers and sisters, that my sacrifice and your may be accepted of our Lord God. Two Communions in the Mass besides the raving of the Sacra. See ye now his sleight? Is here any prayer for the communion which he intendeth? Do these words prove that the priest can not receive alone? Is there any mention made here of that his communion? Do ye not perceive that with two or three words he would blear you eyes, and (as the english proverb is) make you believe that the Moon is made of a green cheese? The desire of the priest is not, that all they that be present would receive the Communion: but that they will pray that their common sacrifice may be acceptable to God. This with the bringing in of two or three words, would this man craftily have concealed, and suppressed, being (as I suppose) ashamed, and grudged in conscience to let you know the very thing required to be prayed for, which is the acceptation of the sacrifice, which sacrifice he and his complices do wickedly deny. Thus ye see that he would claim help of the Mass book, which in deed doth him no other help but open his shame. It doth us thus much help, that hereby we learn two Communions: The first is of prayer: the second of sacrifice. For in these two all that be faithfully and devoutly present, lifting up their hearts to God, and joining with the priest in godly affection, be communicantes: And so it cometh to pass, that both the prayer and the sacrifice made and offered by the priest, as by the common minister of the Church, is common to all the people of god's church. I will not stand upon this being so plain, but leave it to the farther consideracon of the Reader, and come to his conclusion of the Mass book where he saith shus: And to conclude the priest, by his own Mass book is bidden to say these words immediately after the Agnus Dei. Haec sacrosancta commixtio & consecratio The Procl. corporis & sanguinis Domini nostri jesu Christi fiat mihi & omnibus sumentibus salus mentis & corporis. That is to say: This commixtion and consecration of the body and blood of our Lord jesus christ be unto me and to all that receive it, health of body and soul. I perceive this man keepeth his profession. For it is appertaining to menof his calling either to diminish and take away, or to add and put to somewhat The Answer. from or to most of the sentences that they allcage. For where before he cuttof from the places which he alleged here he putteth to For where the Mass book hath but these words. Haec sacrosancta commixtio corporis & sanguinis, etc. He putteth in this word (consecratio) which the book hath not. But overpassing it, let us see the force of the argument that he maketh out of our own Mass book (as he termeth it) and very well. For in deed it is our book, that abide and remain in the catholic Church, not his, that hath cut himself of, from it, and is become a cast away. But our Lord change his mind, that the lost sheep may be found and brought home to the fold again. The prayer is that the commixtion of the body and blood of christ may be to the priest, and to all that receive, health of body and soul. Understand that the priest is the common minister of the Church, wherefore doing the common The common prayer of the Church is not for one angle, but for the whole universal Church ministration he commonly prayeth for all that do receive generally, he stricteth not his prayer for a few, neither doth he limit it, or bound it withtime and place, but he leaveth it common, and uttereth it with an universal. He prayeth not that the body and blood of christ may be health of soul and body to them only that receive with him at that time and in that place (which is the thing the Proclaimer laboureth to prove (but in vain) but he prayeth for all that receive indifferenlie either in that place and time, or any other. Whether it be now or at any other time, in that place, or in any other place in France, or in Italy, in Spain or in Germany in Englondor in Jerusalem, wheresoever the catholic Church is, and the Sacrament catholiquelie received. But be it that the priest had prayed with limitation of time and place, and desired that it might be halth of soul and body to all that receive with him in that place and time, what offence should the priest commit, if when none would receive with him, he received alone? or how can the Proclaimer prove a necessity by it, that needs there must be more than the priest? or that at that time and place the priest can not receive alone? If the Church charitably wishing that some people should receive the holy Sacrament with the priest, had made soch a prayer, could the Proclaimer turn this charity to a necessity? Will he turn the charity of the Church wishing virtue, godliness, and devotion in the people to a necessity, that because the people will not use this of necessity the priest shall not? Is this good learning? Is this his good doctrine is this his holy religion? It is as much to saiethat if the people wax cold in devotion, so shall the priest to: If the people slack their devotion, so shall the priest to: if the people neclect the service of God, so shall the priest to. If the people omit to render most humble thanks to God and our Saviour jesus christ for our redemption, so shall the priest to. Finally if the people will but twice or thrice in the year celebrate that solen ne memory of Chrysts passion and death as (the more pity it is) the most of them do it not so often, no more shall the priest also. Thus shall it come to pass that the devotion and duty of the priest, shall hang upon the will of the people. Thus the priests that should be the salt of the earth, the light of the world, whose light should so shine before men, that they seeing their good works, might glorify their Father which is in heaven, shall neither be salt, light, nor givers of good example to provoke them to do the memorial of Christ'S death, but when the people will. It is a strange doctrine, that if Math. 5. the people will not serve God, the priest shall not. But who is he that wise is that seeth not the vanity of it, and whether it tendeth? Hitherto, I trust ye perceive that how great so ever the countenance was made by these allegations As odious as Popes be to protestāns they can allege their decres where they think good. before alleged, that yet the force is very small. But now come the great arguments, now come they, which can not be avoided (as the Proclaimer supposeth) so great is the force of them. Where to his places before alleged I said and do say, they are raither examples of virtue for the people, and not laws of necessity for the priest, now he produceth laws, as the Canons of the Apostles, and the decrees of Bishops of Rome, which how audible socuer they be, and have been to this Proclaimer and his complices: yet now in this matter, they are fain to pray aid of them. First he allegeth a Canon of the Apostles in this sort. Fideles qui ecclesiam ingrediuntur, & scripturas audiunt, & Communionem sanctam non recipiunt, tanquàm eccle Canon. 19 See this Canon cut of in the midst. siastica pacis perturbatores à Communione arceantur. Soch Christian men as come to the church and hear the scriptures, and do not receive the holy communion, let them be excommunicated, as men that disquiet the Church. In the alleging of this Canon he keepeth his profession as he did in other by him before alleged, that is to cut them of, and to mangle such places as he allegeth, and not to bring them whole as they lie, whereof, reader, I make thee judge. This is the Canon. Omnes fideles, qut conveniunt in solemnibus sacris ad ecclesiam scripturas Apostolorum, & evangelium audiant. Qui autem non perseverarint in oratione usque missa peragitur, nec sanctam Communionem percipiunt, velut inquietudines eccle siae moventes, convenit communione privari. All the Christian men that in the solemn service come together to the Church let them hear the scriptures of the Apostles and the Gospel. And such as continue not in prayer until Mass be all done, nor do receive the holy Communion, it is meet that they be excommunicated, as such as move disquietness to the Church. Now confer this with that he hath alleged, and ye shall perceive that he hath varied in diverse points. But of those I will touch but one. In this The Proclaimer alleging this Canon chiefly against the Mass leaveth out the word Mass in the same. sermon he chiefly bendeth himself to impugn the Mass, wherein (malice blinding his heart) he findeth by his judgement many horrible faults, of the which he specially chooseth four, against the which with might and main, that is to say, with as much falsehood as he can, he doth inveigh. And among these four, as ye perceive, he travalleth very sore against that, that the priest should receive alone. And to improve that receipt he pretendeth that this Canon did mightily make for him. But when he red it and saw in the same Canon mention made of the Mass, which he impugneth, that the people should continue in prayer until it were all done, for hindering of his cause, though his conscience were touched, he used his common sleight, and for shame durst not speak the Canon as it lay, and so with more shame wrote it, and caused it to be printed, that all men might see and perceive his sincerity, and true dealing in alleging the Fathers and writers, which is (as yeperceave) to corrupt them, to falsify them, and to leave out, and cut of what liketh him. But to answer that part of the Canon, that he allegeth, as so strongly making for him: I say first that he doth mistake it and misunderstand it. For the Canon is not made for the good catholic people that do communicate The true meaning of the Apostles Canon misunderstanded by the Proclaimer. with all good christians in prayer, and when devotion serveth them in the receipt of the holy Sacrament, but it is made against licentious and yet dissembling heretics and schismatics, who then (as many have of late done) came to the Church among good Christians, and yet being there would neither communicate with them in prayer, neither in the receipt of the holy Sacrament. Against such (I say) as would neither in prayer, nor in Sacrament communicate with the good christians, that they should be excommunicated, was the Canon made. And, Reader, I do not feign this understanding of my own head, I have authority right good for me, that is right ancient, which is the Council of Antioch, which Council having the same Canon almost word for word expoundeth it to the same understanding that I have. These be the words Concil. Antioch. of the Council Omnes qui ingrediwtur ecclesiam Dei, & scripturas sacras audiunt, nec communicant in oratione cum populo, sed pro quadam intemperantia se à perceptione sanctae communionis avertunt, ij de ecclesia removeantur, donec per confessionem poenitentiae fructus osten daunt, & precibus indulgentiam consequantur, Cum excommunicatis autem non licet communicare, nec cum ijs, qui per domos conveniunt deuitantes orationes ecclesiae, simul orandum est. All that come to the Church of God, and hear the holy scriptures, and do not communicate with the people in prayer, but for a certain wantonness do avert themselves from the receipt of the holy communion, let these men be removed from the church, until by confession they show the fruits of penance, and through prayers do obtain pardon. With excommunicate persons it is not lawful to communicate, neither may we pray with such as go from house to house shunning the prayers of the Church. The canon was made against wanton heretics and Schiss matiques, whocoming to the church would not for a singularity communicate either inpraier or in sacrament with the faithful. This is the Canon of the Council of Antioch, which ye see to be the very same, and all one with the Canon of the Apostles, or raither the exposition of it. In the which it is plain to perceive that it was spoken against such as were singular and wanton in their own conceits, disdeining to communicate with the people of God, either in prayer, or in the receipt of the Sacram. but only they would come to the church to hear the scriptures red. To meet with such as will not pray with the Church, the Canon forbiddeth the catholic person to pray with them. By this than ye may perceive that the Canon is to be understanded of them that both refused to communicate with the faithful people in prayer and sacrament, upon wanton singularity as contemning the received order of the Church, and as schismatics and heretics gadded from house to house, and fled the Church: and not of good Christian people that abstain not for any such purpose. Secondarelie to say, if the Proclaimer will not admit or allow this true understanding, ground (as you perceive) upon authority, but cleave to his false understanding of the Canon, ground upon his only fantasy, what maketh the Canon so understanded, either against the Mass, or against the Church, or against the priest? What one word findeth he in this Canon that proveth the Mass to be nought, if the people do not communicate? By what part of the Canon can he reprehend the Church, if the whole congregation receive not? which The Canon of the Apostles forbiddeth not the priest to recaave alone piece of the Canon doth prohibitt the priest to receive alone if none other desire to receive with him? Weigh well the Canon and ye shall perceive even after his own understanding, that there is a law of correction for the people, if they will not receive with the priest: but there is no word against the priest, if he receive without the people. The law is against the slackness of the people, and not against the godly devotion of the priest. Thus his greatest argument being so easily solved, and his craft in the alleging of the same detected, as with more easy we may solve the other: so shall we therein perceive his more falsehood. Calixtus (saith he) Bishop of Rome not long after the Apostles time giveth out the like commandment, in the same behalf. His words be these: Peracta consecratione omnes communicent, qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus. Sic enim Apostoli statuerunt, & sancta Romana tenet ecclesia. That is (saith he) when the consecration is done, let every man receive the Communion, unless he will be put of from the entry of the Church. For The decree of Anacletus abused. by the Proclaimer. this thing have the Apostles ordained, and the holy church of Rome continueth the same. In this alleged place be more untruths than one used by the Proclaimer. First he doth father it upon Calixtus, where in deed it is the decree of Anacletus. But this is not so great a matter. I would easily pardon that fault, if there were no worse in him. But he committeth two great faults here besides that. For he doth both distort abuse and wrest the place, and also (as he hath done diverse other) he doth mutilate it, and cut it of by the knees (as we say) and bringeth it not wholly as it lieth. I will therefore bring the whole place, that you may both perceive, how much he hath of a devilish purpose left out, and also plainly see how untruely he wresteth it to a false sense. This is the place as it is alleged out of Anacletus by Bartholemew Caranza in the sum of the Counsels: Sacerdotes quando Domino sacrificant non soli hoc agere debent sed testes secum adhibeant, ut Domino in sacratis Deo locis perfectè sacrificare probentur, juxta illud Deuteron. 12. Vide ne offeras holocausta in omni loco, quem videris, sed in loco quem elegit Dominus Dens tuus. Episcopus Deo sacrificans testes secum habeat, et plures quàm alius sacerdos, cum quo peracta consecratione, omnes ministri communicent, qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus. Sic Apostoli statuerunt, et sancta Romana tenet ecclesia. The priests when they do offer sacrifice unto our Lord, they shall not do it alone, but they shall have witnesses with them, that they may be proved to do sacrifice to our Lord perfectly in places dedicated unto God, according to the saying of Deuteron. the xii. chapter: Take heed thou offer not sacrifice in every place that thou seest, but in the place that thy Lord God hath chosen. A Bishop doing sacrifice to God let him have more wittenesses with him then an other priest, with whom, when the consecration is done, let all the ministers communicate, they that will not, shall be forbidden to enter into the church. This same place of Anacletus is also alleged in the second distinction having the same sense, in length, that this hath in Sum or in brief. Now first judge of the sincerity of the Proclaimer in alleging the Fathers, whether he doth as it becometh one that taketh upon him to correct all the world, and to preach the truth, which in his judgement, was before lacking. Is this sincerity to bring three or four words of the end of a saying, which may be wrested to his purpose, and to leave out all that goeth before? secondly, for the understanding of the place, he hath voonderfully abused his audience before whom he preached it, and all such also as have or shall happen to read the same sermon now imprinted and divulged. For in the epistle of Anacletus it is decreed thus: Episcopus Deo sacrificans testes secum habeat, in solemnioribus diebus aut septem, aut quinque, aut tres Diaconos, qui eius oculi dicuntur, & subdia conos, atque reliquos ministros secunhabeat. The Bishop doing sacrifice unto God, let Anacletus cpla. 1. him in the solemn days have either seven or siue, or three deaeons which be called his eyes, and subdeacons and other ministers. And then it followeth that the Proclaimer allegeth: Peracta consecratioue omnes communicent, when the consecration is done let all communicate. So that this decree can not be understanded of all the people, but only of all those Deacons, and Subdeacons, and ministers which should attend upon the Bishop in the time that he offereth sacrifice to God, which is as much to say, as when he said Mass. The decree saith not: when the consecration is done let all the people communicate: but let all, that is, all they assistant to the Bishop in the ministration, the Deacons the Subdeacons, and the ministers let them communicate and if they will not, let them be prohibited to enter the church. That this should be understanded as is said it doth well appear by the relation of this decree to the doctrine of the Apostles. So (saith the decree) Canon. 9 Apostol. have the Apostles taught. In deed in their canons they have so taught. For this is one of their Canons. Si quis Episcopus, aut Presbyter, aut Diaconus, vel quilibet ex sacerdotali catalogo, facta oblatione, non communicaverit, aut causam dicat, ut si rationabilis fuerit, veniam consequatur, aut si non dixerit, communione privetur. If any Bishop or priest, or deacon, or any other of the clergy, when the consecration is done do not communicate, either let him show a cause, that if it be reasonable he may be pardoned, or if he show none, let him be excommunicated. Thus the Apostles Canon. The cause why this Canon was so made, was not for the necessity of the thing, that the sacrifice were not perfect, or the Mass not good in it self, if the clergy assistant did not communicate, but that they abstaining might be occasion of offence to the people of suspicion against him that did offer the sacrifice, that he had not well done it, as the words immediately following in the same Canon do plainly declare. Sinon dixeritcommunione privetur, tanquam qui populo causa laesionis extiterit, dans suspicionem de eo qui sacrificavit, quod rectè non obtulerit. If he show no reasonable cause why he abstaineth let him be excommunicated, as one that is cause of offence to the people, giving suspicion of him that did sacrifice, that he had not well offered it. Thus now ye see how this man hath abused this decree of Anacletus, understanding it of all that be present, where it is to be understanded only of them that attend upon the Bishop in the time of the holy ministration, and that also on solemn days. In this point only he hath not abused this decree, but in this also, that by it he intended to prove the Mass an evil thing, and to be nought if there were no communicates besides the priest, and that mass ought not to be said without communicantes, and finally that the Church is wicked so abusing it, where in deed there is no one sillabe, in that decree to prove these or any one of them, or any part of one of them. For as in the answer to the tenth Canon of the Apostles by them alleged, it was said: so it may be said here, that be it it were understanded that all the people should communicate, as he would have it (but untruely) yet in this decree he findeth no prohibition that the priest shall not offer sacrifice, nor receive himself, if the people will not, hefindeth not either here or else where, that the mass is nought, if there be nomo communicantes in that place but the priest. Wherefore we may conclude that all that he hath in this point alleged hath but a show of words and no proof in deed of that that he alleged it for. As for the ninth Canon of the Apostles it also after the right understanding proceedeth not of necessity, but of condition. For if they or any of them, that attend upon the Bishop in the time of ministration, have reasonable cause to say why they abstain, they may abstain. And possible it might be that when the Bishop had but three attendant upon him or such like small number, they might all have cause to abstain. And so it is plain that this Canon giveth us to understand that where a number is assembled at the ministration, if all the number have just cause to astein from the receiving of the Sacrament, that the Bishop or priest shall never the less proceed to receive alone. For the sacrifice must be received. And so by this Canon the priest alone may receive, though in that place there be none to communicate with him. But whether all or no, certain it is that some of the attendants might abstain, and so it followeth inevitably, that some might be present, and not receive. Private Mass used in the time of Chrysost. And thus ye may perceive that where the Proclaimer saith that he would make it plain to you by the most ancient writers, that were in and after the Apostles time, and by the order of the first and primitive church, that then there could be no private Mass, it was a saying more full of ostentation and brag, then of truth. For though he hath heaped a sort of places: yet there is no one sentence in any of them, that proveth that there could be Jssue joined with the Proclaimer for private Mass. no private Mass And so far from truth is this his saying (that in the ancient Church was no private Mass, I mean a Mass with sole receiving) that in the Mass of Chrysostom is a plain rule given, what was to be done when the priest received alone, and what when the people received with the priest. But it is like, the Proclaimer had not learned so far as to know this. And here to knit up all that he hath said, or can say in this matter, which he termeth private Masses: This I say, that if he can bring forth any one scripture, ancient council, or catholic doctor that saith, that that Mass, that is said without a number of Communicantes in the same place, is nought, or that it ought not to be said, except there be more than the priest to receive, or that there is prohibition for the priest to receive alone: or any penalty in any catholic law assigned for the priest that doth receive alone: or any like decree forbidding a sick man to receive the Sacrament, except some receive with him: Let him (I say) prove these, or some one of them by express words in manner above said, and I will not only subscribe, but I will agnize myself his scholar during our two natural lives. TAE ONE AND FOURTETHT CHAP. Proveth that the Mass may be said and the Sacrament received without a number of communicantes at one time in one place. AS it is not sufficient for a man to decline from evil: but also to do good, the scripture so joining them together, and saying: Declina à malo, & fac bonum. decline from evil and do good. So Psal. 33. it is not sufficient for a man only to fly heresy, but he must also profess the truth. Where then I have in this last chapter opened the crafty falsehood of the Proclaimer and solved his arguments which in deed be not worthy to be called arguments for that they have no force to impugn that that they are forged for, and thereby given occasion, as I myself do fly that wicked doctrine, that other men may do the like: so will Rom. 10. Soche there be may now in Englond. I now profess the tueth of that matter that other men may do the same. Many in this time of temptation embrace part of the saying of S. Paul: cord creditur ad justiciam, but the greater number (the more is the pity) standeth not to the other part: o'er confessio fit ad salutem. They believe well in heart: but they fear with mouth to confess the same to salvation. They turn the admonition of christ up side down. christ saith: Nolite timere eos qui occidant corpus, animam autem non possunt occidere, sed illum potius timete, qui potest & Math. 10. animam & corpus mittere in gehenuam. Fear not them that sleie the body, but can not sleie the soul: But raither fear him who can cast both body and soul into hell fire. But they say in their deeds, fear him that killeth the body, and regard not him that hath power to kill both body and soul. For lamentable it is to say, such is the love of many to the life of the body, and to worldly honour and wourshippe, and to the transitory baggage of this world, that for the conservation of these, man is feared, and God the lord of all power and majesty neglected. God grant us to hear the voice of the caller, that calleth and saith: Venite filti audite me, timorem Domini docebo vos. Come ye children and hear me. I will teach you the fear of our Psal. 33. Lord. If we fear him and love him as to our duty appertaineth, we shall neither fear nor be ashamed to confess him and his holy faith before men. S. Paul thought all things in the world, as filth or dung, so that he worldly cares kepemen from God. might win christ, but we are contented to lose christ, so that we may wine the worldly muck, and filth, for safeguard of the which, where christ in his last supper, instituting the sacrifice of his body and blood to be offered and frequented of his faithful in the remembrance, and for the high and solempn memorial of his passion and death, and we have heretofore so received it, and in heart still receive it: yet now we join with them, that hate it, we go with them that raill at it, and abandoning it with them we do as they do. But man's folly shall come to an end, and the truth of our Lord abideth for ever. To take away this truth of Christ'S sacrifice Satan hath taught his Disciples that the Sacrament was instituted to none other end and purpose but only to be received, and not to be offered. And to make that apparante all their and his endeavour is to prove that it must be received of many. And that that receipt may be compassed, and the sacrifice defaced, they exclaim against the Mass. But when they have all said and done, the Mass shall be holy and good. and this shall be a truth, that a priest saying Mass, or any other Man godly disposed sick or holle, may receive the holy Sacrament alone. For proof of this, first, I use this reason. All things forbidden us to do (as the Adversary saith) be contained in the scripture: But in the scripture Reasons for sole receiving ground upon the Peotestants doctrine. it is not contained that any man is forbidden to receive the Sacrament alone. Wherefore by the word of God man is not forbidden to receive the Sacrament alone. Then may we also reason thus: What soever is not for bidden by God's word as touching matters of faith the Adversary saith we may lawfully do it: To receive the Sacrament alone is not forbidden by God's word, Wherefore we may lawfully do it. But leaving reasons, although they be of such force that the Proclaimer can not with stand them, and do also overthrow his false doctrine: I shall upon and after the rehearsal of his own words, prove by authority, that the Sacrament may be received of one person alone, which is the contrary of that that he would maintain and defend, but all in vain. He useth a certain preoccupation and saith thus: Perhaps their may be some that will say. We grant these things be spoken of the commwion in the old doctors: but there be as many things or more spoken by them, of the private Mass, and all that you dissemble and pass by. I know soch replies have been made by diverse. Thus much the Proclaimer. These words have two principal parts: First is, that the catholics do grant, that these things which the Proclaimer hath alleged, be spoken of a communion. The second, that there be as many things or more spoken of the private Mass by the holy doctors, which he dissembleth or passeth by. In deed the catholics grant both these parts, and say that they be both true. As for the first, we say, where many of the people in the primitive Church, and for the space of four or five hundredth years after, were well disposed, devout and well and godly affected to the often receipt of the holy Sacrament. For the continuance where of, the holy Fathers the bishops and the priests did travail with laws and decrees, with exhortations, yea and sometime as occasion was given by exprobrations to trade the people in the same (which thing would to God the people would again bring in use, and frequent in these days) to the great honour of God, and singular comfort of their own soul's health: yet we say that all this proveth not, that there is any law, decree, commandment or ordinance, that the priest in time of ministration, or any other faithful at time convenient, may not receive alone. And as we say that this proveth not, so we say that it never can nor shall be proved by the Proclaimer, and all his adherentes, but that the blessed Sacrament may very well be received of one alone. For the second part of his saying, where he saith that we say, that there be as many things spoken by the holy doctors of private Mass which he Mark here a sleight of the Proclaimer. dissembleth and passeth by: it is also true, that there be so. And therefore the more shame for him, that, he dissembleth them. And here mark his sleight: He saith that there be places in the old doctors for the matter that he calleth private Mass, but which of these did he allege and answer. He craftily conveyeth himself away from them saying: I know such replies have been made by diverse. And by these words he bleereth the eics of his simple Readers, and filleth the ears of his audience, as though he had made sufficient answer to them all, where in deed he toucheth no one syllable of them. But Reader, thou shalt perceive that we will use no such dissimulation nor sleight with thee, but as we have solved his arguments without any The catholic doctrine and practice is that the Sacrament hath and may bereceaved of or of one many at once. great labour, for in deed there was no weight in them: So shall we now open the truth unto thee simply without all colour of sleight or craft, and that by good and sufficient authority, as though shalt well perceive. First to certify thee of the truth: The truth is that the people did often and much communicate together in the primitive and ancient church. And yet never the less, truth it is, that both the priest and other also upon occasion did often and much receive alone. Of the which two practices this truth may be gathered, that the blessed Sacrament may lawfully be received of many together, and may also lawfully be received of one alone, the first is proved by that, that the Proclaimer hath alleged: The second shall be proved by that that I will allege. And first I will use the testimony of justinus whom both Cranmer and this Proclaimer do pitifully abuse, and truncatelie allege. But alleging no more than this man allegeth even in this matter, ye shall perceive how he goeth about to deceive them, that there did hear him preach, or shall happen to read his sermon. Thus he allegeth justinus in his said sermon. Diaconi distribuunt ad participandum unicuique praesentium ex consecrato pane, vino & aqua. Illis verò, qui non adsunt deferunt domum. The Deacons deliver of the consecrated bread and wine and water, to every one that is present. And if there be any away, they carry it home to them. Upon this piece of this author thus alleged, the Proclaimer bringeth in these his words: Here also we find a Communion, but no private Mass. Note well (good Reader) what this man findeth in this author, and then shalt though perceive whether he be clear or corrupted in seight, or not raither altogether blinded. In these words that justine saith, that the Deacon delivereth to every one that is present of the consecrated bread wine and water, I grant that he findeth a The Sacrament was severally and solely received of them to whom it was carried home, and therefore privately, as the proclaimer useth the tearmi. Communion: But in the other part, when the same author saith: And if any be away, they carry it home to them: What findeth he there? Is he so blind that he can not see the Sacrament carried home to them that be absent? Can he not see that to every one of these that were absent, and had the Sacrament brought home to them, that it was brought that they should receive it? And when every of these to whom the Sacrament was brought, did severally receive it in their houses, what was it then? how will he term it, was it private, or a common receipt? What findeth he here? What seeth he here? Can he not find that the people that were at home did severally receive it in their houses, as the people assembled did receive it at the time of the ministration? It is most like that this man looked only upon this matter with his left eye, as many a fletcher doth upon a crooked bolt, and not with his right eye. And so likewise when he did write it, he forgot the counsel of christ, and by like made his left hand of counsel what the right hand did. But whoso will with the right eye look upon this place of this holy Martyr justine, shall find that truth that before I testified, that in the primitive and ancient church the people did receive both in number and alone. Perhaps the Proclaimer being by this place of justine driven to his shifts, will say that it was (notwithstanding that some of the people did receive at home) a right communion, for that both they and the people being at the ministration, did all receive of one consecrate bread. Will you see what a bare shift this is? And to join with him in his own terms, I will ask him, whether by this one consecrate bread he mean one loaf of bread, or one Sacramental bread. He can not speak of one loaf of bread. For in the primitive Church when the nombro of people did receive, one loaf could not suffice. If he speak of one sacramental bread, or one consecrated bread, as justine doth tearin it, is not the bread consecrated to day, and the bread consecrated to morrow all one consecrated bread? all one sacramental bread, is it not allwais one Sacrament? Is not the sacrament of Baptism ministered to day, and ministered to morrow all one Baptism? forasmoch as S. Paul saith: unus Dominus, unae fides, unum Baptisma. There is one lord, one faith, and one Baptism. Likewise is not the bread consecrate in the morning, and at noon all one consecrate bread? And to say more at large, is not the bread consecrated in the Supper of christ by christ himself, and the bread consecrated now by his minister, and that shall be consecrated in the last day of the world all one bread? if it be not so, why saith S. Paul, that we are all partakers of one bread? The reason why it is one bread, chrysostom showeth, speaking of the table of christ consecrated by the minister, Homi 83 in 26. Math. saying: Haec enim illa non alia mensa est. Haec nulla re minor quàm illa est. Non enim illam Christus, hanc homo quispiam facit, sed utramque ipse. This is even the same, not an other table: This in no point is lesser than that. For christ did not sanctify that, and this an other man, but christ did sanctify both: So that the reason why it is one bread, is by Chrysostom, because it is sanctified and consecrated by one christ. If then it be a communion because they receive all of one consecrated bread, and S. Paul saith that we all do eat of one bread, in somuch that by it we are made one bread and one body: is it not one Communion that the Apostles, and the faithful that now be, and shall be in the last day of the world, have made, do Private Communion how and where it is. and shall make? If it be so, then among true christians receiving as becometh them the holy Sacrament, there is no private communion. Private communion is among private men, soche as cut themselves of from the universal church, and eat of one piece of bread to day, and of and other to morrow, as heretics do, and do not all eat of one bread, as the faithful do. This Proclaimer allegeth Leo Bishop of Rome, that upon consideration that the church being little, and not able to receive the people, there might be three communions in one day, in one church. I would now know whether they that received at the first, Second, and third communion, whether they did all communicate together or no. If they did not, then were they not all of one communion, which is not to be said: If they did, and did not receive of one consecrated bread, nor at one time, it should follow, that communion dependeth upon some other thing, than one bread, time, or ministration. And in deed so it doth: For it dependeth of one thing made common to us all, and which all we being faithful do receive, in the which we are made one, and knit together as members of one body, which thing is the body and blood of christ, which is that one bread, that S. Paul speaketh of and saith that all we partake of, which is in deed the bread of life nowrishing us to everlasting life. I have tarried to long upon this place, in opening the vanity of this man's doctrine, and the longer, that it might be perceived, that he alleging this holy man was so blinded, that he would not aswell see the one truth as the other, but brought it as an argument to reprove the church, where it reproveth himself, and to confute the truth where it confuteth his heresy. But let us hear other testimonies, and first of Tertullian, who lived in the time of Severus the Emperor, in whose time the Christian religion not yet being received of the Princes of the world, the Christians lived under great and fearful presecution, by reason whereof, though the people were right godly affected, and well disposed to the service of God, and the receipt of the blessed Sacrament: yet they could not freely make their assemblies when they would. Wherefore at such time as they came together the bishops and pastors would to such as were right godly and holy chystians deliver the blessed Sacrament to carry home with them, to receive it at home, at such time as they might, because they could not otherwise when they would. For the which purpose, as by S. Cyprian, S. basil, and S. Hicrom it may be gathered, the godly brought with them, either a fair clean linen cloth, or a pretty box to carry it home in. The like it appeareth that Tertullian'S wife did. For he dissuading her from the Marriage of any gentile or heathen man after his decease, and knowing that she did secretly receive the Sacrament at home, and would also do the like though she married an insidel used this for one part of his dissuasion. Non sciet maritus, quid secretò ante omnem cibum gusts? et si sciverit, panem non illum credet esse qui dicitur. Shall not thy husband know, what thou dost secretly eat before all meat? And Tertullian'S wife received the B. Sacr alone or solely, or privately if he know it he will not believe it to be that bread, that it is called. As who might say: As I being your husband do know that you do receive the Sacrament secretly: So it can not be but an heathen man being your husband shall perceive also that you do receive it secretly. Whereby it shall come to pass that either he will restreign you from that liberty, that now ye use in your secret receipt, or else taking, and believing it not to be that bread that it is, he will with irreverency abuse it. In this saying of Tertullian it is easy to be perceived, that his wife did secretly receive the Sacrament at home, if secretly then with no number, So these words of Tertullian saver of the receipt of the Sacrament by one alone. S. basil also, as before is mentioned, giveth a notable testimony in this, matter, who writing to a notable godly matron, who for the great reverence she bare to the blessed Sacrament, feared and thought it unsemclie to receive it at her own hand in her own house, without the delivery of the same by the priest, or the Deacon, saith thus: Communicare per singulos dies, & Basil epist, ad Caesarian patrici. participare de sacro corpore & sanguine Christi pulchrum & valdè utile est, ipso manifestè dicente: Qui manducat meam carnem, & bibit meum sanguinem habet vitam aeternam. Quis enim ambigit, quin frequens vitae participation nihil aliud sit quàm pluribus modis vivere? Nos idcirco quater in singulis hebdomadis communicamus: in die Dominico, in quarto die hebdomadae: in Parasceu●, & in Sabbato, ac in aliis diebus, si qua memoria fuerit sanctialicuius, Illud autem in persecutionis temporibus necessitate cogi quempiam non present sacerdote, aut ministro, communionem propria manu sumere nequaquam esse grave, superuacaneun est demonstrare, propterea quòd longa consuetudine hoc ipso reru usu confirmatum est. Omnes enim in eremis solitariam vitam agentes, ubi non est sacerdos, Communionem domi servants, à seipsis communicant. In Alexandria verò & in Aegypto, unusquisque eorum qui sunt de populo, plurimùm habet communionem in domo sua. Semel enim sacrificium sacerdote consecrante, & distribuente, meritò participare & suscipere credere oportet. Etenim & in ecclesia sacerdos dat partem, & accipit eam is qui suscipit cum omni libertate, & ipsam admovet ori propria manu. Idem igitur est virtute, sive unam partem accipiat quisquam à sacerdore, sive plures partes simul. To communicate every day, and to be partaker of the sacred body and blood of christ, it is a goodly thing and very profitable. For he himself manifestly saith: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life. For who doubteth but that the often receipt of life is nothing else but many ways to live? We therefore do communicate four times in the week: on the sunday, the Vednisdaie, the friday, and the Satterdaie, and on other days if there be the memory of any Saint. That it is no grievous thing any man in the time of persecution to be enforced when there is no priest nor Deacon present, to take the communion with his own hand, it is more than needeth Ermets' and holy menliving in wilderness reccaved the Sacr. by themselves. me to declare, uless as it, by the very practice of the thing it self, is established and confirmed by a long custom. For all they that live solitary lives in the wilderness, where there is no priest, having the Sacrament at home, they communicate by themselves. In Alexandria, and in egypt every one of the people for the most part hath the Sacrament in his own house. We must believe that after the the priest hath once consecrated and distributed the sacrifice, we may well be partakers of it, and take it. For in the Church also the priest giveth part, and he that doth receive it, doth freely and boldly take it, and put it to his own mouth, with his own hand. It is all one in virtue or power, whether any man take one part of the priest, or many parts together. Thus much at length have I written out of saint basil, that many things may be perceived in one saying. In this you may perceive his faith as touching the presence of Christ'S body and blood in the Sacrament, which is so far wide that he believeth it to be a only figure that he called it the sacred body and blood of christ. In this ye may also perceive that he understandeth the sixth of S. john of the blessed Sacrament. In this ye may perceive that he believed not the Sacrament to be a dead piece of bread, forasmuch as he termeth and calleth the same life. In this ye may perceive the godly disposition and devotion of the people, that did communicate four times every week, and oftener if any feast of any Martyr happened. In this also ye may evidently perceive, that in the time of persecution (as before is said upon Tertullian) it was of long custom used, every man in his own house to receive the Sacrament. For farther proof of this ye perceive here also, that they which lived solitary lives in the wilderness, though they had no priest nor Deacon with them, did communicate by themselves. Now to lead a solitary life, What is it else but to live sole, to live in a cave or den, as Paul and Antony did, alone, and so wholly giving themselves to prayer and godly contemplation, for their exercise therein did often receive the Sacrament, which they had ready by them. In this also ye may perceive how untruely the Proclaimer hath heretofore setforth his matter, when he saith, that all the catholic Church of christ used the communion as he understandeth it, that is, that none received it alone. And to amplify his matter he saith the Indians the Arabians, the Armenians, the Grecians, and as many as bare the name of christ, have kept and continued the same amongst themselves, from the first time they received the Gospel, unto this day, and never received, nor used private Mass. For you here see it testified by S. basil, whose credit far surmounteth the credit of the Proclaimer, that in Alexandria and Egypt, every one of the people had the Sacrament in his house. And why had they so, but that every one by himself might and did receive it in his own house? Thus ye may perceive that rattling out his amplification he rattled beiond the truth, and ended his matter with an untruth, and there he resteth. But the truth is, as S. basil doth testify, that the people in the primitive Church did often receive the B. Sacrament alone. But to end with saint basil, where the Adversary saith, that the Sacrament was only instituted to be received, and not to be offered, and therefore doth always call it the Sacrament or Communion, or the lords supper, but never sacrifice, for that name he abhorreth as the name of Beelzebub, in S. basil it may be perceived, that it is called a sacrifice. And here I wish that, as saint basil doth call it both Sacrament, and sacrifice, so the Adversary would also, and as he testifieth it to be received both of many together, and of some alone: so he would also believe both and know as well the one to be true as the other, and not maliciously to dissemble the one, and confess the other. It is not unlike to this that saint Hierom testifieth to have been used in Rome in his time, in the time of persecution. Thus he saith: Scio Romae hanc esse consuetudinem, ut fideles semper Christi corpus accipiant, quod nec reprehendo, nec probo. Hieroe. apollo. adversus juni. unusquisque enim in suo sensu abundat. Sed ipsorum conscientiam convenio, qui eodem die post coitum communicant, & juxta Persium, noctem flumine purgant. Quare ad Martyrs ire non audent? Quare non ingrediuntur ecclesias? An alius in publico, alius in domo Christus est? quod in ecclesia non licet, nec domi licet. Nihil Deo clausum est, & tenebrae quoque lucent apud Deum. Probet se unusquisque & sic ad corpus Christi accedat. I know at Rome this to be the custom, that the faithful do always receive the body of christ, which thing I neither reprehended nor allow. Every man doth abunde in his own sense. But I call their conscience to judgement which after the duty of matrimony do even the same day communicate, and according to the saying of Persius, they cleanse the night with the flood, Why dare they not go to the Martyrs? Why do they not enter the churches? Is there one christ in the open place, and an other christ at home? That, that is not lawful in the Church, is neither lawful at home. There is nothing shut from God, yea the very darkness is bright before him. Let every man examine himself, and so let him come to the body of christ. Hitherto Saint Hierom. As S. basil reproved the Proclaimer of untruth, so doth S. Hieron of craft. The Proclaimer said that S. Hierom wittnesseth that until that time, commonly The proclaimers slight in alleging S. Hierom. every where but specially at Rome, the people used, to communicate every day: but craftily he suppresseth the manner how and where, where upon resteth all the controversy. The people of Rome in deed did always communicate, but how? in the Church always? Nay, but often in their houses, and S. Jerome saith that some of them, when they had done the office of matrimony, and durst not go to the Church to the common receipt of the Sacrament, nor to the memorials of Martyrs, they would yet receive at home in their own houses, where they had allwais the Sacrament ready, for their which doing S. Hierom rebuketh them, ask whether there be one christ in the Church and an other at home. In this saying then of S. Jerome we may perceive that the Christian people of Rome did both receive the Sacrament, sometime privately at home, and sometime also openly in the Church, whereby the assertion of the Proclaimer is reproved. In this saying also are we taught, what is in the Sacrament, not bread, but christ. For saith S. Hierom, there is not one christ received at home, and an other in the Church, but every where one christ. And here I wish the Sacramentaries to dispute with S. Hierom how the body of christ may be in diverse places. For here it is evident by S. Hieroms' own words, that it is one christ that is received in the Church and at home. And if he may be in two places, he may be in two thousand, and so forth. In this saying also we may learn to understand saint Paul calling the Sacrament (in the eleventh chap. of the first epistle to the Corinthians) bread, as where he saith: Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup, that by that bread he meaneth the body of christ. For S. Hierom using the same text, and uttering the right understanding of the same, speaketh it thus: Let every man examine himself, and so let him come to the body of christ. So that saint Paul by bread meant not material bread, as the Sacramentaries would have it, but the very body of christ, the bread The act of matrimony for prayer and receipt of though B. Sacram. to be for born. of everlasting life. In this saying also is given an admonition to married persons, that although matrimony be honourable, and the office of the same duly done not displeasant to God: yet as S. Paul willeth a man to abstain fronyt, when he will give himself to prayer. And as David and his men might not eat of the show bread except they had a certain time before abstained from there wieves Even so saint Hierom rebuketh them that after soch act with their wifes, did presume to receive the holy and blessed Sacrament. If they which did use their own lawful wifes, were found worthy of reprehension, because they did not dispose themselves to abstain when they intended to receive: how great rebuke is to be laid on our priests, who by their office being appointed always to minister or receive, when they be called on, do come from their filthy doings not with their lawful wifes, but with their cloaked evil women, to minister or receive? What, trow ye, would S. Hierom have said of them? Let the pretenced married priests well work saint Hierom his saying upon the epistle of saint Paul to Titus. And thus leaving unto them the matter farther to be considered, I will in my purpose proceed, and after saint Hierom who hath testified the manner, how the people of Rome did communicate by themselves in their houses, we will hear how the priests in Grece did the like in their churches. chrysostom for that he perceived the godly devotion of the people, as Chrys. in cap. 1. ad Eph. ho. 3. The people did not daily receive though Chrysost. did daily say Mass, Wherefore in that respect he said he did in vain offer sacrifice at the altar. touching the receipt of the Sacrament, to wax cold, he earnestly rebuked his people, as I wish that our bishops, and Pastors should do theirs, and to their reproach said thus: Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio, frustra stamus ad altar. Nemo est qui simul participet. The daily oblation or sacrifice is done in vain, we stand at the altar in vain. There is no man that will partake with us. In this saying of chrysostom these two things may be perceived that by Chrysostom and his priests the daily sacrifice was offered in the Church of Constantinople, that is, that Mass, was daily said ther. For he saith. Quoti diana habetur oblatio. The daily sacrifice is done, which is to say, that every day the sacrifice is offered. The other that although Mass were daily said, yet many times none did communicate with him that did offer the sacrifice And therefore he said: Nemo est qui simul participet. There is none that will take part of the sacrifice. whereby it is evident that in the greek Church Mass was said though there were no communicantes with the priest. Neither let the Adversary ground his sandy argument upon this word (Frustra) for nothing is absolutely done in vain that atteigneth any end that it was ordained for. Now where the holy consecration of Christ'S body Objection, with answ. The body and blood of christ consecrated to two ends and blood is chiefly and principally done for two ends: The one that it should by an unblooddie manner in the name of the whole Church be offered unto God our heavenly Father in sacrifice representative, and commemorative of that his bloody sacrifice offered upon the cross, The other thatyt should be received when it is offered. If it have these two ends, as always it hath for after it is consecrated, it is always received, Then having the ends that it was ordained for, it can not be said absolutely to be done in vain. In some respect yet it may be said to be done in vain: as in the godly intent of Chrysostom, who of godly zeal to provoke his people, to receive the blessed Sacrament, did by himself and his priests, daily offer the solemn sacrifice, which forasmoch as he did it to the purpose that they should communicate, and yet did not, he might very well say that his purpose was frustrated, and that, sithen they came not, his doing in that respect was vain. And that this was his meaning his words do well declare. For when he had said that the daily sacrifice was done in vain, and that he stood at the altar in vain: he addeth the cause: For (saith he) there is none that will partake with us. As who might say: In this respect that we look that the people should communicate and yet none will come, we stand in vain at the altar. That he meant not that the holy oblation was absolutely vain if the people did not communicate, it is more plain than that it needeth any probation. For first if it were so, would so great a learned man, so holy a man, either have offered the sacrifice himself, or cause it to be offered daily, when he knew it to be done in vain? secondly, how can he say that holy ministration to be done in vain, where himself confesseth in the consecration so li. 3. de sacerd. great a miracle to be done? so great benevolence of God to be showed to mankind, that in the same time of consecration christ that sitteth above with the Father, is now in the hands of men? Again, doth he mean it to be done in vain, that saith that the ministration is so high, so excellent, and Jbid. li 7. so honourable, that Angels in that time do accompany the priest, and that the heavenly powers be assembled together in the honour of him that is there offered? Farther, doth he think this sacrifice to be done in vain, that saith we offer Hom. 17. ad Hebr. the same sacrifice that christ offered? Moreover, is it like that he taketh it to be done in vain where prayer is made for princes, for rulers, and for all that do acknowledge Christ? where also prayer is made for peace, for health, for wealth, for prosperity, and for the help and relief of all that be sick, in Idem. in Liturgia. Sermon in. Enceniis Serm. 3. ad Philip. pain in captivity, and in prison? where all the heavenly powers do pray for us with the priest? Finally, it can not be said that he thinketh it to be in vain, that saith that the Apostles did know that moche relief and moche profit cometh to the souls departed by the oblation of this holy sacrifice. Wherefore I conclude that he spoke it to be vain, not absolutely but in respect of his purpose and desire, which was frustrated because the people did not communicate. That the Sacrament may be received alone without a number of communicantes, Euseb. li. 6. ca 34. the history ecclesiastical also proveth invincibly. For there we read that one Serapion being sick, sent his servant to the priest, desiring that he would minister the Sacrament to him, that he might departed. The priest being sick and not able to go himself, and yet loath but that the man should Serapion being sick received the Sacrament alone. receive the Sacrament or that he died, in this necessity sent of the Sacrament by the messenger, which when it was brought, the sick man received it without any to communicate with him, which may well be said, both for that the history maketh no mention of any communicantes, and also that, as the history testifieth, the quantity of the Sacrament that was sent was very little not able to suffice any number. By this than it may be perceived, that in the ancient Church it was not reputed or taken as an heinous crime to receive the Sacrament alone, as now the Proclaimer would make it, but it was thought good and commendable when occasion served. A much like testimony for this matter have we of S. Augustine, whereof mention is made before, which is, that a certain man having his house infested with evil spirittes, came to saint Augustin house S. Augustin being absent, and desired of his priests that they would ease him of that molestation. One of them went, and said Mass there, and prayed earnestly and the evil spirittes ceased any more to trouble the house. Here we perceive the Sacrifice to be offered, Mass to be said, but we hear no word of a communion. As by this that is hitherto said it may be perceived, that the priest ministering, or any other person may receive the blessed Sacrament, with out any other communicantes, according to the practice of the primitive and ancient Church: so shall it now be declared by ancient laws and decrees that the people were by law, bound but to hear Mass, and not always to receive. Soter that was the eleventh Bishop of Rome after S. Peter, and lived about the year of our Lord lxiii. made this decree. Nullus presbyterorum Missarum solemnia celebrare praesumat, nisi duobus praesentibus, sibiue respondentibus, & ipse Soter undecimus Rom. Epis. Epist. secund. ad Episcop. Jtaliae. tertius habeatur, quia cùm pluraliter ab eo dicitur, Dominus vobiscum, & illud in secretis: Orate pro me: apertissimè convenit, ut ip sius respondeatur salutationi. Let none of the priests presume to celebrate the solemn office of the Mass, except there be two present and answering him, so that he may be the third, for when it is plurally said of him: Hour Lord be with you, and in the secrets: Pray for me, it is most manifestly convenient, that his salutation be answered. Here ye see it commanded that some be present at the Mass, but not always to communicate, but answer the salutation of the priest. In a Council also thus we find it decreed: Missas die Dominico secularibus totas audire, speciali ordine praecipimus, ita ut ante benedictionem sacerdotis, egredi populus Concil. Agathen. & habetur de consecr. Dist. 1. non praesumat, quodsi fecerint ab Episcopo publicè confundantur. We command the secular people by special order, upon the sunday to hear the whole Mass. So that the people presume not to go forth before the benediction of the priest. And if they do, let them be openly rebuked of the Bishop. Here we find such order commanded as the catholic church, for all the west part of it, observed, namely that the people should hear Mass every sunday, but of communion here is no title, A like decree we find in an other Concil. Aurelian. council in these words. Cùm ad celebrandas missas in Dei nomine convenitur, populus non ante discedat, quàm Missae solemnitas compleatur, & ubi Episcopus non suerit, benedictionem à sacerdote percipiat. When they be come together in the name of God to celebrate Mass, the people may not depart before the solemnity of the Mass be fulfilled. And where there is no Bishop present let them receive the benediction of the priest. This decree commandeth no more but that the people shall not depart until Mass be done, of the communion theries no word. S. Augustin also made this ordinance, as it is to be seen in the first distinction of consecration in these words. Et hoc attendendum, ut missae peculiares, quae per dies solemnes à sacerdotibus fiunt, non ita in publico fiant, ut propter eas populus Aug. de conse. Dist. 1. cap. ct hoc. à publicis missarum solemnibus, quae hora tercia canonicè fiunt, abstrahatur, sed sacerdotes qui in circuitu urbis, aut in eadem urbe sunt, & populus in unum ad missarum publicam celebrationem conveniant. And this is to be observed, that the peculiar Masses that be said of the priests upon the solempn days be not so openly done, that for them the people be not drawn away from the public solemnity of Masses, which be canonically done the third hour. But the priests that dwell about the city, or within the same city, and the people also shall come together to the public celebration of Masses. Thus he. In this ordeinanceye first perceive that peculias Masses were said in one city, beside the high or common Mass, to the which the people might so resort, as that they might not be letted or withdrawn from the high Mass. Ye see again, that both the priests that had said Mass, and the people that had heard them, were appointed never the less to come to the high Mass. Now if none may be present (as the Adversary teacheth) but such as will communicate, and these priests having said their peculiar Masses, and there communicated must yet be present at the high Mass by S. Augustine's ordinance, it followeth that the doctrine of the Adversary is contrary to the ordinance of S. Augustin. And although the name of Mass be so odious to the Proclaimer: yet ye may perceive it was not so to saint Augustine, bus he alloweth both peculiar Masses and high or public Masses, at both the which although the people might and aught to be: yet there is no commandment for them all to communicate as in his ordinance it is to be perceived. What shall I need any more to say in this matter, sith it is manifest by many practices of the primitive and ancient church, that both priests at the ministration and other persons as well whole as sick did and therefore may now receive the blessed Sacrament alone, without a number of communicantes? And therefore to return part of the proclaimers words home to him and his complices, again I say, O merciful God, who would think there could be so moche wilfullinesse in the heart of man, so maliciously, so slaunderouslie to caluminate the Church, for that she like a good mother doth suffer her children to take their blessed and holy food of Christ'S body and blood either by number or by one alone, as devotion and occasion shall serve, sith that both manners have been always practised as before is proved? Wherefore we may truly say: O justine, o Tertullian, o basil, o Hierom, o Chrysostom. o Austen, o Leo, o ancient councils, if we be deceived, ye are they that have deceived us. But sure we are, that we are not deceived, but we rest in the truth that ye have taught us. But alas whose heart would it not grieve to see the blasphemy of the Proclaimer against christ and S. Paul, and his detestable slander of the holy doctors, whom he chargeth to have taught him his Schisms, divisions, and heresies? Is christ who is the truth, the minister of heresy? Is Paul the doctor and Apostle of the gentiles, the teacher of Schisms? Be the holy doctors and Fathers of Christ'S Church, who have been pastors and feaders of Christ'S flock, and keepers of the same with in his fold, in unity and peace, the authors of divisions, and dispersions of the sheep of christ? Nay, it is Satan the first lie maker, the father of lies and untruth, the author of division betwixt God and man, that hath taught him heresy, Schism and division, whose wicked inspiration (the more is the pity) he followeth. For neither christ, nor Paul, not justine nor basil etc. hath taught that the celebration or ministration of Christ'S Sacrament is not godly or good, if there be not many communicantes at it, But they have taught, that many may receive it, and that many did receive it, and that one alone may receive it, and that diverse alone did receive it, and both to be true. And now to end this matter, as the Proclaimer hath done all that he can, and yet, by no authority (as is said) hath proved that a priest or any other may not receive alone: so I say, that neither he, nor all his complices, though they be joined all together, shall ever bring forth any express place of scripture, councils, or doctors, that doth by commandment forbid a well disposed Christian to receive the Sacrament alone. And thus the three principal parts of the Mass being avouched by scriptures councils, and doctors: I shall confirm the same by miracle, wrought by God, in the blessed Sacrament in the Mass time. THE TWO AND fortieth CHAP. DROOueth the truth of these matters of the Sacrament by that it hath pleased God to confirm the same with miracles. Although the coming of christ into the flesh was most certainly taught by promises, figures, and prophecies (as before in the first book is said) yet the same his coming his conception, his birth and abode with us, was commended unto us, by many protentes, miracles, and wonders, which the Gospel doth declare: Even so it hath pleased the goodness of God well knowing hour infirmity and weakness, to deal with us in the matter of the Sacrament of the body and blood of the same his Son jesus christ. The certain truth whereof although by figures, prophecies, and by the lively word of christ himself it be certainly commended unto us: yet to the consirmation of the same truth to us ward, which otherwise in it self is most certain, it hath, I say, pleased him to confirm the same truth to us by diverse miracles, that we may be assured, though reason, though senses, though hell gates would arise against it, this is and shall be a truth, and ever endure a truth. 3 Reg. 18. In the time of Elias the Prophett when God and his holy faith and religion (as now it is with us) was so far forsaken that none were found, that openly for the fear of the king and wicked jesabel would profess the same, although some lay in caves and dens, as now I trust there do some, faith fully serving God, Elias moved by the spirit of God to have the religion and faith of God discerned from the religion of Baal would the trial of the same should be made by some miracle from heaven. Where unto the King and the people agreed, that if any miracle were done on Baalls' side he should be taken for God, and his religion received: if on Elyas side: his God and his religion should be embraced. The priests of Baal laid on their sacrifice, they called on their God in their manner, no fire came from heaven, no miracle was doen. After that they had done, Elyas prepared the saicrifice, he called on his God, fire came from heaven, and burned the sacrifice. Whereupon the people seeing the miracle, cried: Dominus ipse est Deus, Dominus ipse est Deus. Hour Lord is God, hour Lord is God. Even so now the ministers of Baal have perverted Christ'S faith and religion. The people in outward countenance for sear of laws have forsaken the same: They are now taught that christ is not really in the Sacrament duly ministered: They are taught that his body there is not to be honoured, They are taught, that the blessed Sacrifice of Christ'S body and blood is nothing available either to the quick or to the dead, with such other. christ is not in the sacramental bread of the new ministers, but he is in the B. Sacr. duly ministered by a priest. Now let them search all histories of antiquity, and show any one miracle that God hath wrought either in the time of Berengarius: of Wicleff, and hus, of Zwinglius Oecolampadius, or of this Proclaimer for the confirmation and declaration of that their faith, and if they do, we shall say that their faith is good: If they do not, and we do: let them yield and say that hour way is good. For like it is the truth there to be, where it pleaseth God to confirm the same by miracle: And like it is no truth to be on the contrary side where God doth not vouchsaffe at any time to commend it by some miracle? Now the catholic Church teacheth the presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament: The Adversary teacheth no body, but the figure of the body. The catholic Church teacheth Christ'S body in the Sacrament to be honoured: Luther and the Sacramentaries teach that it is not to be honoured. The catholic Church teacheth that Mass is to be used: Luther and the Sacramentaries teach that it is to be abhorred. Now as Elyas willed the priests of Baal, first to confirm their way with miracles: So let the Lutherans and the Sacramentaries, bring forth first some Miracle. As for miracles for the confirmation of their doctrine as touching this matter of the Sacrament, I never did nor could hear or read of any, but only of one, which is a miracle meet for the doctrine. Of which miracle Luther himself is the reporter, jonas his disciple being interpreter in his book of private Mass, where he saith thus: Ego coram vobis reverendis patribus Luther. & sanctis, confessionem faciam, date mibi absolutionem bonam, quae vobis (opto) quamminimum noceat. Contigit me semel sub mediam noctem subito expergefieri. Ibi Sathan mecum caepit eiusmodi disputationem. Audi (inquit) Luthere, doctor perdocte. Nosti te quindecim annis celebrasse Missas privatas penè quotidiè. Quid si tales Missae horrenda essent Idololatria? Quid si ibi non adfuisset corpus & sanguis Christi, Sed tantùm panem & vinum adorasses, & aliis adorandum proposuisses? I will before you reverend and holy Fathers make a confession, give me a good absolution, which I wish may nothing hurt you. It happened me once at midnight suddenly to be wakened. Satan appeared to Luther and disputed with him of private Mass. There Satan began this manner of disputation with me. Hearken (saith he) if well learned doctor Luther. Thowe knowest that by the space of these fifteen years, if havest said private Mass all most every day. What if such private Masses were abominable Idolatry? What if there hath not been present the body and blood of christ, but that thou hadst honoured only bread and wine and hadst set it forth to other to be honoured? Thus much Satan to Luther. In which talk Satan goeth about to confirm three points of their doctrine, that is, that Christ'S body and blood be not in the Sacrament, but only bread and wine: That christ in the Sacrament is not to be adored: And that private Masses are not to be used. See ye not now what a miracle here is, that Satan would vouchsafe to speak with Lurher at middenight? is not this doctrine much confirmed now, that Satan hath persuaded it? who knoweth not that Satan persuadeth to heresy, not to the right faith? to evil, not to good? to falsehood, not to truth? Wherefore Christian reader, if if wise be, flee that he persuadeth thee unto, and embrace that he dissuadeth thee from. And thus to a good Christian this doing of Satan may be occasion of confirmation in faith. For where Satan dissuadeth Luther from the Mass, from the belief of the presence of christ in the Sacrament, from the honouring joan. 8. of christ theridamas, we may be certain and sure that the Mass is good, that the presence of christ in the Sacrament, and the honouring of him there be wholesome and good doctrines. For he being (as christ saith) a liar, and 1. Pe. 5. a manisleer from the beginning: seeketh not to teach us the truth, nor to help to save is, but raither (as S. Paul saith) he being our adversary goeth about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour, whom God grant us strongly to withstand in faith. Thus I say, occasion is given us to be confirmed in that faith from the which Satan would dissuade us. But as touching the matters which Satan would persuade by his devilish apparition to Luther, if there were no more said, a wise reader would by these few words easily perceive, how good and true the doctrine of the Proclaimer is, which is such as Satan persuaded, and even the very same. This being all the miracles that I can find of the confirmation of the proclaimers doctrine, I may thus conclude, that forasmoch as this doctrine is setforth by the apparition and persuasion of Satan, and not by God, that it is Satan's doctrine and not gods. Now for the catholic doctrine let us see if God hath beside his figures, prophecies, plain speeches of his only begotten Son jesus christ, and the great number of assertions, declarations, and expositions of most holy famous, ancient and learned Fathers, showed any miracles for the confirmation of the truth of the blessed Sacrament. And First let us see for the presence of christ in the Sacrament. Satan persuaded Luther that there is not present the body and blood of christ, but bread and wine let us try the truth thereof by God's work. Amphilochius an holy Bishop, who lived within the compass of four hundreth years after christ and therefore a good number of years, more In vita Ba. The blessed Sacr. delivered to a jew was very flesh and very blood in seight than eleven hundred agone, writing the life of S. basil, testifieth that a certain jew desirous to see the mysteries of the Christians, came among an infinite multitude to the church where S. basil said Mass. And feigning himself to be a Christian, and being among them at S. basil's Mass, saw in the hands of S. basil a child divided. Never the less when the time of the communion came, he stood among other to do as they did and when the Sacrament was delivered unto him, it was yerie flesh: And when the cup was brought to him, it was very blood: of which both as he might keeping some part, when he came home he showed them to his weif, and told her what he had seen with his eyes. Whereupon believing that the mysteries of the christians were wonderful, the next day he went to S. basil, and told him all the whole matter, and desired him that he might without delay be christened and so he was, and all his household. It is red also in the lives of the Fathers, that there was a certain old man, who although he were a great man: yet he was simple and did err in the matter of the Sacrament, and said that the consecrated bread which we do receive is not the natural body of christ, but a figure of it. This his error when two ancient men did understand and know that his life and conversation other wise was good, they thought that he did it innocently, and simply. And therefore they went to him and rehearsed his error to him. He granted that he did so say. They persuaded him that he should not so believe, but as the catholic Church doth. We (say they) believe that that bread is the body of christ, and that cup his blood in very deed, and not in The blessed Sacr. delivered to a doubting Christian appeared flesh. figure. But as in the beginning God taking a little earth, made man to his own image, and no man can say but that man, although he be made of the earth he is the image of God: Even so the bread, by cause he said: This is my body: we believe that it is verily his body. The old man said: except I may know it so to be in very deed, your reasons can not satisfy me: Then they said: Let us give ourselves to prayer this week, that God may vouchsafe to reveill this mystery unto us. After their prayer they three came to the church. And when the time came that they should receive, the one lie portion of the Sacrament delivered to that old man, was very bloody flesh, which when he saw he was afeard and cried, saying: I believe that the bread that is on the altar is thy body, and the cup is thy blood. And forthwith the flesh in his hand was made bread, and so he received it, and gave thanks to God. Let not the Adversary by scorning travail to reject this miracle or avoid the force of it by slander, saying that some papist hath invented it. For as it is testified, this was done, as the last rehearsed miracle was, with in the compass of four hundredth years after christ, at which time it were to much wickedness for the Adversary to think any vain inventions to have been devised for the maintenance of the truth of the Sacramet. I omit to allege here such miracles, as S. Cyprian and S. Ambrose report about the blessed Sacrament, for that I have made some mention of them already, and again by occasion shall. Many goodly miracles also be reported by S. Gregory, and many were done in his time, about this blessed Sacrament, which were to long to rehearse. These two therefore shall suffice to help us to perceive and understand God's pleasure and his holy truth as concerning the presence of Christ'S body in the blessed Sacrament. Satan persuaded Luther not to honour the body of christ in the Sacrament, but what the Church hath done from the Apostles time, and what the holy Martyrs and learned Fathers teach in this matter it is declared in the second book: Besides which knowledge so left unto us of God, we shall Optatus li. 2. cont Donatist. perceive gods pleasure by miracle, that the blessed Sacrament should be honoured. In the which matter it is very notable that Optatus reporteth of the Donatists, who being cruel heretics, so far misliked what was done by the catholics, that violently invading their Churches, they commanded the Sacrament to be given to the dogs. But the judgement of God Dogs after their eating of the Sacrament worowed their Masters that cast it unto them. not suffering so heinous an offence to be unpunished, so great contumelic to the dishonour of the blessed Sacrament, to be unrevenged: The dogs unto their own masters whom before they loved and defended, now being enemies, fell on them as on strangers or thieves, and with all violence as though they had never known them, waxed fierce on them and worowed them, God hereby (as I take it) signifying unto us that as rabbish men forgot their duty and honour to their Lord God: so the unreasonable creatures forgot their love to their masters. Whether they have offended and displeased God, that in this our time have as wickedly abused the Sacrament, as did these Donatists, they may by this miracle easily perceive. And this may we perceive also, that as the dishonouring of the Sacrament offendeth and displeaseth God, and therefore he punisheth it, So in the honouring of the Sacrament, never any Idolatry was committed, for we never readd it punished. Let any of the Adversaries, if they can bring forth any one sufficient example, that ever any one was punished of God, for honouring christ in the Sacrament, and then they have done somewhat, but they never could yet, nor never shall, so weak is their cause. Against the Mass also Satan persuaded Luther, and good cause why. For by the Mass his power as well in extern or worldly things as in intern Satan his power abated by the virtue of the Mass. or spiritual things, is overthrown. For worldly things we have the testimony of S. Augustine, who as before is mentioned, testifieth that by the offering of the sacrifice of the body and blood of christ (which is the Mass) the wicked power of the Devil molesting the house of a certain man, and moche disquieting his family and servants, was clean driven away, Aug li. 22. De civit. Dei. ca 1 and the house after well quieted. How moche then so ever they cry out against Mass, how great ab homination soever they make it to say that the sacrifice of Christ'S body is offered by the priest: how moche soever Satan and his disciples would extenuate the virtue and power of it: yet in spite of their teeth they must hear S. Austen say, that the priest offered the sacrifice of Christ'S body. And what is it to offer the sacrifice of Christ'S body, but to say Mass? And to say Mass is to offer this sacrifice. And where Satan's Angels troubled the house of this man to great hurt both of his servants and of his cattail, when Mass was said in the house, the power of Satan was put to flight. Yowe may perceive then, that it is not without cause, that Satan stirred up his ministers so cruelly and fiercely to cry out, to rail, and to rage against the blessed and holy Mass. For being devoutly and godly done, it weakeneth his power, it withstandeth his malice, it abateth his tyranny, and diminisheth his kingdom. And by this ye may consider how acceptable a thing the Mass is that at once saying the devil and his Angels were driven away. If the Mass were so detestable before God as they would make it, God would at the doing of it have caused more devels to come to the house, rather than by the doing of it to put them to flight. Thus may you perceive that God commendeth to us the goodness of the Mass by miracle. In spiritual things it also abateth the power of the Devil, for it diminisheth the force of temptation (as saith S. Bernard) Duo enim illud sacramentum operatur in nobis, ut videlicet & sensum minuat in minimis, & in gravioribus peceatis tol Sermon. de Baptis. lat omnino consensum. Si quis vestrum non tam sepè modò, non tam acerbos sentit iracundiae motus, luxuriae, aeut caeterorun huiusmodi, gratias agat corpori, & sanguini Domini quoniam virtus sacramenti operatur in eo. Two things that Sacrament worketh in us, that in lesser sins it diminisheth the feeling, and in greater sins it taketh away consent. If any of you do not so often now feel so bitter motions of wrath, of envy, of lechery, or such other, let him give thanks to the body and blood of ower lord. For the virtue of the Sacrament worketh in him. Thus the body and blood of christ in the Sacrament with standeth the fury of Satan and his Angels both in outward things and inward things. Now let not the Adversary cavil that because S. bernard saith here that the virtue of the Sacrament worketh, that he understandeth not christ Three things to be attended in the bless. Sacr. himself to be given in the Sacrament, but the virtue. For S. bernard with all catholics acknowledgeth three things in the Sacrament, the outward forms, the body and blood of christ, and the spiritual grace which three he professeth in a sermon saying. Tria in sacramento Altaris attendere debes, speciem panis, veritatem carnis, virtutem gratiae spiritualis. usque ad speciem panis sensus pertingit exterior: ad veritatem carnis fides interior: ad virtutem gratiae spirituallis charitas Bernardus sermon. de Cana Dom superior. Three things though oughtest to attend in the Sacrament of the altar: The outward form of bread: The verity of the flesh: the virtue of spiritual grace. Unto the outward form of bread reacheth the outward sense: Unto the verity of the flesh the inward faith: Unto the virtue of the spiritual grace, perfect charity. So that in the Sacrament is both the body of christ, unto whom we must give thanks and the virtue of the spiritual grace therein received, for the which we aught to give thanks. The pleasure of God being by his miraculous works showed to be other wise, yea even contrary to that that it pleased Satan to persuade Luther as touching the presence of christ in the holy Sacrament, and the hovouringe of him in the same, with or service and duty in the holy sacrifice of the Mass: we will cease to say any more upon the words of S. Bernard. But if you desire to be advertised of some notable practice, call to remembrance Paul Diacon. the history of the noble matron of Rome, who by Satan's tentation encumbered and in (faith as many be now a days) blinded that could not believe the very body and blood of christ to be in the blessed Sacrament, but coming to the Mass and joining in company with other to receive, when in the delivery of the Sacrament to her, she heard these words: The body of our Lord jesus christ, awail thee to the remission of sins, she similed, which when S. Gregory perceived and by examination understood her unbelieve, he and the people prayed and after prayer going again to the altar, and taking the Blessed Sacrament in his hand, to the help of the faith of that woman and the confirmation of the faith of the people, it was of the one and of the other seen as a very bloody fleshly little fingar. Whereupon S. Gregory willed her to remember the saying of christ: The bread which I will give you, is my flesh. Which so being seen, and prayer made by S. Greg. and the people, that it might be reduced to the form that it might be received, it came forthwith so to pass, and she thus of an unfaithful made a faithful received the blessed Sacrament, as other faithful had doen. Thus she holden captive in lack of faith in the forts of Satan, was by the holy ministration of christ at the Mass delivered from the same. And now that we have made report of one miracle, done in the time of S. Gregory, we will touch one or two more reported by him and so end this matter of proof. Thus writeth S. Gregory: Non longè à nostris fertur tempori bus factum, quòd quidam ab hostibus captus, longè transductus est. Cumue diu teneretur in vin Greg. hom. 37. culis, eum uxor sua, cùm ex eadem captivitate non reciperet, extinctum putavit. Pro quo iam velut mortuo, hostias hebdomadibus singulis curabat offerri. Idem ergo vir longo pòst tempore reversus, admirans valdè, suae indicavit uxori, quod diebus certis, hebdomadibus singulis, eius vincula soluebantur. Quos videlicet dies eius uxor, atque horas discutiens, tunc eum Aprisoners' chains loosed by vert we of the Mass. recognovit absolutum, cùm pro eo sacrificium meminerat oblatum. It is said to be done not long before our time, that a certain man taken of his enemies was carried into a far country, and when he was long kept in prison, so that he could not come home to his wife, she thought that he had been dead. For whom as for one being dead, she caused wekelie sacrifice to be offered. The same man after a long while returning home, greatly wondering declared unto his wife that certain days every week his bands were loosed: Which days and hours, when his wife had well remembered, she perceived him then to be loosed from his bands when she caused sacrifice to be offered for him. Thus he. In this miracle reported by S. Gregory, this may we first perceive, that Mass for the dead before S. Gregory's time. the order of the universal Church was to pray for the dead, and to offer sacrifice for them, which thing moved this woman supposing her husband in captivity to have been dead, to cause the sacrifice of Mass to be celebrated for him certain days every week, Again this is to be observed, that Chrysts sacrifice being offered for that man as for one that was dead, was not overpassed or let fall from the merciful seight and hearing of God, as a thing done in Gregorius. ibidem. vain, but miraculously, where it was offered to lose the bands if a dead man (he being a live) it loosed the bands of a living man. Which thing S. Gregory very godly also doth note upon the same miracle, by these words: Hinc ergo, fratres chrissimi, hinc certa consideratione colligite, oblata à nobis hostia sacra, quantan in nobis solvere valeat ligaturancordis, si oblata ab altero, potuit in altero solvere vincula corporis. Virtue of the Mass. Of this then deareli beloved, of this do you certenlie gather, how much the holy sacrifice offered of us, may lose the band of conscience, if being offered of one, it might in an other lose the bands of the body. The same S. Gregory also reporteth an other miracle done by one Agapetus, a very holy and a virtuous man by the report of diverse writers, and Bishop of Rome before the said Gregory. It happened the said Agapetus A miracle done in the Mass upon a dumb and lame man. go to Constantinople to the Emperor Instinian. Unto whom, as he travailed in the way, was brought one being both lame and dumb to be cured, who was so sore taken, that he could neither speak any word, nor was able to rise from the ground. When the holy man understood, that they that brought him had faith in God, that God by him would cure the diseased man, he prepared himself to Mass, and doing the solemn service of the same, he offered up the sacrifice in the seight of almighty God, which being done, he went from the altar, and took the lame man by the hand, and in the seight of all the people, he lifted him up, and set him on his feet. And when he had put the body of our Lord in the mouth of the dumb man, that tongue that long before had been bound, and could not be framed to speak a word now is loosed, and the man can speak, and with all his friends rejoice and praise God. In this miracle I will not encumber the reader with many notes, but this only I wish to be marked, that the Mass is holy and the power of the blessed Sacrament is great, for when after the Mass it touched the dumb tongue it made it forthwith to speak. Now reader of many, I have produced a few miracles to the intent thou mayst perceive, and be assured, that if the doctrine of the presence of christ in the Sacrament were wicked capharnaites doctrine (as the Adversary termeth it) or the sacrifice of christ on the altar were the robbery of God's honour, or the whole ministration of the holy and blessed Mass were filthy stinking abomination, as gods enemies abominably termeth it, God would never commend it to us with so many miracles. And hereunto if thou add the lowly and reverent service done of the holy Angels unto the blessed Sacrament, in the time of the Mass, as it is testified of chrysostom, S. Ambrose, and S. Gregory, thou shalt not need (I suppose) to fear to follow the faith of the holy Church in believing, neither to do the duty, and show thine obedience with them in honouring, nor to leave thy charity at the Mass time, but for the quick and the dead always to be praying. For why shall man fear to confess Christ'S presence, where the Angels do acknowledge it? Why shall manstaie to do most humble honour, where Angels use most lowly obeisance? Why shall man forsake and flee from that as from a serpent, where Angels are desirous to be present? Look therefore to thyself (o Christian man) and join with Angel provoking thee to thy duty, and consent not to Satan though he call the Mass, Idolatry. For this I will assure thee, that the Mass was never so termed but Jssue joined with all Sacramenries that the Mass was never by any catholic called idolatry. by Satan. And here I will make this issue with Satan and the Proclaimer, and all the rest of Satan's disciples, that although the Mass hath been in use by the proclaimers own confession, more than eleven hundredth years agone. For he saith, although falsely, that the name of Mass began but four hundredth years after christ, yet they never have nor never shall find any one approved catholic author either within the compass of those four hundredth years or since that saith as they do, that the Mass is Idolatry. If none say it then he and his complices speak it of themselves, & qui ex propriis loquitur, mendacium loquitur. Finally to conclude for our faith, that it is to god's pleasure, we have beside the scriptures and Fathers, the testimony of miracles. Let now the Proclaimer, if he can, bring forth one miracle for the confirmation of his religion. If he can not, let him learn to know himself, and his company, to be the priests of Baal under jezable. And let him confess the catholics the priests of God with Elyas the Prophett. Neither, reader, be though dissuaded or out of countenance, if thou see any of Satan's scholars mocking or scorning at these miracles, which is their manner of following of arguments, when other wise they can not avoid that is said. For understand and mark well, that none of these by me alleged, were yesterday done, but they were all done before and in time of S. Gregory. And therefore upon the point of a thousand years and uppewarde, and are reported and testified by right grave and holy men. I know that these miracles will and have spited the rebellious enemies of God, and his christ. For the Phariseis could not abide the miracles, that christ himself did, but wickedly said: that in Beelzebub prince of devels he casteth out devels. The Arrians not bearing miracles confirming the faith of christ, which they impugned, either derided them, or said they were feigned miracles, or flatly, though the matter were never so evident denied them, as in S. Ambrose it may be at large found testified. So for that these Sermon. 91 de invent. corp. Geruas'. & Protha. miracles commend and confirm the catholic faith, which our heretics now impugn, they will with the pharisees, with the Arrians and with Melancthon, and Vadian for spite mock, and scorn at them, call them feigned miracles or deny flatly any such to have been doen. But consider though the reporters: They be saint Amphiloch, S. Optatus, S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine, and S. Gregory, which all be in time ancient, in life famousely holy, in learning with moche commendation excellent, of the Church ever received, and therefore of a vain man not to be rejected. Great is the difference betwixt the credit of a number exalted to glory, and of some yet living in sinful misery. There is great odds betwixt them, whose doctrine hath always been approved, and those whose doctrine is allwais reproved. To be short, it is more wisdom to believe an holy saint reporting, than a wicked heretic denying. For that then these miracles be reported of such as be reputed holy saints, it is very meet, and most safety for us to believe them. THE THREE AND fortieth CHAPT. MAketh recapitulation of the conferences of the Masses of the Apostles and Fathers of the primitive Church, and of the catholic Church that now is, with a brief confutation of the conference made by the Proclaimer between, the Mass of S. james and that is now used. FOrasmoch as a matter discoursed at large, being drawn into a compendious and brief form is sooner attained, and better kept in memory: therefore, and for that also I would take just occasion to open and show the follies vanities, and shameful untruths of the conference that the Proclaimer hath made between the Mass of S. james, and the Mass now used of the catholic Church: I will, as it were into a brief Sum collect that is said, and make a short recapitulation of that, which of necessity both for the opening of the matter, and for answering of the Proclaimer, I was compelled more at length to setforth. The Proclaimer divided the Mass into four parts: into holy doctrine, holy prayer, holy consecration, and holy Communion. Of the first, which is holy doctrine, I mean the Epistle and Gospel, but that they should be red and used in the Mass there is no controversy, therefore have I entered no disputation thereof. In the other three there be by the Proclaimer and his likes, controversies moved, which ye have heard by sufficient good authorities discussed and dissolved. And here breislie to repeat the parts as we have treacted of them, we have A brief collection of the conferences of the Mass now used and of the new communion with the Mass of the Apostles and Fathers. first to speak of Consecration. Consecration, as it is used now in the catholic Church, hath been by me conferred to the consecration used by the Apostles and Fathers, and is found in all substantial parts to agree. The schismatical ministration in most of them disagreeth. The intention of the Apostles and Fathers in and upon consecration is showed, wherein they are perceived to have believed, that by their due consecration, the very body and blood of christ by the almighty power of God and virtue of his word were made present in that blessed Sacrament. Wherun to the faith and intention of the catholic Church being conferred, it is found fully to agree. The schismatical Church altogether dissenteth and disagreed. Upon their consecration the Apostles and Fathers made in the remembrance of Chrysts passion, death, resurrection, and ascension, an oblation or sacrifice Sacrificeused of the Apostles. abhorred of the Sacramentaries. of the same body to God the Father according to the institution and ordinance of christ. The doing of the catholic Church in this point is conferred and found agreeable. The schismatical church is so far wide from following the Apostles and Fathers, that it can not abide to hear such sacrifice as much as once named or spoken of. The catholic Church in the Mass maketh humble supplication and petition for the merciful acceptation of their sacrifice, which manner of supplication the Proclaimer most fondly and undiscretlie derideth and scorneth. But by conference it is found that the catholic Church followeth therein the phrase of scriptures, Apostles and Fathers, and doth altogether as is found to have been done by them, so nearly that it prayeth with the same words that the Fathers did. The Schismatical congregation as it followeth not the Apostles and Fathers in making this oblation or sacrifice so contemneth it their prayer for acceptation. Thus much being said of Consecration, intention, oblation, and acceptation, we descended to the prayers in the Mass, wherein be two things which Prayer for the dead used of the Aposts and the catholic Church despised of the Schism. the Schismatical church impugneth that is, prayer for the dead, and invocation of Saints. As for that the catholic Church prayeth for the dead, the doing thereof is conferred to the doings of the Apostles and Fathers, and it is found that they prayed for the dead in their Masses, and that they gave order to frequent and use prayer for the dead, wherefore it is evident that the catholic Church in so doing followeth them, and observeth their order appointed. The Schismatical Church can not well be conferred herein, for it utterly abandoneth all prayer for the dead so that it hath not one title for that purpose, and where nothing is, no comparison can be made. Invocation of Saints used in the Mass, is also conferred with the doings of the Apostles and Fathers, and found to have been done by them in their Masses. Jnuocation of Saints likewise. The Schismatical Church as in this it flieth the doing of the catholic Church: so doth it sly the doing of the Apostolic and primitive Church whose doctrine and example the catholic Church holdeth and followeth. Finally we come to holy Communion, where the catholic Church is accused and charged in two points heinously to offend. The one that the priest tarrieth not allwais for some number of communicants: The other, that to such as do communicate at times, but one kind is ministered. For these two points, as for the other before, the ancient precedents of the primitive Sole Communion and under one kind used in the primitive church and ancient church are sought, and laid forth, and no commandment found forbidding the priest in his Mass, or any other man sick or whole to receive alone. And the practice also of the same Church showeth that oftentimes one kind only was received, and none offence therein judged. Whereunto the use of the catholic Church being conferred, it is found to be agreeable and to do that that in the primitive Church was practised. The Schismatical Church under pretence of singular obedience, committing great disobedience, and under the countenance of sincere imitation using a wicked innovation, neither communicateth under one kind, nor alone, thinking that of necessity it must so be, and contemneth the ancient practice of the primitive Church and most fiercely accuseth the whole Church for these thousand years of the transgression of Christ'S institution and commandment. Thus ye may see that the Mass of the catholic Church for the substantial parts, and points of it being conferred to the Mass of the Apostles and Fathers of the primitive and ancient Church, is found to be fully agreeable, and the Communion of the Schismatical Church in all points disagreeable. If the Mass had disagreed or dissented in any substantial point thou mayst be well assured (gentle Reader) that the Proclaimer would not by so slender, so impertinent yea and so untrue conferences, have gone about to improve and disgrace it, as he doth. He conferred it with the Mass of S. james but in such sort, that if he had never made pithier oration in the disputation at the parvis in Oxford, I ween he should never have been allowed for a general Sophister. But God be praised that his catholic Church is so appointed, that the enemies can not find any weighty matter justly to repugn or reprove it. But let us see his conferences. S. james (saith he) said Mass in the common tongue, as the people might understand him: They say their Mass in a strange tongue, that the people should not know what they mean. This is the first piece of his conference. The man lacked good stuff to begin his work, when he is fain in the first show of all to place such pelf. Confider, I pray thee, gentle reader, that if it should be in question whether Plato were a man, and his enemy should come in and say, he was no man because he spoke latin, it were but a fond argument and all together impertinent. For the matter to be tried is about the substance of Plato, and not about any accident, and the enemy growndeth upon the accident and leaveth the substance: So the question here is whether the Mass be good or no, which is about the substance of the thing, and he cometh in with an argument of an accident, that it is said in latin, and therefore it is not good, what is this to the purpose? Many a thing is good in it self, though it be not of all understanded. The seven liberal Sciences be good though they be not understanded of all men. The holy scriptures be good in themselves though all men understand them not. Yea, even now when they be in the vulgar tongue they will not speak so familiarly no not to the ministers, that every minister may understand them: and yet they be good. So is the Mass likewise good though all the people understand it not. This argument therefore proveth nothing against the Mass. If he would rightly have proceeded he should have proved no Mass to be or that that is called Mass to be in substance not good, before he should improve it, for being said in an unknown tongue (as he termeth it) for it is meet it be disputed whether the thing be, before it be disputed whether it be of this manner of that. Against his first comparison therefore we may conclude, that as S. james Mass said in the Hebrew tongue, was in it self godly and good, though the greek or latin being at the same understand not what was said: so the Mass now said in the catholic Church in the latin tongue though the english or french man understand it not, yet it is godly and good in it self. His second comparison is: S. james spoke out the words of consecration: They in their Mass suppress the same words, and keep them close. Hitherto the Proclaimer playeth small game. He had liefer in a weighty matter speak some trifling word, then say nothing. Malice will cast dust or what soever cometh to hand at his enemy in want of better weapon. Here seemeth a bare Armoury where so weak a weapon is bend against that, which with all force he would overthrow. He hath small fauts to object against the blessed Mass, when loud speaking or soft speaking is made a fault. As before is said, what is this to the substance of the Mass? As the Mass said, is as good as the Mass song, so is the Mass softelie spoken in substance as good as the Masfe lowdlie The primitive church prayed many prayers of the Mass secretly. spoken. Is not your own Communion as good said as song, if there were any goodness in it? or is it not as good said in a great congregation where some stand so far of as they can not hear the words of consecration which in that case are spoken as in soused silence to them, as it is being song in a small congregation where all the people may hear? Were all the Masses in the ancient Church throughlie out spoken aloud? Let the Proclaimer look the books, and he shall find it otherwise. Did S. basil in his Mass pronounce the whole action of consecration with a loud voice? No, when he began the Canon to entre toward consecration he prayed secretly, and the rule is prefixed at the beginning of the prayer: Pontifex secretè. The Bishop prayeth this secretly. By imitation whereof I think it received throughout the catholic Church to pray the prayers of the Canon secretly. And when S. basil came to the consecration, did he speak the whole process with a loud voice? No, part he spoke with a loud voice, part with a secret or sost voice, but this much the Proclaimer did not know percase when he objected this secret speaking for a salt: If he did, he objected it more of malice then of truth or wisdom. How shender then this comparison is, and of what weak force it is, it may easily be perceived. The third comparison is this S. james in his Mass ministered the Communion to the people: They in their Mass, receive themselves alone. This comparison in some understanding is true, in some it smelleth of untruth. If it be understanded particularly and not generally that is, that S. james sometimes when he said Mass ministered the Communion to the people, it is true. And so it is true that the catholic Church sometime ministereth the Sacrament to to the people when Mass is said. If it be understanded generally, that saint lame at all times when he said Mass ministered the Communion to the people, it smelleth, I say, of an untruth, and so shall stand and be reputed, until the Proclaimer prove it. For I see so little truth, in in him, that without some better authority than his own bare word, I can not believe him in this matter. And that I thus do, I have even in this Mass said without commucants matter good cause. For as I find that in the Church of Constantinople Mass was daily said, when the people did not communicate: so do I find a rule made in the ancient Church, what the priest should do, when there were no communicantes. wherebily being evident that Mass was said without communicantes, it smelleth, as I said, of an untruth, that S. james ministered the communion to the people always, when he said Mass. In Missa Chrysost. And for so much as it so doth, it raither declareth the malice of him that would somewhat say against the holy Mass, than that of certain knowledge he can avouch any thing against it. Now cometh the fourth comparison, which is of as much force as this last was, and yet if any force be in all his heap of comparisons, it is in these two. This is the comparison: S. james in his Mass ministered the communion to the people under both kinds: They in their Mass minister the Sacrament unto the people in one kind only. A proposition framed in an argument, and not containing the whole truth of the matter disputed, may well be rejected wherefore in consideration that the Proclaimer travaileth to improve every Mass in the It is evident by diverse histories that the bless. Sacr. hath been ministered under one kind in the primitive Church which the Sacrament is not ministered under both kinds, allegeth S. james Mass, as in which S. james did always give the Sacrament to the people under both kinds, this allegation is to be rejected as insufficient for it is only said but not proved, and so he maketh his conclusion upon his premises, before the parts of his argument be granted. Nay Sir, tarry a while and prove that S. james always when he said Mass ministered the Sacrament to the people under both kinds. And if you prove it not, as I know you can not, it shall be cast into the bag of your untruths, among your other store. That S. james did not always minister the Sacrament under both kinds I have not only a vehement presumption, but the practice of the primitive and ancient church which would infringe and break no necessary order fully persuadeth me so to believe, forasmuch as in the time of Tertullian, who was near to the Apostles in the time of S. Cyprian, who was not long after him, in the time of S. basil and other, the Sacrament was diverse times ministered under one kind. But let us see an other of his comparisons the fift comparison is this. S. james in his Mass preached and setfurtb the death of christ: They in their Mass have only a number of dumb gestures and ceremones, which they themselves understand Amaliciou seslaunder. not, and make no manner of mention of Chrysts death. Hitherto he hath made conferences impertinent and slender: now for lack of such pelting store, he is fain to bodge up a few more even with flat lies. I told you before his store of stuff was not great, and that his armoury was not well furnished with weapons and now it doth appear. Ye have seen the best stuf and sharpest weapons, now is he driven to this shift to set up Skarecrowes in stead of men, I mien, untruths in stead of truths to scare away simple men from the blessed Mass as the Skarecrowes do the simple fowls and birds from the corn, each of them making the poor creatures to think them to be that in deed they be not. That S. james setforth the death of christ I well allow, Three untruths in one comparison of the proclaimers. and willingly confess but that the Mass of the catholic Church is none other than he reporteth, it is to manifest an untruth. And that my saying may be justified in the seight of all men, it shall be made evident that there be here in this one place three untruths packed together. Firsthe saith that the Mass of the catholic Church hath only a number of dumb gestures and ceremonies. secondly, that we ourselves understand them not. thirdly, that the Mass maketh no mention of Chrysts death. As for the first, what face had he so to say, sith there be diverse Fathers some of two or three, some of four or five, some of seven and eight hundredth years agone, which have written in this matter, and have given a reason of every ceremony in the Mass, and declared what every of them do signify, of which I have named some already, so that they be not dumb ceremonies, but lively signifying unto us godly things, which here to rehearse is now no place. But as to his shame there hath been mention made already of some Father's writing of these things: so shall there hereafter, if I be provoked, to his more shame and confusion, a greater number be produced and the ceremonies also opened and declared. In the mean while this may be to his shame, and the confusion of his untruth that notwithstanding so many authors have written and declared these things, that he either ignorantly or maliciously saith now that they be dumb ceremonies. And yet to add to these, this may I say, first, that in case we could not give a reason of every ceremony, might not the Proclaimer, if he were godly disposed, as well bear it, as the Fathers of the Primitive Church who said that of the gesturs and ceremonies then used, few could give a reason or understanding. secondly, that the gesturs and ceremonies of the Mass, are an hundredth fold more lively than the gesturs of their barren communion. His second untruth being more arrogant, then reproachful is in this first untruth answered. For where he arrogantly condemneth the whole Church for this thousand year, that it did not understand the ceremonies of the Mass, besides that his saying is very false, for that diverse fathers have (as I said) written thereof, he would be demanded what proof he hath to maintain this his malicious arrogant saying. How proveth he that all the Church did not understand the ceremonies of the Mass? Had he commission from God to examine all the Church that hath been since the Mass was received? Hath he examined all the holy Martyrs, all the holy Confessors the bishops, Doctors, Fathers, and all other holy learned men, that have been in all this time? If he hath not, how dare he thus arrogantly to pronounce and condemn them of ignorance. O vane arrogant man. But let us examine his third untruth. In the third untruth he is as impudent and shameless as he is in the second arrogant. He saith that the Mass maketh no manner of mention of A brief explication of the lively representation of Chrysts passionin the Mass. Chrysts death, where it doth not only contain the memorial of Chrysts death by the consecration, oblation, and receiving of his blessed body and blood according to his institution in his last supper, but also by outward ornaments and gesturs expesseth all or most of the circumstances of his passion, as the albe with which the priest is clothed, signifieth the white garment that christ was sent in from Herode: the vestment signifieth the garment that he was mocked in, in the howsse of Pilate: the cross upon the vestiment signifieth the cross of christ which the priest beareth on his back going to the altar, in signification that christ bore his cross upon his back to the place of execution. And as christ was there lifted upon the cross: so his body and blood consecrated on the altar are there to the lively remembrance of the same his elevation, elevated, speaking (as it were) to us this: As ye see this body and blood here lifted up distinctly and sunderlie apart, so was this body once lifted up for you upon the cross, where the side of the same body being pierced the blood for your redemption ran out and was divided apart from the body as here ye see it apart For the like admonition the priest elevating the blood of christ saith: As often as ye do this, ye shall do it in the remembrance of me. That the Proclaimer than saith, that the Mass maketh no manner of mention of Chrysts death, is such and impudent untruth, that a plain man will term it a shameful false lie. This place suffereth me not to answer every of his comparisons full. Wherefore I stay myself here, where moche more might be said, and will briefly touch the rest of his comparisons. His sixth comparison is this. S. james Mass was full of knowledge: Their Mass is full of ignorance. As vain glorious men, having not plenty of victuals in their larders, for their glories sake will invent some toy to supply a dish and furnish the service, so this man is now fain to run to his Rhetoric to make up a show of comparisons. But remember, gentle reader, that in the conferences, and comparisons which I have made at large, I have declared the same knowledge that was in S, james Mass, to be in the Mass of the catholic Church that is now, forasmuch as in substance they be all one. S. james Mass hath the knowledge of the consecration of the body and blood of christ: so hath the Mass of the Church now the consecration of the body and blood of christ. In S. james Mass, the oblation of them was made in the memorial of Chrysts death: In the Mass now the oblation of them is made in the remembrance of his death. In S. james Mass was knowledge to offer the body and blood of christ and to make prayer for the living and dead: in hour Mass is the like. In S. james Mass was the knowledge of the receipt of the same body and blood: in our Mass is the same body and blood received. How then saith this man that our Mass is full of ignorance? Let him show, if he can what knowledge was in S. james Mass that is not in the Mass of the Church. Be well assured, Reader, that he can not. For as the Masses are in substance one and not diverse: so be they in knowledge one and not diverse. But this dish he devised for you out of his Rhetoric, of the same confection is the next, which is his seventh comparison, and saith thus: S. james Mass was full of consolation: their Mass is full of superstition. Here ye may see his gift of amplification. For he hath made a large show in terms, and done nothing in deed. I pray you, what consolation was there in Saint james Mass that is not in the Mass now? and what superstition is in this, that was not in that? When you have declared these two, and proved that you have declared, than your amplification shall be somewhat in deed. In the mean while it shall stand for a fume of vain words to help to fill up your vain sermon. As for your eight comparison doth you small honesty, it showeth you were near driven, when you bring that in, for a new comparison, that was brought in before. For what difference betwixt your third comparison, where you said that S. james ministered the Communion in his Mass to the people, and this, which with certain alteration of words you make to appear an other comparison, when you say. When S. james said Mass the people resorted to receive the Communion, where in effect it is all one. But particularly to say to this comparison, what is this against the goodness of the Mass, that the people resort not to receive? your comparison is altogether against the people that come not to receive, as they did in the time of S. james, and not against the Mass, although you would have it sound against the Mass, so furious is the rage of your heresy to impugn the same, that it forceth you blindly to hit other, when you think to stick at it. If you had said, that when S. james said Mass, the people resorted to receive the body and blood of christ, but now when the Communion is said they come to receive a bare morsel of bread, and a sip of wine, you had made a new comparison and a true. Finally he concludeth his comparisons thus: And to conclude S. james in his Mass had Chrysts institution: They in their Mass have wellneer nothing else but man's invention. This comparison seemeth covertly to deny the institution of christ to be in the Mass, but plainly it doth it not, fearing that then it should be rejected as a plain lie. For it is already proved that in the Mass is the institution of christ. Where he saith, that it hath wellneer nothing but man's invention: if he term all things that the holy Ghost hath appointed to be set forth by men, the inventions of men, I can not skill of his inventions. For certain I am that of the Mass, as it hath been received, no more but consecration, oblation, and communion is of the institution of christ, The order of the Mass was left to be disposed by the Apostles the rest by the institution of the holy Ghost, was added by the Apostles and holy men. For, as S. Augustine saith, christ did not institute or appoint after what manner his supper should be celebrated, but he left that to his Apostles by whom he would set his Church in order. Wherefore the manner of the Mass being ordained and appointed at the instruction and motion of the holy Ghost, and the appointment of christ. it becometh not the Proclaimer so to abuse it, and discredit it with such terms, calling the contents thereof the inventions of men. A man in whom were regard of God, and his holy Church, would not so irreverently, and so contemptuously speak of things, that if they had not been ordained by the Apostles and men Apostolic, but had been only made by godly and virtuous Bishops, and had continued in estimation and reverence more than a thousand years, might it not have be comed the proclaimer reverently also to have received them, and so have termed them accordingly? If his Communion had but one hundredth years of reverend estimation, he would not a little triumph of it. But letting that pass as it is, he endeth his comparisons thus: such difference you may see between S. james Mass and their Mass. Soche is the difference for any thing that he in these comparisons hath said, that as before he was borne they were in substance all one: so be they still, and so will remain when he shall be rotten. But where I have made comparisons between S. james Mass, and the Communion of the Church of this Proclaimer and his complices, you may see manifest and great differences, not by my words, not by toys of rhetorical invention, not by untruths, but in the things themselves, in their substantial points, in matters of weight and truth. For such is the substantial dyfferences of the Mass and the new Commnunion difference between S. james Mass (which is the Mass of all the holy Apoles and fathers, and of the catholic Church that hath been or now is, for in substance all is one) and the new Communion of the new Church, that first where the Mass setting forth the matter of the Sacrament doth use bread, wine and water, the new Communion useth no water, wherein it doth neither follow the Apostles, nor so well and lively set forth the death of christ, as the Mass. For as out of the side of christ issued out both blood and water, so the Mass in the latin Church at the putting in of the water into the chalice, saith thus: of him be this water blessed, out of whose sideo ran out both blood and water. And the greek Church saith, these words of the scripture: Et unus militum lancea latus eius aperuit, & continuò exivit sanguis & aqua. And one of the Soldiers pierced his side with a speer, and forth with there went out blood and water: both well minding that blessed wellspring of Chrysts side, out of the which ran that cleansing water and blood that washed away the filth of our sins. Here you see one difference in substance. The Mass of the Apostles, Fathers, and catholic Church (as is said) had intention, and believed that they following Chrysts institution should consecrate the body and blood of christ: The new Communion of the new Church hath no such intention nor believeth, no nor mindeth nor pourposeth to consecrate the body and blood of christ according to his institution. The Mass, as before is said, followeth the institution and commandment of christ, who commanded saying: This do ye in the remem. and consecrateth as he did, his very body and blood: The new Communion, neither consecrateth the body and blood of christ, neither abideth the name of consecration, so far is it from that Church either to obey christ, or to follow the church of his Apostles and Fathers. The Mass according to Chrysts institution and commandment, as is proved, offereth his body and blood in sacrifice to the Father, in the remembrance of his passion and death. The new Communion not only abhorreth this to do, but also detesteth both the name of sacrifice, and the name of him that hath authority to do it, that is, A priest. The Mass aswell of the Apostles as other offereth the same sacrifice, as it is also proved, for the living and the dead. The new Communion of the new Church, deriding both, offereth neither for the one nor for the other. The Mass of the catholic Church desireth the aid and intercession of blessed Saints to commend their service and prayers to God: The new Church scorneth it, and useth it not in their Communion. The Apostles and fathers with great reverence and lowly humbleness came to an altar seemly, as meit it was, adorned to do this blessed oblation and memorial of Chrysts death. The minister of the new Communion cometh Tapster like to a pelting table only to eat and drink and to deliver to a few more a bare piece of bread and a cup of wine: so that the Apostles, and catholic Church in their Mass fed themselves and the people with the blessed body and blood of christ the fat and the sine flower of the heavenly wheat, and these feed themselves and the people with chaff and bran in respect, even a bare piece of bread, and a cup of wine. Soche difference is there, and such may you see betwixt the Apostles Mass, and the new communion. And these defferences be in weighty matters and substantial points, such as the doing or refusing of them, bringeth life or death, heaven or hell, salvation or damnation. Wherefore, Reader, look well to thy doings, there is no dallieng in Gods, matters. For the Mass there have been brought forth without all halting or colouring, without all dissembling and lying the ancient precedents of the Apostles, of their Disciples and of the Fathers of the Apostolic and primitive Church, as plainly, as truly, and as simply, as they be commended to us by the books of our elders. As for the comparisons of the Proclaimer, beside, that they be but voluntary deskant, they are toys, colours of Rethorik, cloaked untruths, setforth without all authority. Now therefore, which is to be embraced, whether the Mass commended to us by so good authority, great antiquity, long and reverend continuance: or the new Communion set forth without good authority and of no antiquity, and never yet reverently continued, it is of him that hath either grace or wisdom easy to be perceived. wherefore trusting that I have sufficiently instructed and warned the reader about the Mass, I end and go forward in my matter. THE FOUR AND fortieth CHAPT. RETVRning to the exposition of S. Paul, expoundeth this text. As often as ye shall eat of this bread etc. by S Hyerom and Theophilact. IDoo here omit the institution of the Sacrament declared by S. Paul to the Corinthians, as he had received the same of our Lord, for that in the second book those words of christ, and that his institution is largely spoken of and expounded by a great number of holy learned Fathers. Wherefore I thought it would be to tedious to the reader, and superfluous for me to expownde the same words here a gain. I come therefore to the words immediately following in S. Paul. As often as ye shall eat of this bread, and drink of the cup, ye shall show forth the death, of our Lord until he come. For that this text hath been wonderfully abused and by such abuse many of the simply have been deceived, and caused otherwise to think and believe of the blessed Sacrament, than the truth is, I have thought it good to open the true understanding of the same scripture to the reader, that he being instructed may withdraw his foot from the snares of Satan, and well espy his falsehood, and so eschew soch error, as he would entrap him into. Upon this text the ministers of Satan have ground two arguments against Christ'S real presence in the blessed Sacrament. The one is (as Two arguments of the Sacramentaries ground upon S. Paul. they say) that by this scripture it is manifest, that the Sacrament is instituted for a memorial of christ: A memorial is of a thing that is absent. Wherefore the Sacrament is a memorial of christ that is absent and not present. For (say they) what needeth a thing present, any memorial? it will cause it self to be remembered. The Sacrament then being a memorial of christ, argueth christ not to be present in the Sacrament, but to be absent. The other argument is, that S. Paul calleth the Sacrament not the body of christ but calleth it bread. For he saith that as often as ye shall eat of this bread, and saith not, as often as ye shall eat the body of christ in the Sacrament wherefore (say they) the Sacrament is but bread and not the body of christ. As touching the first, it is not true that christ did institute this Sacrament Solutions of the same argu. as a memorial of himself or of his body, but of his passion and death suffered in his bodies. which thing S. Paul here by express words doth teach saying: As often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup ye shall declare or setforth the death of our Lord. So that the eating and drinking of this Sacrament is not for a remembrance or a memorial of the body of christ in it self, as the Aduersare falsely pretendeth, but is (as is said) a memorial of the passion and death suffered, as is said, in that body, which passion and Receipt of the B. Sac. is not a memorial of Chrysts body but of his passion and death. death be once done actually, and never shall so be again in that glorious body, but only in mystery. Wherefore the passion and death whose memorial is celebrated in that solemn institution of Christ'S Sacrament is and ever shall be absent, and never present. And so is the Sacrament the memorial of a thing absent and not present, which thing is the passion and death of christ. As touching their second argument, true it is that S. Paul calleth the Sacrament bread, but will the Adversary thereupon induce that S. Paul meaneth material bread? even bakers bread? Though he would so induce: yet he neither doth nor can so prove it, nor never shall. Bread he calleth it, but Joan 6. S. Paulecalleth the Bl. Sacr. bread but he addeth withal the article this, to signify a special bread. what bread? even soch as christ the institutor of the Sacrament called it when he said: Panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est, quam dabo pro mundi vita. The bread that I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Wherefore S. Paul did not barely call it bread, but with an article, saying: This bread. As who might say: As often as ye shall eat of this bread, which is no common bread, but the bread of the flesh of christ, which as he gave it for the life of the world: So he did according to his promiss, give it us to eat in the Sacrament, that we should always have that his passion and death in mind. Therefore so often as ye eat of this bread, be ye mindful of Christ'S passion, and remember his death suffered for your redemption. Wherefore the whole Christian church aswell the greek church as the latin immediately Words of the Canonin the Mass. after the consecration (as before is declared) do say this in effect. Were therefore (o Lord) being mindful of the passion of thy Son our Lord jesus christ do offer unto thee, etc. The whole catholic Church by open profession of their duty in the holy ministration declareth their obedience, and the fulfilling of Christ'S commandment, in that they offering and receiving the blessed sacrifice of Christ'S body and blood, be mindful of the passion and death suffered in that same body, at the effusion of that precious blood. Thus ye see how they abuse this scripture. For both S. Paul's own words, and also the practice of the whole Church, doth declare that the holy Sacrament was instituted as a memorial of Christ'S death, and that it is not common bread, by S. Paul's own words, but it is (as is said) a special and singular bread noted with an article. But that this truth may be proved, and thereby their falsehood the more confuted, I will also as I have upon other texts produce the expositions, and understanding of holy Fathers and doctors, that it may be fully perceived Hieron. in. 11. 1. Cor. how this scripture is to be understanded, not by fantasy, but by their sound doctrines. And first we will hear saint Hierom upon the same text, who saith thus: Ideo hoc salvator tradididit Sacramentum, ut per hoc semper commemoremus quia pro nobis est mortuus. Name & ideo cùm accipimus à sacerdotibus commonemur, quia corpus & sanguis est Christi, ut beneficiis eius non existimemur ingrati. Therefore our saviour delivered this Sacrament, that by this we should always remember that he died for us. For therefore also when we receive it, What S. Paul calleth bread, S. Hieron calleth it the body of christ. we are warned of the priests, that it is the body and blood of christ, that we be not thought to be unthankful for his benefits. If this saying of S. Hierom be well noted, those two things, which I before taught, shall be found to be taught of him also. I taught, according to saint Paul, that the Sacrament was instituted for the memorial of Christ'S passion and death, saint Hierom saith that christ therefore gave forth the Sacrament, that we should always remember that he died forus, so that it is the death of christ that is to be remembered. I said that though saint Paul in this text useth this word bread: yet he meaneth not material bread but the heavenly bread the body of christ: so is he understanded of saint Hierom. For he saith, that when we receive the Sacrament, we are admonished that it is the body and blood of christ. So what saint Paul in the text calleth bread, that S. Hierom in the exposition calleth the body and blood of christ. Now who doubteth but the expositions of holy doctors be to explain that that seemeth in the text not to be plain, and so plainly and clearly to open the truth and the true meaning of the text. Forsomoch then as saint Hierom doth so here: we must needs say that by this word (bread) in this text of S. Paul, is understand the blessed bread of Christ'S body. To S. Hierom, we shall join Thcophilact, to declare how this scripture was understanded in the greek Church. Thus he writeth: Hoc facite, quottes biberitis, in meam commemorationem. Per poculum isthuc (inquit) memoriam facis Dominicae passionis. Theoph. in 11. 1. Cor. Quid tu igitur solus bibis & mebriaris, tremendo isto calice omnibus ex aequo tradito? This do as often as ye shall drink in the remembrance of me. By this cup (saith he) though makest a memorial of our lords death, why then dost thou alone drink, and art drunken seeing that this fearful cup is equally delivered to all. Thus Theophilact. See ye not that the cup of our lords table is received in the remembrance of his death? But it shall not be without profit to learn of him why Cup of our Lord a fearful cup. he calleth our lords cup, a fearful cup. If it be but a cup of wine (as the Adversary saith) it is not fearful but pleasant. Why it is a fearful cup it is declared of the same Theophilact expounding the text immediately going before, which is this: Likewise when he had supped be took the cup, saying: This cup is the new testament in my blood, upon this text he saith thus: Fuerunt & in veteri Testamento calices sive pocula, quibus sanguinem brutorum post victimam oblatam libarent. Pro sanguine itaque brutorum, qui vetus Testamentum veluti sigillo consignabat, meum ego nunc sanguinem pono, nowm Testamentum eo seu sigillo muniens. Ne turberis igitur sanguinem audience. Nam si irrationabilium sanguinem pecorum accepisti in veteri Testamento: quanto potius nunc divinum? There were in the old Testament also cups or pots in the which after the sacrifice they should offer the blood of brute beasts. Therefore for the blood of brute beasts, which did sign the old Testament as with a seal, I now setforth before you my blood, signing therewith the new testament as with a seal. For if if havest received the blood of unreasonable beasts in the old Testament, how much raither mayst though now receive the blood of God? In this exposition I wish it to be noted, how the author in the person of christ speaketh, saying: For the blood of brute beasts I put before thee my blood. Seist if then why he calleth the cup of our Lord a fearful A plain place for the Proclaimer. cup? It is because hour Lord in that cup putteth before thee his own blood. And what blood is it? Is it the blood of a pure or only man? Nay saith Theophilact, it is the blood of God. For (saith he) if in the old testament the blood of unreasonable beasts was received, much more now receive though the blood of God. Perceive them that it is the blood of God that is in the cup of our Lord. Wilt though fully perceive why it is fearful? Consider and understand that such is the conjunction of the Godhead with the manhood in christ, that where the manhood is or any part of it (if now it may beparted) there is also the Godhead. In the death of christ, the soul was parted from the body: the soul descended into hell, the body lay in the grave: the Godhead was wholly with the Soul descended into hell, it was also wholly with the body lying in the grave: Even so where the blood of christ is, forsomuch as christ is both God and man, that blood is the blood of God also and so there is the blood of God and man, which now being inseparable both from the manhood and the Godhead of christ, where the blood of God is, there is also God himself. Now then forasmoch as in the cup of our Lord there is the blood of God (as Theophilact saith) and where the blood of God is, there of consequence is also God: doth not Theophilact well in calling it a fearful cup? who may not well fear to approach so near unto his Lord God, and the more that he knoweth his own filthiness, and there by his unworthiness? As now you know why the cup of our Lord is fearful: so, what so ever the Adversary babbleth to the contrary, ye have learned that in hour lords cup is not bare wine but the blessed blood of God. What shall I need to allege any more of the sainges of Theophilact, seeing he hath already opened the truth that we seek for namely that the Sacrament is a memorial of Christ'S passion and death, and is also the same body Theoph. Ibid. and blood of christ that suffered. If any man will desire any other place let the same understand that Theophilact expounding this place, as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink of this cup, ye shall show forth the death of our Lord What we aught to think inreceaving the Bl. Sacr. until he come, saith thus: Eo affectu debetis esse imbuti, perinde quasi in illa ipsa esse tis Christicaena, & ab ipso Christo acciperetis sacrum istuc. Illa enim ipsa coena est, & illam ipsam mortem annunciamus. Ye should be of the same mind, or so be have yowrselues, as though ye were in the self-same supper of christ, and should take of christ himself this holy thing. It is even the same very supper, and we show forth the very same death. If ye will learn of Theophilact what christ gave in his last supper, expounding Christ'S words rehearsed by S. Paul, What christ delivered in his last supper. he saith thus: Ille verò in common, & generatim omnibus dixit: Accipite, edite, idue corpus suum, quod pro omnibus ex equo fregit, in mortem tradens. But he in common and generally said to all: Take, and eat, yea and that his body, which he broke equally for all delivering it to suffer death. Thus Theophilact. Here ye perceive by him, that christ gave his body in his last supper. And if this do not satisfy you, know that this Theophilact, as before is showed in the second book, and else where, where he expoundeth S. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and john, saith that christ gave in his last supper, his very body, and not an only a figure of his body. By all this than it is evident, that Theophilact understandeth by the word bread in S. Paul, the body of christ, and not material bread, and that that bread and cup are to be eaten and drunken of, not in the remembrance of that body in it self, but in the remembrance of the passion and death suffered in the same body. THE FIVE AND fortieth CHAP. ABIDETH in the exposition of the same text by saint basil and Rupert. I Would have stayed myself, and ceased to have produced aniemoauthours for the exposition of this text: but well knowing that many (as is said) have abused it and deceived many, I thought it expedient, and necessary for the help of the unlearned, somewhat more to say upon it, by the expositions of S. basil and Rupertus. And whether we take a piece of bread in the remembrance of Christ, or whether we receive the body and blood of christ in the remembrance that he suffered for us in that body, and shed that precious blood, we will Basilius de Baptismo. first hear S. basil, who writeth thus: Oportet accedentem ad corpus & sanguinem Domini, ad rememorationem eius, qui pro nobis est mortuus, ac resurrexit, non solùm purum esse ab omni inquinamento carnis ac spiritus, ne ad judicium edat, ac bibat, sed & evidenter ostendere & exprimere memoriam eius qui pro nobis mortuus est, acresurrexit. It behoveth A plain place for the Proclaimer him that cometh to the body and blood of our Lord to the remembrance of him that hath died for us, and risen again, not only to be pure from all uncleanness of body, and soul, lest he eat and drink to his own condemnation, but he must also evidently show and declare the memory of him that hath died for us and risen again. Thus much S. Basil. Now where S. Paul saith, that as often as we eat of that bread, and drink of that cup we must declare the death of christ S. basil saith that he that cometh to the body and blood of christ must remember him that What S. Paul calleth bread, and cup S. Basil calleth the body and blood of our lord. died for us. So that what S. Paul in terms called, this bread and this cup, S. basil giving us to understand what S. Paul meaneth by these terms speaketh by plain words, calling those things as they be in deed, the body and blood of our Lord. Likewise it may be perceived that S. basil following S. Paul teacheth that the Sacrament is a, memorial of christ as suffering for us, and not of christ in himself or absolutely without respect of passion and death suffered for us, which is as much to say as a memorial done in the remembrance of Christ'S passion and death agreeably to the sainges of other before alleged. Rupert also, whom we join at this present with S. basil, doth even likewise understand S. Paul. Thus he writeth: Sacramentum hoc, quo mors eius annunciatur (quemadmodum Apostolus dicit: quotitscunque manducabitis panem hunc, & calicem bibetis, Rupert. in cap. 26. Matth, mortem Domini annunciabitis donec veniat) quando debuerat condi & dari, nisi sub ipsius articulo passionis. This Sacrament by the which the death of our Lord is declared (as the Apostle saith: As often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink of this cup ye shall show forth the death of our Lord until he come) when should it be made, and given forth, but even at the very point of the same passion? In this saying of Rupert, the one part of our saying, namely that the Sacrament is a memorial of Christ'S death is clearly by expressed words testified. The other part, that in the Sacrament the very body and blood is eaten and drunken Rupert. in a Joon. We eate the flesh and drink the blood of christ in the remembrance of his death. to and for the memorial of the same death is not here manifestly spoken? Wherefore we shall hear him in an other place uttering his knowledge in this matter. Thus he saith: Quod fecit ipse, hoc idem in commemorationem ipsius scimus, et bene scimus, nos facere, id est carnem ipsius manducare, & sanguinem bibere. That which christ himself did, we know and we well know that we do even the very same thing in the remembrance of him that he did, that is to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Mark now the learning of Christ'S catholic Church, note now well what we eat and drink in the remembrance of Christ'S passion and death. judge now whether S. Paul meant material bread as the Sacramentaries would have it to be understanded, and not raither the heavenly bread of Christ'S body to be eaten in the remembrance of his passion and death. I have now produced but four, two of the greek Church and two of the latin Church, to give us understanding what we ought to remember in the receipt All the rabble of the Sacramentaries cannot bring one couple of catholic authors that say S. Paul spoke here of material bread. of the Sacrament, and what in that Sacrament we do receive, whereupon they all conclude that we receive the body and blood of christ in the remembrance of his death, and so S. Paul is to be understanded in this place. Now let all the whole rabble of the adversaries side bring forth but two, whereas we might (as the Adversary himself knoweth) have brought many more, which for the avoiding of more prolixity, wherein we have already offended we do overpass and omit, that shall by express words expound S. Paul in this place, that he meant not the body of christ, but plain material bread: Let them, I say, bring but two catholic, approved authors, and they shall have the victory. So weak is their cause besides their own asseveration, that it is very certain they can not bring one. Although then this is a truth received of all the holy Fathers of Christ'S Church, and is the doctrine of S. Paul, that the body and blood of christ be received according to commandment in the remembrance of his passion and death, and so it also cometh to pass, that the body of Christ even the self same body in substance under the forms of bread and wine, is Jnexposition verborum caenae. Objection of Oecolamp. a figure of the self same body hanging upon the cross, and suffering passion and death: yet Oecolampadius after his sycophants manner, he himself either of malice not willing to know, or else plainly ignorant, doth accuse the learned men of Christ'S Church of ignorance, that they make the body of christ both the exemplar and the thing exemplified, the figure, and the thing figurated, the sign and the thing signified, for that (saith he) relation must be betwixt two things distincted, and not of one thing to ytself. For every relative must have a correlative. To answer him for that I writ to the unlearned to instruct them in the faith, I will not use the quiddities of schools, neither with school terms The nnswer. so darken the matter, that the reader shall not understand me, but I will use plain examples. And first, where Oecolampadius saith: that relation must be betwixt two things distincted, did he not know that in the divine persons Matth. 17 were sundry relations ground upon the one nature of God. But to come to examples in christ of whom we now dispute, was not christ transfigured in the mount, and showing himself in a glorionse manner, was he not an Theoph. in 17. Math. christ one and the same in substance hath been, is and shallbe a figure of bim self in diver se manners. exemplar or figure of himself now in glory, and of his glorious coming to judgement? Theophilact saith that Dignitas secundi adventus in splendore faciei Christi ineffabili claruit. The dignity or excellency of the second coming of christ did appear in the unspeakable brightness of the face of christ. So that Peter john and james saw now in his first coming an image of the glory of christ that he shall come in his second coming. Then may we see that the self same body in substance after one manner, may be an exemplar or figure of the same body after or in an other manner. christ showed his body to Thomas, and other the Apostles with the signs and tokens of his wounds, was not that body now immortal and impassable an exemplar of the same both mortal and passable? Chrysosthom. decru & Latrone The scripture saith, that the wicked shall in judgement see christ, whom they pricked and pierced. For (as Chrysostom saith) he shall appear with his cross and wounds in the face of the world. This is his saying: Sed cur cùm cruce veniat videamus, scilicet ut high, qui eum crucifixerunt, suae sentiant dementiae caecitatem & ideo dementiae eorum signum portatur. Ideo Propheta ait. Tunc lamentabuntur tribus terrae, videntes accusatorem, & agnoscentes peccatum. Et quid mirum est, si crucem portans adveniet, quando & vulnera corporis ipse demonstrat. Tunc enim (inquit) videbunt quem compunxerunt. Et sicut post resurrectionem Thomae voluit diffidentiam commutare, & illi clavorum loca monstravit, & laterum vulnera declaravit, & dixit: Mitte manum tuam, & vide, quoniam spiritus carnem & ossa non habet: sic & tunc ostendet vulnera, crucemque demostrabit, ut istum ostendat illum esse qui fuerat crucifixus. But why he cometh with a cross, let us see, forsooth that they that crucified him may perceive the blindness of their madness. And therefore is the sign of their christ shall come to judgement with the sign of the cross and the prints of the wounds he suffered. madness carried. Therefore the Prophet saith: Then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn seeing the accuser, and they acknowledging the sin. And what wonder is it if he come bringing a cross, seeing that he himself doth show forth his wounds. For then (saith he) shall they see whom they have pricked. And as after the resurrection he would amend the lack of belief in Thomas, and did show him the places of the nails, and opened the wounds of his sides, and said: Put forth thy band and see, that a spirit hath not flesh and bones. So then also shall he show his wounds, and shall openly setforth his cross in seight, that he may show this man to be him that was crucified. Thus chrysostom. Seeing then christ shall come to the general judgement with wounds and cross representing the state and condition of himself sometime a passable and a mortal man, he yet now being impassable, and immortal, and being soche an exemplar of himself, as he shall cause the faithful upon the remembrance of that seight to rejoice that they embraced his faith and received the benefett of their redemption wrought and done upon the cross, and by the suffering of the wounds now there showed: and the wicked contrariwise upon the same seight to wail and mourn that through their madness they contemned him, by whom they now perceive they might haveben saved: Why may not the same body in the Sacrament cause the faithful now to their comfort as well to remember the passion and death and their redemption wrought by it, and so to be a memorial to them, as it shall be both to the faithful and wicked at the day of judgement? At the day of judgement that same body shall be a memorial and an exemplar of it self, it being the same very body in substance that it was, but changed in manner, as is said? why may not the same body be now likewise to us that be faithful, who by faith see it as certainly though in a dark manner, as than we shall see it with open face? Of these kinds of examples there be many in the scriptures, but to him that will be satisfied these be sufficient. For by these it is made evident, that that christ in one manner of being, may be a figure of himself in an other manner of being. Wherefore christ in the Sacrament under the forms of bread and wine, may right well be and is a figure of himself hanging upon the cross, and suffering for our redemption. Thus ye see the true understanding of this scripture laid before you, out of the holy doctors, and the cavils of the Adversary solved, which be against the same. Now to the next scripture. THE SIX AND fortieth CHAP. BEGINNETH the exposition of this text: Who soever therefore shall eat of this bread, and drink of the cup etc. AS ye have seen the scripture last handled recovered from the wresting and wicked abusing of the Adversary: so by God's grace shall you see this that followeth. Thus ymmediatelie saith S. Paul. Itaque quicunque manducaverit panem hunc & biberit calicem Domini indign, reus erit corporis & sanguinis Domini. Whosoever therefore shall eat this bread, and shall drink of the cup of our Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord. After the Apostle had declared the institution of the honourable Sacrament, and there unto had added the cause of the same, namely that it should be done in the remembrance of Christ'S passion and death, that neither the Corinthians to whom he wrote, who abused the same Sacrament, neither other Christians should think themselves to have done to God, their high and due service if they only had received the same Sacrament as the memorial of Christ'S passion and death, other circumstances not regarded, he goeth about to open unto them two manner of receipts, and the rewards appertaining unto them: that is to say, an unworthy receipt, and condemnation for the reward of it: and a worthy receipt, and grace and glory for the reward of it. Forasmoch them as their is such difference in receiving, meet it is that the difference be known, that we may discern, who is a worthy receiver, and who is an unworthy receiver. As worthiness and unworthiness be contraries, and therefore the one is known by the other: So the worthy receiver being known it shall be easy to know the other. Two things are required to a worthy receiver, true faith and perfect charity. For as Ignatius saith: Fides est principium vitae. Charitas est consummatio. Jgnatius epla ad Ephesios. Faith and charity together make worthy receivers of the bless. Sacr. Hae duae simul iunctae, & in unitate factae Hominem Dei persiciunt. Faith is the beginning of life. Charity is the consummation. These two joined together and made in one, do perfect a man of God. As the one of these without the other doth not make a perfect man in God: so the one without the other doth not make a worthy receiver. But if both be joined together in the receipt of the Sacrament, then is that man a worthy receiver. Faith here spoken of is not a pieced or patched faith, that believeth one part of the catholic faith, and refuseth and other, but it is a true and an whole faith. Wherefore heretics be no worthy receivers. Charity here, is not taken for that love that a man flattereth himself to have when he thinketh he loveth his neighbour: but for that charity that S. Paul spoke of, when he said: Qui diligit, legem implevit. He that loveth hath fulfiled the Law. This love causeth a man to join in unity with God and man. It causeth obedience to an ordinary power. It causeth a man also to flee all corrupt licentious, and voluptuous life. Where this charity is not, be his faith never so sound he is no worthy receiver. Wherefore schismatics and contemners of ordinary power, and voluptuous or corrupt livers be no worthy Two things to be considered in S. Paul's words receivers. Thus moche being said of worthy and unworthy receivers, there remaineth two other things in S. Paul's words to be spoken of the one is what is received, the other the pain inflicted for unworthy receiving. The thing to be received is signified when he saith: This bread, and the cup of our Lord. The pain, that he shall be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord. For the first, what the bread and the cup of our Lord is, it was opened in the exposition of the last scripture, that S. Paul meant thereby the body and blood of our Lord. Which exposition shall here again be verified and justified by a number of holy Fathers to the intent the truth received in Christ'S Parliament house may be well known, and the untruth of the adversary as well perceived and seen. The second, which is the pain inflicted to the unworthy receiver uless as it shall be plainly opened and declared by such ancient writers, as I shall allege, I will to avoid prolixity omit to speak of it myself and refer the Reader, to the expositions of the Fathers, For the which consideration also uless as S. Paul repeateth this text again, I have thought good for the ease of the reader, to join them together in exposition only letting him understand the difference betwixt them, that in this text, the pain (as is said) of the unworthy receiver is declared, in the other both the pain and the cause also is opened. Of both which full declaration shall be made by the Fathers. But before I entre into the exposition of these Fathers I wish the Reader The Sacramentaries abuse S. Paul's words in two points. to understand that the Adversary hath also abused this scripture in two points: The one that by cause S. Paul calleth the Sacrament bread. Therefore it is after it is consecrated material bread: the other, which is more stowtelie then truly maintained, they say that evil men do not receive the body of christ in the Sacrament. These their wicked assertions by God's grace shall be plainly overthrown. For it shall be inevitably proved, that by the bread and cup that S. Paul speaketh of is understanded and meant the body and blood of christ, which being by S. Paul received of evellmen, it must necessarily follow that evil men receive the body of christ in the Sacra. And here may we see the miserable strictes, that men teaching an untruth be brought unto, who for the maintenance of that untruth are enforced to fall into many more. For the damnable heresy invented against the presence of christ in the Sacrrment, they are compelled to deny the plain words of S. Paul, as ye shall in the process perceive. But let us hear the holy Fathers agreeably showing their learnings and faith in understanding S. Paul, of the which the first couple shall be saint Cyprian and Origen. S. Cyprian writing to certain Martyrs and confessors, and lamenting the rash admission of certain that had offended to the recipit of the holy Sacrament, writeth thus of them so had admitted the offenders. Illi contra evan geliis Cypr. li. 3. epist. 15. legem, vestram quoque honorificam peticionem, ante actam paenitentiam, ante exomologesin gravissimi atque extremi delicti factam ante manum ab Episcopo & clero in paenitentiam impositam, offer pro illis, & Eucbaristiam dare, id est, sanctum Domini corpus prophanare audent, cùm scriptum sit: Qui ederit panem, aut biberit calicem Domini indignè, reus erit corporis & sanguinis Domini. They against the law of the Gospel, and your commendable petition, before they had done penance, before they had made confession of their most grievous and extreme offence, before any hand was put upon them, of the Bishop and the clergy unto penance, they were so bold both to offer for them, and also to give unto them the Sacrament, which is as much, as to profane the holy body of our Lord. Forasmoch as it is written: He that eateth the bread and drinketh the cup of our Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord. Of this holy Father and martyr, S. Cyprian, if you will learn what is to minister the Sacrament to any unworthy person, it is (saith he) to profane to holy body and blood of our Lord. That it is profaned in so doing he proveth by this scripture of S. Paul: He that eateth and drinketh unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord. A thing is profaned, when it being holy is occupied about unholy or common uses. As a church dedicated to God to be made a stable. The ornaments The practice of profanation is lament ably to be seen in Englond. of the same to be applied to the vanity of man's pride, as to make beds hangings or cooshinge. The plate of it, as king Balthasar did with the plate of the temple to make them vessels for the banquets of men. So the body of our Lord, saith S. Cyprian, is profaned forasmoch as it being holy, is cast into an unholy thing, which is the unworthy receiver. Now if by the bread spoken of in S. Paul's sentence were not understanded the body of our Lord, to what purpose should S. Cyprian allege that text, as thereby to prove the body of christ profaned. That thing is profaned that is delivered and so abused. If then not the body of our Lord be delivered in the Sacrament, but mere material bread, than is the bread profaned and not the body. But Cyprian saith the body is profaned, wherefore the body is delivered. And here I wish the ministers of Christ'S Church to take heed, and to be very circumspect, that they look well to whom they ministre this holy Sacrament, least they be dot only guilty of the profanation of the holy body of our Lord: but also be in very deed, not feeders, but deceivers, not deliverers from sins, but heapers and increacers there of, as S. Cyprian saith in the same li 3. epla. 15. epistle. Ea enim concedere quae in pernitien vertant, decipere est. Nec erigitur sic lapsus, sed per Dei offensam, magis impellitur ad ruinam. To give or grant those things that turn to a man's destruction is to deceive. Neither is the offender so set in good stay, but by the offence of God, he is more impelled to ruin. Which offences, I mean as well of the ministre delivering, as of the unworthy receiver receiving, being well weighed of chrysostom how weighty, and burdenouse they be, he saith thus of the delivery of the Sacrament. Non permittan ista fieri animam prius tradam meam quam Dominicum alicui corpus indignè. Sanguinemque meum effundi potius Chrysost. hom 83. in. 26. Math. patiar, quamsacratisssmum illum sanguinem praeterqan digno concedan. I will not suffer these things to be done, I will first deliver up mi life, them I will deliver the body of our Lord to any body unworthily: And I shall suffer my blood raither to be shed, than I will give that most holy blood to any other then to a worthy receiver. How moche may the sentences of these two grave ancient Fathers move such as be in the place of ministration. Let them take heed that ministre to heretics. Let them take heed that ministre to schismatics. Let them take heed that ministre to such as they know to be in sin or in the purpose of sins: They were better with Chrysostom to deliver up their lives, and shed their blood, then to such to deliver the blessed body and most holy blood of our Lord. Here with all, good Reader, note, that chrysostom alluding to this our text of S. Paul, and opening what S. Paul spoke of there, and what he meant by the bread and the cup, calleth it neither bread nor figure nor sign, but by plain and express words calleth it with terms of honour, that is, hour Lords body and his most holy blood. Again note if the body of our Lord were received only by faith (as the Sacramentaries do say) so that it stood upon the will of the receiver, according as he will measure his faith, not upon the power of God, and his word used in the consecration: then would not Chrysostom say that he would not deliver the body and blood of our Lord, for it should not lie in his power to deliver it, if he have it not in the Sacrament to deliver. But let these Sacramentaries say their fantasies and let us that love Christ'S true faith follow it in the holy fathers, and let us with Chrysostom believe, that the ministers of Christ'S Church may deliver unto us the body and blood of christ. Which then must needs be in the Sacrament. Orig ho. 6 in divers. But it is time to hear Origen S. Cyprians yockfelowe in this place, what light he giveth us to understand S. Paul. Thus he writeth: Quando sanctum cibum, illudue incorruptum accipts epulum, quando vitae panè & poculo fueris, manducas & bibis corpus & sanguinem Domini, tunc Dominus sub tectum tuum ingreditur. Et tu ergo humilians temetipsum, imitare hunc Centurionem & dicito: Domine non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum mecum Vbi enim indignè ingreditur, ibi ad judicium ingreditur accipienti. When thou takest the holy meat, and that uncorrupt bankett when thou receivest the bread and cup of life, than our Lord entereth under thy roof, and thou humbling thy self, follow this Centurio and say: Lord I am not worthy, that thou shouldest enter under my roof where he entereth unworthilic, there he entereth to the condemnation of the receiver. Thus Origen. Who willing the Christian man to be a worthy receiver of the holy Sacrament, he doth first declare the greatness, the holiness and excellency of the Sacrament, and what he receiveth. Which done as a mean to make a man to humble himself he moveth him, to the intent that he may be a worthy receiver, to follow the humbleness or humility of Centurio in acknoweleaging, and confessiinge his unworthiness, and the raither to compass this he feareth him from unworthy receiving with the terror of S. Paul's saying, which now we have in hand, saying: where he unworthily entereth he entereth to the condemnation of the receiver. In the which his godly admonition and exhortation ye may first perceive with what words he doth extol the blessed Sacrament, with such words truly that if the body of christ were not there, they could not so be applied. But he was certain of that blessed presence, and therefore he said: when thou takest this holy meat, when thou receivest this uncorrupt bankett, when thou enjoyest this bread, and cup, if eatest and drinkest the body and blood of our Lord. secondly, ye may perceive that receiving the sacrament ye receive not a bare piece of bread, but the body of christ. For then (saith Origen) hour lord entereth in under thy roof, meaning that he entereth the house of thy body. thirdly, ye may perceive that the same our Lord as he may entre into our house of our body worthily; as he did into the house of Centurio: so may he (saith Origen) enter into hour house of our body unworthily. And if he so do, it is to the damnation of the receiver. What S. Paul calleth the bread Origen calleth it the body of our Lord. Now confer S. Paul's saying and Origen together. S. Paul saith, he that eateth this bread and drinketh this cup unworthily & c: Origen saith where our Lord entereth unworthily & c: So that, what S. Paul calleth bread, and the cup of our Lord, Origen opening and declaring the mind of S. Paul, calleth it as it is in deed, our Lord. Thus for the understanding of this text of S. Paul which the Adversary hath wickedly abused, wrested, and distorted taking the Apostle to have spoken of very material bread: ye see these two pillars of the Church, and ancient Fathers of Christ'S Parliament house teach the true understanding received in that house in their time, which was very near the primative church, that S. Paul did not there speak of material bread, but of the body of hour Lord, the heavenly bread. Likewise the Adversary hath taught, that evil men receive not the body S. Cyprian and Origen teach that evil men receive the body of Chryst. of christ, ye see that these two Fathers do avouch that evil men do receive the body of our Lord. For S. Cyprian saith that to give the Sacrament to an unworthy man, is to profane, not the Sacramental bread (as the Adversary termeth it) but the holy body of our Lord. So that it is the body of our Lord being a most holy thing that is profaned, because it is given to an evil man, which is an unworthy thing. Origen saith also by express words, that where our lord entereth unworthily, he entereth to the condemnation of the receiver teaching plainly that our lord entereth into the unworthy man. chrysostom also, whom by occasion I have in this chapter alleged, saying that he will raither yield his life, and shed his blood, than he will give the body of our Lord and his most holy blood to an unworthy man: signifieth that it may be given to an unworthy man. If nothing were delivered but bread and wine, what needed Chrysost for small a matter raither to spend his body and blood them to deliver it? Perchance some one may object, that Origen is otherwise to be understanded in this place, then is here declared, because he in an other place by express words saith, that an evil man can not eat the body of christ. To this objection answer is made in the thirty chap. of this book, whether for the avoiding of prolixity, I remit the Reader, and proceed to hear more of the ancient Fathers of Christ'S Parliament house, to the intent, that we may perfectly learn the enacted truth of the understanding of S. Paul in this place. THE SEVEN AND fortieth CHAPT. proceedeth in the understanding of the same by saint basil and samct Hierom. FOr so much as nothing doth more declare the truth of any matter called in controversy in matters of our faith, then doth the consonant, and accord testimony of may holy learned Fathers, of sundry times, places and ages, as well of the greek church, as the latin church: Therefore shall I proceed to bring forth more of the holy ancients of Christ'S Parliament house, that their agreement and concord may be perceived in the understanding of S. Paul. In the which, gentle Reader, trust me, thou shalt find so great consent, and so evident matter, that this alone shall suffice, to bring thee or staic thee in the matter of the blessed Sacrament, to believe Christ'S very real presence there, if God's grace hath not forsaken thee, that if wilfully or obstinately refuse to see the clear beams of the Sun. Wherefore to go to our matter note well this saying of S. basil who asketh this question, whether it be without danger, that any man not being clean from all filthiness of body and Soul, may eat the body and drink the blood of our Lord: whereunto he maketh this answer: Quoniam Deus Basil. li. de Baptis. 2. ques. 93. in legè supermam paenam constituerit contra eum, qui immundicia audet contingere sancta, scriptum est enim, figuratè quidem illis, ad nostram verò commonefactionem. Et locutus est Dominus ad Moysen, Dic Aaron & filiis eius, ut attendant à sanctis filiorum Israel, & non contaminabunt nomen meum, quicunque ipsi sanctificant mihi, Ego Dominus. Dic ipsis in familias ipsorum: Omnis homo, qui accesserit ab omni semine vestro ad sancta quaecunque sanctificaverint filis Iraël Domino, & immundicia ipsius in ipso: anima illa exterminabitur à facie mea. Ego Dominus, Tales minae propositiae sunt contra cos qui simpliciter accedunt ad ea quae ab hominibus sanctificata sunt, Quid verò quis dixerit contra eum, qui in tantum ac tale mysterium audèt? Quanto enim plus templo hic est, juxta ipsam Domini vocem, tanto gravius & horribilius in inquinamento animae audere contingere corpus Christi, quàm attingere arietes aut cauros? Sic enim Apostolus dixit: Quare qui ederit panem, & biberit poculum Domini indignè reus erit corporis & sanguinis: Domini, Vehementius autem simulue horribilius proponit ac declarat condemnationem per repetitionem dum ait: Probet autem uniusquisque seipsum, & sic ex pane hoc edat, & ex poculo bibat. Quienim edit & bibit indignè, judicium sibi ipsi edit ac bibit, non diiudicans corpus Domini. Si verò qui in sola immundicia est (immundiciae autem proprietatem siguratè ex lege discimus) adeo horrendum habet judicium, quanto magis qui in peccato est, & contra corpus Christi audet, horrendum attrahet judicium? forasmuch as God in the law hath ordained so great a pain against him, that in his uncleanness is so bold to touch the holy things. For it it written figuratively to them, but for advertisement to us. And our Lord said unto Moses, Say to Aaron and his sons, that they take heed of the holy things of the children of israel, and whatsoever they shall sanctify unto me, they shall not defile my holy name, I am the Lord. Say to them, and to their families: A plain place for the proclaimer both for the presence and the excellency of the bl. Sacr. above the Sacramets' of the old low. Every man that is of your seed, and cometh to the holy things, what soever they be that the children of Israel shall sanctify to the Lord, and his unelenesse be upon him, that soul shall be put away from my face. I am the Lord. Soche threatinges are settfurth against them that only come to those things that be sanctified of men. But what will a man say against him that is so bold to come with his uncleanness to so great a mystery? Look how moche greater this (meaning christ) is then the temple, according to the very saying of our Lord: So much more grievous and horrible is it in the filthiness of his soul to be so bold to touch the body of christ, as to touch rams or bulls For so the Apostle hath said: wherefore he that eateth the bread and drinketh the cup of our Lord unworthily, shall begiltie of the body and blood of hour Lord. But more vehemenlie, and also more horribly he doth settfurth and declare the condemnation by repetition, when he saith: Let every man examine himself and so let him eat of this bread, and drink of this cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, he eateth and drinketh his condemnation, making no difference of our lords body. If then he that is in uncleanness only (the property of which sigurated uncleamnsse, we have learned of the Law) hath so horrible judgement, how moche more he that is in sin, and dareth to presume upon the body of christ, shall draw unto himself horrible judgement? Thus moche S. basil. Whoso doth but superficially note this saying of his may easily perceive the difference betwixt the law and the Gospel: Betwixt the uncleanness so reputed in the law, and sin reputed for uncleanness in the Gospel, and figured by the uncleanness in the law. But chiefly the difference betwixt the sacrifice of the old law, and the partaking of them, and the sacrifice of the new law, and the partaking of it: the excellency also of this above that, and thereunto agreeably, and to the solution of his question, the greatness of judgement and condemnation to the evil partaker of the holy sacrifice of the Gospel above the pain of the evil partaker of the sacrifice of the law. But leaving the first two differences and to speak of the other two, for that they appertain directly to the matter that we have to speak of ye shall note that they be contained briefly, in this one sentence where he saith: How If christ be received in the bl. Sace. but spiritually, how ean the sinner presume upon the body, which he nor will nor can receive? moche greater christ is then the temple, so much more grievous and horrible pain remaineth for them that being defiled in the soul, dare touch the body of christ, than doth them that touch but Rams, and bulls? In which words the sacrifices of both laws are expressed. The sacrifice of the old law were Rams, and bulls: The sacrifice of the new law is the body of christ. The evil or unworthy partakers of the sacrifices of the law were such as were unclean with uncleanness described in the law: The unworthy partakers of the Sacrifice of the Gospel are such as with deadly Sin or the pourpofe of it, being defiled in Soul, do presume to receive Christ'S body in the holy Sacrament. The pain of an unworthy partaker of the Sacrifices of the law was death corporal: The pain of an unworthy receiver of the sacrifice of the new law (which is the body of christ) is death eternal. This he proveth by the scriptures of S Paul, which we now have in hand. For (saith he) S. Paul saith, Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of our Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of our lord. Now, gentle Reader, weigh with me I paraie thee, that where S. Basil said that so grievous and horrible condemnation shall fall upon them, that with uncleanness of soul presume to touch the body of christ, how doth he prove the same by this saying of S. Paul, if by the bread and cup therein spoken of, be not understand the body and blood of christ? It is therefore most certain that holy Basil so aleading S. Paul, understood him by the bread and cup to have most assuredly meant that blessed bread of Christ's body, and the cup of his holy blood in the Sacrament. basil was not so base in learning, nor so simple in judgement, that he speaking of the unworthy receivers of Christ'S body, would for the confirmation of his saying allege a text that speaketh but of a piece of bread, and nothing to his purpose. No, he was of an other manner of learning and gravity of judgement. As this text by his judgement, is understanded of the body and blood S. basil understandeth Saint Paul to speak of the bread of Chrysts body. of Christ: So is the other also, which (saith he) S. Paul speaketh by repetition. Upon the which text he maketh like exposition, as he did of the other before, but in more compendious manner, saying thus: Si verò qui in sola immundicia est, adeo horrendum habet judicium, quanto magis qui in peccato est, & contra corpus Christi audet, horrendum attrahet indicium? If he that is in the uncleanness of the law only hath so horrible judgement, how moche more he that is in sin, and dare presume upon the body of christ shall draw unto him horrible judgement? In the which who seeth not that he, as one expounding and declaring S. Paul's words, giveth us to understand that S. Paul by the bread meaneth the body of christ? For where S. Paul saith, He that eateth this bread unworthily eateth his own damnation: S. basil saith: He that presumeth upon the body of christ shall have horrible Damnation. A moche like question the same S. Basil moveth in the same book, which also openeth the truth of our matter. This is the question Whether it be without danger that he that is not pure in heart from an evil conscience and uncleanness of life may do the office of a priest. In the answer of which question he saith thus: Dominus dicens: plus templo hic est, erudit nos quòd tanto magis impius est, qui audet tractare corpus Domini, qui dedit semetipsum pro nobis oblationem, & hostiam in odorem suavitatis; quantum corpus unigeniti filii Dei excedit, arietes, & tauros, non in comparationis ratione, Incomparabilis est enim excellentia. Hour lord saying: This man is greater than the temple (meaning himself) teacheth Let schismatical and irreverent priests note well this saying of S. basil. us that he is so much the more wicked that is so bold to handle the body of our Lord, who gave himself an oblation and sacrifice of sweet Savour, as much as the body of the only begotten Son of God doth excead Rams, and Bulls, not by the mean of comparison. For the excellency is incomparable. Thus ther. Of Saint basil in this place we learn, that the office of priests is not (as the Adversary saith) to handle a piece of Sacramental bread: but to handle the body of our lord even the same body that the same lord gave an oblation and sacrifice to God the Father in the savour of sweetness. And as that body incomparably exceedeth Rams and Bulls, which were figures of that blessed body: So doth it in comparablie excead a piece of bread, being also but a figure of that body. And here Reader if thou be desirous to know the truth, note and mark well, how great condemnation cometh to them, that unwoortilie handle the Sacrament, above them that unworthily handle the sacrifices of the old law and Testament. They are (saith Saint basil) as much more wicked, as the body of the only begotten Son exceedeth Rams and bulls. If the unworthy receiver of the Sacrament be so much more wicked above the unworthy receivers of the Sacrifices of the old law, as the body of the only begotten Son of God exceedeth Rams and bulls: it proveth well that the receiver of the Sacrament, receiveth the body of the only begotten Son of God, or else why should he be so incomparably wicked, if he did not wickedly, receive that body? Soche incomparable wickedness, so grievous, and exceeding condemnation can not be but upon the abuse of an incomparable thing, which is the body of christ, and not Sacramental bread. The receipt of Sacramental bread, is but a receipt of a figure: The receipt of a figure, though it be evil is not incomparably wicked. Wherefore the receipt of the Sacramental bread though it be evil received is not incomparably wicked: but the receipt of the Sacrament, if it be evil, is incomparably wicked. Wherefore the receipt of the Sacrament is not the receipt of Sacramental bread. And here plainly to say if the Sacrament were but a figure of the body of christ and did not contain the same, why should the receiver of it be If the bless. Sacr. be but a figure as the Sacraments os the old law were, why do the evil receivers offend so incomparably? more wicked, and suffer more grievous and horrible damnation, than they that received the figures of christ in the old law? And here Reader understanded that by the doctrine of the Adversary, the Sacraments of the new law, are no better, than the Sacraments of the old law. Which if it be true, wheer there is equality betwixt the things themselves: there is the abuse, I mean the unworthy receiving equal also. But to an equal abuse justice inflicteth an equal pain. Wherefore for the abuse of the Sacrmentes of both laws, there should be equal pain. But the pain for the abuse of both Sacraments are not equal. For the pain of the abuse of this Sacrament exceedeth the other as far, as the Son of God exceedeth Rams, and bulls. Wherefore the Sacraments also are not equal. By that then that the pain of the unworthy receiving of the blessed Sacrament, so far exceedeth the pain of the abuse of the Sacraments of the old law: it may well be perceived that this Sacrament incomparably excelleth the other. And for as much as S. basil teacheth them to be as far different, and as far to pass the one the other, as the Son of God exceedeth Rams, and bulls, it is evident that the things themselves be even the same that he speaketh of, as abused by evil receipt. whereby also it must needs follow, that the body of the Son of God is received of evil men in the bless. Sacrament. But that ye may hear him by most plain words teach as moche hearken what he saith in an other place: Si verò is qui fratrem propter cibum offendit Basil. de Bapt. li. 1. cap. 3 A plain place that evil men may eat the body of christ and drink his blood. But unprofitably. joan. 6. à charitate excidit, sine qua & magnorum donorum & iustificationum operationes nihil prosunt: Quidnam dixerit quis de eo, qui ociose, & inutiliter edere audet corpus, & bibere sunguinem Domini nostri jesu Christi? If he that for meat offendeth his brother falleth from charity, whitoute the which both the works of great gists, and also of justifications do nothing avail, what shall a man say of him that idly and unprofitably dareth to eat the body and drink the blood of our lord jesus christ? What can the Adversary say to this? Be not these words plain? saith not basil that a man may eat the body and drink the blood of christ ydelie, and unprofitably? And who can eat the body of christ, and drink his blood unprofitably, but the evil and sinful man? For of the good receiver christ saith: Qui manducat meam carnem, & bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam aeternam. He that eateth mi flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life. But I have tarried long upon Saint basil: I will therefore be short about Saint Hierom, who is placed with Saint basil to show the enacted truth of the understanding of Saint Paul in the latin Church, as the other hath done in the greek Church. Thus writeth Saint Hierom upon this verse of the psalm: Adhuc escae eorum erant in ore ipsorum, & ira Dei descendit supercos. Hieron. in Psal. 77. While the meat was yet in their mouths the wrath of God fell upon them. Haec de his qui Deum past acceptnm Manna dereliquerunt. Nam nunc in Ecclesia si quis carne & sanguine Christi reficitur, & declinat ad vitia, noverit judicium Dei sibi imminere, sicut Paulus Apostolus ait: Qui acceperit corpus & sanguinem Domini indignè, reus erit corporis & sanguinis Domini. These words be spoken of them, A plain exposition of S. Paul's words for the Proclaimer. that did forsake God, after they had received Manna. For now in the Church if any man be fed with the body and blood of christ and doth decline to vices, let him know that the judgement of God is at hand, as the Apostle Paul saith: He that taketh the body and blood of our lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of our lord. Mark here the saying of Saint Paul reported by Saint Hierom, and so shalt though see the very mind and true understanding of Saint Paul's sentence, whose understanding we now seek. S. Hierom saith, that S. Paul saith thus: He that taketh the body and blood of our Lord unworthily, shallbe guilty of the body and blood our lord. In deed, as it is already often rehearsed, the words of Saint Paul be not such: yet Saint Hierom saith he saith so, because in very deed, the author saith that, that Saint Paul doth mien. As when christ did say: Destroy this Temple, and in three days I joan. 2. will re-edify it, The jews according to the outward sound of the words, said: that he spoke that saying of their very Temple. But the Evangelist well knowing the mind of his master, said: Hoc autem dicebat de templo corporis sui. This he said, of the temple of his body Now if a man should say, that christ said. Destroy ie or kill this my body and in three days I will raise it up again, he shall with the Evangelist say the truth of Christ'S saying, though Christ'S words were not the same words: yet christ did so say because he did so mien: So likewise here doth Saint Hierom. Saint Paul speaketh of bread, as christ did of the Temple. The jews took him to have spoken of the very material temple, as the Sacramentaries do Saint Paul of material bread But as the Euangellst testifieth that sold, that he might, have remission of his sins, if he would not have had been wicked. For judas was present, and was partaker of that sacrifice. Thus far he. In these words that Chrisostom saith that christ offered judas the blood that he sold, is both taught us the presence of Christ'S body and blood in the Sacrament, and also that evil persons do receive the same. For as judas: so all like unto judas. And let these words (gentle Reader) be well noted of thee, that chrysostom saith, that christ gave judas the blood that the sold. If he gave him that he sold, he gave him his very blood, and not the figure of his blood. For not the figure, but he blood it self was sold. Where also in the end of this place now alleged, Chrisostom saith, that judas was present at the last Supper, and was partaker of the sacrifice, these two points now here inquired, are revived, and the truth of them to us confirmed. For the sacrifice offered in the last Supper by christ, was the sacrifice of his body, as before in the first, and second, and also in this third book it is evidently proved, and here also by Chrisostom signified. wherebily we are taught that the body of christ is present in the Sacrament, and judas was at Christ'S supper and received there etc. so judas being a partaker of that sacrifice, was (though he were a traditour and a wicked man) a receiver of the body of christ. Which being so, it may be concluded that evil and wicked men may receive the body of christ in the Sacrament. Although this that is produced out of Chrisostom may fully satisfy any man, for that it is evident and plain: yet that it may be perceived by that he speaketh the same in sundry places, that it was a truth assured and commonly received, I will touch a place or two more of his. Of the which this is one. Nullus igitur fictus accedat, nullus fucato animo tantis audeat mysterijs proximare ne condemnetur, & sententiam mereatur, & quoth judas sustinuit patiatur. Name in illum post communicationem mensae Diabolus intravit, non quia contempsit Dominicum corpus, sed quia impudentia judae & malignitas mentis, ut adversarius Satan entered into judas not in contempt of the body of christ but to punish the treason of judas. in eo habitaret, essecit. Let therefore no feigned man come, let none be so bold with a counterfeit mind to come near so great mysteries, lest he be condemned, deserve sentence, and suffer that that judas suffered. For after he had partaken of Christ'S table, the Devil entered into him, not that he contemned the body of our Lord, but because the impudency of judas, and the mischief of his mind had caused that the Devil should dwell in him. Where chrysostom saith that after judas had received, the Devil not contemning the body of christ, entered into him: what else thereby doth he teach, but that judas received the body of our Lord. For if he did not receive it, Chrisostom needed not to declare that the Devil entered not upon contempt of the body of christ, For what contempt should he seem to make to the body of christ, by entering into judas if the body of christ entered not into that person before. If any contempt should appear to be in that entry, it should be that that wicked Adversary, and miserable damned creature should presume to enter to that place where his Lord and master had so lately entered. But (saith chrysostom) he did not so entre, as contemning the body of our lord, but raither to the punishment of his detestable treason, done and committed against his master. And for his presumption then used, that he being defiled with such treachery, would with dissimuled holiness and love receive into his filthy and sinful body, that pure and innocent body. And so the Devil entered as a subject whom God suffered for the torment of judas his mischief, and not as a Lord by power to contemn the Lord of all Lords there entered. Chris. hom. 83. in 26. Math. A like sentence hath he in an other place which is this: Caenantibus autem eyes, accepit jesus panem & benedixit, atque fregit, & dedit Discipulis suis. O caecitatem proditoris, qui cùm ineffabilibus mysterijs communicasset, idem permansit, & divina mensa susceptus in melius commutari noluit, quod Lucas significavit dicens: Quia post hoc introivit in cum Satanas, non quia dominicum corpus despiceret, sed quia proditoris stoliditatem irridebat. When they were at Supper jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to his disciples. O the blindness of the traditour, who when he had taken of the unspeakable mysteries, he remained the same man, and being allowed at God's table, he would not be changed into better, which thing Luke signified saying: that after that Satan entered into him not because he despised the body of our Lord, but because he scorned the lewdness of the traditour. Here again ye see, as before, that the Devil despised not the body of Sacramental bread and wine be not unspeakable mysteries. our Lord received of judas, though he entered into him after it. That he had received it, these words of Chrisostom going a little before, do well declare, when he saith: When judas had taken of the unspeakable mysteries, he remained all one man. Which be the unspeakable mysteries? not a piece of bread, and a cup of wine, received as signs and tokens of the body and blood, For so these Sacraments be not unspeakable mistresses, but the matter is well able to be spoken of, as other figures of the old law were, which by the doctrine of the Adversary be as good as this, and this no better than they. If than the figures of the old law were not unspeakable mysteries (as in deed they were not) then be these figures of bread and wine no unspeakable mysteries. If bread and wine as only figures be no unspeakable mysteries, and judas in Christ'S Supper received unspeakable mysteries than he received not bare bread and wine. It remaineth then that he received the body and blood of christ under the forms of bread and wine, which in deed be unspeakable mysteries. For neither can reason attain the knowledge of the work of the holy Ghost herein, nor tongue speak and express the same, but only faith, as Damascen saith: Deus spiritus sancti operatione haec super naturam Damnasc. li. 4. ca 14. operatur, quae non potest capere, nisi sola fides. God by the operation of the holy Ghost worketh these things above nature, which things only faith can understand. Wherefore thus speaking of the holy mysteries, we many well call them unspeakable mysteries, which unspeakable mysteries, Chrisostom August. epictola cont. Donatist. post collation. S. August reporteth the words of S. Paul as S. Hier. and Chryso. did before. saith that judas did receive. The like are we taught of Saint Augustine, but we will first hear him give us his understanding of the saying of Saint Paul which he doth without all circumstance even by plain words, as other have done before him. Thus he writeth against the Donatists. Quisquis autem in hac Ecclesia bene vixerit, nihil ei praeiudicant aliena peccata, quia unusquisque in ea proprium onus portabit, sicut Apostolus dicit. Et quicunque corpus Christi manducaverit in dignè, judicium sibi manducat, & bibit. Name & ipse Apostolus hoc scripsit. Whosoever shall live well in this Church, other men's sins shall nothing hinder him. For in her every man shall bear his own burden, as the Apostle saith. And in her whosoever shall eat the body of christ unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own condemnation. For the Apostle himself hath written this. Note in this saying how Saint Augustine uttereth the saying of Saint Paul, he saith not whosoever eateth the bread, but as an expositor, whose office is to give light to the text, if any part of it be dark, and to give the true sense of words that may be diversely understanded he expoundeth the text and openeth it, and plainly teacheth us that by bread is understanded the body of christ. Wherefore by plain words he speaketh Saint Paul's sentence, saying: Whosoever shall eat the body of christ unwoorhilie etc. Thus may ye see the true understanding of this scripture and by it may ye learn that Saint Augustine understood that in the Sacrament is the very body of christ, and that evil men though to their condemnation receive the same. of which both, Saint Augustine saith again. Sicut enim Cont. donatist. lib. 5 cap. 8. judas cut buccellam tradidit Dominus, non malum accipiendo, locum in se Diabolo praebuit: sic indignè quisque sumens Dominicum Sacramentum, non essicit, ut quia ipse malus est, malum sit, aut quia non ad salutem accipit, nihil accipiat. Corpus enim Domini, & sanguis Domini nihilominus erat etiam illis, quibus dice bat Apostolus: Qui manducat & bibit indignè judicium sibi manducat & bibit. As judas to whom our lord gave a morsel, not taking an evil thing, but evil taking the thing, gave place to the devil in himself: So any man receiving unwoorthiely our lords Hell gates can not prevail against these places, let the Proclaimer well consider them. Sacrament, causeth not, because himself is evil, that it should be evil: or because he receiveth it not to salvation, that he receiveth nothing. For it was nevertheless the body of our Lord, and the blood of our Lord also unto then to whom the Apostle said: he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh his own condemnation. Thus moche Saint Augustine. It is now to be remembered that the Adversary denying the real and substantial presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, is compelled for the maintenance of that his wicked heresy, to say that Christ'S body is received spiritually, that is, that the grace, the virtue, and the merit of Christ'S passion suffered in the same his body, is received. And for that these benefits be not received of an evil man, as being an evil man, therefore he maintaineth an other wicked heresy against the scripture, and the holy Doctors, that evil men receive not the body of christ. For the confutation of which evil doctrine, as the lively and plain sentences of holy Fathers have been produced: So now speaketh S. Augustine as plainly against it. For he contented not himself only to say that evil men receive the Sacrament A● unto judas it was the very body and blood of christ that he received So it is to all other ill receivers. Angu. in joan tract. 26. of our Lord, Which words the Adversary would have wrested to his purpose, but by express words he saith that is was the body of our Lord, and the blood of our Lord unto them also, of whom the Apostle said: he that eateth, and drinketh unworthily etc. Now what they be that receive unworthily, it needeth no declaration, being manifest that they be evil men. And thus by S. Augustine it is taught, that the very body of christ being in the Sacrament, is received of evil men: And although this place of S. Augustine is so evidently 'gainst them: yet in an other place he presseth them so strictly, that they have no refuge, and it is this. Quantum autem pertinet ad illam mortem, de qua terret Dominus, quia mortut sunt patres eorum. Manducavit Manna & Moses, manducavit Manna & Aaron: manducavit Manna & Phinees, manducaverunt & multi, qui Domino placuerunt, & mortui non sunt. Quare? quia visibilem cibum spiritualiter intellexerunt, spiritualiter esurierunt, spiritualiter gustavernnt, ut Spiritualiter satiarenter. Name & nos hody accepimus visibilem cibum. Sed aliud est Sacramentum, aliud virtus Sacramenti, quam multi de altari accipiunt, & moriuntur, & accipiendo moriuntur. unde dicit Apostolus: judicium sibi manducat & bibit. As touching that death, of the which our Lord saith: that their Fathers be dead: Moses also did eat Manna, and Aaron did eat Manna, and Phinees did eat Manna, and many did eat, which pleased our Lord, and they died not. Why? Because they understood a visible meat spiritually: They did spiritually hunger it, they did spiritually eat it, that they might be spiritually satisfied. And we also this day have taken a visible meat. But the Sacrament is one thing, and the virtue of the Sacrament an other thing, which virtue many do receive at the Altar and do die, and in receareceaving it do die. Wherefore saith the Apostle. He eateth and drinketh his damnation. Thus far he. Note here the distinction that S. Augustine maketh betwixt the Sacrament, and the virtue of the Sacrament saying, that the Sacrament is one thing, and the virtue of the Sacrament an other. Then of the virtue of the Sacrament he saith, that many receive it at the Altar, and do die meaning according to the saying of the Apostle, that receiving it unworthily they die in the Soul, eating and drinking their own damnation. Now would it be learned of the Adversary, how he will understand S. Augustine in this word (Virtue.) First certain it is, that it is not taken for the Sacramental Virtue of the blessed Sacr. what it is, and that evil men reccave it. bread. For that is the other member of the distinction. Then must it either be taken for the virtue of the passion of christ, or for the body of christ if self. For in the Sacrament be no more but these three to be received: The Sacrament, the body of christ, and the virtue of his passion. It can not be taken for the virtue of Christ'S passion, for that is not nor can not be death and damnation to the receiver in the receiving, but life and salvation. This virtue that S. Agustine speaketh of is such, that many do die in the receiving of it. It remaineth then that by this virtue of the Sacrament, is understanded the body of christ, which many by unworthy receiving do wickedly abuse, and so receiving kill their souls, and die the death that judas did. What shall I tarry in the rehearsal of Saint Augustine's sainges that touch this matter? They were evough to make a just volume. Wherefore omitting many, I will end with one, which also expoundeth this our text: Thus he saith: Recordamini unde sit scriptum: Quicunque manducaverit panem, aut biberit calicem Domini indignè, reus erit corporis & sanguinis Domini. Et de iss erat sermo, cùm Apostolus August. in joan. troth. 6. hoc dicerit, qui Domini corpus velut quemlibet alium cibum indiscretè, necligenter ue sumehant. Remember from whence it is written: Whosoever shall eat the bread, and drink the cup of our Lord unwoorthieli, shall be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord. For when the Apostle said this, he spoke it of them, Which received the body of our Lord undiscreetly and necligentlie, as they would do any other meat. Mark this well that Saint Augustine saith plainly that Saint Paul spoke this of them that necligentlie and undiscreetly received, not a piece of Sacramental bread, but the body of our Lord. Then it is manifest that the body of our Lord is received in the Sacrament, and that it is also received by the testimony of Saint Augustine of negligent and undiscreet persons, which make no difference of the body of our Lord. To make no difference, saith S. Augustine, is, non discernere à ceteris cibis divinum corpus. to make no difference of the body of our Lord from other meats, but even as wewolde with polluted consciences eat profane meats, and with purpose of sin ne, without repentance or purpose of amendment of life, receive our bodily food, so receive the body of our Lord. In which few words again S. Augustine teacheth the body of christ to be received of evil persons. Thus ye have the minds of chrysostom and Saint Augustine in the understanding of S. Paul,? which both understand him to have spoken of the body of christ, as the catholic Church teacheth, and not of Sacramental bread, as the malignant Church feigneth. Thus moche being done we shall with like speed hear other that remain, that the truth of Christ'S faith may be seen to the confusion of the enemy. THE NINE AND fortieth CHAP. CONtinueth the same exposition by Isichius and Sedulius. Saint Augustine writing against the manichees (in which sect he was by the space of nine years pietifullie detained, and deluded) perceived after his conversion one great cause of the continuance of many in that heresy, to be, that they would not hear the holy learned doctors and Fathers of the Church. Wherefore to remove them from that evil mind, he thus wrote to them: Audite doctos catholicae Ecclesiae Viros tanta pace animi, & eo voto, quo ego vos audivi. Nihil opus erit novem annis, quibus Aug. de morib. Eccl. cap. 25. me ludificastis. Longè omnino, longè beviore tempore, quid intersit inter veritatem vanitatemue, cernetis. Hear ye the learned men of the catholic Church, with so moche quiettnesse of mind, and with that desire, that I heard you. There shall not need the nine years, in the which ye mocked me. In a shorter time, yea in a moche shorter time shall ye see, what difference is betwixt verity and vanity. Even thus do I wish that they that have been deluded with vain persuasions, and have been thereby ensnared and entrapped in the heresy of the Sacramentaries, would with as good will hear the learned Fathers of Christ'S Church, as they have hitherto heard them, that have deceived them. And I nothing doubt but if they will so do, and with devout prayer to God for grace assistant, and with humbleness of mind, enkindled with fervent desire (all affection set apart) Learn and know the very truth, but that they shall soon discern betwixt verity and vanity. Six now have been alleged of the ancient and right famous Fathers, The Proclaimer required one plain sentence, he hath had now these six and many nio before, and herester yet more shall have. which all with great and goodly consent, have expounded the words of Saint Paul, to be understanded of the body of christ. Which expositions be not settfurth with obscurities in doubtful manner, as they may seem to be understanded diverse ways (which manner of sentences the Adversary doth produce to maintain his heresy) But they are clear plain, and easy to be understanded in their right sense, so, that they can not be drawn to any other sense. And therefore let the Proclaimer look well upon these expositions of these six Fathers past, and he shall perceive that they by express words teach that the body of christ is in the Sacrament, and there received both of good and evil men, which thing he shall see also taught of six other or more. And therefore let him for shame recant, and call in again his arrogant saying, that the catholic Church hath not one scripturens, nor one doctor. For I doubt not but by the judgement of them that shall read this work, that his saying shall be proved to be as false as vain. Of these that yet remain to be alleged, the first couple shall be Isichius and Isich. in Levit ca 26. Sedulius. Isichius hath this saying: Propter quod sanctuarium eius paveamus, ut nec corpus nostrum polluamus, nec ad corpus Christi, in quo est omnis sanctificatio (in ipso enim omnis plenitudo inhabitat divinitatis) sine subtili dijudicatione nostri, temerè accedamus, sed potius nosmetipsos probemus, reminiscentes eius qui dixit: Quicunque manducaverit panem aut biberit calicem Domini indignè, reus erit corporis & sanguinis Domini. Wherefore Jsich. understandeth S. Paul to have speaken of the body of christ, let us fear his holy place, that we neither defile our own body, nor rashly come to the body of christ, in the which is all sanctification (For in him abideth the fullness of the Godhead) without diligent examination of ourselves. But raither let us try ourselves remembering him that said: Whosoever shall eat the bread, and drink the cup of our Lord unwoorthielie, shall be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord. How this Author understandeth S. Paul, it is without great study to be perceived. For he exhorting us to come with great examination of ourselves, with purity and cleanness of body and soul to the receipt of Christ'S body, useth for the place of his authority the saying of S. Paul now in hand: whomsoever eateth the bread, and drinketh the cup of our Lord unwoorthielie, shall be guilty of the body, and blood of our Lord. Where in (as the other Fathers have done before) what Saint Paul calleth the bread of our Lord, that doth he by explaining words, call the body of christ. And that we should not take it for a figurative body, but for the very true and self same body of christ, and therewith to stir us to have the more regard to our duty, as with all honour and reverence to come to it, he saith that in that body dwelleth the fullness of the Godhead, that is, as Theophilact saith, Si quid est Deus Verbum in ipso inhabitat, That that is the Son of God dwelleth in him. And farther expowndinge the same, saith: Ne autem cùm audis, Theoph. in 2. cap. ad Coll●ss. habitavit, existimes quòd ageretur, aut impelleretur sicut Prophetae (commorabatur enim & in illis Deus, juxta illud, inhabitabo in ipsis, & inambulabo) adiecit: corporaliter, hoc est, non energia vel operatio quaedam, verùm substantia, ac veluti corporatus, & una hypostasis existens cum assumpto. Lest thou (when thou hearest this word Exod. 29. 2. Cor. 6. (dwelleth) shouldest think that he should be moved or led, as the Prophets were (for God dwelled in them also according to that saying I will dwell in them, and I will walk a 'mong them) he added, Corporally, that is, not a certain force or operation, but a substance, and as corporated and being one person with the nature assumpted. cyril also by the testimony of Theophilact, expounding these words, giveth great light to the understanding of them by an example and saith this: Vel hunc ad modum intelligere juxta Divi Cyrilli sententiam cyril. poteris: Perinde ac in corpore immoratur anima (immoratur autem ipsi corpori essentialiter, & indivisibiliter, ac citra mixturam) caeterum ipsa quidem anima per mortem à corpore separatur, Deus autem Verbum, nunquam ab assumpta carne separatus est, verum etiam in sepulchro aderat, ipsam incorruptibilem seruans, animaeque, apud inferos praedicans sine donans captivis remissionem. Ye may also according to the mind of S. cyril thus understand it, that as in the body dwelleth the soul, (but it dwelleth in the body essentially, and indivisiblie, and that without the commixtion of the two natures.) But yet the soul ytself is separated from the body by death. But God the Son is never separated from the flesh which he hath taken, but he was with it both in the grave keeping it from corruption, And with the Soul declaring or giving remission of sins unto them that were in captivity. Thus far he. By all this is meant that the very Godhead is substantially in christ, as the soul is substantially in the body, so that we cometo that body of christ in the which dwelleth fully, that is to say, substantially, the Godhead, which christ is God and man. And for so much as we come to so worthy a person, meet it is that we compownde ourselves accordingly. In this Father then this may we learn as in the other already alleged, that S. Paul speaketh of the body of christ, and is so to be understanded. For clls when he moveth us to prepare ourselves as to come to the body of christ, what should it appertain to the purpose to allege Saint Paul if Saint Paul did not, or do not speak of the same thing that he is alleged for? What is it to the purpose to allege Saint Paul speaking of a piece of bread, to prove that we must examine or selves before we receive Christ'S body? Betwixt the body of christ and a piece of bread there is no comparison Likewise are we taught here that evil men may receive the body of christ. For if they could not, why should he dehort them from such receipt? Vain it were to move a man not to do a thing, which Evil men receive the body of christ. is unpossible to be doen. It were strange to persuade a man not to pull dowen heaven with his hands. He were to beskorned that would move men to eat the stars. And why? Because he should move them to do that, that is unpossible to be doen. Even so if evil men can not receive the body of christ (as the Adversary teacheth) what vanity is it for this holy Father and other his likes, to make so many and earnest exhortations, that men should not receive the body of Christ unworthily? Forsomoche then as these grave wise, and learned Fathers gave us so many godly exhortations, so many virtuous admonitions that we should not receive the body of christ unworthily, it is most certain, that we may so receive it. And if so, then evil men may receive the body of christ. To Isichius is joined Sedulius, who in every part, affirmeth what the other hath taught. For he saith thus upon these words of christ recited of S. Paul: Take ye, This is my body. Qnasi dixisset Paulus: Cavete ne illud corpus indignè comedatis, dum Corpus Christi est. Indignè hoc comedetis: si pauperes confundatis, siue escam aliquam ante spiritualem & Dominicam Caenam comedatis. As though the Apostle had said: Beware ye that ye eat not that body unworrhilie, forsomuch as it is the body of christ. Ye shall eat this body unworthily if ye confownde the poour, if also ye eat any other meat before the spiritual meat, the Supper of Lord. Thus Sedulius. Where Saint Paul saith: he that eateth this bread unworthily etc. This man saith that Saint Paul in that whole proceasse spoke of the body of christ. And therefore (saith he) when S. Paul Sedulius saith that S. Paul spoke of the body of Chryst. had recited the words of Christ: Take ye, and eat. This is my body: it was as much, as though the Apostle had said: Beware that ye eat not that body unworthily for so much as it is the body of christ. In sew words than it is evident and plain that the Apostle their spoke of the body of christ, which thing that it sholude be perceived to be void of all doubt, this Author not contented with once speaking of the body, saith with an addition: For it is the body of Chryst. Which manner of speech maketh an assurance unto us that it is so. This also is to be observed, that as he saith that S. Paul teacheth us the presence of Christ'S body, that he also giveth us an admonition that we be ware that we receive not that body unworthily. Whereby (as before is noted) what else is given us to understand but that that body may be received The body of christ may be received of unworthy persons. of unworthy receivers. Which is as much to say, as evil men may receive the body of christ. Now let not the good Christian be brought in doubt with the vain argument of the Sacramentaries, who do reason thus: The Spirit of christ is always with his body or is not. We may not, say that it is not for that the spirit of christ is This argumen was made to me in the Bishop of Elies' house buy one yet living. inseparable from him. If then it be always with him, than the evil man receiving Christ'S body, receiveth also his spirit. And so shall the spirit of God be in sinners, which is not to be said. This vain argument shall the substantial and pithy saying of the holy Martyr Cyprian clean dissolve and wipe away, who saith thus. Sacramenta quidem quantum in se est, sine propria esse virtute non possunt. Nec vllo modo divina se absentat maiestas mysterijs. Sed quamuis ab indignis se sumi, vel contingi Sacramenta permittunt, non possunt tamen Spiritus esse participes, quorum infidelitas vel Cyprian, serm. de Caena. indignitas tantae sanctitati contradicit. Ideoue alijs sunt haec munera odor vitae in vitam, alijs odor mortis in mortem. quia omnino justum est, ut tanto beneficio priventur gratiae contemptores, nec indignis tantae gratiae puritas sibi faciat mansionem. The Sacraments Solution of the argument by S. Cyprian. truly formoche as in them is, can not be withthoute their proper virtue. Neither doth the divine majesty, by any means absent it self from the mysteries. But although the Sacraments suffer themselves to be touched or received of the unworthy: they for all that, whose unbelief or unworthiness doth withstand so great holiness, can not be partakers of the Spirit. And therefore are these Sacraments unto some the savour of life unto life, and unto other the savour of death unto death. For it is always meet, that the contemners of grace should be destituted of so great benefit, and that so excellent grace should not dwell in unworthy persons, Thus S. Cyprian. Of whom we learn that although the divine majesty absenteth not it self from the Sacrament: yet the unworthy receivers be not partakers of the grace of the spirit, because it is unmeet that the contemners of grace, should have grace abiding in them. For the more full understanding of God and his Spirit in his creatures two ways. this, note that God and his holy Spirit be in creatures two sundry ways: that is, by presence, and by grace. By presence God is in many places and creatures, where he is not by grace. God by presence is in hell among the damned souls, but he is not among them by grace. christ was in the house of Zachaeus by grace: But he was in the house of Caiphas and Pilate by presence, and not by grace. christ was in the midst of the jews by presence, but he was in the midst of his Apostles also by grace. The Apostles received the presence of christ with his grace in his last supper: judas received the presence of christ without his grace in the same Supper. And so it cometh to pass that the same christ, who was set to be a fall, and an uprising of many in Israel, is by the receipt Luc. 2. of his body in the Sacrament, as Saint Cyprian saith, to some a savour of life, to life: and to other some a savour of death to death. For the same flesh and blood, which is to some receivers (as christ saith) everlasting life, is to other some, (as Saint Paul saith), everlasting death. Of the which saith Saint Augustine: Quid de ipso corpore, & sangume Domini Aug. count Gesconium. unico sacrificio pro salute nostra? Quamuis ipse Dominus dicat: Nisi quis manducaverit carnem meam, & biberit sanguinem meum, non habebit in se vitam: Nun idem Apostolus docet etiam hoc perniciosum malè utentihus fieri? Ait enim: Quicumque manducaverit panem, vel biberit calicem domini indignè, reus erit corporis & sanguinis Domini. What shall we say of the very body and blood of our Lord, the only sacrifice for our Salvation? of the which although our Lord himself doth Say: Except a man do eat my flesh, and drink my blood he shall not have life in himself: Doth not the Apostle teach that the same also is hurtful to them that do use it evil? For he saith: Whosoever shall eat the bread, or drink the cup of our Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord, By this than I trust it be made manifest and plain, that christ and his Spirit may of evil receivers be received as touching his presence, but of such by grace he is not received, because they be not meet vessels for grace, forsomoche as they do contemptuously reject it, and by sinful life withstand it. But yet the same receive the very presence of Christ. The good receive christ outwardly in the Sacrament and inwardly by grace, and so the fruit, which is life: The evil receive him outwardly in the Sacrament, but not inwardly by grace, and so forgoinge life, they, for their abuse get death, which is everlasting damnation. THE fifth CHAP. SHOWETH THE understanding of the same text by Esfrem, and Primasius. AS the merciful goodness of God which by the testimony of the Prophet David, endureth for ever and ever upon them that fear him, is declared by innumerable his works wrought in the creation, redemption, and conservation of man: So the truth of God, Which by the testimony of the same Prophet, abideth for ever, and resteth upon such as be humble searchers of the same, is testified by numbers of witnesses. Wherefore the number of witnesses being many, that may be produced for the true understanding of Saint Paul in this text, I could not contain, but out of so many, yet bring some more. Of the which I mind here to bring Esfrem and Primasius, men of great antiquity. And for that they were of Christ'S Parliament house, and therefore well knowing the enacted truth of the understanding of S. Paul in their times, they are the better to be believed. This holy Father Esfrem, writing of the day of judgement, and speaking of the worthy and unworthy receiving of the Sacrament, maketh relation to Saint Paul, saying: the unpure receiver to receive the same to his confusion in the day of judgement, as the pure receiver to his comfort and glory. Thus he writeth: Si procul est à nobis Siloë, quo missus est caecus, sed D. Esfrem tract de die Judic. preciosus calix sanguinis tui plenus vita & lumine nobis in proximo est, tanto propinqutor, quanto qui accesserit sucrit purior. Hoc igitur nobis restat, misericors Christ, ut pleni gratia & illuminatione scientiae tuae cum fide, & sanctificatione accedamus ad calicem tuum, ut proficiat nobis ad remisstonem peccatorum, non ad confusionem in die judicij. Quta quicumque mysterijs tuis indignus accesserit, svam animam ipse condemnat. non se castificans ut cae lestem regem, atque immortalem Sponsum in sui pectoris purissimum suscipiat Thalamum. Nam a●…ma nostra sponsa est, immortalis sponsi. Copula, autem nuptiarum, caelestia Sacramenta sunt, quia cùm manducamus corpus eius, & sanguinem bibimus, & ipse in nobis est, et nos in eo. Attend ergo tibimet ipsi frater, festina thalamun cordis tui iugiter virtutibus exornare, ut mansionem cum benedicto Patre suo faciat apud te. Et tunc coram Angelis, & Archangeits erit tibi laus, & gloria, & gloriatio, et cum magna exultatione, & gaudio ingredieris in Paradisum. If Siloe whether the blind man was sent, be far from us: Yet A. plain saying of holy Esfrem for the Proclaimer. the precious cup of thy blood being full of life and light, is near to us, yea so much the nearer, as he that cometh to it is the purer. This then, o merciful Christ, remaineth unto us, that we being full of grace, and the illumination of thy knowledge, come unto thy cup with faith and holiness of life, that it may avail us to the remission of simes ', and not to our confusion in the day of judgement. For whosoever being unworthy cometh to the mysteries, he condemneth his ownesoule, not purisieng himself, that he might into the most pure or clean chamber of his breast receive the heavenly king and immortal Spouse. For our soul is the Spouse of the immortal husband: The cooplinge of the Marriage be the heavenly Sacraments. For when we do eat his We eat the body and drink the blood of christ. body, and drink his blood, both he is in us, and we in him. Take heed to thyself therefore, Brother, hast thee to adorn the bride chamber of thy heart continually with virtues, that with his blessed Father he may make his mansion with thee. And then there shall be to thee before Angels and archangels praise and glory, and with great joy and gladness shalt though entre into Paradise. Thus far holy Esfrem. Ye have heard a long testimony, but as godly, as long: and as true, as godly. Cup of blood near to us. Ye have heard that the cup of the blood of christ, is near at hand with us. If it were not in the Sacrament, (as the sacramentary saleth it is not) then were Syloë being upon the earth nearer unto us, than the blood of christ, which by their saying is never upon the earth, but always in heaven. This cup of blood may not be understanded by a figure, as to say we have at hand a cup of wine, which is the figure of Christ'S blood. For the words of singular praise, which this Author addeth unto the cup of the blood which he speaketh of, can not be applied, nor verified in the figurative cup. The cup that this Author speaketh of is, as he termeth it, a precious cup: A cup of wine in this respect is not precious. This cup is full of life and light: the figurative cup, by the Adversaries own saying, having no holiness, hath neither life nor light. This cup the Author by plain terms, calleth the cup of Christ'S blood: The other is not so, but a figure of Christ'S blood. By all these titles then of singular praise it is evident that this Author judged the precious cup of Christ'S very blood to be near at hand with us, and so teacheth the very presence of christ in the blessed Sacrament, who in deed is full of life and light he truly saying of himself: jam the life. jam the light of the world. This Author also openeth the mind of S. Paul, saying: that whoso cometh Bread in S. Paul is not material bread. to the mysteries of christ unworthily, doth condemn his own soul. He giveth the cause why: For (saith the Author) he doth not receive that heavenly king and immortal bridegroom into the bride chamber of his heart being purified and cleansed, but foully arrayed & defiled. The thing then received in the mysteries of christ, called of S. Paul the bread of our Lord, is not material bread, but it is christ the heavenly bread, the very heavenly king and immortal bridegroom of our souls, as this Author declareth. For immediately declaring that christ is joined to our Souls, as the bridegroom to the bride, he saith that it is done by the Sacraments. For (saith he) when we eat his body, and drink his blood than he dwelleth in us, and we in him. In deed in the receipt of Christ'S body in the Sacrament is wrought the perfect conjunction betwixt christ and us, if he be therein received as he aught to be received. For than we are not only conjoined to him spiritually by faith and charity, but also (as Chrisostom, and S cyril say) naturally. For both we be in him by that he took our nature into him in his incarnation, And he is in us by that we take his natural body in the holy ministration. Wherefore reason would, duty would, and love also would, that as he joined our nature to that glorious person the Son of God in deity, that we also should travail and labour to join again that his blessed body to our nature, adorned with virtue and life's purity. Of this conjunction moche is said in the beginning of this book, and more shall be said, God willing in the end. Wherefore now overpassing it, I hast to hear what Primasius will say, to help us to understand S. Paul's saying now in hand. Thus he writeth: Qui Primasius n● Apocal. edit meam carnem, & bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet, & ego in eo. pro eo acsi diceret: qui sic edent, ut edent est, & sic bibent, ut bibendus est sanguis meus. Multi enim cùm hoc videantnr accipere, in Deo non manent, nec Deus in ipsis. quia sibi judicium manducare perhibentur. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him. As if he should say: they that so shall eat my flesh as it is to be eaten, and shall so drink my blood, as it is to be drunken. For many wen they are seen to receive this Sacrament neither dwell they in God, nor God in them because they are wittnessed to eat and drink their own damnation. Primasius in this place alleged expoundeth two scriptures, the one out of the vj. of S. john: the other, which we now have in hand out of S. The vj. of S. John and S. Paul speak of one thing. Paul. Out of the vj. of S. john, where christ saith. He that cateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him: Is not so to be understanded, that what soever he be, and in what state or condition soever he be, in sin or out of sin, delighting in sin or detesting Sin, penitent or impenitent vicious, or virtuous, if he eat the flesh of christ, and drink his blood that he dwelleth in christ and christ in him: But it is to be understanded, that he that eateth the flesh of christ, and drinketh his blood, as it is to be eaten and drunken, that is, with sound faith, with perfect charity, with purity of mind and cleanness of conscience, that then he dwelleth in christ, and christ in him. To prove this he hath recourse to S. Paul's saying, that many do eat the flesh of christ, and drink his blood, that do eat and drink there own damnation. by which his allegation he also expoundeth how that Scripture is to be understanded. Which of him that will well weigh the allegation shall be easily perceived. First, it is to be considered that the vj. S. of john, out of the which he allegeth this scripture (as it is already invincibly proved) speaketh of the very flesh and very blood of christ. secondly, it is to be noted that he expoundeth this text, and saith that it is not to be understanded indifferently of all men to dwell in christ, and christ in them, that do eat his flesh and drink his blood: but of them that eat and drink them as they aught to be eaten and drunken, and allegeth for his proof our text of S. Paul. Which so being alleged, proveth that he understandeth S. Paul there to have spoken of the same thing that the vi. of S. john spoke of. But the vj. of S. john spoke of the flesh and blood of christ in the Sacrament. Wherefore by this Author so doth S. Paul here. And so it followeth by S. Paul and this Author that evil men may eat the flesh of christ, and drink his blood, in whom yet neither christ shall dwell, nor they in Christ. But they for their presumption presuming with a filthy Soul to receive so pure a body, shall suffer their just condemnation. Thus by these two Fathers, as by other before alleged, it is testified that the very presence of Christ'S body is in the Sacrament, and that the same is received of evil men, though to their condemnation. THE ONE AND fifth CHAP. ABIDETH IN the exposition of the same text by Cassiodorus, and Damascen. IT Is moche for the probation and confirmation of the truth, to see the goodly consent and agreement among the holy Fathers of Christ'S parliament house. Wherefore perceiving Cassiodorus to join the vj. of S. johan S. Paul, as Primasius did, as having both one understanding. I have thought good, of this couple, that here shall be brought forth, first and next to Primasius to place Cassiodorus, that it may more lively be perceived, that of them is by me reported. This Cassiodorus in his commentaries upon the psalms expowndinge this verse spoken as a prophecy of christ: Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedech: writeth thus: Cui potest veraciter, et evidenter aptari nisi Domino & saluatori, Cassiodor. in versu: Tues sacerdos etc. qui corpus & sanguinem suum in panis ac vini erogatione salutariter consecravit? Sicut ipse in evangelio dicit: Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, & biberitis eius sanguinem non habebitis vitam in vobis. Sed in ista carne & sanguine, nil cruentum, nihil corruptibile mens humana concipiat (ne sicut dicit Apostolus: Qui enim corpus Domini indignè manducat, judicium sibi manducat) sed vivificatricem substanciam, atque salutarem, & ipsius verbi propriam factam, per quam peccatorum remissio, & aeternae vitae dona praestantur. Unto whom may this be truly and evently applied, but unto our Lord christ consecrated his body and blood. and Saviour? Who in the giving forth of bread and wine to our health, consecrated his body and blood, as he in the Gospel saith: Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have everlasting life. But in this flesh and blood let not the mind of man conceive any thing gross, any thing corruptible, lest, as the Apostle doth say, he that eateth the body of our Lord unworthily eateth his own condemnation: but let man conceive it to be a substance giving life and salvation, and such a substance as is made the very own substance of the Son of God himself, by the which remission of sins and the gifts of everlasting life be given. Ye have now heard the weighty and pithic saying of the holy Senator Cassiodorus. Who as for his wisdom was worthily called to be a Senator to give counsel in worldly affairs: So for his godliness and learning he is a Senator of Christ'S house in heavenly things. In these few words he hath uttered many truths and given us many instructions. First, he uttereth this truth, that christ in his last Supper did consecrate his body and his blood. Which his saying, as it declareth and setteth forth the truth of the catholic faith: So it openeth and declareth, and therewith impugneth the untruth of the heresy of the Sacramentaries. Secondly, where he said that christ had to our health consecrated the same his body and blood, he proveth it by Christ'S faing in the vj. of S. john, where he saith: Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood ye shall not have life in you: Whereby it is manifest, that as by the forbearinge to eat the flesh of christ we lose the benefett of everlasting life: So by eating the same, as it is to be eaten, we obtain life everlasting. Which being so, his saying is affirmed and prooned where he said, that christ to our health and salvation consecrated his body and blood in his last Supper. For, having everlasting life by the eating of that his body consecrated in his last Supper, we may justly say that it was consecrated to our salvation. thirdly by that, that. the vj. of john is so alleged, it proveth well that the same speaketh of the body and blood of christ, that should be consecrated by him in his last Supper, to ower health and salvation, as is said. Forthlie, we are instructed and taught what What we should think of the body of christ consecrated. we aught to conceive and think of that blessed body and flesh of christ so consecrated. We may not think it a fantastical body, as Martion and Mamnicheus did, or the body of a mere man, as did Ebion and Cerynthus, against which heretics, as S. Hierom saith, S. john first was moved to write his gospel, thereby moved to open, declare and settfurth the deity or godhead of christ, which heresy afterward notwithstanding S. john's Gospel, and Epistles (as Philaster wittnesseth) was settfurth by Theodotus, who was condemned by Victor then Bishop of Rome, who was the thirteenth Bishop there after S. Peter, as the computation of some doth testify: Neither may we think, that because there be in christ two natures, that Two natures in Christ, but not two people. there be also in him two distincted persons, as did Nestorius, so that the nature of man in christ is so distincted and divided from the Godhead, that it hath no such conjunction with the Godhead, as that it by the reason of the unity of person, should either be called the Son of God, or the proper and very flesh of God, but the Son of man only. For all these thought it a corruptible flesh, the flesh of a pure man, and not the flesh of the Son of God, as it is in deed, but we must think it, as this Author teacheth, that it is a substance quickening us to salvation and everlasting life, uless as it is made the very own and proper flesh of the Son of God, by the which we have remission of sin, and life everlasting. And this also are we taught of holy cyril, who giveth also a reason, why the flesh of God should give life, saying thus: Quoniam salvatoris caro, verbo Dei quod naturaliter vita est, coniuncta, vivifica effecta est, quando eam comedimus, tunc vitam cyril. in 6. Joan. cap. 14. habemus in nobis illi coniuncti, quae vita effecta est. forasmuch as the flesh of our Saviour being joined to the Son of God, who naturally is life, is made giving life, when we eat that flesh, them have we life in ourselves, for asmuch as we are joined to it, which is made life. Thus then may we perceive that not only corrupt manners, but also corrupt faith, otherwise conceiving or phantasinge of Christ'S body then the catholic Faith teacheth, divideth us from christ, and maketh us unworthy receivers of that blessed body. If they be accounted among evil receivers, that otherwise think of the body of christ, then is to be thought of it: What is to be thought of them, that where christ promised, that the bread, which he would give should be his flesh, which he would give for the life of the world, and by express words, for the performance of the same promise, taking bread, said plainly: This is my body: And S, Paul (as the whole company of the Fathers hitherto have testified, and more yet shall testify) saith that in the Sacrament is the body of christ, what, I say, is to be thought of them, that will not think Christ'S body to be his body, but with the Ebionites and Cerinthians will make christ no God, with the manichees will make him but a fantastical figure, and with the Nestorians, will, as they made a distinction betwixt the two natures, leaving the nature of man divided and distincted from the godhead, so make the holy Sacrament distincted from christ? where in very deed, as God and man is one christ: So the blessed Sacrament as touching the Substance, and christ is all one the Substance of the Sacrament being none other but the very substance of christ. These evil receivers, and abusers of Christ'S holy Sacrament, as they abuse the thing it self: So by slanderous terms do they abuse them that well use the same. For the true Christians that honour God, call they Idolaters: Soche as acknowledge Christ'S very body in the Sacrament, call they gross Capharnaites: And such as believe the substance of bread by the omnipotency of God to be changed, and made the substance of christ, they call Papists. But God give them a better mind, and the catholics plenty of patience, patiently to suffer their railings, so long as God for our correction, will permit the same to continue. And now to return to our matter, this finally is to be noted in our Cassiod, how he uttereth Saint Paul's words. Author, that alleging our text of Saint, Paul, he useth not the words of Saint Paul, but the meaning and understanding. Thus he allegeth Saint Paul: Qui enim corpus Domini indignè manducat, judicium sibi manducat. For he that eateth the body of our Lord unworthily, eateth his own judgement. Note well that he saith not, he that eateth the bread, but he that eateth the body of our Lord, expounding what bread Saint Paul spoke of in that scripture, the bread, I say, of Christ'S body, as oftentimes it is already said. What can be said more plainer? would the Proclaimer have any plainer speech than this? Let him note the words, and the circumstance also, and weigh it well, and he shall find it so plain, that all his engines and wrestinges, and all his subtilties●, with the aid of all his complices, shall not be able to withstand the plain truth of it. But Let us hear Damascen speaking as plainly, as he, and by like words opening to us the true meaning of Saint Paul. This Damascen setting Damascen. li. 4. ca 14. forth the virtue, goodness, and power of the Sacrament, saith thus: Si aurum offendat adulteratum, per iudicialem correptoriamue ignitionem purgat, ut non in futuro cum mundo damnemur. Curate enim morbos, & omnimoda damna, quemadmodum dicit Apostolus: Si nos utique iudicaremus, non utique iudicaremur. Cùm iudicamur autem à Deo, corripimur, ut non cum mundo condemnemur. Et hoc est quod dicit: Quare qui participat corpus & sanguinem Christi indignè, judicium sibi tosi manducat, & bibit. Per illud purgati unimur corpori Domini, & spiritui eius & efficimur corpus Christi. Nam spiritus vivificans est caro Domini, quia ex vivificante spiritu concepta est. Quod enim natum est ex spiritu, spiritus est. Hoc autem dico non auferens corporis naturam, sed vivificationem, & divinitatem eius ostendens. If it find gold that is corrupted, by judicial and correptory fieringe it purgeth it, that we be not in time to come condemned with the world. For it cureth diseases, and all manner of hurts, as the Apostle saith. If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged, but when we are judged of God, we are chastised, that we should not be damned with the world. And this is it that the Apostle saith: Wherefore he that receiveth the Damascen. uttereth the words of S. Paul as other elders before. body and blood of Christ unworthily, he eateth & drinketh his own damnation. We being purged by that, are united to the body of our Lord, and to his Spirit, and are made the body of christ. For the flesh of our Lord is a quickening Spirit, because it was conceived by the quickninge Spirit. For that that is borne of the spirit, is a spirit. This do I say not taking away the nature of the body, but declaring his Godhead and power to give life. Thus he. Leaving diverse good and godly notes in this saying of Damascen to be considered, by the Reader, I hast me to note those things that be to the purpose of this present cause. Of the which the first and chiefest is, that he alleging the saying of Saint Paul, shewing us the exposition of the scripture, and giving us the understanding of the same, and the right meaning of Saint Paul, speaketh it by these words. He that receiveth the body and blood of christ unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation. In which manner of speech, as an expositor aught to do, by unwrestable words he declareth what Satan would wrest, and so by plain words calleth that, that Saint Paul calleth the bread, and cup of our Lord, the body and blood of christ, he right well knowing that they be so in very deed. I trust the Proclaimer will not here upon this Author cast the stinking mist of his figure, considering that it is an exposition. And the nature of an exposition is to be plainer than the thing expounded. And although both the text, and the exposition speak the truth: yet he knoweth that what the text oftentimes speaketh obscurely or doubtfully, that must the exposition speak plainly, clearly, and manifestly. Whefor he must needs confess, that this Author showing the mind of S. Paul, and expounding the bread and the cup to be the body and blood of christ, that it is plainly so. And where diverse of the adherents of this Proclaimer bear great Stomach against this Author for his plain truth in many matters, Let both him and them know, that as in all points of this matter the whole catholic Church hath allowed him: So is he agreeable to all that hitherto have been alleged in the exposition of S. Paul, which all be right ancient, or hereafter shall be alleged, though they be not so ancient. A Brief note also can I not but make of Damascen, where he saith, that we being purged are by the receipt of the body of christ united to the same body and to his Spirit, and are also made his body. For as by these few words the truth is opened, Worthy receivers os the bless. Sacr. What benefits they have. and the great commodities that come to us by the worthy receipt of the Sacrament declared: So is the vain argument of the Adversary before moved, fully solved and answered. The truth is, that both good and bad receiving the Sacrament, do receive the body of christ. Commodities thercome none, but to the worthy receruer, which commodities be three. The first is, that we be united to the body of christ, of the which moche is said in this book upon the tenth to the Corinthians. The second benefit is, that we be also united to his holy spirit. The third is, that we be made the mystical body of christ. These three commodities and benefits do we enjoy by the receipt of the Sacrament, saith this author. But when? when (saith he) we being purged do receive it. For otherwise we receive not such commodities, but we receive great and notable incommodities For we receive (saith S. Paul) our own damnation. Then where the Adversary Unworthy receivers what they receive. boileth up his violent argument, that where christ is, there his Spirit is also, And so if evil men receive in the Sacrament the body of christ, they receive his Spirit also: It is true, that they receive christ and his Spirit as touching their presence, but not as touching grace. For although they receive his presence, yet forsomuch as they be not (as this Author saith) purged, they receive him not to grace. For neither be they united to the body of christ, neither to his holy Spirit, neither be they thereby made members of Christ'S mystical body. for (as Primasius hath said) they eat not that flesh as it is to be eaten, nor drink that blood, as it aught to be drunk. For in deed it is not to be eaten and drunken, but of such as be cleansed and purged from sin by penance, and be clearly void of purpose to sin again, And to such it bringeth these three commodities, and many more, to the other nothing, but they themselves work their own damnation. Thus gentle Reader, thou mayst perceive, that if with the mind of the holy Fathers of Christ'S Parliament house, if wilt read the Scriptures, and by them learn to understand the same, thou shalt not only not be deceived, but also in all matters of controversy be settled and stayed, and clearly see the toys and fantasies of the Adversaries to be maliciously, and devellislie forged and invented. THE TWO AND fifth CHAP. ENDETH THE exposition of this text by Theodoret, and Anselmus. HItherto none be produced to show us the mind of S. Paul, but such as by the testimony of diverse writers, were a thousand years agone and more, save this last alleged Damascen, whom some so place, as he had not lived full nine hundredth years agone. But be it that he were so, yet he is of such antiquity, as he may very well be called as witness in this matter, for that he was before this controversy was raised in the Church, I mien, before the time of Berengarius, Before whose time, I am sure the Adversaries can make no prescription, nor yet since, but by starts as Satan might get occasion and ministers now and Why God suffereth Satan noweto wax his Church with heresies. then to disturb gods Church. Which, I take, is suffered of God both to correct our evil lives: and also to stir us to seek the knowledge of god's truth. Which although we had, as it were an upper face of the knowledge of it: yet through negligence we did not wade to the depth of it. But be it, that Damascen were not nine hundredth years agone: yet the promiss of christ being considered that he would be with his, Church to the end of the the world, and that he would also send his holy spirit into the same his Church, that shoule lead it into all truth: As it is to much shame for the Adversary to say that all this time since Damascen taught Christ'S promise hath failed: So it is as much shame to say that all this time his own doctrine hath been suppressed. In deed I would think that this Proclaimer should do that, that all his The proclaimers doctrine hath no precedent, that it hath been quietly received. progenitors could never yet do, if he could show that doctrine of the Sacrament that he professeth to have been receavedvuiversallie and quietly but one hundredth years: yea one half hundredth years: yea one twenty years or if he can not do that, as I am sure he can not, Let him show it received and continued, as is said, but one year. If he can make no such prescription of his doctrine, he is to blame to reject the catholic doctrine, which by many of their confessions hath stand these thousand years, and to obtrude, unto us his doctrine, that never was yet stayed quietly one year. If ever his droctrine was universally received it could never without great and notable trouble to the whole Church be taken away. Let him then show, when, by whom, and by what means it was taken away, by the authority of any authentic history or catholic author, and then he shall do somewhat, but that somewhat will never be doen. then the doctrine of the presence of christ in the Sacrament hath universally been recaved since the time of Damascen until the time of this heresy: as we should be mad, men to receive sochenovelties of so small stay or hold: So is the Proclaimer more mad so to move us. Damascen then teaching that, that all the Christian world received, and that also long before the controversy was moved, cannot he justly rejected, but is to be regarded. These being twelve in number, are sufficient to be a quest and to give their verdict upon this matter. Which all find that S. Paul here spoke of the body and blood of christ in the Sacrament, no mention being made of material bread. Which so being, it is easy by the same verdict to pronounce, that to say that Christ'S body and blood be not in the blessed Sacrament, is wicked heresy. matter, and not delighted with some variety which of many is desired: I will but note our principal matters, that are of his text of Saint Paul to be learned, which (as before is declared) are but two, and so overpass the rest. The one that Saint Paul here speaking of the Sacrament, and calling What bread S. Paul spoke of. it the bread of our Lord, and sometime with and article, this bread: mente not common bread, but a special bread that is, as often before is said, the heavenly bread of Christ'S body, which is the bread of our Lord in veriedede. For in him only consisteth the power to make this bread, and to give it to the people. The other, that God suffereth this heavenly bread of Christ'S The bless. Sacr. t. is proved byour Lord jesus, to be his body. body, to be received of sinners. As touching the first, the presupposal or cause why a man should be guilty of the body and blood of christ, when he doth unworthily receive the Sacrament is, saith Anselmus, because by the authority of our Lord jesus it is proved, that this bread that we speak of here, is his body, and that the wine here also spoken of in the use of the Sacrament is his blood. Note I pray you, that this Authur saith, that it is proved of Saint Paul by the authority of our Lord jesus, that the body of the same our Lord jesus is in the Sacrament, formoche as the bread and wine there, is no other but the body and blood of christ. And do not only as by transcourse lightly read these words, but earnestly note that he saith, it is proved by the authority of our Lord jesus. If it be proved by him, who can improve it? If he say it, who can deny it? If he so teach it, why shall we otherwise believe it? Let the Proclaimer now, let all the Sacramentaries, which be his companions, bringfurth one Author that saith that it is proved by the words of our Lord jesus that the bread and wine of the bless. Sacrament be not the body and blood of our Lord jesus, but only figures of the same body and blood, and not the things themselves, and show the place as we do, and they shall have the victory. But let them paint their matters as well as they can to bleer the eyes of the simple, yet Vincit Veritas, the truth overcometh. And so shall it in the end fall out, that they shall be perceived to be destitute of truth. For their untruth shall be confounded by the truth. Though untruth for a time get the upperhand, and be maintained by the princes and mighty of the earth, for that their sensual liberty is not by her restrained, but by her in that respect, they are much pleasured: yet as all vanity faileth, vadith and vanisheth: So it being of the same kind shall fall away and consume as the smoke, and the favourers of the same shall be as the dust, which the wind bloweth away from the face of the crathe. But so, while I am a little passed the compass of the ring, my second matter knocketh and calleth me again, wherein briefly to touch moche matter: Three sorts of evil receivers. this Author maketh three sorts of evil and unworthy receivers. The first is of them that do otherwise celebrate or receive this holy mystery, than it was delivered of christ. In the which sort as he touched the Berengarians, which were in his time: So doth he the Oecolampadians and the Caluinists of this our time, which both otherwise celebrating, and otherwise receiving this holy mystery, than it was of christ instituted, they make themselves unworthy receivers. christ instituted his body to be distributed and given in this holy refection: They give and receive a piece of bread, and a cup of wine. christ instituted a sacrifice to be celebrated: They celebrate a bear token of remembrance. Wherefore by the judgement of this Author, they altering Christ'S institution, are accounted among the evil receivers. another sort is of them that receive the holy Sacrament without due reverence: Of this sort be all the Lutherans who although they confess the very presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament: yet they deny any honour or worship to be done unto it. Which fond and infatuate doctrine, I can but wonder at, well knowing that wheresoever christ is either in heaven or Philip. 2. in earth, he is (as chrysostom saith) worthy of most high honour, and if God hath so exalted him and given him a name, which is above all names, that in the name of jesus every knee shall bow, both of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth: by what authority can or will man will or command no honour to be done to him? but of this we have already 3 spooken, wherefore staing any more to say of it here, I come to the third sort of receivers, which is (saith this author) of them that presume to come to the receipt of the blessed Sacrament before they have purged themselves, and cleansed their consciences by penance. Of this sort be all they who well believing, yet not well living, come with the filthiness of sin already committed, yet remaing upon them, or else with purpose of sin to be committed, by which both they make themselves unworthy receivers. Here now ye see a variety of evil receivers, and yet (saith this author) that they all receive the Sacrament. And the Sacrament (saith he) by the authority of our Lord jesus is proved to be the body and the blood of christ. Which thing this author yet by more express words teacheth in the exposition Anselm. ibid. of the other text, where S. Paul as by repetition saith: He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation: saying thus: Ideo prius se discutiat & purget. Quia qui manducat & bibit indignè, id est sine sui examinatione, judicium sibi manducat & bibit. Sicut enim Iudas cui buccellam tradidit Dominus non malum accipiendo, sed malè accipiendo, locum in se Diabolo praebuit: sic indignè quisque sumens Dominicum Sacramentum, ut quia ipse malus est, malum sit quod accepit, aut quia non ad salutem accipit, nihil acceperit, corpus enim Domini, & sanguis Domini nihilominus est, sed ille accipit hoc non ad vitam, sed ad indicium, quia non di●uidicat corpus Domini, id est, non discernit quàm sit dignius omnibus creaturis hoc corpus, quod videtur esse panis. Si enim cogitaret hoc corpus esse Verbo Dei personaliter unitum, & vitam ac salutem eorum esse, qui hoc dignè accipiunt, non praesumeret indignus accipere, sed dignum se praepararet. Let him therefore first examine himself, and purge himself. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, that is without examination of himself, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, making no difference of the body of our Lord. For as The bless. Sacr. is the body and blood of christ though evil men receive it. judas to whom our Lord gave a morsel, not taking an evil thing, but taking it in evil manner, gave to the Devil a place in himself: so whosoever receiveth the Sacrament of our Lord unworthily, causeth not, because heys an evil man, that thing which he hath received is evil, or because he received it not to salvation, that he received nothing (For it is nevertheless the body of our Lord, and the blood of our Lord) but he taketh this not to life, but to condemnaciou, because he maketh no difference of the body of our Lord, that is, he discerneth not how much more worthy this body, which seemeth to be bread, is above all creatures. For if he had in mind that this body is personallic united to the Son of God, and to be the life and salvation of them that do receive it worthily, the unworthy would not presume to receive it, but he would prepare himself to be worthy. See ye not, that the blessed Sacr. is nevertheless the body and blood of our Lord unto them that take it not to life but to condemnation? it is so plain that I need to say no more but to conclude with this author, and all the rest hitherto alleged, that saint Paul here speaketh of the body of christ, and teacheth the same to be verily received of evil and unworthy receivers. It is not unknown to the Proclaimer, but of the lower house of Christ'S Parliament, I might have brought many more both grecians and Latins: as Haymo, Bede, Photius, Oecumenius. Thomas de aquino, Lyra, Dionyse, Hugo, and Erasmus, and as many as have within the compass of these nine hundredth years, either written upon S. Paul's Epistles, or alleged him in the matter of the Sacrament out of the eleventh of the first epistle to the Corinthians. For they all understand S. Paul both to have spoken of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, and that the same body is oftentimes received of evil men. But among so many, I can not stay myself, but I must hear one of them, and the raither for that he is a Graecian, and so being no Papist, he may be heard with more indifferent ear. It is Oecumenius, who upon the words of S. Paul saying, that the unworthy receiver shall be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord, saith thus: Quod ait, reus erit corporis & sanguinis: hoc Oecum. in 11. 1. Cor. indicat, quòd quemadmodum Iudas eum tradidit. judaei verò in ipsum, debacchati sunt: Ita ipsum ignominia afficiunt, qui sanctissimum ipsius corpus manibus impuris suscipiunt (veluti judaei tunc eum tenuerunt) & execrando admovent ori. Per hoc quod frequenter ait, corporis & sanguinis Domini, manifestat, quod non sit nudus homo, qui immolatur, sed ipse Dominus, & factor omnium, ut videlicet per hoc eos terreat That he saith: he shall be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord: he showeth this, that, as judas betrayed him, and the jews raiged against him, even so do they dishonour The body of our Lord may be received with un pure hands and execrable mouth. him, that with unclean hands (as then the jews did hold him) do receive his most holy body, and put it to their cursed or detestable mouth. By that, that he often saith: the body and blood of our Lord: he manifestly declareth, that it is not a pure or only man that is offered, but even our Lord himself, the maker of all things, that thereby he might make them afraid. What is in the Sacrament, which is delivered into the hands and mouths of men, by this author ye may perceive. For it is (saith he) the most holy body of our Lord, which most holy body is received both with unclean hands, for that the consciences of such receivers be unclean, and with detestable mouths, for that their mouths speaking wicked things, are detestable S. Paul doth often call the bless. Sacr. the body and blood of our lord before God. If you will see more of the truth of this matter: note that he saith, that S. Paul doth often call the Sacrament, the body and blood of our Lord, but will ye know why he doth so? Not to make us believe that it is not the body of christ (as this Proclaimer would bear us in hand) but that he would, as this author testifieth, manifestly teach us, that it is a very body, and not the only figure of a body: a body, which is not the body only of a man, but the body of our Lord God, who is the maker of all things. If the Proclaimer desire to have one that by express words, doth teach the very presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament. Let him behold a number now brought to expownde S. Paul, which all not only of their own faith affirm such presence, but also teach that saint Paul affimed the same. And therefore if there be any truth in the same Proclaimer let him now forsake his wicked heresy, and according to his promise, let him subscribe to the verity. For that being now oftentimes done, that he required but once to be done, as justly I may, so do I claim the performance of his promise. Well reader whatsoever he, witho●den either with shame or with malice shall do in this matter against the truth, and most like also against his conscience: yet thou having regard to thy duty before God, and to the salvation of thy soul, behold thou with indifferent eyes these so many plain manifest, and express places: tarry and abide upon them: view them and consider them well, and yielding to truth, thou shalt by god's grace, if thou humbly crave it, come to it, but yet thou shalt see more of S. Paul. THE THREE AND fifth CHAP. BEGINneth the exposition of the next text of S. Paul, which is, Let every man examine himself, and so let him eat, etc. INS. Paul it followeth. Probet seipsum homo, & sic de pane illo edat, & de chalice hibat. Let therefore a man examine himself: And so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. The great peril and danger that shall come to unworthy receivers of that blessed body and blood being by S. Paul declared, he imediatelie joineth thereunto, as a salve to a deadly sore, a godly admonition, that to avoid such danger as may ensue, or to remedy the hurt, if it be already taken every man that will receive this blessed Sacrament, should first consider what it is, and upon consideration thereof examine himself, whether he be a worthy person to receive it or no. But unto this text we shall give Toexamin ourselves what it is and how it may be doen. moche light, if we open what it is for man to examine himself, and when he hath so done, how he shall know when he is worthy or unworthy. First, it is expedient, that the state of man, wherein he aught to be before God, be known, for the state known, it shall be easier for man, to make examination of himself, wherher he be in the state near to it, or far from it. The state that man aught to be in before God in this frail life consists in two parts in upprightnesse of faith and in purity or cleanness of life. As Hebr. 11. touching faith the Apostle saith: Sine fide impossibile est placere Deo. without fatth it is unpossible to please God. For (as he saith again) Accedentem ad Deum oportet credere. He that will come to God must believe. Wherefore christ being as touching the birth of his manhood in his own country did not Ibidem. Faith how necessary it is. there many miracles, for that the unbelief of the people, which should have comed to him by belief, did let him, and stay. For (saith the Evangelist Matthew) Nonfecit ibi virtutes multas, propter incredulitatem illorum he did not many miracles there because of their unbelief. But where faith Math. 13. was, there christ wrought his miracles bowntifullie. Wherefore when the Centurio came unto christ, as an humble and faithful suitor for the health Math. 8. of his servant that lay sick of a palsy, and upon the merciful answer of christ, who said that he would come and cure him: The Centurio strong in faith said: Lord I am not worthy than thou shouldest entre under my roof, but Wherfaith is there God worketh. only say the word, and my servant shall be holle: christ was so delighted with his faith that he did not only praise it saying: I found not so great faith in Israel: But also for the health of the sick man he said to the Centurio: Go thy ways, as though havest believed, so be it unto thee, and his servant was healed in the self same hour. The woman also that had the bloody flux, was so strong in faith that she said with in herself: if I may touch but the hem of his vesture only Math. 9 I shall be whole, whereupon immediately she both received the benefett of health at Christ'S hand and also the praise of her faith, christ saying to her be of good comfort daughter: thy faith hath made the safe. christ also beholding Math. 15. the faith of the woman of Canaan, did not only praise the same saying: O woman great is thy faith. But also for the health of her daughter said unto her: Be it unto thee as though havest desired, and her daughter was healed, even at the same time. What shall I stand in this large camp of faith, and in the worthiness thereof, of the which the whole bible from Genesis, to Heb. 11. The force of faith. the last of the Apocalypse doth continually make mention? wherefore I will with S. Paul conclude in few words, saying with him: The holy faithful by faith have subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained the promises, stopped the mouths of Lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to sleight the armies of the alientes, the women received their dead raised to life again. Thus may we see how necessary faith is, without the which man cannot come to God: Thus may we see how bowntifullie God worketh where faith is: Thus may we finally see the great might, and power of faith, which is such, that it maketh all things possible to the Math. 17. believer. For to him that believeth, nothing is unpossible, saith christ. Now as faith worketh these wonders: so the lack of faith hindereth all these wonders. The Apostles attempted to deliver a man, that was possessed Want of faith how it hindereth good effects. Marc. 9 of a Devil, and could not, whereupon the Father of him, brought him to christ saying: Master, I brought my Son to thy Disciples, and they could not cast the Devil out of him. When christ had cast the Devil out, the Disciples came secretly to him, saying: Why could not we cast him out? jesus said unto them, because of your unbelief. Vnbeleif then was the hindrance of this great work that might have been done by the Apostles. Faith made Peter walk upon the sea: unbelief made him sink, whereupon he heard at Christ'S mouth. Modicae sidei, quare dubitasti? O thou of little faith, wherefore diddest thou doubt? Vnbeleis so moche displeaseth christ that after the resurrection he rebuked the two Disciples that went from Jerusalem to Emaus, and with sharp words said unto them: O ye fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. S. Mark also saith that christ appearing to the eleven as they sat at meat, cast their unbelief in their teeth, and rebuked Matth. 14 Mar. 16. the hardness of their heart, because they believed not them, which had seen, that he was risen from the dead. To thus much, the Arrian, the Novatian, the Pelagian, the Berengarian, the Wycleffest, the Lutheran, the Oecolampadian, the Caluiniste, and the Anabaptist, will agree, and every one of these will say, that faith must be had, and each of them will say, that he hath that faith that pleaseth God, and yet being all void of upright faith, they vary in faith, as did the lindsays, and saducee, that is having some piece, but missing the whole. This faith therefore would be known, as also of whom it should be learned. The catholic faith described. If ye will know this faith, in few words it is the faith that we call Apostolic, and catholic, Apostolic descending by continual succession from the Apostles, as it were from to hand hand, even unto us that now live. Catholic as universally received, professed, and believed throughout the Christian orb, not reigning in one corner, or in one realm, by the private invention of one private brain, and maintained by the private affection of one prince, but generally and universally of all Christian princes, of all Christian Realms, of all Christian men, and that not for twenty or forty years, as the new faith in Germany, and in Englond but in all times not now received, and now disproved, as the Lutherans doctrine, but ever without interruption continued. This faith may not be devised, newly invented or upon affection appointed, but it must be learned. Fides ex auditu, faith cometh by hearing saith Paul, being called to be the singular vessel of God, was yet sent by Christ'S commandment to Ananias, to learn of him what he should do. Hic dicet tibi, quid te oporteat facere. He shall tell thee what thou must do. Cornelius a godly man Act. 9 and fearing God, although he might have been taught of the Angel that appeared unto him, yet he was not, but by the same Angel was willed to send to jop for S. Peter to come to him. And he (saith the Angel) shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do. Mark learned of S. Peter, Luke of S. Paul, of the which a longer discourse is made in the first book. So that this faith I say Cap. 7. must by God's ordinance be learned of the elders, not devised by new inventors. The faith, if it may be so termed, which Luther taught, where learned he it? was there any elder at that day in all the world, that taught him that Where learned Luther and his rabble their faith. fantastical faith? did he not of his own private head newly scour some of the heresies of Wicliff and Husse, and some devised never heard of before? Who in all the Christian orb, when Luther had griffed (as he said) a right, a true and a perfect faith, taught Carolstadius, Zuinglius, and Oecolampadius a contrary faith to Luther, as to teach that Christ'S body is not in the Sacrament? Let Carolstadius bring forth one Christian realm that so taught him: or one Church, or one allowed Father or elder then living, that so taught. But forsomoch as he can not, it may be concluded, that as well his faith, as the faith of Luther is not learned of the Fathers by succession, but partly borrowed of some other heretic by private election, partly devised by a new invention, and so a faith not continued, but both invented, and interrupted, and therefore neither Apostolic, neither catholic. The state of man then in the upprightnesse of faith, must be in the faith Apostolic, and catholic, and not in heretical faith, which is no more a faith in deed, than a painted man is a man. A man is upright in faith when he discrediteth nothing that is contained in the holy faith Apostolic and catholic. The other part of the state of man's life before God is purity and cleanness of life, which part who so can (Faith, as is saicd presupposed) atteign unto, is blessed, christ saying: Beatimundo cord, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt. Blessed be the clean in heart, for they shall see God. This cleanness standeth in two points: in the eschewing the filthiness Purity of life standeth in two points. Psalm. 33. of sin: and in adourning ourselves with virtues, in declining from evil and doing of good, as the psalm saith, Declina à malo, & fac bonum. Decline or forsake evil, and do good. For it is not sufficient to a good life to fly sin only, but also to do good. And therefore the holy Ghost hath with a copulation coupled and linked them together always. Now thus much of the state of man's life known, it is the easier to perceive what S. Paul meeneth by the examination of themselves. To examine ourselves is to try and prove, to search to call ourselves to account, first whether we stand sound in faith, according to the counsel of S. Paul in an other place, Vos metipsos tentate si estis in fide, ipsi vos probate. Prove yowrselues whether ye be in faith or not examine yowrselues. This trial is made, when we examining ourselves, whether we disagree or dissent from any one article of the catholic faith, find ourselves neither varying from, nor doubting of any of them. In the second part, we must thus examine ourselves, first whether any sin be by us already committed, or any purpose remaining in us for any to be committed. If any be committed, the same must by hearty contrition, humble 2. Cop. 13. and plain confession, true and faithful penance be wiped away. If any purpose be in us to sin, that must be cut of and detested, and by like means (as is before said) clean forsaken, knowing that every sin to the which consent of will is given, though it be not done in fact, is reputed before God, and is in deed a full sin. Thus much not only the catholic Church hath willed to be done, as S. Cyprian and S. Augustine are plentiful witnesses. But also the Lutherans Conventicles. For in their confession of the chief articles of their faith, thus they say: Confessio in ecclesiis apud nos, non est abolita. Non enim solet porrigi corpus Domini nisi antea exploratis, & absolutis. Confession is not with us in our churches Confess. August. Art. de Confess. abolished. For the body of our Lord is not wont to be given, but to such as before be diligently searched and examined and absolved. When we be thus far goen we must examine ourselves of our devotion, regard and reverence to the thing that is to be received. For else we shall receive to our own condemnation, for that, as S. Paul saith, we make no difference of the body of our Lord, from other common meats. Thus much being said for our examination and preparation before we come to the receipt of this high mystery, we have therein neither varied from the doctrine of christ neither from the doctrine of S. Paul, nor of the holy Fathers of the Church. The doctrine of christ shall forth with be showed. The doctrine of S. Paul and the Fathers shall be opened in all the process following, christ setting forth this high mystery of his body and blood, declared Joan. 6. christ in struct his Apostles in the faith of the bless. Sacrament before he institutedit that it was necessary to have both faith and purity of life. First, as touching faith, that his Apostles should be therein prepared and made ready, he did not only instruct them fully long before he ministered the thing to them that they should know what it was that they should receive, but also induced them to the same faith by a miracle wrought also in bread, that as they knew by the power of his godhead the five loaves to be multiplied to the satisfying of five thousand people, and to the leaving yet of twelve baskets full of fragments of the same loaves, so they should (this being done in their seight) with the more ease be brought to believe, that he by the same power could make of bread his body. Whereupon though many of the Disciples not believing christ did forsake him and came no more at him (as many have done in these days) yet the Apostles by the miracle being prepared, and by Christ'S own doctrine instructed in the faith of this mystery, abode with him and saied-Domine ad quem ibimus? Verba vitae aeternae babes. Lord unto whom shall we go? though havest the words of everlasting life. Thus being by Christ'S instruction made perfect in the faith of this my sterie, they came (as Chrysostom saith) quietly to the receipt of it, being nothing troubled with the words of christ when he said: Take eat this is my body. Take, and drink this is my blood, for that (saith he) they had before heard many and great things of this mystery. By this than it is manifest that to the receipt of this Sacrament, faith is necessarily required .. Likewise are we by him admonished of the purity of life. For when he christ gave instruction of the purity of life required in the receivers of the bless. Sacr. would give forth this blessed Sacrament, he rose from the supper of the paschal lamb, and laid aside his upper garments, and being girded with a towel washed his Disciples feet signifying thereby, that all that come to receive this Sacrament must before be cleansed and purified from all sinful affections. And here to say by the way, if this Sacrament contain no more, than did the paschal lamb, but that both this and that be only figures of christ: and so the Lamb as good a Sacrament as this: why did christ leave this solempn Ceremony of washing his Disciples feet undone before the eating of the paschal lamb, and differred it unto the receipt of this Sacrament? It hath also consideration why he would now wash his Disciples feet, who before contrary to the manner of the jews, not only suffered, but also defended his Apostles for the eating of their meat with unwashed hands. The other part of purity of life, which consisteth in the adjourning of ourselves with virtuous and godly acts, was not left untaught of christ, but when he said: This do ye in the remembrance of me: he both willed that godly act to be done, and also that we should be mindful of his death and passion, and of his great love towordes us in suffering of the same, and thereby to be moved, not only to render unto him most humble and lowly thanks, but for his sake for the proportion of hour possibility, to practise the like charity, and show the like love to our brethren. Now he that hath such charity what lacketh he to the sufficient furniture of his soul with all godly virtues necessary? But a marvelous matter, as godly, a thing as it is, for a man to examine himself, as plain as it is, both by Christ'S doings, and S. Paul's words, that it should so be: yet Satan could get a minister to teach that no other preparation needeth for the receipt of the Sacrament, but only faith. Is their moche hope of truth to be reposed in him, that so teacheth? Liberty a bait of the Devil, setforth by his ministers luther and his likes. is not the religion to be suspected, or raither detested, that is settfurth by such a patron? yet this is the doctrine of Luther, who is the fownder of this new religion, the inventor of this faith, the setter up of the word, the restorer, as they say, of truth, and the bringer of light. But Satan and his minister also knew well how to win the people. They knew that liberty was a goodly bait to catch them withal. Wherefore to deliver the people from the trouble of contrition, and heaviness for sins, to make them free from the heavy yoke (as it is taken) of confession, to ease them of the labour of prayer, to disburden them of the care of godly life, Satan by his minister Luther teacheth, that to the receipt of the Sacrament there needeth no other examination or preparation, but only that they believe that they shall receive grace, and that is sufficient. But that I may not be thought to misreport him, at my pleasure, I will Luth. in Assert Acti. 15. rehearse his own words, which be these: Magnus' error est eorum, qui ad sacramentum Eucharistiae accedunt, hinc innixi quod sint confessi, quòd non sint sibi conscii ali cuius peccati mortalis, quòd praemiserint orationes suas, & praeparatoria: Omnes illi judicium sibi manducant, & bibunt. Sed si credant, & confidant se gratiam ibi consecuturos, haec sola fides facit eos puros & dignos. Great is the error of them that come to the Sacrament trusting to this, that they be confessed, that they know not themselves guilty of any mortal sin, that they have said their prayers before, that they have prepared themselves: All they do eat and drink, their own condemnation. But if they believe and trust that they shall there obtain grace, this faith alone maketh them pure and worthy receivers. Have ye not heard the same serpent now speaking to Christian people, that in paradse spoke to hour first parents? Have ye not heard him likewise encountering with his negative, the affirmative of christ and S. Paul, as he did the affirmitive of God, who said: In what day ye eat of this fruit, ye shall die:: he contrariwise saying: Ye shall not die? Have ye not heard that christ used that solemn preparation of washing the feet of his Disciples, before he would minister unto them the Sacrament of his blessed body and blood? Said not christ after that washing: I am vos mundi estis: Now ye Joan. 13. are clean? Did he not also then prepare them to humility and lowliness, which is much required in all that receive the Sacrament? If I (saith christ) have washed your feet being Lord and Master, than ought you also to wash one an others feet, I have given you an example, that as I have done, even so that ye do. Is not lowliness a necessary virtue to a receiver of this Sacrament? it is not meet that a man know his own filthiness before he receive and therefore go to christ to be washed with the water of his grace? Is it not commendable that we say with the Centurion: Lord I am not worthy that thou entre Mith. 8. under my roof? Ar we not so moved to do by the old Father Origen? Over and above all this also we are willed by. S. Paul to examine ourselves, and if we do not, we shall eat and drink our own condemnation: And yet this beast, this Serpent shameth not to say clean contrary, that if ye confess your sins, if ye find your self clear from all mortal sin if before ye receive, ye give your self to prayer, if ye use such prepatives, than ye eat and drink your own condemnation, Who ever heard such doctrine? What ears can abide it? And yet this is the doctrine of him that lightened the world with the knowledge of the truth, as blind men call it. But perchance some Lutheran in defence of his patriarch will say that S. Paul willing a man to examine himself spoke only as Luther doth of What moved S. Paul to write of the Sacrament to the Corinth the examination of faith. To try this let us have recourse to the letter of S. Paul's epistle and there see what moved him to write this. That moved him to write this, that moved him to write the whole process of the Sacrament in the same eleventh chapter. He wrote to the Corinthians in the matter of the Sacrament, for that they coming to the receipt thereof admitted diverse faults and abuses in manners, but not in faith. For first of all (saith S. Paul) when ye come together into the congregation, I hear that there is dissension among you. There is also an other fault that every man beginneth afore to eat his own supper. And besides this in the eating of your Supper, there is little charity. For one is hungry, and an other is drunken, in the which their doing they seemed to despise the congregation of God and shame the poor that of poverty had nothing to eat. And for these cause when ye come together, the supper of our Lord can not be eaten (saith S. Paul) Of faith here is no one title. For S. Paul found no fault in the Corinthians as touching the matters of faith about the Sacrament, but about their manners in receiving of it. And therefore as touching manners he said: Let every man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. Ye see then that S. Paul moved by the evil manners of the Corinthians, and not by their evil faith was moved to enter the treatise of the Sacrament, S Paul corrected the manners of the Corinth and not their faith. wherefore therein he correcteth their manners, and not their faith. S. Paul then travailing to remove dissension, and to plant concord, to remove gluttony and to plant temperance: to remove pride which the rich had in the show of their great suppers, and to plant humility: to remove lack of mercy which was in the rich, they being drunk, while their poor were right hungry, and to plant pity: to remove disdain and contempt, and to plant seemly regard, saying also that these vices being in place, the supper of our Lord could not well, and as it ought, be eaten, did he not prepare the Corinthians and in them all Christians to the worthy receipt of the Sacrament, did he not herein follow the example of his master christ, going about to wash away the filthiness of their feet, that is of their earthly and carnal affections. But what stand I so long in so open a matter? Finally where Luther saith that if we have faith, that we shall receive grace there, that grace alone maketh us pure and worthy receivers: First, I may ask him by what rule he speaketh this? where is his scripture for it? Might the Corinthians (trow ye) being in the case that they were in, and having, as they had faith, might they I say, receive grace? If they might then, S. Paul was not true, that said they should receive condemnation. But to look somewhat nearer to this saying of Luther, it would have been defined, and determined, seeing there be so many faiths now a days, by which faith a man should receive this grace. If he say by the faith that he himself hath framed, the Carolstadins, Zwinglians, and Oecolampadius will deny that If Oecolampadius will say, by his faith that he hath devised: the Swenck feldians, who deny all Sacraments, deny that. If calvin will challenge it to his faith that he hath inveuted, the Anabaptists will not abide that. Thus leaving us in uncertainties, as many others of his likes do in other matters, he concludeth nothing. In the end, uless as the Apostle speaketh of the unworthy receiver signifying thereby, that there is a worthy receiver it apperteineh to hour Worthy or unworthy reteavers of the bless. Sacr. who be. purpose to discuss, if any man may be a worthy receiver it is plain that a sinner is no worthy receiver. And S. john saith: If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and there is no truth in us: yea so many be our sins, that the Prophet David saith: If thou Lord will be extreme to mark what is done a miss, oh Lord who may abide it? as who might say, no man can abide it. And therefore concluding all living men under sin, saith: In thy seight, o Lord, shall no man living be justified. if no man living can 1. Joan. 1. be justified, than no man living us worthy to receive this blessed mystery. Psal. 130. What now then shall we faith to S. Paul, that appointeth worthy receivers? It is the mind of S. Paul to pronounce who is an unworthy receiver: but he describeth not the worthy receiver. For in deed speaking of worthiness in the proper signification of it, no man that liveth, be he never so just, no though he were an Angel, yea if he were an Archanngell, if he were of the highest of the Angels as of Cherubins and Seraphines' can be accounted worthy in that manner, to receive this high and heavenly mystery. Worthiness properly what it is. For properly that man is worthy of an other thing, when he himself or his deserts be equivalent, and do fully answer the goodness of the thing, whereto it is referred, as in our common speech we say that four pence be worth a groat. And the workman is worthy his wages: in this kind of worthiness no man is or can be worthy. another kind of woourthinesse is by reputation, or acceptation, when one is accepted as worthy, when in very deed he is not. As a queme to maririe a low subject. A noble woman to marry her servant between whom, when comparison is made, there is neither birth, nor honour, nor living, nor dominionnor richesses in the man that can cownteruaill the woman, yet for somuch as it liketh her so to accept him, by her acceptation he is made now worthy of her, who of himself before was not. Even so our merciful Lord God, in power, wisdom and goodness infinite, betwixt whom and us sinful creatures there is no comparison, making through his great mercy of sinners, just men, and of unworthy worthy, when he saith us in our weak manner endeavour ourselves to accomplish his holy will: when he beholdeth how we prepare and adonrne the tabernacle of hour heart, being holden with moche desire there in to receive him, it liketh him, though we may still cry, Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: yet he accepteth us upon such preparation as worthy to his merciful contentation, and to our health and salvation. Thus the text in part opened, and the detestable heresy of Luther somewhat touched, I shall for the farther exposition of the one, and the stronger confutation of the other after my accustomed manner repair to the holy Fathers, and understand also therein their minds. THE FOUR AND fortieth CHAP. BEGINneth the exposition of the Fathers upon the same text with saint Hierom and chrysostom. IN the allegation of the Fathers that now shall be produced, to give us the understanding of this text, because many be alleged upon the last scripture, and this dependeth upon that, and so the one fully expounded, the other is the easier to be perceived, I shall be the shorter, both in the number and also in the abiding upon them. The first couple that cometh to my hand is S. Hierom and Chrysostom. S. Hierom expounding the epistles of S. Paul, for the exposition of this text hath thus moche: Si●jn lintheum vel vas sordidum non illud mitterè audet, quanto magis in cord polluto? quam immundiciam Deus super Hieron. in. 11. 1. Cor. omnia execratur, & quae sola iniuria est eius corpori. Name & josephille justus propterea sindone munda involutum in sepulchro novo corpus Domini sepelivit, praefigurans corpus Domini accepturos tam mundam mentem habere, quàm novam. If a man dare not put that body into a filthy vessel or cloth, how moche more in a defiled S. Hieron expoundeth S. Paul to speak of the body of our Lord. heart? which uncleanness God above all things detesteth, as which is the only wrong that now can be done unto his body. For therefore did josph also the righteous, wrap the body of our Lord in a clean sheet, and so buried it in a new tomb, prefiguring that they that should receive the body of our Lord, should have both a new and a clean mind. Thus much S. Hierom. In whom first we have to observe, that expowndinge S. Paul, who in this place calleth the Sacrament bread, and not absolutely bread, but with an article (that bread) expoundeth it to be the body of our Lord, which also he doth in an other place, by so express words that it can not be denied. In his apology against jovinian he thus uttereth S. Paul saying: Probet se unusquisque, & sic ad corpus Christi accedat. Let every man examine himself, and so let him come to the body of christ (saith S. Hierom) it were not an exposition but a confusion of the truth, if he should call that the body of christ, that is but bread. But it is more than evident in all Hieron. apollo pr. lib. adverse Jovinianun. that place of S, Hierom, as the circumstance also invincibly proveth, that he understandeth S. Paul there to have spoken of the body of christ, and of no earthly bread. In the end of this exposition, he doth not only confirm this truth of Christ'S very presence, but also he infirmeth and against saith the wicked assertion of Luther. He saith that joseph burying the body christ in a clean sheet, and a new tomb, prefigured that they that should receive the body of christ, should have both a clean and a new mind. For the presence, mark that he saith by plain words, that we receive the body of Let the proclaimer see here how plainly S. Hierom uttereth S. Paul's meninge. christ. Against Luther, who would have no other preparation in us in the receipt of the body of christ but only faith, he faith that they that will receive the body of christ, must have both a clean and a new mind. whereby what else is meant, but that we must cleanse hour consciences from dead works, which putrefy and stink in our souls, and so leaving the old man, we must be renewed in spirit of our mind, and be clothed with the new man, which after God is shapen in righteousness and true holiness. But let S. Jerome open himself, who expounding this text of S. Paul Whosoever eateth this bread, and drinketh the cup of our lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of our lord: saith thus: Sicut scriptum est, Omnis mundus manducabit. Et iterum: Anima quae manducaverit immunda, exterminabitur de populo suo Hier. in 11 1. Cor. Et ipse Dominus ait: Si ante altarè recordatus fueris, quia habet frater tuus aliquid adversum te relinque munus tuum antè altar, & vade reconciliari fratri tuo. Prius ergo perscrutanda est conscientia, si in nullo nos reprehendit, & sic aut offer, aut commnnicare debemus. Quidam sane dicunt, quia non indignum, sed indign accipientem revocet à sancto. Siergo dignus indignè accedens retrahitur: Quanto magis indignus, qui non potest accipere dignè? unde oportet ociosum cessare a vitiis ut sanctum Domini corpus, sanctè accipiat. As it is written Every clean man shall eat, and again: That soul that shall eat being unclean, shall be put from among his people. And our Lord himself saith: If thou remember being before the altar, that thy brother hath any thing against thee, leave thy gift before the altar, and go to be reconciled to thy brother. Therefore the conscience is first to be searched, if it do in nothing reprehend us, and so we aught How men aught to prepare themselves to receive the bless. Sacr. either to offer or communicate. There bosom that say, that he doth not hereforbidde the unworthy man from the holy thing, but him that receiveth unworthily. If the worthy coming unworthily be for bidden, how moche more the unworthily that can not receive worthily? Wherefore the evil doer must cease from vices, that he may holily receive the holy body of our Lord. hitherto S. Hierom. Who in every part improveth the pestilent doctrine of Luther, First, by the old Testament, whose extern cleanness or uncleanness being commanded or forbidden in the eating of the holy things of the same law, be figures of spiritual cleanness or uncleannsse of our consciences, required or prohibited in the receipt of the holy mysteries in the new law, So that, as there was required an outward cleanness in the body. So here is required an inward cleanness of conscience. Besides this he beateth him down with the plain and mighty authority Mè aught to prepare themselves be for the receipt of the bless. Sacr. even by christ rule of christ himself, who hath given us this order, that being at the altar, and remembering that our brother hath any matter against us, we must first be reconciled to our brother, or that we can do any thing at the altar, or offer sacrifice or receive the holy Sacrament. Is not this a notable preparation commanded by our M. christ? what can Luther and all his Disciples say to this? Is there here nothing required but faith? is not here full and perfect reconciliation commanded? Is not here a discussion and examination of our consciences in calling to mind and remembrance if any grief be betwixt us and our brother? It is so certainly. Wherefore S. Hierom concludeth saying: Therefore first is the conscience to be searched, if it do not reprehend us, then may we either offer or receive. If the conscience be to be searched for such matters of offence before we receive, where is Luther's only faith that will make us worthy receivers? Luther saith we may not search, whether we find ourself guilty of any offence or not: S. Hierom not only saith that our consciences are to be searched, but he also saith that the evil doer must cease from vices that he may receive the holy body of our Lord holily, in which words, note (geatle Reader) both thy preparation before though receive, and also what thou dost receive. Thy preparation is to cease from vices whereunto many things appertain: the thing that thou receivest is the holy body of our Lord. But S. Jerome hath said sufficiently both for the truth of the presence and also against Luther's licentious doctrine. Wherefore we will now hear chrysostom do the like. He also expoundeth this text of S. Paul and saith thus: Probet seipsum homo, quod & in secunda inquit: Vosinet tentate si estis in fide: ipsi vos probatè non quemadmodum nunc facimus, temporis gratia accedentes, magis quàm animi study, neque ut praeparati ad vitia nostra expurganda, compuctionis pleni accedimus: Chrysost in 11. 1. Cor. sed ut in solemnitatibus simus quando omnes adsunt, consideramus. Sed non ita Paulus praecipit. Sed unum tempus novit quo accideremus, communicationis & conscientiae puritatem. Let a man examine himself. Which thing also he saith in the second epistle: Prove your selves if ye be in saith. do ye your selves examine your selves. Not as we do now, coming raither for the times sake, then for any earnest affection or desire of the mind. Neither do we come as full of compunction prepared to purge out our vices, but our consideration is, upon that that all the people be assembled together, that we also may be in the solemnities. But Paul doth not so command, but he knew one time in the which we should come, that is, the purity or cleanness of communication and conscience. That we should not come to the receipt of the holy Sacrament, but when we be prepared, and have purged out our vices by compunction and repentance he declareth by an apt similitude, saying: Nam si sensibili nunquam communicamus mensa, si febre laboramus, & malis humoribus abundamus, neperderemur: longè magis hanc tangere nephas est, absurdis cupiditatibus impediti, quae febribus graviores sunt. Cùm autem absurdas dico cupiditates, etiam corporum dico, & pecuniarum, & irae, & succensionis, & omnes simpliciter absurdas. Quae omnia accedentem exhaurire oportet, & it a purum illud attingerè sacrificium non pigrè disponi, & miserè cogi propter solemmtatem acccedere, neque rursum compunctum, & praeparatum impediri, eo quòd non sit solemnitas. Solemnitas enim operum est demonstratio, animae puritas, vitae certitudo, quae si habueris, semper celebrarè poteris solemnitatem, & semper accedere. Propterea (inquit) probet autem scipsum homo, & sic edat. For if we be sick of a fever, and do abunde with humours, we would never be partakers of the commondiett This whole sentence impugneth Luther'S wicked assertion lest we should be cast away much more it is wicked to touch, this table, being entangled with odious lusts, which be sorer than the fevers When I speak of naughty and odious lusts or desires, I speak also of the lusts and desires of hour bodies, and of money, and of wraithe, and of anger, and plainly of all lusts that be nought. All which he that cometh to receive, must rid away, and so receive that pure sacrifice not to be flouthfullie disposed, nor miserably to be compelled to come for the solemnity. Neither again being penitent and prepared, to be letted, because there is no solemnity. Solemnity is an evident declaration of good works, the purity of soul, the assuredness of life. Which things if if havest, though we mayst always celebrate a Solemnity, and always come to the receipt of the Sacrament therefore he saith, let a man examine himself and so let him eat. Thus far chrysostom. In these words the saying of Luther is also (as by S. Hierom) detected to be devilish and wicked. Luther will have no preparation of a man to come to receive the Sacrament. But judge thou, reader, whether we be not earnestly admonished by chrysostom to be prepared: whether we be not willed to cast away all the lusts of the body, of covetousness, and such other: whether we should not be penitent. For (saith he) all that will receive must as a man labouring of a fever, and full of humours not receive, until he hath purged himself. But when he hath purged himself then he may eat of the meat that before he might not. Many goodly occasions truly be given for exhortation to godly receiving, far otherwise than Luther hath given, which to avoid prolixity, I leave to the consideration of the reader wishing him yet to understand, what it is that chrysostom moveth us to receive. It is (saith he) purum illud sacrificium, that pure sacrifice. What is, or can be, that pure sacrifice but the body of christ? Wherefore by chrysostom it is the body of christ, that we receive. Chrys Ho. oportet heresies, etc. But thou shalt hear himself speak it in plain words, in an homely where he saith, thus much of this matter. Deinde ubi multum disputavit de his, qui indigné communicant mysteriis, eosue repraehendisset graviter & demonstrasset quòd idem supplicium passuri essent, quod ij qui Christum occiderant, si sanguinem eius & corpus absque probacione & temerè accipiant, rursum ad propositam materiam sermonem convertit. Then when Danger of the unworthy receiving of the bless. Sacr. he hath disputed much of those which unworthily receive the mysteries and had grievously rebuked them, and had declared that they should suffer the same punishment, that they did, which had slain christ, if they receive the body and blood of christ rashly without any examination, he turneth again his communication to the matter in hand. Note this then well, that by express and plain words, chrysostom saith, that we shall suffer the same pain, that they which crucified christ, if we rashly without examination of ourselves receive the body and blood of christ. Whereby he teacheth that we receive the body of christ in the Sacrament, and that which is more, and is the great proof of the real and substantial presence of Christ'S body and blood in the blessed Sacr. that evil men receive it, which argueth that presence there to be by the assured power of God, at the due pronunciation of his word, according to the catholic faith, ground upon God's holy word. And not to depend upon the uncertain Sacramentaries doctrine is without all ground or authority of scriptures unadsured, and slight faith of the receiver, according to the fantastical doctrine of the Sacramentaries, ground and founded upon no one title of God's word, but only upon their own pleasures and fancies. Let this Proclaimer if he can, if he can not, let him pray aid of his likes, and bring forth one scripture, that teacheth this doctrine that faith only maketh christ present unto us in the Sacr. and that he is not verily and really present in the Sacr. as is said, and he shall have the victory. If he can not let him for shame, let him yield, let the truth have the victory. Better it is for him a little here to be confounded, then to suffer everlasting confusion, in the world to come. But to return to our matter, I would here end, but that I think it moche pity to keep from the knowledge of the godly reader, so godly a lesson as chrysostom hath in this matter, containing both faithful instruction, and godly exhortation. Thus he writeth: Considera nunc quanta illi veteris sacrificii participes vitae frugalitate utehantur. Quid enim two non faciebant, omni tempore purisicabantur. Hom. 3. in Epist. ad Eph. Et tu ad salutarem hanc hostiam accessurus, quam angeli ipsi cum tremore suscipiut, rem tantam circumscribis temporum ambitu? Qua fronte teipsum sistes ad Christi tribunal praesentem, qui impuris manibus ac labiis, sic impudenter ipsius corpus ausus sis attingere. Regem utique non eligas exosculari, siquidem os tuum olet graviter: & regem coelorum impudens exoscularis, anima tua tam vitits olente? atrox sanè contumelia est res huiusmodi, dic tu mihi: Num eligas illotis manibus ad tam venerabilem victimam accedere? Non puto, quin, ut coniicio, malis prorsus tibi temperare ab aditu, quam sordidis accedere manibus. At interim in parvo tam religiosus cum sis, animam autem habens coeno vitiorum squalentem accedis, & audes impudens contingere? Etiamsi ob manuum sordes ad tempus quis contineat, sed ad animam omni elunic vitiorum repurgandam, totus interim redeat. Consider now what great godliness of life the receivers of the old sacrifice did use, what did they not? Sacrifice of the altar honourable to Angels. They were always purified, and dost thou coming to this healthsome sacrifice, which the angels themselves do with trembling honour, dost though measure so great a thing with the compass of time? with what countenance wilt thou stand before the judgement seat of christ, who havest been so bold, with impure and unclean hands and lips so impudently to touch his body? Thowe wouldest not, if thou hadst a stinking mouth, take upon thee to kiss the king: And dost though, thou impudent man, kiss the king of heavens, thy soul so sore stinking with vices and sins? This manner of thing is a cruel reproach. Tell me wouldest thou take upon thee to come to this honourable sacrifice with unwashed hands? I think not. But as a guess thou hadst liefer altogether forbear to go to it, then to come to it, with filthy hands. And whilst if art so religious in a small thing darest thou (thou impudent man) touch this, having a soul defiled with the filthiness of sins? Although a man for the uncleanness of his hands do withhold himself for a time, but yet to cleanse his soul from the pestilent stinking sink of vices, let him wholly give himself. Thus he. Thou havest heard, reader, a notable godly saying of chrysostom. Thou mayst therein, as I have said, find faithful instruction, and godly exhortation. 1 Three points of instruction in Chrysost. words. As concerning instruction, thou art instructed here in three points? First, that Christ'S very body is in the Sacrament. Which thou art taught by express words, when he saith to the finful man: darest thou with unclean hands and lips impudently touch his body? wherein he teacheth that the body of christ is so present in the Sacrament, that it is touched both with hands and lips when it is received, which manner of receiving argueth the corporal substance of christ to be present, which may be touched according to Christ'S own saying: Palpate, & videte quia spiritus carnem & ossa non habet, sicut me vid●tis habere. Feel and see, that a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as it see me to have. Again where he saith to the like man: though wouldest not take upon thee, with a stinking mouth to kiss the king. And darest though kiss the king of heavens, thy soul so stinking with vices? Mark it well, So certainly is the body of christ presently touched, that he calleth the same the King of heavens. What wise, godly, or learned man making sermons to the people, would ever call the Sacramen (if therein were nothing but a piece of bread) the body of christ, and the king of heavens, and so leave it to them to believe, if it were not as he calleth it? It were not to teach but to deceive: not to edify, 2 The body of christ may be touched and received of him that hath a filthy soul. but to destroy. Wherefore understand that by the doctrine and instruction of chrysostom, the very body of christ, the very king of heavens, is in the Sacrament received into our hands and lips. The second point of instruction confirmeth the first, which point is that men defiled in soul may yet receive with their hands and mouths the body of christ, the king of heavens. Which point although he doth open and declare throwoute the whole process: yet specially when he saith: darest though not kiss the King if thou have a stinking mouth. And darest though kiss the king of heavens thy soul stinking with filthy and stinking vices? By which words he fully teacheth that men defiled, and corrupted in soul, may yet (though to their condemnation) receive the body and blood of christ. But upon this because much is already said, and this is so plainly testified by chrysostom, I will not tarry. 3 Sacrifice avouched. The third point of his instruction, that also confirmeth the presence is: that he saith that the Sacrament is a sacrifice, which he doth in the beginning of his saying, where alluding to the preparation of the receivers of the sacrifices of the old law, he saith, they cleansed purified, and ordered themselves. And wilt thou (saith he) come to this wholesome sacrifice, which Angels with trembling do honour, by the measure of time? Meaning that the people should not come to receive upon this only purpose, that it is a solemn feast, but upon this that they be pure and clean in conscience, from all filthiness of sin. Where ye see that chrysostom doth not only call it a sacrifice, but also saith it to be such a sacrifice as Angels with trembling do honour, which Sacrifice is not our sacrifice of thanksgiving (as the Sacramentaries do feign) for that is no such thing, as whereunto the Angels should do honour, or in the presence of which they should tremble: No, this sacrifice is such, as unto the which Chrysost. exhorteth to preparation contrary to Luther's doctrine. being in it self honourable: yet we may come to it with unwashed hands, saith chrysostom, wherefore it is of an other sort, which is in deed the Sacrifice of Christ'S body and blood, which is always to the Angels honourable. He giveth also godly exhortation, which wholly consisteth in the preparation of ourselves, to purge and cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of evil living, or vicious affection. To this he persuadeth by the example of them, that were partakers of the sacrifices of the old law, which purified and cleansed themselves, and kept themselves clean in that time. By the example also of a man, that will not presume, for because he hath a stinking mouth, to kiss the King, that we much more having stinking souls should not presume to receive christ our King. And thirdly by example of extern reverence done to the Sacrament in the time of chrysostom, at which time the people receiving the Sacraments into their hands, used not so to receive, but they had washed their hands before. By all which examples he moveth the receivers of this blessed, holy, and divine Sacrament, to purge themselves, to cleanse their consciences, to purify their souls from the stinking sink of vices, and so with all cleanness of body and soul to come to the receipt of the mysteries. In all which proceasse, how much he varieth and dissenteth from the wicked doctrine of Luther, it is more manifest than I need to open it. For Luther rejecteth all confession of sins which is our cleansing and purging: regardeth not our examination as touching life despiseth and contemnethour prayers and preparation, only a certain faith he would have which he saith sufficeth. But this holy chrysostom, as a right Christian man ought to do speaking and writing to Christian men, presupposeth faith. Wherefore speaking no word of it, wholly laboureth to have Christian receivers to be diligent in preparation of themselves, to be chaste in body, pure in soul, clean in conscience uncorrupted in heart, in purpose diverted from vice, wholly converted to virtue. The subtle craft of the Devil about Luther and so in other like. This is the doctrine of exhortation given by holy fathers of Christ's church. Wherefore embrace it, reader, for it is fowded upon a sure stone. As for the doctrine of Luther a father of Satan's synagogue, it is a doctrine meit to be breathed out of Satan. For wilt thou see the subtility of Satan? When he had corrupted the faith of Luther in no small number of articles, by which corruption he was now before God, as having no faith, feeringe least by the doing of good works, done with godly zeal and devotion, God might be procured to have mercy upon him, and reduce him from his heresy, as diverse have been, thought it good, as he spoilt him of his faith: so to spoill him of his good works also, and to bring that to pass, he breathed into him, that only faith sufficeth, whereby good works neglected, and his painted faith being nothing he and his Disciples should be clean destituted and naked both from faith and works, so that nothing should remain in them for God to work upon, but that Satan should be assured of them, and have the whole possession of them. Wherefore, reader, sly the snares of the devil, and having faith, study to be fruitful in good works also, that thy master and Saviour may vouchsafe to come with his Father and the holy Spirit to dwell and abide in thee. THE FIVE AND fifth CHAP. proceedeth upon the same text by I sicbius and saint Augustine. Having in consideration the detestableness of Luther's saying, and to what licentiousness, it maketh a ready open way, how lightly it entrappeth the sensual person, how directly also it standeth against S. Paul's own words, that we have now in hand, how it swerveth from the doctrine of all holy Fathers, and writers, I can not contain, but I must somewhat more say in it, that where it is sufficiently confuted by two noble Fathers of the Church it may be perceived by a more number, more fully doen. I have therefore intended to produce an other couple of Christ'S house, which be Isichius and S. Augustin by whose testimony, I doubt it not, the matter shall be made very clear. I sichius writeth thus: Probet autem seipsum homo, & sic de pancillo edat, & de chalice Jsich in 26 Levitic. bibat. Qualem probationem dicit? id est, ut in cord mundo atque conscientia, & poenitentiam corum, quae deliquit intendenti, participetur sanctis ad ablutionem peccatorum suorum. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. What manner of examination doth he speak of? it is this, that in a clean heart and conscience, and to him that mindeth to do penance for those sins, that he hath offended in, thee Sacrament should be given to holy persons, to the washing away of their sins. In this brief saying of Isichius, note I pray you, that ask upon the words of S. Paul, what examination he would we should make, He answereth that we should be of clean heart, and conscience, and of mind to do penance for our sins, before we receive, but of Luther's faith he speaketh no one word so that teaching such examination to be made, he confowndeth Penance, clean heart and conscience necessary to the receivers of the bless. Sacr. clean Luther's doctrine. Luther saith we must make no preparation by confession, which is a part of penance, this author saith that we must do penance for those offences that we have committed. Luther saith that we may not search whether we find ourselves guilty or no: this author saith that we must be clean in heart and conscience, which can not be known but by such search. What shall I say more, but that Luther's wicked doctrine is in every part contrary to the wholesome doctrine of the Fathers, even as a man would of a set purpose take a view of their sainges, and maliciously say the contrary of all that he findeth them to have said: Which thing ye shall more manifestly perceive, when ye shall hear the saying of S. Augustine also produced for the understanding of S Paul. From whom because I will not long detain you, his saying shall be forthwith ascribed. Thus he writeth: Ab iis, pietas Domini nostri jesu Christi nos liberet, & seipsum edendum tribuat, qui dixit: Ego sum panis vivus, qui de coelo descendi. Qui manducat meam carnem, & bibit meum sanguinem habet vitam aeternam in seipso. Sed unusquisque antequam August. ad Julian. Epist. 111. corpus & sanguinem Domini nostri jesu Christi accipiat, seipsum probet, & secundùm Apostoli praeceptum, sic de pane illo edat, & de chalice bibat. Quia, qui indignè mandu cat corpus & sanguinem Domini, judicium sibi manducat, & bibit, non diiudicans corpus Domini. Quando enim accipere debemus, anteà ad confessionem, & poenitentiam recurrere debemus, & omnes actus nostros curiosius discutere, & peccata obnoxia si in nobis senseriserimus, cito festinemus per confessionem, & veram poenitentiam abluere, ne cum Iuda proditore Diabolium intra nos celautes pereamus, protrahentes & celantes peccatum nostrum de die in diem. Etsi quid mali aut nequam cogitavimus, de eo poenitentiam agamus, & velociter illud de cord nostro eradere festinemus. The great mercy of our Lord jesus christ, deliver us from these things, and give himself to be eaten, who said: The receiver of the bless. Sacrmust prepare himself, by confession. I am the bread of life, which came dowen from heaven. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life in himself. But let every man before he receive the body and blood of our Lord jesus christ, examine himself, and so according to the commandment of the Apostle, let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that unworthily eateth the body and blood of our Lord, eateth and drinketh his own condemnation making no difference of the body of our lord. Therefore when we shall receive, we aught before to have recourse to confession and penance, and most diligently search all our acts and doings. And if we find any sins in us worthy of punishment, let us speedily hast by confession and true penance to wash them away, least we with judas hiding the devil within us, do perish by that we do protract and hide our sin from day to do, and if we have thought any evil or unhappiness, let us do penance for it, and make hast quickly to wipe it clean from our hearts. Thus much S. Augustine. Ye have now heard how we should examine ourselves S. Hieron. chrysostom, and Isichius, gave us like instruction in general words, but S. Augustine hath touched the matter with special words. For he expounding how we shall examine or selves according to S. Paul's precept, saith: that if we mind to receive the holy Sacrament we ought before to have recourse to confession and penance, and so most diligently sift and search all our doings. The doctrine of S. Augustine and other fathers is now heard as touching our examination: the doctrine of Luther is also known. judge now I Luther is herein direotliecontrarie to the fathers to S. Paul and to christ. beseech thee (gentle reader) how he agreeth with them. Is he not in every title plainly repugnant to them? He would have no preparation before we, receive. All they, as with one mouth, exhort us to great and diligent preparation. He would haveno confession: S. Augustine by express words requireth confession and penance. Luther saith, if we prepare ourselves by confession, penance, and other good works, we receive our condemnation: S. Paul and the holy fathers say, if we do not examine ourselves and prepare our selves we reccave or own condemnation. have thou not heard the serpent against or raither the devil in the Serpent contrarieng Gods own words, and his holy saints? Wherein they say, yea, he therein saith nay: and wherein they, say nay, therein he saith yea. I would to God that all they that have given their ears to the hissing of this Serpent and have been thereby alured to fall from the ancient faith and godly religion of Christ'S Church, would but weigh the doctrine of him in this part (although he hath many other points as wicked, and as loathsome and ab hominable as this) that they might perceive what stone their faith, is builded on, what a fownder, and patron they have of their new religion. If there were no more but this, it would make me afraid to follow such a Schoolmaster. As Luther is here touched by S. Augustine, so is the Proclaimer also. For as Luther will no confession to be made before receipt of the Sacrament, no more will he and his complices, as the practice in the Church of Englond doth well declare? where, by their means confession of sins is so abandoned, that almost there is no word of it. Not only in this is the Proclaimer touched, but in one other point also wherein Luther is not touched, and that is in the presence of christ in the blessed Sacrament, wherein the Proclaimer is worse than Luther. S. Augustin expounding S. Paul's words speak the by clain words: Let every man before he receive the body and blood of our Lord jesus christ, examine himself, according to the precept of S. Paul. Perceive then that by S. Augustine it is the precept of S. Paul to examine ourselves Note here how S. Augustine uttereth S. Paul's words before we receive the body and blood of christ, and not before we receive a piece of bread, and drink a cup of wine. So that here again as in diverse other before, we see that S. Angustine expounding S. Paul calleth it the body and blood of christ, that S. Paul calleth the bread and cup of our Lord, teaching that by that same bread and cup, S. Paul meant none other thing, but our heavenly bread and cup, the body and blood of ower Lord jesus christ, I trust he can not say, but S. Augustine hath here spoken plain enough, if he hath not, I would he had taught him to speak plainer. But to return to our purpose: it is well to be perceived that S. Augustine teacheth here two things, which the Proclaimer refuseth, that is, the presence, and confession, of which both robbing the people, he hath with all rob them of godly devotion and fear, and opened the gate to them, to let them run headling to all licentiousness, and abominable living. Among many evils which they commit in putting away confession, two Two great evils committed by putting away of confession. in my judgement be notable. The one is that they would make the ordinance of God void, and his authority vain: The other that the simple pass and end their lives without repentance. As touching the first certain it is that God hath in his Church made this ordinance, and thereto hath given his power that sins should be remitted. This ordinance he did with a Solemnity. For he first breathed upon his Apostles, and when he had so done, he said: Accipite Spiritum sanctum, Quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eyes, & quorum retinueritis retenta sunt. Receive you the holy Ghost, whose sins ye remit, they are remitted, and whose sins you retain, they are retained. Behold in the doing of this ordinance Joan. 20. the holy Ghost is first given to the Apostles, and after the gift of the holy Ghost the authority to remit sin is solemnly given. Now if confession be taken away, and sins by the ministers be not forgiven in the people, then is the ordinance void, then is the authority vain. For where, when, or how do they exercise this power of christ in the remission of sins, if they do it not upon penitentes? how shall they know penitentes but by confession? Confession then taken away, it must needs follow that the ordeinasice of God is void, and that his authority is vainly given to his Church. S. Augustine saith that for our fragility, God ordained penance. These be his words: Ordinavit nobis poenitentiam propter fragilitatem nostram. Ideo debemus nostras confessiones veraciter confiteri, et fructus dignos facere, id est, praeterita ne iteremus, secundùm August. ad Julian. commit epla. 111. iussionem Denm timentis sacerdotis. Qui sacerdos ut sapiens, & medicus, primùm sciat curare peccata sua, et postea aliena vulnera detergere, et sanare, & non publicare. Nos sequamur perquiramus, & cum talibus consilium salutis nostrae ineamus, ut non perdamus haereditatem coelestem, quam nobis Dominus ab initio mundi praeparavit, si seruiamus ei in justicia, & sanctitate, & puritate cordis, & charitate non ficta. God in consideration Confession aught to be madetrulie of our fragility hath ordained for us penance. Therefore we aught to confess our confessions truly and do the worthy fruits of penance, that is, according to the commandment of the priest fearing God, that we commit not again our sins past. Which priest let him first know, as a wise man and good physician to cure his own sins, and after to wipe clean, and to heal other men's wounds, and them not to publish. Let us follow, let us search, and with such let us entre some wholesome talk of our health, that we lose, not our heavenly inheritance, which God hath prepared for us from the beginning of the world, if we serve him in holiness, and rightwisonesse, and purity of heart and charity not feigned, hitherto S. Augustine. See ye not that penance is god's ordinance mercifully appointed for our fragility? See ye not what S. Augustine inferreth to be done on our behalf upon that ordinance? Therefore (saith he) must we truly confess our confessions. And that the hissing serpent should not deceive thee, saying: that he speaketh of confession only to be done to God, he by express words saith it must be done to the priest, by whoise commandment we must do the worthy fruits of penance. Where again note that he saith that the priest hath or aught to have these three points: to make clean the Three things pertaining to a ghostly father. wounds of our Sins (understand by godly counsel and whosome doctrine, and injunction of penance) to heal them (understand by the authority of absolution) thirdly, not to publish them, but to keep most secret all things in confession disclosed. I may conclude then that to take away confession is to make gods ordinance void, and his authority given for the remission of sins, to be given in vain. The other notable evil is that the simple people pass their lives, yea, and many end the same without penance. Confession beside many other commodities, had these two: It was occasion that fewer sins among Two great commodities of confession. young people were committed: And it was an occasion also to call themselves to an account for such as they had committed. And upon the remembrance of them, and upon farther and special exhortation, admonition and Counsel given upon particular offences, and severally applied in the same confessions, by the discreet hearers of the same, to make them to understand the gravity of their offences, and there with and by, to make them earnestly penitent, and so to cause them with scythes and humble prostrations, and other exercises of penitent persons, to receive the great mercy of God, which mercy so received undoubtedly they obtained. But now confession being abandoned, youth without fear or shame fall to all kind of vices, whereby vice now excessively aboundeth. Contrition for such vices before God there is none. The gavitie of sins, other wise then worldly shame leadeth is not discerned. The account that such people call themselves to before God either it is marvelous slender, or Penance banished out england. none at all. Penance is not seen, Sackcloth and herecloath, be not in use fasting is derided and scorned. Prayer is shortened, and almost banished. Charity is all most dead for cold. The tears of Peter and Mary Magdalene are dried up, they wash not ourfaces. Alas what speak we of these bitter works of penance, when we hear not in these days from a penitent he art, as much as this poour voice of the publicame. O God be merciful to me a sinner? Or this one voice of King David, Peccavi, I have sinned. But the young man and the maiden, the Man and the wife, yea, the ancient father, and the matron pass out the moveth and the year, yea, and year, after years, the first in wanton and licenciose life, the next in stoutness of Manhood, in quarelinge, in sighting, in robbing, in slainge, in deceiving, and wrong doing: The third in avarice, and greedy getting and keeping, wherein every state pleasing themselves, they go forth, amendment of life not nitended, neither mercy desired. Now for so much as christ saith: Nisi poenitentiam egeritis, omnes similiter peribitis. Except ye do penance, ye shall all perish: what may we more Luc. 13. fear to ensue upon the greatest number but perdition, loss and damnation? But God who is rich in mercy, and who (as S. Paul saith) for his great love, wherewith he loved us, when we were Ehp. 2. dead by sins, quickened us together in christ, and raised us up together with him, and made us to sit together with him among them in heaven, in christ jesus: he now quicken us and raise us up again from the death of heretical and sinful life, and make us by true faith, and true penance to sit to getheher with him in the unity of his Church among them that be settled in faith and charity in his catholic Church, which is (though it be yet upon the earth) the kingdom of heaven, as christ in the gospel doth testify. Math. 25. But that I seem not (as it is in the proverb) to dance out of the dance, or forgetting my limits to walk out of my compass, and so leaving my principal matter, to wander in digressions (although this matter be apperteinent necessarily, unto the principal matter in deed) I shall end this matter of confession with these few words, trusting that God will give me grace and time to speak more of it in an other place. But yet reader forget not though, that it is the mean of thy preparation, as S. Augustine hath taught thee, if thou will come to receive the body and blood of thy Lord jesus christ. Which body and blood though havest also heard the same S. Augustine avouching to be received in the holy Sacrament. THE SIX AND fifth CHAP. ENDETH the exposition of this text, By Theodoret, and Anselm. WEll perceiving that many, and those of the chiefest and most famous men of Christ'S Parliament house, have been now produced to testify unto us the enacted truth of the right understanding of S. Paul, I have thought it good, not to trouble the reader, with the allegation of many more upon this text but have stayed myself with one couple only, although the Proclaimer himself knoweth that more might be produced. In the producinge of which, I can not commit but one of them (as commlie here tofore I have done) be of the later days (which I term the lower house) that the doctrine of the later days may be conferred with the doctrine of the ancient days which being perceived to be all one the malice of the Proclaimer and his likes may be the more perceived, and their confusion more evidently daclared. This couple than shall be Theodorete and Anselme. Theodorete one of the higher house, whose testimony ye have heard upon the last text before this in the last chapter of the exposition of the same text, most manifestly testifienge the presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament, so manifestly that he saith, that it is received with hands and mouths. Which invincibly argueth the very real and substantial presence of Christ'S body. For their offices serve not to the receipt of the spiritual body. This Teodorete then knowing what a great gift of God it is for a sinful mortal man to receive the body of his Lord, upon this text of S. Paul's saying: Let every man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cuppè saith thus: Sic tui ipsius judex vitam tuam exactè judica: conscientiam scrutare, Theodoret in. ●1. 1 Cor & examina & tunc dominum suscipe: So if being thine own judge, exactly judge thine own life, search and examine thine own conscience, and then receive the gift. Thus Theodorete. As who might say, uless as every act of man, being Good or evil shall be judged either by man himself, or else by God, if man prevent not the judgement of God, and in God there is a merciful bowntifullnesse in giving, as in man there aught to be a seemly duty in receiving, therefore seeing God giveth us so great a gift as the body of his own dear Son, and our part is to be found pure, clean, undefiled, and without offence at the same receipt, let every one of us before we receive that gift of God, prevent the judgement of God, and enter into judgement with hour selves, and be our own judges. Let us look strictly upon our life: let us examine our consciences, and see whether we be meet to receive the gift or no. To be short our life and conversation must be judged our consciences must be examined and searched, before we can receive this blessed gift of God, the body of his Son jesus christ. It may very well be called his gift. For in deed it is a thing that is his, and not ours, but as given to us it cometh from him, and not from us: it is instituted by him, and not by us: the whole title and interest, the full right and property is in him, and not in us. then the gift is his, and the gift so worthy and so great, meet it is that we receive it seemly. But it will be, that the adversary will think, that I presume to far upon this author, that where he calleth the Sacrament but the gift of God, I call it the body of christ. Let the adversary understand that I neither serve from the truth nor from the mind of the author. For besides that he saith here upon S. Paul, he in an other place expoundeth himself what he meaneth by the gift, and saith thus talking in a dialogue, and ask a question: Quid appellas donum, quod offertur post sanctificationem? Orth. corpus Christi, & The dorit Dialog. 2. sanguinem Christi. Era. Et credis te fieri participem Christi corporis & sanguinis? Orth. Ita credo. What after sanctification dost though call the gift that is offered? The answer: I call them the body of christ and the blood of christ. A plain place for the proclaimer both for real presence, and sacrifice. The question. And dost though believe thy sells to be made partaker of the body and blood of christ? The answer. So I believe. Thus Theodorete. Ye may perceive then that I calling the gift, the body of christ, do follow the mind of the author, who both did so call it, and so believe it to be, as after in the same dialogue it is easy to see. In this author then, as in other before alleged we find plain and sufficient matter both against Luther, and against the Proclaimer. Against Luther. For the author saith we must exactly judge our life and search and examine our conscience which (as ye have heard ofter than once) Luther saith it aught not to be done, only faith is to be had. Against the Proclaimer he teacheth that the body and blood of christ be in the Sacracrament, and more against him he saith that they so believed, and adored as being those things that they believed. Thus having but, as it were glanced by the notes of the sainges of this author, and a little touched the adversary by conference of the doctrine of each side: I pass to Anselme, as to one of the lower house, of whom we shall learn what doctrine was professed in that house and whether it was dissonaunt to the doctrine of the fathers in the understanding of S. Paul. Thus writeth he upon this text of S. Paul: Nemo praesumat accedere indignus. Sed homo, id est rationabiliter agens, probet, id est, discutiat, & examinet prius seipsum, qut etiam ex eo Anselm. in 11. ● Cor. quod homo est, sinè peccato non est. Probet autem seipsum, id est, vitam suam inspiciat & consideret, an dignè possit accedere vel non. Rarò enim inveniri potest quisquam ita magnus & justus, ut in eo per dt scussionem, non inveniatur aliquid quod debeat eum à corporè & sanguine Domini tardare, nisi confessus fuerit illud & per paenitentiam deleverit. Probet se, & sic, id est, postquam se probaverit, edat de pane illo, & bibat de chalice, quia tunc ei proderit. Let no man being unworthy presume to come, but let the man, that is to say, the reasonable doer, examine, that is search and try first himself who also for that that he is a man, he is not without sin. But let him examine himself, that is, let him behold his own life, and consider it, whether he may come worthily or no. For seldom may any man be found so great and just, that in him can nothing be found, that may stay him from the body and blood of hour Lord. Except he confess it and by penawnce wipe it away. Let him examine himself and so, that is, after that he hath examined himself, let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. for than it shall do him good. Thus far Anselmus. This is a plain exposition, but as godly, and true, as is is plain. What can the Adversary reprehend in this exposition? wherein dissenteth he from the ancient Fathers, in expounding S. Paul? They all say that the examination of ourselves that S. Paul speaketh of here, is a trial or a search, anentringe, into judgement with hour own lives and conversations upon the testimony of our own consciences, whether we be clean from sin or no, and so saith he. S. Augustine saith that if any thing be amiss in us, we must by confession and penance put it away, the like saith this author. All the rest understand S. Paul to have spoken here of the body and blood of christ: and so doth he. Wherein then is the quarrel of the Adversary? because he and his company speak to plain. They can not be wrested. For to say that they descent in the doctrine of faith from the ancient fathers, it is to impudent an untruth. To conclude ye have now heard these three last couples expounding S. Paul, and they all determe that there must be an examination in life and manners and a seemly preparation of ourselves before we receive the blessed Sacrament. Wherein they overthrow the Satanical doctrine of Luther, who The preparation that we are commanded to make for the receipt of the B. Sacr. and the danger of unworthy receiving argueth the real presence would have no examination, no confession no preparation. Again they all understand S. Paul to have spoken of the body and blood of christ in this process. Wherefore the heresy of the Proclaimer and of the rest of the Sacramentaries, which they would fain grif here upon S. Paul's words, is plucked up by the roots for such wicked plants may not grow upon such godly stocks. And as touching this matter of the presence of Christ'S body, if rher were not so plain testimony for it in S. Paul and the holy writers as there is: yet the holy and great preparation, that they exhort us to, and the heavy sentence of everlasting drmnation threatened unto us for lack of the same preparation, if we would not shut up the eyes of our understanding, would cause us easily to perceive a moche greater matter to be in the Sacrment than a poour piece of bread and a poour bare cup of wine. Who ever heard or red such spiritual and heavenly preparation, for the receipt of a simple earthly, and as they themselves term it, unholy piece of bread? Whoever readd such preparation commanded for the eating of a bare sign or figure? Whoever read damnation appointed for lack of preparation to the receipt of any figure? Let all the volumme of the old testament, where all things were done in figures be searched, and ye shall never find either such preparation, or such pain inflicted for unseemly receiving of any such figure. view the three principal figures, as Manna, the paschal lamb, and the Exod. 16. show bread, and see what preparation is there commanded, what pain to the evil receivers is there inflicted. As for Manna the second book of Moses declareth that although it were so miraculous a figure and that in many respects as before is declared, yet there was no other preparation required of the people but only that they should get baskets, and gather it. The pain also inflicted for the abuse of it, as the thing it self was temporal, so was it. They were commanded that they should not keep it until the next day, except it were the Sabbath day, yet some of them kept it, and therefore they were punished. For it putrefied, and waxed full of worms. Exod. 12. The paschal lamb although it were so lively a figure of christ, it had no other preparation But this. Of this manner saith God shall ye eat it with your loins girded, and your shoes on your feet, and your staves in your hands. And ye shall eat it in haste. This preparation was but civil and worldly here is no spiritual preparation commanded: here is no cleansing of the conscience required. The Show bread also had none other preparation, but that the priests might when new were put upon the altar take the old and eat them. Pain for the abuse of them we read none. Perchance ye will say, that in the offerings of sacrifices and in such as did take part of the Sacrifices, there was required a preparation. Truth it is, what doth that help the cause of the Sacramentaries, who deny the Sacrament to be a sacrifice? well yet for that the catholic faith teacheth it to be the Christian Sacrifice, we will accept the facrifices of the old law as being figures of the sacrifice of the new law, and the preparations there as figures of preparations in this law. In the old law in deed we find preparation commanded both for the priests that did offer such sacrifice, and for them also which were partakers of those sacrifices. For the priests Exod. 30. we read this commandment given to Moses: Fancies labium aeneum cum basi sua ad lavandum, ponesue illud inter Tabernaculum testimonii & altarè missa aqua lavabunt in ea Aaron & filii eius manus suas, & pedes, quando ingressuri sunt tabernaculum testimonii, & quando accessuri sunt ad altar, ut offerant in eo thymiama, Domino, ne forte moriantur. Thowe shalt make a laver of brass, and his foot also of brass, to wash with all, and shalt put it between the tabernacle of witness and the altar, and put water there in. For Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet there in, even when they go into the tabernacle of witness, or when they go unto the altar to minister, and to burn the Lords offering they shall wash themselves with water least they die. And again we find thus ordained of God: Omnis homo qui accesserit de stripè levit. 22. vestra ad ea, quae consecrata sunt, & quae obtulerunt filii israel Domino, in quo est immunditia, peribit coram Domino. Whosoever he be of all yower seed that goeth to the holy things, which the children of Israel hallow unto the Lord having his uncleanness upon him, he shall perish. Here we find a preparation and a pain also inflicted to them that omitted so to prepare themselves. But what were all these preparations? They were (as S. Paul termeth) worldly holiness, wasshinges and iustifienges of the flesh which cleansed not the conscience. In the time of the law (saith S. Paul) were offered gifts and sacrifices, that Hebr. 9 could not make the ministre perfect, as pertaining to the conscience, with only meats and drinks, and diverse wasshinge and iustifienges of the flesh, which were ordained until the time of reformation. For as their sacrifices that were then offered did not take away sins and sanctify the conscience, For it is vupossible (saith S. Paul) with the blood of goats and calves sins to be taken away, but only sanctified men and purified men, as touching the purifying of the flesh, as he again saith, no more did those preparations touch the conscience, but only were done for an outward cleanness. For reason will give that that thing, that the preparation is done for, should be of more force, value and virtue, than the preparation in it self if then the sacrifices themselves purified not the consciences of men, much less the preparation. The pain also that was inflicted to such as omitted this preparation, what was it? it was but death temporal, which hath no comparison with death eternal. Now the preparation required before the offering of the sacrifice of our Lord, and before the partaking of the same in the new Testament, is an exact and a pure purging and cleansing of our consciences. And our pain for our presumption to receive this sacrifice without due preparation, is not as you heard, death temporal, but even such (as chrysostom, and Theodorete say) as they suffer, which crucified christ, which is death everlasting. Now as our preparation, which consisteth in purging and cleansing of our consciences, far surmounteth the washing of the flesh: And as our pain neclectinge this preparation is the loss of everlasting life, which above all measure passeth the loss of this tansitorie life: Even so must it needs be, that the thing that we prepare for, must above all measure pass and exceed in worthiness the figures and sacrifices, that they in the old law made preparation for. But they will say, that we by faith make christ, who substantially sitteth Objection of spiritual presence by faith. at the right hand of his Father, as verily present at the receipt of the Sacramental bread and wine, and so we receive Christ'S body and blood verily, but yet spiritually. In deed they say it, but they prove it not. But how soever they say it, and how soever they painct and coolour their evil sainges, with goodly glozing words: certain it is that this they say, that the fathers of the Theanswer. old Testament received christ as well as we, and that there is no more in our Sacraments, than was in theirs, but that their Sacraments were figures of christ to come, and owers be figures of christ as now comed. But to them I say, if we have no more in our Sacraments then they had, why are we required to make any other preparation than they did? Why preparare we so diligently our consciences, where they were required but to purify their flesh? Again as touching the punishment they make God unjust. For if the thing received of the fathers and us hath no difference in value, why hath it a difference in pain? it standeth not with the justice of God, the offence being all one to punish to offenders, one with everlasting death: the other but with temporal death. And yet so must it needs be, if the sainges of the Sacramentaries were true. But thou mayst see Reader, into what inconveniences their, dreams, and fantasies bring them. Wherefore I shall wish the reader, to consider that this our preparation being so far above the preparation of the old law, teacheth us that we receive a thing, far above that, that they received in that law. And uless as the punishment of our presumption is everlasting death, that it argueth that we presume to abuse the everlasting Majesty of our Lord God, and Saviour jesus christ, because (as saint Paul saith) we make no difference of our Lord's body. In deed if we examine not ourselves before we receive, but go to it with filthy consciences, them go we to it as to other meats, and so make we no difference betwixt our lords body and other meats. And for this our irreverency we worthily suffer the pain testified by saint Paul, that is, we eat and drink our own damnation, yea so great is the offence of unworthy receiving, that God doth not only punish it eternally, but also by diverse means temporally, as thou shalt see it plainly testified in the text that followeth. THE SEVEN AND fifth CHAP. EXPOVNdeth this text: For this cause many are weak and sick, etc. By Origen and saint Ambrose. IT followeth in the text of S. Paul: Ideo inter vos multi imbecilles, & infirmi, & dormiunt multi. For this cause many are weak and sick among you, and many do die. S. Paul rebuking the uncharitable, the ungodly, and undevout manner of the Corinthians in coming to the receipt of the holy Sacrament, of the which somewhat is before said, did plainly teach them and assure them that such unworthy receivers should be eternally condemned, as they that vilanouslie and cruelly put christ to death. For as they did with all spite spit upon him, pietifullie array him, mock him, scorn him, and as they thought, with all shame and reproach diswoorshippe and dishonour him, and repute him but as a vile, abject, and a castawaie among the children of men: Even so they that come to receive his blessed body and blood, as they would come to receive a piece of the carcase of an ox, lamb, calf, orshepe having no regard to the cleanness and purity of their consciences, they do as much, and as wickedly abuse, diswoorshippe and dishonour that his blessed body, as the jews of whom we spoke of before. For what more contumely, what more inurie, can be done to the body of christ, then to be cast into a sinful stinking body more filthy or loathsome in his seight, than any dunghill or sink. The gravity than of the offence, with the grievous pain of condemnation due to the same declared, to make them better credit the same, he indueeth them by present examples of the punishment of such persons in this present life, saying: For this cause many among you are weak, and seek, and many do die. As who might say: think not that I dally with you, behold and see even among your selves, how God showeth a preamble or image of his fearful judgement which I have spoken of. For even for this unworthy receiving of the body and blood of his Son our Lord jesus christ, he hath stricken many with weakness, many with sickness, and many with death. The literal exposition being thus briefly touched as whereby it may be perceived, how this text doth depend of the other, and is joined with the same we will (as heretofore is done) hear the Fathers of Christ'S Parliament house, thereby also to try, whether the catholic Church that now is, consent with them, or dissent from them, or the Proclan. and his company agree or disagree. Of these Father's the first couple shall be Origen and saint Ambrose. Origen saith thus: judicium Dei paruipendis? & commonentem te Ecclesiam despicis? Communicare non times corpus Christi, accedens ad Eucharistiam quasi mundus, & purus, quasi in te Origen. in Psalm. 37. nihil sit indignum, & in us omnibus putas quod effugies judicium Dei. Non recordaris illud quod scriptum est, quòd propterea in vobis infirmi, & aegri, & dormiunt multi. Quare multi infirmi? Quoniam non seipsos di●udicant, neque seipsos examinant, neque intelligunt, quid communicare Ecclesiae, vel quid est accedere ad tanta, & tam eximia Sacramenta. Patiuntur hoc quod febricitantes pati solent, quum sanorum cibos praesumunt, sibimetipsis inferentes exitium. Settest thou little by the judgement of God? And despicest thou the Church admonishing thee? Thou art not a feared to communicate the body Origen in plain words calleth the bless. Sacr. the body of christ. of christ, coming to the Eucharist, as a clean and a pure man, as though there were no unworthy thing in thee: and in all these, thou thinkest that thou shalt eschape the judgement of God. Thowe dost not remember, that which is written: that for these things, there be many among you weak, and sick, and many do die. Why be there many sick? Because they judge not themselves, neither examine themselves, neither do they understand what it is to communicate with the Church, or what it is to come to so great, and so excellent mysteries. They suffer that that men which be sick of agues, are wont to suffer, when they eat the meats of whole men and so kill themselves. Origen rebuking here the evil doings of some men, Who not fearing the judgement of God, nor the admonition of the Church presumed as though they had been in clean state of life to come to receive the body of christ: putteth them in fear with this saying of saint Paul that for this cause there be among you many weak, and sick, and many do die. Wherein note that Origen saith, that the cause of these plagues is the unworthy receiving of the body of christ by express words. He neither calleth it Sacramental bread, nor figure nor sign, but even as it is, the body of christ. And for that it is there unspeakably, and yet most assuredly, he afterward calleth it, so great, and so excellent mysteries. A mystery is where something lieth hidden, that is not by open means, A mystery what it is, and how the blessed Sacr. is a mystery. or common knowledge perceived. Forasmoch then as christ verily being in the Sacrament is not perceived by the common knowledge of the senses, nor of natural reason, but by the special knowledge of faith it is very well of Origen called mysteries. And forasmuch as christ therein being, is so great and so excellent, therefore very well doth he call them mysteries great and excellent. And there this is to be noted, that he calleth it not a mystery as being but one, but he calleth it mysteries as being two. For although it is sometime called singularly, a Sacrament or a mystery as one thing, of the unity of the thing fignified and contained, which is the body of Christ: yet as touching the things that do signify, and contain, which be the forms of bread and wine, under which both, christ is verily and wholly, they are right well called mysteries plurally, because they be two kinds, and under each kind christ fully, and therefore each of them well called a Sacrament and a mystery. In all this saying, this also may be noted, that evil men receive the body of christ, but specially, when he saith: that evil men do as men Evil men receive the body of christ in the B. Sac. sick of agues, who will presume to eat holl men's meat, whereby he plainlle teacheth, that evil men eat the same meat in the Sacrament, that good men do, But good men receive the body of christ: wherefore so do evil men also, but to contrary effects. For as the holl man eating his meat continueth his life, and the sick man eating the same procureth or causeth his own death: Even so the worthy receiver receiving the body of christ getteth life, where the unworthy receiving the same getteth him everlasting death. Thus may we of this ancient father of Christ'S Parliament house learn the truth, that Christ'S body is in the Sacrament. Thus may we learn, that forbecause evil men do abuse it unreverent lie receiving it, that the plagues of God, as sickness, weakness, and death, come upon them. This being true, God plant in the heart of every man, that hath professed the name of christ, to profess also his holy faith, and reverently and thankfully to accept this great and comfortable benefit of Christ'S presence with us in the Sacrament, and it honourably to use. O Lord, what mishap have we, that after so long continuance of the faith of christ we should now in the later days, fall from that reverent and honourable usage of this blessed Sacrament, that was used in the primitive Church, when the faith was not so dilated, so spread, so established, as now for the long sustenance of it, it aught to be: And yet then was it had in great reverence, and honourably used. But among many testimonies that may be produced, because we are now hearing the doctrine of Origen, we will also but hear his testimony in this matter. He exhorting the people, that hearing the word of God they should use great diligence, that, that they had once learned, should not by negligence fall from their memory: useth the example of their regard of the holy Sacrament, and saith: Volo vos admonere religionis vestrae exemplis. Orig. homil 13. in Exod Nostis, qui divinis mysteriis interesse consuestis, quomodò cùm suscipitis corpus Domini cum omni cautela & veneratione seruatis, ne ex eo parum quid decidat, ne consecrati muneris aliquid dilabatur. Reos enim vos creditis, & rectè creditis, si quid inde per neccligentiam decidat. Quodsi circa corpus eius conseruandum, tanta utimini cautela, & meritò utimini, See what wareness was used in the primitive Church in receiving the body of our Lord. quomodò putatis minoris esse piaculi verbum Dei neclexisse, quàm corpus eius? I will admonish you with the examples of your own religion, ye, that have been wont to be at the ministration of the divine mysteries, know, how, when ye receive the body of our Lord, ye give heed with all wareness and honour that no little portion of it should fall down, that no part of the consecrate thing should slip away, ye believe your selves to be guilty, and ye believe well, if any of it should fall from you through negligence. If than ye use so great wareness and diligence about the conserving of his body, and your use therein is good: how think you it a matter of less offence, to have neglected the word of God, than his body? Thus moche Origen? In this testimony is no mention made of the adversaries figure, sign or Sacramental bread, but here is plain declaration of the catholic faith, A plain saying for the Procla. Origen saying and declaring to the Christian people of his time by express words that they received the body of christ. But note withal which is most chiefly to our purpose here, that not only the people did use the same body of christ reverently and honourably, but also Origen doth both well allow there so doing, and commendeth and praiseth them for the same also. And here note farther that the people had the blessed Sacr. in so great reverence, that they believed themselves to have committed a great offence (and Origen saith they believed it well) if by their negligence any part of the Sacr. had fallen from them to the ground by which their reverend usage, as we may clearly perceive and see, that they believed there to be the very body of christ, to the which they gave this reverence and honour: So by the same is the unreverend usage of our Sacramentaries much reprehended. Remember See the use of the Communion bread in the new Church. their doings, and consider their usages, and compare them with the doings and usageiss of the ancient Christian people, in the time of Origen. Hour Sacramentaries caused that the bread which was left at their communion should not be honourably but profanely used. For in some places the minister had that that was left: in some places the parish clerk: in some places a piece of it was delivered to him that should the next sunday provide the bread for the communion. And every of these put this bread into his bosom or purse, as beggars do their lumps and fragments into their bags and wallettes without all reverence or regard, and carrying it home with like irreverency used it in no otherwise then other common bread, giving it to their wifes and children, the crusts to their dogs and cats, the crumbs to their pullen. O Lord how far is this usage from the usage of the primitive Church? The good people that then were (as thou have heard) thought it a great offence, if it did but fall from them to the ground. And Pius the ninth Bishop of Rome after S. Peter, and lived about the year of our Lord cxlvii upon consideration of the great excellency of the De consec. Dist. 2. Sacrament as wherein is verily the body of our Saviour christ, and upon the regard of such due reverence as appertaineth to us to yield to the same, appointed sundry penances, and fastings to such as by whom any part of the blood of christ should happen to distill or to be shed: But these people Difference of the primitive and schismatical church in use of the Sacr. and in faith. of our days neither regard falling to the ground nor shedding, no, as, it is said, they spare not to give it to their dogs. By which sundry manners it is easy to be perceived that the faiths of these people be sundry. The people of the primitive church (as by their regard, reverence, and honour to the B. Sacrament, it may be perceived) believed the presence of Christ'S body and blood to be there, where they bestowed such reverence and duty: The company of Sacramentaries, as their irrenerent usage well declareth, believe no real presence of Christ'S body in the Sacrament. For to it they deny all honour and reverence. If the primitive Church had believed as the Sacramentaries do, why gave they that honour to it, that these do not? or raither why do not the Sacramentrries honour the Sacrament as they of the primitive Church did? If ye will know the cause, it is (though they brag much of the primitive Church) because they vary and dissent from it, both in faith and manners. How can they truly say, that they follow the primitive Church when it is here so manifest, as it can not be against said, that they not only dissent from it by their doctrine, but also do things even clean contrary to that, that was done in the primitive Clemens Epist. 2. Church? They with all irreverency contemning the leavings of the Sacrament where the primitive Church used honourably to repose them and reserve them in the holy placea (as S. Clement gave commandment) and also had great regard, and reverence to it, where these men (as ye have heard) feed their families with it, as with profane bread. Wherefore to conclude this matter with saint Paul, I may say, that they be guilty of the body and blood of hour Lord, because they make no difference betwixit it and common or profane meats, but indifferently eat the one and the other. Ambr. in 11. 1. Cor. But I tarry to long upon Origen, it is time that S. Ambrose also were heard Upon this text thus he saith: verum probaret, quia examen futurum est accipientium corpus Domini, iam hic imaginem judicii ostendit, in eos qui inconsideratè corpus Domini acceperant, dum febribus, & infirmitatibus corripiebantur, & multi moriebantur, ut iis caeteri discerent, & paucorum exemplo territi emendarentur non inultum scientes corpus Domini negligenter accipere, & eum quem hic poena distulerit, gravius tractari, fore, quia S. Ambr. understandeth S. Panle io speak of the body of our Lord. contempsit exemplum. To prove that there is a judgement to come of them, that receive the body of our Lord, he doth now show a certain image of the same judgement upon them, which without due consideration had received the body of our Lord forasmoch as they were punished with fevers, and sicknesses, and many died: that by these men other might learn, and they feared with the example of a few might be amended: knowing that to receive the body of our Lord necligentlie is not left unpunished, but if his punish meant be differred that he shall be more grievously handled hereafter, because he hath contemned the example. As Origen hath done before: so S. Ambrose here agreeably declareth that fevers, sicknesses, and death also have by god's punishment fallen upon them, that unworthily have received the body of our Lord. In which his declaration of saint Paul's mind this is also evident to be seen, that he both confesseth the body of christ in the Sacrament: and also that the same body of christ hath been received of evil men. Now such presence as the Adversary teacheth can be but of good men received, wherefore saint Ambrose here and Origen, and diverse other before alleged for the exposition of saint Paul, teaching us that evil men receive the body of christ, it must needs necessarily follow that there is beside the spiritual manner (which only the Adversary teacheth) an other manner of real and substantial presence, by which the evil man receiveth the very substance of the body of christ verily and in deed. Which being (as it is in deed) a most certain truth testified by many holy doctors, and grave Fathers, of the Church, the contrary assertion of the Adversary, must neds be judged an heretical untruth. Wherefore Christian Reader, be not deceived with vain gloss of light Sacramentaries, but stay thy self upon the sure and agreeable expositions of the holy Fathers, and believe no less but thou coming where the Sacrament is duly ministered, according to Christ'S institution, and receiving the same, that thou receivest the very real and substantial Ambr. in 11. 1. Cor. Reverence is due to him whose body wereceave. body of christ. But now it standeth thee in hand, to see how thou receivest it, with what faith, with that devotion, and with what reverence. For this holy father saint Ambrose (as other before) teacheth us after the mind of saint Paul, that we must come to this most holy Sacrament with devotion, fear and reverence. For showing saint Paul's mind, who willeth us to examine ourselves, he saith upon the same thus: Devoto animo, & cum timore accedendum ad communionem docet, ut sciat meus reverentiam se debere ei, ad cuius corpus sumendum accedit. He teacheth us to come to the communion with a devout mind, and with fear, that the mind may know it self to owe reverence unto him, whose body it cometh to receive. Thus much he. What soever Luther hath said against our preparation for our seemly coming to the receipt of the bless. Sacrament: what soever the Adversaries S. Ambr. and Origen use plaintearmes for the Procla. the Sacramentaries and the Proclaimer say against the holy and blessed body of christ in the Sacrament seeking by terms, as by Sacramental bread, by figure, by an holy sign, and such like, to deface it, and yet with such holy terms to cloak their unholy heresy, and loathing by express words to call it the body of christ: yet this holy Father and Bishop. S. Ambrose in both these places alleged, and Origen in his sainges, in this chapter produced calleth the Sacrament six or seven times by plain words, the body of our Lord, the doubtful terms of the Adversary left, as by which they could not so lively express and show forth the truth. To end with these two Fathers of Christ'S Parliament house we may perfectly by them understand, that God punisheth unworthy receivers of the body of christ, some temporally, by fevers sicknesses, and death: some eternally by perpetual damnation. whereby as by the grievousness of the punishments we may learn the grievousness of the offence: So by the greatness of the offence, we may learn the greatness of the blessed Sacrament, in the receipt of which no such offence could be committed, if he were not there present, whose majesty being great, maketh the offence great. THE EIGHT AND fifth CHAP. ENDETH the exposition of the same text by Theophilact. and Anselm. Forasmuch as the matter treacted of by S. Paul in this text is apperteinent, and dependeth of the matter spoken of before, in the which we have proceeded at the length, therefore I have determined to content myself with the two Fathers, in the last chapter produced, by whom we may learn the enacted truth of the understanding of this text in the higher house, and with two other Fathers of the lower house who shall open unto us also the understanding of the same in the lower house, which two shall be Theophilact, and Anselme. Theophilact writeth thus: Accipite demonstrationem ex iis, quae apud vos contingunt. Hinc enim sunt immaturae mortes, diuturnaeue aegritudines, & morbi, eò quòd multi in dignè assumant. Quid igitur? Qui non aegrotant, & ad extremam usque senectam seruantur Theophilact in 11. 1 Cor. incolumes, nun peccant? Peccant sanè. Sed non huius temporis paenae solae indignè accedentibus destinatae sunt, sed in futuro quoque seculo. Take ye a demonstration of those things which happen among you. For because many do receive unworthily, therefore there be hasty deaths, and long diseases and sicknesses. What then? They that are not sick but to their extearm age are kept in health, do they not sin? They sin truly, but not the only pains of this time are appointed to unworthy receivers, but there be also in the world to come more hard, and more grievous punishments reposed. As the judgements of God be marvelous, and incomprehensible, so deep also that no man can reach unto the profundity thereof: so are they also God punisheth some tempor. illie but not eternally some eternally not temporally some 〈◊〉 temparallie and eternally. upright, just and full of equity, giving to every man according to his works. By which he punisheth some in this life, but not eternally, some eternally, but not in this life temporally: some both temporally, and eternally. So likewise of them that by unworthy receipt contemn and foully abuse the blessed Sacrament some by sicknesses, and diseases are punished who humbly receiving the same, and repenting their former doings, and amending their lives, God tempering his justice with mercy punisheth them but in this life. Other some there be that abusing the holy Sacrament by unworthy receipt, and continuing the same do yet some good works, though not in the right order of good works, such God of his mercy punisheth not temporally, but differing the punishment, punisheth them eternally. Some being of most beastly and detestable life, and continuing in the same without repentance as men even sold over to sin, and touched with sickness will not humbly receive the same as God's merciful punishment to the amendment of life, but raither heaping evils upon evils do murmur and grudge, yea and with all violent impatiency blaspheme his holy name, and reprove his correction with many unseemly words, many such are punished both temporally and eternally. Thus by Theopilacle than we may learn, that to unworthy receivers of the bless. Sacrament such punishments have been inflicted of God, whereby (as is said) may be perceived, that as the offence is great, so it is done against him, who is great, even christ our saviour and redeemer, whose blessed body being present in the Sacrament is by wicked receivers much abused. I stand not to declare the faith of Theophllact as touching the presence. For it is more than manifest, that he that denieth the adversaries figure in the Sacrument confesseth the presence, which this author doth in diverse places expowndinge the scriptures, as in this work also it may be seen, Wherefore leaving him we will hear Anselmus, who upon this text following S. Ambrose and using his words, writeth thus, as speaking to the Anselm. in. 11. 1. Cor. Corinthians in the person of S. Paul: Quia indignè manducatis hoc corpus, & sanguinem bibitis, ideo sunt inter vos multi infirmi, qui gravi morbo languent: & imbecilles qui diuturua invalitudine torpent & dormiunt etiam multi, id est somno mortis sunt occupati, ut verum probaret, quia examen futurum est accipientium corpus Domini. jam hic imaginem judicii ostendit in nonnullis qui corpus illud inconsiderate acceperant, dum aegrotationibus, & longis invalitudinibus tenerentur, & multi morerentur, ut in eyes caeteri discerent se non impunè corpus Domini necligenter accipere, & paucorum exemplo caeteri territi emenda rentur, scientes quia graviores paenas in futuro seculo propter hanc culpam ipsi forent passuri, sinon corrigerentur. Because ye do eat and drink his body and blood unworthily, therefore there be among you many sick of grievous sickness, and weak which faint with long disease, and many also sleep, that is, they are prevented with The Corinthians did eat and drink the body and blood of our Lord unworthily. death. To prove that a judgement or condemnation shall come of them that receive the body of our Lord, he doth now show the image of the judgement in many, which had inconsideratelie reaeaved that body, forasmochas they were holden with sicknesses, and long weakness and many died, that by them other should learn, that they should not receive the body of our Lord necligentlie without punishment, and other feared with the example of a few, should be amended, knowing that they shall suffer more grievous pains in the world to come for this offence, except they were amended. Thus he. We learn here of Anselmus, that the sicknesses, diseases and deaths that happened among the Corinthians, were because they received not only the Sacrament, or (as the Sacramentaries term it) the Sacramental bread unworthily, but because they did inconsiderately receive the body of our Lord. In which manner of faith, and speech this author followeth not his own devise, but the grave doctrine and judgement, of S. Ambrose whose saying he doth here allege. And so by them both it is manifest that the body of christ is received in the Sacrament, that evil men also receive it there, which proveth the real and substantial presence of Christ'S body, and that such evil receivers for that they do moche injury to that pure and undefiled body of christ casting it into their body defiled with moche filth of sin, do oftentimes suffer the pains in this life and also in the live to come. Of the displeasure of God against evil receivers, as S. Paul maketh proof by demonstration, and experience of the same in his time: so doth also S. Cyprian for the like in his time, who bringeth three or four examples of God's wrath against them that being defiled with sin did presume to Cap. ser. 5. de. lapsis. approach to, or receive the holy body of christ. The first example is of a child, which being put to a Nurse did taste of a sop of bread, which was offered unto Idols. And when the mother having this child in her arms came to the Church among christian people, and the Sacrament among other, was also offered to the child, the child (who I say, had tasted of Idols meat) turned away her face from the Sacrament, she stopped her She might have received the new Communion with out any such trouble. mouth and held her lips hard together, she refused by any mean to touch the cup of the blood of christ. Yet though she did thus strive, the deacon gave her of the Sacrament. Which when she had once received, forth with she fell to boking and vomiting for (as Cyprian saith) in corpore, atque ore violato Eucharistia permanere non potuit. Sanctificatus in Domini sanguine potus, de pollutis visceribus erupit. Tanta est potestas Domini, tanta maiestas. In a defiled mouth and body the Sacrament could not abide. The sanctified drink in our lords blood braced out of the defiled bowels. So great is the power of hour Lord, so great is his majesty. By this example may we learn, how much it offendeth God, that the body of christ should be received unworthily of one that hath knowledge and reason. Immediately after this, S. Cyprian maketh report of a woman that was of age, knowledge, and reason, saying that such one when he was offering the sacrifice priveilie stole in among other, and receiving A woman receiving the B. Sa. unworthily stricken with death the Sacrament, not as meat to comfort her, for that she was unworthy, but as a sword to destroy her, and taking as it were deadly poison in to her mouth and breast, she begun to be merueilouselie vexed, and disquieted, and so suffering the heavy punishment of her offence, panting and trembling she fell down dead. So (saith he) was not her evil offence left long unpunished. But she that thought by her cloaking and dissembling of her offence to have deceived man, felt God to whom all things be known, the revenger and punisher of the same. another woman there was also, who receiving the Sacrament into her hands kept the same, and carrying it home, put it into her coffer. But to use the words of S. Cyprian, Cum arcam suam in qua Domini sanctum fuit manibus indignis tentasset aperire, igne inde surgente deterrita est, ne auderet attingere. When she would with unworthy hands open the coffer, wherein was the holy thing of our Lord, there sprang out a fire, whereby she was cast in such fear that she durst not touch it. Upon this example this may we note, that if God would not suffer the woman, forasmuch as she was unworthy, not as much as to open the coffer, where the holy thing of our lord was laid, how moche less will he bear it that a licentious filthy living man should touch the thing ytself, eat it, and cast it into his sinful body? another marvelous thing doth S. Cyprian report of the blessed Sacrament, A man unworthily receiving the bless. Sa in his hand when he opened his hand there was nothing but ashes There was (saith he) a certain defiled or sinful man, who being present when the Sacrament was celebrated by the priest (so doth S. Cyprian term the holy ministration) he presumed privielie with other to receive, but he could not eat the holy thing of God nor handle it. For when he had opened his hand to see what he had received, he found nothing but ashes. This in deed is a meruertouse thing, whereby is declared that God is not willing, that his holy Sacrament should be received of a filthy sinner, forasmuch as suddenly it pleaseth him to change it into ashes he himself departing from it. But let us hear what S. Cyprian himself noteth upon this miracle of God Serm. s de lapsis. Documento unius ostensum est, Dominum recedere cum negatur, nec immerentibus prodesse ad salutem quod sumitur, cum gratia salutaris in cinerem sanctitate fugiente mutetur. By the example of one it is declared, that our Lord departeth when he is denied, neither doth it, that is received profit the unworthy to salvation or health, when the wholesome grace, holiness departing away, is changed into ashes. This note of S. Cyprian is notable in deed and for that it is so, I wish it so to be noted of the reader, that it never fall from his memory. First, let the evil man note that at the receipt of the Sacrament because in life and conversation God is denied that he departeth and goeth away. But let the faithful hereby learn, that hour Lord is present with his Sacrament, who as he departeth from the wicked so he abideth to be received of the virtuous and godly. This also is not to be overpassed, that the holy Martyr saith, that it, that is received, profiteth not the unworthy to salvation. For by that he saith, it profiteth not the unworthy, he argueth that it profiteth the worthy, or else we must say that the state both of the worthy, and unworthy is equal, which if it so were, S. Cyprian did but vainly say, that it did not profit the unworthy, If then one thing be received in the Sacrament that profiteth the good and availeth not the evil, we must first grant, that the good and the evil receive one thing, profiting the one, and hurting the other. Now would it be learned of the sacramentary, what one thing that is in the Sacrament that is received, that profiteth and hurteth. The sacramentary leaveth no more in the Sacrament by his doctrine, but Sacramental bread, and Sacramental wine, which both (saith he) remain in their substance and nature, so that there is no other thing (taking thing for substance) but the substance of bread and wine: Certain it is, that as God suffereth the Sun to shine upon good and evil, and raineth upon the just and unjust: So do the he suffer the substance of bread and wine to feed and nourish both good and evil, as well to profit the wicked as the rightwise, no more (measure being observed) to hurt the one than the other. If than the substance of bread so indifferent, that it profiteth as well the wicked as the good the substance of bread is not the thing, that holy Cyprian saith to be in the Sacrament, which only prositeth the good, and hurteth the evil, if it be received. Wherefore it doth necessarily follow, that there is an other thing in the Sacrament, than the substance of bread, which is the body of christ, as the holy fathers before alleged have confessed, and the holy Church catholic professeth and believeth. Noweye have heard the presence of Christ'S body and blood taught by S. Paul in the epistle to the Corinthians: ye have heard it testified, yea and avouched by a number of ancient holy Fathers: ye have heard it proved that by the testimony ans well of S. Paul, as the Fathers it is plain and evident, that the evil and unworthy receive the same body of christ in the bless. Sacrament that the good and worthy doth: Ye have heard pains both temporal and eternal appointed to such unworthy receivers: Ye have seen great difference of the pains of the unclean receivers of the figures of the old law, and of the unworthy receivers of the Sacrament of the new law, whereby also is invincibly proved a great difference of things received in both laws. For in the old law christ was received figuratively: In the new law he is received verily. In the old law only spiritually: In the new law of good people both spiritually and substantially. Thus moche being done if grace be at hand with the reader there is enough done to expel the Sacramentaries heresy, and to move to receive the catholic verity. Wherefore although there be other scriptures in S. Paul, I will not stand and abide upon them, as hitherto I have done upon other, but I will touch them and so end. THE NINE AND fifth CHAP. treateth of these words of S. Paul. We are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones, by Irenaeus and Hylarius. IN the epistle to the Ephesians, S. Paul exhorting men to love their wifes, willeth them so to love them, and nourish them, as christ doth his Church. And for proof that they should so do, he saith that no man at any time hath hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cheriseth it as christ doth his Church. For we are saith he membres of his body, of his flesh and of his bones. Which saying uless as the great ancient. Father Irenaeus doth understand of the flesh, body and blood of christ in the Sacrament, I have thought good to let the reader perceive the same▪ Thus he writeth: Quomodò carnem negant esse capacem donationis Dei, quae est vita aeterna quae sanguine & corpore Christi nutritur, & membrum eius fit, quemadmodum & Apostolus ait, in ea, quae est ad Ephesios epistola: Quoniam membra sumus corporis Iraen. li. 5. eius, de carne eius, & de ossibus eius, non de spirituali aliquo, & invisibili homine dicens haec (spiritus enim neque ossa, neque carnes habet) sed de ea dispositione, quae est secundùm hommem, quae ex carnibus & neruis & ossibus consistit, quae de chalice, qui est sanguis eius nutritur, & de pane, qui est corpus eius augetun? How deny they the flesh to be able to receive the gift of God, which is everlasting life, which is nourished with the body and blood of christ, and is made a member of him, as the Aplain saying of Iren. agunst the Proclaimer Apostle also saith in the epistle to the Ephesians: For we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones: not speaking these words of any spiritual or invisible man, but of that disposition, which is after the nature of man which is of flesh, Sinews and bones, which is nourished of the cup, which is his blood, and is increased by the bread which is his body. hitherto Iren. For the better understanding of this saying, the occasion why he wrote this is to be declared, although this Irenaeus were so ancient and so near to the time of the Apostles, that he was the disciple of Policarpus, which Policarpus was the disciple of saint john the Evangelist: yet before and in his time were risen many heretics as Simon Samarites, who The flesh of man shall have everlaing life because it is nourished with the flesh of Chryst. other wise is called Simon Magus: Menander, Carportes, Basilides, Cerinthus Ebion, and Martion: which foully and diversly erring about the person of christ, some of them also denienge the resurrection, saying that hour earthly and gross flesh could not be partaker of salvation. Against which heresies Irenaeus wrote five books, and in the fist book among other things impugning that heresy that said that hour flesh could not enjoy everlasting life, proveth that it may and shall And by that it is nourished with the flesh and blood of christ. And therfora sketh a question saying: how deny they our flesh to be partaker of the gift of God, which is everlasting, which flesh is nourished with the body and blood of christ, and is made a member of him? That our flesh is nourished by the body and blood of christ, and thereby also made a member of him: he proveth it by this Scripture of S. Paul, that we be members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones. Both body and soul have benefit by the body of Christ. And here note how goodly he confirmeth the catholic faith, and how mightily he overthrow the heresy of the sacramentary. The Catholic saith that the whole man both body and soul taketh benefit, and is nourished by the body and blood of christ: The sacramentary saith, that only the inward man, the spiritual man is spiritually nourished by faith. But this false gloze is here by express words reproved and convinced. S. Paul (saith Irenaeus) speaketh not this of any spiritual or invisible man, but of the very natural man, which is made of flesh sinews, and bones which natural man is nourished, and augmented by the cup, which is the blood of our Lord, and the bread which is the body of our Lord. It is manifest then against the sacramentary, it is manifest against the Proclaimer, that the natural man doth eat and drink the natural body and blood of christ whereby also it is manifest, that the natural body and blood of christ be in the Sacrament, For if they were not, how could they so be received? Again it is manifest, that not only the inward man, the invincible or The outward natural man receiveth the body and blood of christ. spiritual man receiveth the body and blood of christ, but also the outward, the visible and natural man. And for the full and perfect understanding of this, note well the chief ground of this ancient holy Father Irenaeus. His purpose is to prove, that our flesh although it be a mortal thing, shall receive immortality: although it be earthilie, it shall receive an heavenly and everlasting life: how proveth he that? By that that our mortal flesh receiveth the immortal flesh and blood of christ, and thereby nourished shall in his time attain to immortality and life everlasting. The Sacramentaries denying the receipt of Chrystsnaturall body into our, deny withal the argument of Jren. and of consequent the immortality of our body after resurrect. Consider then that the argument of this holy father against this heresy, to prove that our bodies shall rise, and that they at the same resurrection, shall attain to immortally, is, that we receive the body and blood of Christ by the which (it being immortal, and also able to give immortality) we shall be made immortal, and receivers of everlasting life. The sacramentary then denienge that we receive the body of christ into our bodies, denieth the argument of this holy Father, and tectlie also denieth hour resurrection and immortality (which to many of them have already apertly done) and robbeth us of one great article of our faith, and of our chief and high comfort, that we hope to have in our resurrection. For (as S. Paul saith) Simo in hac vita tantùm, in Christo sperantes sumus omnibus hominibus, etc. If in this life only, we believe on christ, then are we of all men most miserably. If then they will rob us of the mean to attain to this resurrection and immortality, which mean is the very receipt of the body and blood of christ, they shall also rob us of the effect. For the cause being taken away the effect also must be taken away: as the cause being admitted, the effect must necessarily follow. For the cause of the immortality of our flesh is the conjunction of the immortal flesh of christ with hour, which is done 1. Cor. 15. by the receipt of the same in the Sacrament. Of these two christ is a full witness, for the first he saith. Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, & biberitis eius sanguinem non habebitis vitam in vobis Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you, whereby is testified that the receipt of the body and blood taken away from us, immortality and everlasting life is also taken away. For the other, christ also testifieth: Qui manducat meam carnem & bibit meum ibid. sangumem, habet vitam aeternam. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life. Whereby is taught that the receipt of the body and blood of christ, is the cause and mean of and to everlasting life. But that the Adversary shall not cavil and say, that I speak moche in this matter at mine own liberty, and there unto expownde the scriptures by mine own authority: he shall hear the holy Father cyril affirm as much as I have said, and expound the scriptures to the same sense. Thus he ciril in 15 ca Joan. writeth: Non poterat aliter corruptibilis haec natura ad incorruptibilitatem, & vitam traduci, nisi naturalis vitae corpus ei coniungeretur. Non credis mihi haec dicenti? Christo, te obsecro, fidem praebe dicenti: Amen, amen (inquit) dico vobis: Nisi manducaveritis carnem filu hominis, & biberitis eius sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Qui manducat meam carnem, & bibit meum sanguinem habet vitam aeternam. Audis apertè clamantem non habituros nos vitam, nisi sanguinem cius biberimus, & carnem manducaverimus. In vobis autem ipsis, dicit, id est, in corpore vestro. Vita autem, iure ipsa vitae caro intelligi potest. Haec enim nos in novissimo die suscitat, & quomodò, dicere non gravabor. Caro vitae facta Vnigeniti caro, ad virtutem vitae traducta est. Non potest igitur morte superari. Propterea in nobis facta, interitum à nobis expellit. Non enim abest ab ea unigenitus Deisilius. unde quia unus est cum carne sua, Ego (inquit) suscitabo cum. This corruptible nature of hour body could not other wise be brought to incorruptibility Our, corruptible nature could not attain to incorruptibility but by the receipt of the incorruptible flesh of christ. and life, except the body of natural life should be joined to it. believest though not me saying these words? I pray thee then believe christ saying Verily verily (saith he) I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life. Thowe hearest him openly saying that we shall have no life, except we drink his blood, and eat his flesh. He saith: in yower selves: that is, in yower body. By life, may of right be understanded, that flesh of life. For this flesh shall raise us up in the last day. And how, it shall not grieve me to tell. The flesh of life being made the flesh of the only begotten Son of God is brought to have the power of life. It can not therefore be overcomed of death. Wherefore that flesh being in us, expelleth death from us. For the only begotten Son of God is not absent from that flesh. Wherefore because he is one with his flesh, he said I will raise him up. See ye not here plainly affirmed by saint cyril, and that by those places of the vi. of saint john, that this corruptible nature of hour body, can not attain to immortality and life, except the body of christ, which he calleth the body of life, be conjoined to it. To return then, the argument of Irenaeus is of great force. For in deed, that The flesh can not be subject to mortality that duly receiveth the flesh of immortality. flesh can not be subject to mortality, that receiveth the flesh of christ, which giveth immortality. But once to end with Irenaeus, I wish the Reader to be advertised of two things: The one that where Irenaeus and S. cyril say, that by the receipt of the body of christ we receive immortality, he may not think them to speak against the scripture which saith, Quis est homo, qui vivit, & non videbit mortem? What man is he, that liveth, and shall not die? And again the penal sentence of God is: pulvis es, & in pulverem reverteris. if art dust, and into dust shalt though return. For they speak not of this worldly life, but of the heavenly life, that shall be given How and when this immortality shall be given. to man after the resurrection. At the which, uless as man shall be raised, this temporal death is properly in the scriptures called a sleep. Which immortality is not promised to all that receive the body of christ, no more than salvation is to all them, that believe and be baptized, although christ say: Qui crediderit, & baptisatus fuerit saluus erit. Who that shall believe, and be baptized, shall be saved: But to such as worthily receive, and so persever to the end. For Qui perseveraverit in finem, hic saluus erit. He that persevereth to the end this man shall be saved. The other is, that where Irenaeus said, that hour flesh is nourished by the flesh of christ, it is not to be understanded, that that blessed flesh is turned or changed after the manner of other earthly meats into the The flesh of christ is not turned into our substance, but raither turneth us into it. substance of our flesh and blood, but raither that it turneth us into it, as it was said to Saint Augustine. Nec tu me mutabis in te, sicut cibum carnis tuae: sed tu mutaberis in me. Neither shalt though change or turn me into thee, as the meat of thy flesh, but thou shalt be turned or changed into me. It doth also nourish us, in that it giveth us such sustentation of life as it hath. Earthly meats why are they received, but that they should give sustentation of this earthly life? So this heavenly meat is received to give us sustentation of the heavenly immortal life. As by the one than we are nourished to live this mortal life: So by the other are we nourished to live the immortal life. Again by the receipt of this holy flesh are we made the members of christ incorporated to him, and made one with him, which thing the great and learned Father Hilary teacheth. Whereby this text of saint Paul is much opened and declared. Which thing (although he doth not speak of the very words of S. Paul) moved me to join him with Irenaeus in this place, his words be these: Eos, qui inter Patrem & Filium voluntatis ingerunt unitatem, interrogo utrum ne per naturae veritatem hody Christus in nobis sit, an per concordiam voluntatis? Si enim verè Verbum caro factum est, & nos Verbum carnem factum cibo dominico sumimus, quomodò non naturaliter manner in nobis existimandus est, qui et naturam carnis nostrae iam inseparabilem sibi homo natus assumpsit, et naturam carnis suae ad naturam aeternitatis sub sacramento nobis communicandae carnis admiscuit? Ita enim omnes unum sumus, quia in Christo Paterest, et Christus in nobis est. Quisquis ergo naturaliter, Patrem in Christo negabit, neget prius non naturaliter, vel se in Christo vel sibi Christum inesse, quia in Christo Pater, et Christus in nobis, unum in iis esse nos faciunt. Si verè igitur carnem corporis nostri Christus assump sit, et verè homo ille, qui ex Maria natus fuit, Christus est, nosue verè sub mysterio carnem corporis We verily receive the word made flesh in our lords meat. sumimus, et per hoc unum erimus, quia Pater in eo est, et ille in nobis. I ask them, that bring in the unity of will betwixt the Father and the Son, whether christ be in us now by the agreement of will or by the verity of nature. For if the word was verily made flesh, and we verily receive the word made flesh in our lords meat, how is he to be thought not to abide in us naturally, who being born man, did both take our nature now inseparable upon him, and also under the Sacrament of the communicating of his flesh, unto us, hath admixed the nature of his flesh to thee, nature of eternity? And so we be all one. For the Father is in christ, and christ is in us. Whosever then shall deny the Father to be naturally in christ let him first deny either himself to be naturally in christ, or christ to be in him. For the Father being in christ, and christ in us maketh us in these to be We verily receive the flesh of christ in the Sacr. one. If than christ hath verily taken upon him the flesh of our body: and that man that was borne of Marie, be verily christ: And we also in the Sacrament do verily receive the flesh of his body, we shall by this also be one. For the Father is in him, and he in us. Thus much S. Hilary. For better understanding of whom, it is to be noted that he wrote against the pestiferous heresy of the Arrians, who taught that the Son of God the second person in deity was a creature, and was not all one with the Father in nature, in deity, eternity and equality, but was less than the Father, and only one with him in the unity of agreement or Arrius his heresy consent of will. Against this pestilent doctrine did saint Hilary write, proving the Son of God to be naturally in the Father, and the Father naturally in the Son And for that this wicked sect to prove their wicked doctrine made a false argument upon our unity with God, saying that Christ took our flesh in the mystery of his incarnation and giveth us the same in the mystery of his Sa. and so is naturally in us, and we in him. christ was one with God as we be, but our unity with him is but by submission and consent of will: therefore (say) they such and none other is this also. To improve and dissolve this false and lying argument, he proveth that our unity with God is not by consent of will only, but also by nature which unity is made and wrought by the receipt of Christ'S natural flesh and blood in the Sacrament, Wherefore saint Hilary thus reasoneth: Si verè verbum, etc. If the word was verily made flesh, and we verily receive the word made flesh in our lords meat, how is he not to be thought naturally to abide in us, who hath both taken upon him, being made man, the nature of our flesh now inseparable, and also under the Sacrament of communicating his flesh unto us hath admixed the nature of his flesh? By which argument he doth not only go about to prove that the Father is naturally in christ, but most plainly teacheth also that we receive Christ'S very natural flesh in the Sacrament, and that, by that receipt, christ is naturally in us. By which two points he convinceth directly the wicked assertion of the Sacramentaries, who against all truth that may be learned in scriptures, and the most ancient Fathers, teach, that neither Christ'S very natural flesh is received in the Sacrament, neither that christ is naturally in us, but only spiritually. The contrary whereof is not only by this Author in plain words taught, but also by chrysostom and saint cyril, as before is showed. That saint Hilary intended by his disputation to confute the Arrians denying christ to be naturally in us, and also the holy Ghost (as it may be thought) left the same to confute the Sacramentaris, it doth very well appear by a conclusion that he maketh upon the same disputation thus saying: Haec idcireo à nobis commemorata sunt, quia voluntatis tantùm inter Patrem & Filium, unitatem haeretici mentientes, unitatis nostrae ad Deum utebantur exemplo, tanquam nobis ad Filium, & per filium ad Patrem obsequio tantùm ac voluntate religionis unitis, nulla per Sacramentum & sanguinis naturalis communionis proprietas indulgeretur, cùm & per honorem nobis datum Dei filii, & per manentem in nobis carnaliter Dei filium, & in eo nobis corporaliter, & inseparabiliter unitis, mysterium verae ac naturalis unitatis sit praedicandum. These things are for this cause spoken of us, that heretics untruly saying the unity betwixt the Father and the Son to be only the unity of will used the example of our unity with God, as though we being by obedience and will in religion only united to the Son, and by the Son to the Father, no propriety of natural communion should be given by the Sacrament of the flesh and blood, sithen that both by the honour of the Son of God given to us, and by the Son of God carnally abidng in us, and we being corporally, and inseparably united in him, the mystery of the true and natural unity is to be declared. Thus much he. By these words as S. Hilary improveth the Arrians saying that christ The Sacramentaries join with the Arrians in denying natural union be twè christ and us by the bless. Sa is not naturally in us, so doth he the Sacramentaries teaching the same. And thus may we see the sincerity of them, who do maintain the pestilent doctrine of the Arrians. And that that was confuted and reproved as heresy twelve hundreth years agone, is now with a little false scouring and colouring, sold to the people for truth. The Proclaimer hath promised that he would subscribe if we could bring forth but one, that by plain words could teach the truth of such articles, as he Proclaimed. Here now be two both right ancient and famous: The first saith, that ower flesh is nourished with the cup. He saith not as the sacramentary doth, with the cup of the Lord, but he speaketh as the catholic Church doth, saying: With the cup, which is the blood of our Lord. Neither useth he the heretical phrase, saying that our flesh is nourished with the Sacramental bread. but the phrase of Christ'S Church, saying that our flesh is nourished A plain saying for the Procla. with the bread, which is the body of our Lord, calling them by express words, the body, and blood of christ. Is not this a plain speech? The other saith, that as truly as the Father is naturally in the Son: So truly is christ naturally in us by the receipt of his natural flesh in the Sacrament. Which speech is also so plain, that except men will not As God the Father is naturally in the Son so is the Son by his natural flesh received in the bless. Sacr. naturally in us. see, or will not hear, or hearing will not understand, they can not choose but see, hear, and understand a marvelous plain truth. Which truth was so evident plain, famous and notorious in the time of these Fathers, that they might upon the same, ground and frame strong arguments against great and famous heresies, as now ye perceive these Fathers to have doen. To conclude then seeing the one of these Fathers, saith that we be nourished with the flesh of christ, by the receipt of the same in the blessed Sacrament: And the other, that by the same receipt christ is naturally in us, and we naturally one with him, we may very well say with saint Paul, that we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones. THE SIXTETH CHAP. treateth UPON this text of saint Paul to hebrews: He have an Altar, etc. IN the xiii. chapter of S. Paul's epistle to the hebrews, we find this saying: We have an Altar, of the which it is not lawful for them to eat that serve in the tabernacle. Which saying I find so expounded that by the Altar is understanded the body of christ in the Sacrament. So that the sense of those words may be these: We have the body of christ in the Sacrament of the which it is not lawful for any jew, resting and abiding in the law of Moses to eat. Isich. in levit. li. 1. c. 4. That thus it is to be understanded I have witnesses, but I will not trouble the reader with many, but only produce a couple, which both be grecians. And they be Isichius, and Theophilact, the one of the higher house and the other of the lower. Isichius saith thus expounding a text of Levitic. Omnem sanguinem reliquum Vituli, fundi circa basim altaris holocausti, quod est in tabernaculo testimonii, praecepit. Altar holocaustomatis rursus Christi corpus intelligamus. Sicut enim ipse Sacerdos, & sacrificium est, sic altare est. Quia autem intelligibile altare corpus Domini, & beatus Paulus intelligit, ipso dicente, cognosce. Ait enim: habemus Altar, de quo edere non habent potestatem, qui tabernaculo deseruiunt: corpus videlicet Christi, dicens, De illo enim comedere judaeis fas non est. He commanded all the rest The altar of the which the Jews may not eatc is the body of christ. of the blood of the calf to be powered out about the foot of the Altar of the sacrifice, which is in the Tabernacle of witness. Let us again understand the Altar of the Sacrifice to be the body of christ. For as he is the priest and the Sacrifice: so is he the Altar also. That saint Paul also doth understand the intelligle Altar, the body of christ, know by his own saying. For he saith, We have an Altar of the which it is not lawful for them to eat, that do serve in the Tabernacle, that is to say, the body of christ, saying that of it, it is not lawful for the jews to eat. Thus moche Isichius. I need not here much to say to open the place, for it is open enough of it self, and can not well be wrested, but that in the literal sense it must be Hoopers' gloze edere. 1. credere. understanded of the body of christ, in that manner that the jew observing yet the Law, may not eat him. Which manner is only by his real presence in the Sacrament, except we shall evil favourably (as Hooper did) expownde edere for credere, to eat, that is, to believe. And then the sense must be: that we have an Altar, which is Christ'S body, on the which the jews that do observe the law of Moses may not believe. Which sense as it is very false, so it is very cruel. God forbid but that the jews should believe on christ, as many a thousand of them have done, as the Acts of the Apostles, and diverse other histories do testify. The like sense shall this scripture have, if we understand it with the sacramentary of the spiritual presence of christ and the spiritual eating of him. So that a diligent reader may in this place perceive into what strictes, and what inconveniences Theophil. in 13. ca epist add hebrews. such wresting expositors do bring themselves, who leaving the true, sound, and perfect expositions of the Fathers, cleave to their own inventions, which be such, as although they like well the inventors: yet they neither like nor well agree, with the scriptures, nor with the true and catholic expositors of the same. But let us hear Theophilact also upon the same text, Thus he saith: Quoniam dixerat non obseruandos: esse cibos, ne videantur nostra despicatui habenda, quod observatione careant, Nos (inquit) obseruationem, habemus, verùm haud eam, quae sit in huiusmodi cibis, sed super altar, sive incruenta hostia vivifici corporis, livius enim ut sint participes, ne pontisicibus quidem legalibus permittitur, tantisper dum tabernaculo deseruiunt, boc est, legalibus umbris, & siguris, quae transeunt, ac dissoluuntur. forasmuch as he had said, that regard of meats Note well these terms the altar, the unbloody sacrifice, the living body, etc. should not be had, lest our things might seem to be despised, because they had no regard or reveronce. We (saith he) have reverend regard, but not that that was upon these manner of meats, but upon the Altar or the unbloody sacrifice of the living body. For of this Sacrifice to be partakers, it is not permitted, no not to high priests of the law as long as they serve in the tabernacle, that is, as long as they serve the shadows and figures of the law, which pass a way, and are dissolved. Here again by Theophilact as before by Isichius, ye see this text understanded of the body of christ in the Sacrament. He calleth it the unbloody Sacrifice as the holy Nicen Council did. And that those words also of the unbloody Sacrifice should not be drawn by the Sacramentaries, the enemies and distroyers of this Sacrifice, to the sacrifice of lawdes, and thanksgiving, as Cranmer doth in his book of Sacrifice, he addeth, and fully calleth it the unblood die sacrifice of the living body, or more proprielie, of the body that giveth life, or maketh to live, which is not, nor can be any other but the body of christ, which (as in the last chapter is said) being joined to the Godhead, and made the body of God (which is life it self) is able to give life, and to make other to live. And therefore is here of Theophilact very well called: Vivificum corpus: the body that is able to make to live. But note that we speak not here of this transitory, and passing life, but of the permanent and everlasting life. In the words of S. Paul, this also is to be noted, that although in his The sacrifice of the Church offered in a thousand places is but oneand the same sacrifice. Higher lib. 3. in Oseam. cap. 8. time the faith was largely spread, as in Rome, in Corinthus, in Galatia, in Ephesus, in Thessalonia, in Collossis, in Laodicea, yea (as he himself to the Romans doth testify) from Jerusalem round about all the coasts unto Illiricum, he filled all the countries with the Gospel: yet now writing to the hebrews he saith notplurallie we have many Altars, but singularly we have an Altar. For the Church of christ hath but one christ, and one unblood die Sacrifice, as chrysostom saith, una est haec hostia, & non multae: This sacrifice is one, and not many. For we do not offer one lamb to day, and an other to morrow, but always the same one sacrifice. Proinde (saith he) unum est hoc sacrificium, Therefore this sacrifice is one, it hath also but one Altar, as S. Hierom doth testify saying: unum esse altare in ecclesia, & unam fidem, & unum baptisma Apostolus docet. Quod haeretici deferentes, multa sibi altaria sabricati sunt, non ad placandum Deum, sed in delictorum multitudinem, propterea leges Dei accipere non merentur, cùm eas quaes acceperant, antè contempserint. Etsi quid dixerint de scriptures, nequaquam divinis verbis, sed Ethnicorum sensibus comparandum est. Isti multas immolant hostias, & comedunt carnes earum, unam Christi hostiam deserentes, nec comedentes eius carnem, cuius caro cibus credentium est, quicquid fecerint, sacrificiorum ordinem ritumue simulantes, sive dederint eleemosinam, sive pudicitiam repromittant, sive humilitatem simulent, fictisue blanditiis simplices quosque decipiant, nihil de huiusmodi sacrificiis Dominus suscipiet. The Apostle teacheth, to be in the Church one Altar, one faith and one baptism, which the heretics forsaking, have framed to themselves many Altars not to appease God, but to the heaping up of multitude of sins. Wherefore they are not worthy to receive the laws of God, forasmuch as the laws which they had received, they had before contemned. And if they say any thing of the scriptures, it is not to be compared to the words of God, but raither to the senses of Ethnics. These men offer many sacrifices, and do eat the flesh of them, forsaking the one sacrifice of christ, and do not eat his flesh, whose flesh is the meat of the believers. Whatsoever they do dissembling the order and rite of sacrifices, whether they give almose, whether they vow chastity, whether they dissemble humility, or whether with feigned flatteries they deceive the simple, God taketh nothing of such manner of sacrifices. Hitherto S. Hierom. Whom if we mark well we may learn that he by this word (altar) understandeth christ, as saint Paul doth in this scripture produced out of the epistle to the hebrews. For where saint Paul to the Ephesians saith unus Dominus, una fides, unum baptisma, etc. One Lord, one faith, one Baptism: S. Hierom saith, that S. Paul teacheth that we have but one altar, taking the one altar for our one Lord christ. But note with all how lively he describeth the heretics of our time, Heretics of our time well described by S. Hieron. by the painting of the heretics of and before his time. For heretics in all ages be heretics, and heretics be like heretics. He saith that the heretics did forsake the one altar of the Church, and framed to themselves many altars. So in this our time they have forsaken the one altar of Christ'S Church, and framed to themselves many altars. For first Luther forsaking the altar of Christ'S Church, framed himself an other altar. But Carolstadius, Zuinglius, and Oecolampadius, not liking either the altar of the Church or of Luther, framed to themselves after their fantasy an other altar. The anabaptists framed themselves an other altar after their devise. The Swenck feldians misliking all that was done before them framed after their conceit a new altar altogether spiritual. The calvinists thinking to pass them all, have invented an other manner of altar, even altogether after the manner of the Arrians altar, or not much unlike, as Richerus Caluines preacher hath in Frasice plainly declared. All which altars (as ours also in england with like diversity) have not been to appease God, but raither to heap up the multitude of iniquities to the great provocation of his ire, wrath, and indignation against us. whereby they being puffed up, with the vanity of their minds, and contemning the laws of God, which before they had received, are now rejected, and not thought worthy of the laws of God, and therefore as men corrupted in judgement, like men in furious fevers, who mislike in taste and appetite all things that be wholesome, and profitable and vehemently desirous of things unwholesome, and noisome, reject all the wholesome laws, the holy religion, the catholic faith, the orders, rites, and Ceremonies, under which they were born, in the which they were baptized, in the which they lived, which they received, and professed, which with moche peace, moche concord, were many numbers of years established, holden, obeyed, and reverenced, and have desire to have no other faith, religion constitutions, ordeinannces or laws, but such as they can presently Soch be the fancies of men of this time. invent and devise. So great is their desire, to alter, change and make new things, that they would leave nothing that they found in use, But why God fuffreth them to do this, saint Hyerom declareth, because he thinketh them unworthy to receive his laws, forasmuch as they have contemned the laws, which before they had received. As touching their allegations of the scriptures, S. Hierom saith, that their understanding of them is no better, than to be compared to the sainges of Ethnics. For having the letters or words of the scriptures, and Force of the scriptures falsely alleged by heretiket. not the true sense, how moche soever they brag of the word, of the Lord, they have not the word of God, as it doth well appear in their handling of the vi of S. john, the xxvi of S. Matthew, the x and xi chapped. of the first epistle of S. Paul to the Corinthians, the fift to the Ephe. the thirteenth to the hebrews and other, which in this book we have taken from their violent wresting, and tirannouse captivity, and have restored them to the liberty of the concord and true understanding of Christ'S Church, as it hath been taught to understand the same by the magistery of the holy Ghost, the right and appointed Schoolmaster of the same Church, by our Lord and God jesus christ. To proceed in the saying of S. Jerome, he saith that they do not eat the flesh of christ, which saying how true it is, with the grief of my heart This is a change for the wouse. I say it, it is to well known. For what thing do they more detest and abhor then to believe and confess Christ'S body and very natural flesh to be in the Sacrament, and there to be received? And therefore to the intent, that they would not eat his flesh, they have altered Christ'S institution, they have altered his faith, they have abandoned his holy feast of his blessed body and blood, and have in place of it invented a poour bore receiving of a dry piece of bread, and a sip of wine. And being as they be, it is well. For the flesh of christ is not meat for them, but it is the meat (as S. Hieron saith) of believers. Finally what soever this kind of people doth Fasting for merit is punishable by statute. whether they fast (as they do not) for fasting by them is exiled, or pray, which by them is almost to nothing shortened, or vow chastity, which they run so fast unto, that they hate all that do not marry, as the greater number of them is married, and such of them as do not marry, do it for the like holiness that was in jovinian, not for perfection of life, but for quiettnesse and ease, and to avoid then cumbrances that may hap by a shrewd weif. For thorowoute they condemn the vow of chastity, though S. Hierom, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, chrysostom, and all holy writers highly esteem and commend the same. But to end, what good deeds soever they flatter themselves to do, as by their dissembled humility to show them selves lowly, or by sweet and flattering words to deceive the simple, God (S. Hyerome saith) receiveth no part of such their sacrifices. seeing then their doings are accepted of God in no better part, I wish all men to leave their vanity, and walk in the verity, to leave heresy, and to walk in faith: to leave their invented toys, and to walk in gods established, and long continued laws: to leave their many altars framed upon dissent, and division, and to cleave to the one altar of Christ'S catholic Church, which is our help and protection: to leave their hungry cheer of bare bread, and wine, and to enjoy the royal feast of Christ'S body and blood: to leave their cold manner of fasting, and prayer, and to acquaint themselves with sharp fasting and fervent devotion: to leave their pretenced matrimony, and to delight in pure chastity, to leave their licentious manner of life, and come to the trade of a penitent life. For in the end Veritas liberabit, truth will deliver. And then, when conscience shall be set before the judgement seat of God, in the day, when he shall judge the secrettes of men, them unto them that be rebels, and that do not obey the truth but follow unrightwisnes, shall come indignation and wrath, tribulation, and angnishe upon the soul of every man, that doth evil (as saith S. Paul) and as he saith to the jew first, and also to the Rom. 2. gentile: so say I, to the Christian first, and also to the infidel: but to every man that doth good shall come praise, honour, and peace. God therefore that hath once called us to his holy faith, confirm and establish such as have not yet swarned from it, and reduce, and bring home again such as have wandered like lost shape, that we be may all be of the number of them, that shall receive praise, honour, and peace, which God of his mercy grant Amen. THE ONE AND SIXTETH CHAPTER maketh a recapitulation of that, that is done in this work. Now gentle Reader, have I gone thorough all those scriptures, that treact of the holy Sacrament, specially such as be commonly alleged either by the catholics to prove the same, or by the Adversaries to improve it. In the handling of which scriptures, so little have I given to mine own judgement, that it being suppressed, I have (as meit it is and as I would wish all that live in this time of controversies to do) given place to the judgements of the learned fathers of Christ'S Church in all ages. In the setting forth of which Fathers, I have in sundry places and matters conferred the doctrine of the elder, and the younger together, that the concord that is betwixt them might fully be perceived. This being truly and faithfully done, the judgement where of I refer to the catholic Church, and submit both myself, and this is my work to the correction of the same, it may and doth easily appear and may clearly be seen, how vain the brag of the Proclaimer is, who would have but one scripture, one doctor, or one Council produced for the testimony of the truth of the catholic faith, And now there be, so many scriptures, doctors, and councils brought forth that there is not one left to bolstar up his heresy The scriptures which he and his complices pretend to have in their possession are by the judgement of the Fathers of Christ'S Parliament house proved never to be theirs, but are and have been always in the possession of the catholic Church. consider, Reader, how many fathers of the greek church be here produced, as Dionise, justyne, Irenaeus, Origen, Gregory Nazianzen, basil, Chrisostom cyril, with other of the elder sort, which although they were of one Church: yet they were of diverse times, some of them with in one hundredth year after christ, some two hundredth, some three, and yet all these agree in one truth of the presence of Christ'S body in the bless. Sacrament, In the latin Church were Alexander, Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, Optatus, Hierom, Ambrose Augustine, and other, which although they were far distant, many hundredth of miles from the fathers of the greek Church: yet in consent and agreement together in this matter they join and go together. Of the greek church again be produced other, that were many years after the other Fathers before rehearsed, as Theodorete. Euthimius, Damascen, Theophilact, Oecumenius, and Bessario with other, which although they lived in great diversity of ages, having many hundredth years passing betwixt them: yet they lived in the unity of faith and religion. Again also in the latin Church answerably to these were produced, Gregory, Beda, Haymo, Anselme, Paschasius, Thomas de Aquino, Lyra, and Dionise, with other, which also living with moche difference of times, and diversity of places, were yet with the eldest, and the midlest, and with the latest all of one mind. And here note that these authors, as they do, according to the rule of Vincentius Lirinen. altogether teach Christ'S presence in the Sacrament, so do they it manifestly, commonly, and continually For Origen, basil. chrysostom, cyril, Theodoret, Euthymius, and Theophilact, which be the greater writers of the grecians, are not produced once only, neither speaking obscurely: but they are often and many times, and that with speech most plain and manifest, and that commonly, in every weighty matter of the book. Likewise be the Fathers of the latin church, which in every place bear agreeable testimony to the Fathers of the greek church. And for asmuch as these fathers have expounded the scriptures to us, that do treact of the Sacrament and do therein agree, it is meet for us to accept that sense and understanding, that by the hands of so many Fathers is so consonantlie derived to us. All they understand them of the presence of christ in the bless. Sacrament: wherefore it is meet that we also understand them so, and not only it is meet but we aught and are bound to do so. Now therefore let the Proclaimer turn his History of Mitridates unto his own head and his likes, who lainge wicked siege to the city of God's Church, would bear the citizens in hand, that the army of the holy learned Fathers and doctors of Christ'S Church were on their side. But God be praised, the contrary now appeareth. For this holy army is comed down, and have joined with God's citizens, and have vanquished Mitridates, and his company, and delivered the city from their cruel tyranny of he resie, and have declared themselves to all the world, that they be friends of God's city, and defenders of the same, and adversaries to Mitrydates the Proclaimer and vanquishers of the same. For we have not by brag, only said that the scriptures, doctors, and councils be on our side (as this Mitrydates, this proclaimer did) But we have evidently, and invincibly proved it in deed. Giezi the lying and leprous servant of Heliseus could not, when his master was compassed about with the thieves of Syria, see any that were on his master's side, but against his Master he saw many, yet in very deed, there were more on the Prophet's side, then on the Syrians part. as after it was well declared: So this Giezi, this Proclaimer, the lying leprous servant seeth not what a noble company is on Christ's side, but on the Syrians side the enemies of christ he seeth multitudes. For hitherto being blinded with ambition, and (as Giezi did) lying for some gain, or promotion, he hath since fallen into the depth of the spiritual leprey, which S. Austen calleth heresy. Leprosi (saith he) non absurdè in telliguntur, qui scientiam verae fidei non habentes, varias doctrinas profitentur erroris. Nulla porrofalsa doctrina est, quae non aliqua vera intermiseat. Vera ergo falsis inordinaté permixta in una narratione, vel disputatione hominis, tanquam in unius corporis colore significant lepram, tanquam veris falsisue colorum fucis humana corpora variantem atque maculantem. The lepers are very well to be understanded those, which not having the knowledge of the true faith, do profess diverse doctrines of error. For their is no doctrine, which hath not some true things meddled with it. True things therefore inordinately permixed with false things in one narration or disputation of a man, as it were appearing in the colour of one body, doth signify the leprey altering and defiling the bodies of men as it were with true and false show of colours. By these means then this man was so blinded that he could not see one scripture, one doctor nor one Council, on Christ'S side, or on his truths side. But on the enemy's side, on heresies side, he could see an whole army. But I compare this army unto the people that were with in the walls of Jerusalem, at the time of the destruction of the same, which, as josephus declareth, were not only plagued by pestilence, and famine at the hand of God, and with sword and fire at the hands of their enemies without the walls, but also they being with in the walls plagued themselves with great debates, discords, insurrections, and mortal wars. So that the slaughter was as great within, as it was without. Even so this army hath been much plagued at God's hand, it hath raised moche sedition and tumult both in Germany, Frannce, and england, even within their own walls, it hath been from time to time persecuted with sword and fire, and the head captains have not agreed among themselves, as in these our days it is more than manifest that they do not. This army therefore, though it be fuffred: yet as touching the cause, they are not to be feared, For we standing with our Prophet, our cause can not fail, and when it shall please hour Prophet, the army, that was with Helizeus, shall join with us, and deliver us, which army have among them no division, no discord, there be amongst them no inward wars, no insurrections, no tumults (as be amongst the other) but of them all there is one heart and one mouth. What one saith all say, what one denieth all deny. On the other side, look how many cities, how many countries, so many doctrines, somanie faiths, so many religions: yea almost how many heads, so many opinnions. How doth Luther agree with Oecolampadius? how doth Melancthon with Bullinger? yea how doth Luther agree with himself or Melancthon with himself As for their disagreinge with the holy fathers, it is to manifest. The holy fathers teach the presence of christ in the Sacrament, they deny it. They teach that the sacrifice of Christ'S body is to be offered for the quick and the dead: these deny it. They teach almose and prayers to be available to the dead: these deny it. To this if you add the gates, that they open to all licentious liberty, as the taking away of Confession, the contempt of penance, the mocking of fasting, the common manner of divorcing and marrying again, the voluptuous taking of women to priests without all discretion, be she maid or widow, if no worse, the indemnity of usury, it were enough and to much to offend an honest heart, but to hear such things. It were to long a repetition to rehearse all the licentious doctrines, that be settfurth against godly and virtuous living. But if there were no more but these two evils last rehearsed, in them, namely their dissenting from the fathers and their giving of liberty to vicious living, it were enough to give any man just occasion to suspect, yea and utterly to forsake their doctrine. In the other side, uless as the Catholics embrace the doctrine of the Fathers, and teach virtuous living, as penance, contrition, confession, and satisfaction, charitable lending, chaste matrimony in married people, pure chastity in priests and religious persons, fasting and such other just occasion is given to credit them, and to follow them. God now of his mercy open the eyes of all his people, that having a brief show of the teachers of truth and untruth, of vertevouse living, and of licenciouse living, may by his grace take the one, and leave the other, follow the good, and leave the evil, and so framing their lives, to live in the true faith, and good life, may by his mercy atteign to the everlasting life with him, to whom, be all honour and glory world without end Amen. Volumen hoc ab eximio viro M. n. Thoma Heskins, De praesentia corporis & sanguinis domini, Anglico idiomate conscriptum, perlectum est a viris illius idiomatis & sacrae Theologiae peritissimis, quibus sicutipsi authori meritò id tribuendum esse judico, ut ad utilitatem gentis anglicae ewlgetur: Ita testor et judico Cunerus Petri de Brouwershaven Pastor sancti Petri Lovanij, 4. julij anno 1565. FINIS. THE CHIEF AND MOST MATters contained in this book. where number of book is omitted, ye be referred to the next before. A. Aarons' garment wotn for a Bishopric. lib. 3. cap. 33. Abstinence from sin honoureth God. lib. 2. ca 44. Adoration of the B. Sacrament taught by S. Paul. lib. 2. cap. 44. by Alexander. cap. 43. by S. Augustin. cap. 45. by S. Dionyse. ca 47. by Eusebius Emis. ib. by S. bernard. ibid. Adoration practised by Angels. lib. 2. ca 45. by priest deacon, and people in the Greek Church: by S. Ambrose in the latin Church: by S. Austin's mother. ca 45 by Erasmus, and all christian people. ca 46. by Gorgonia cap. 27. Adoration impugned, and denied, by I uther. lib. 2. cap. 48. by the Proclaimer. cap. 46. by wicked doctrine. ibid. Adoration proved by the same doctors, that the Proclaimer alleged against it. li. 2. cap. 45. Adoration aught to be done before we receive. ibid. Adoration used in and before the time of S. Austen. ibid. Adoration in the primitive Church infamed by infidels for idolatry. ibid. Adoration is to be allowed where the presence is admitted. li. 2. cap. 46. Adoration never by catholic writer denied. cap. 47. Adoration first denied about xl. years past. cap. 48. Adoration not to have been used before the time of Honorius is untrue. ibid. Aerius denying the sacrifice of the Mass to avail the dead condemned for an heretic above a thousand years agone. lib. 3. ca 39 Ale given in stead of wine in a Communion lib. 1. cap. 26. Alexander's authority approved. li. 2. ca 32. Alfonsus numbereth xiii. heresies against the B. Sacrament. in Prologue. Algasia moved doubts of scripture to S. Hierom. lib. 1. cap. 4. Aliud in the neuter gendre signifieth difference insubstance. ca 29. Almaricus a sacramentary condemned. in Pro. S. Ambrose understandeth S. Paul to speak of the very body of christ. li. 3. ca 57 Ambrose corrupted by Oecolampadius. ib. ca 5 Ambrose his doctrine compared with the Sacramentaries. lib. 2. ca 52. Ambrose commended the faith of his Brother Satyrus in the B. Sacrament. li. 1. ca 24. Ambr. giveth three instruct. li. 3. ca 14. Ambr. offered sacrifice in the Mass. cap. 37. he prayed as the Church doth. ibid. S. Andrew offered the daily sacrifice. ca 34. Angels attend upon the priest in the time of sacrifice. li. 2. ca 45. Angels appointed to every man, and offer our prayers to God. li. 3. ca 38. antichrist shall cause the daily sacrifice to cease. lib. 1. cap. 32. apology, and proclamation both like bolts. lib. 3. cap. 33. Apostles understood not Christ'S own words. li. 1. ca 1. Apostles learned of christ. cap. 7. Apostles decreed that the dead should be prayed for at Mass. lib. 3. cap. 39 Argument of Chrysts ascension in the vi. of S. john proveth the real presence in the Sacrament. li. 2. ca 35. Argument of Theophil. to prove the bread made flesh. lib. 3. cap. 20. Arrogancy mother of error. lib. 1. cap. 4. Ascension of christ improveth not the presence in the Sacrament. li. 2. ca 12. Asseurance of mercy promised to man before full sentence pronounced against him. li. 1. cap. 9 Ancient and godly customs are not to be left for the bare saying of a protestant. ca 25. Altars holy. li. 3. cap. 31. testified by Optatus, and S. Austen, and abuse of them punished. ibid. Altars in use in time of S. Cyprian. ib. ca 39 Altars from the Apostles time. cap. 31. Altar wherefore it serveth. ibid. Altar and sacrifice correlatives ibid. S. Austen to Dardan. opened li. 2. cap. 12. Austin's cheifintent upon the vi. of S. john. lib. 2. cap. 16. Austen teacheth three things in one sentence against the Secramentaries. ca 19 Austen anknowlegeth both spiritual and corporal receiving. ca 16 Austen produced by the Sacramentaries in wrong sense. ca 24. Austen against Oecolamp. and Cranmer. ca 54. Austin's assertions conferred with the judge meant of the Aduersa. li. 3. ca 15 Austen calleth the bread and cup of our Lord a sacrifice. ca 18. Austen truly understanded. li. 2. ca 54 Austen uttereth S. Paul's wootdes expressly of the body and blood of christ. li. 3 ca 55. S. Austen corrupted by the Proclaimer. li. 3. ca 31. authority of late writers proved good by good reason. li. 2. ca 3. Authority is to be obied where corruption of life is. li. 1. ca 6. B Baptism received of all indifferently. li. 3. cap. 2. Baptism and the read sea compared. ibid. Baptism of christ and john much different. ibid. Baptism instituted by christ and commended by the whole Trinity li. 3. ca 14 basil and Greg. Nazian. how they atteigned the knowledge of the scriptures. lib. 1. ca 7. basil how he taught the simple to believe of the Sacram. li. 2. ca 52 basil and Chrysostom not founders of the Mass, but setters forth of such order as they found received by tradition. lib. 3. cap. 35. basil believed the bread and wine to be made the body and blood of christ. ca 36. basil offered the body and blood of christ in sacrifice ca 37. basil in his Mass prayed for the dead and to saints. ca 39 Benediction, what power it hath. li 2. ca 51. & ca 62. Benefits and plagues of the jews, figures of our benefitcs and plagues. li. 3. ca 1 Berengarius the first open impugner of the B. Sacrament condemned in four councils prolog. Berengarius recanted and abjured ibid. Berengarius neither excellent in learning nor commendable in life. ibid. Berengarius foolishly objected S. Austen as the Sacramentaries do now. li. 2. cap. 14. Bertramus wrote obscurely and suspiciously of the Sacr. prolog. Blasphemy to say the B. Sacr. to be only a figure. li. 2. ca 64 Blessing of christ, what force it hath cap. 58. Blessing of more power than nature. cap. 62. Blood of christ on the cross and in the Sacr. all one. li. 2. ca 5. & li. 3. ca 20. Blood in the chalice the same that was shed on the cross. li. 2. cap. 60 Blood of christ in the Sacr. how to be estomed. li. 3. ca 16 Blood of the paschal lamb a figure of Christ's blood in the B. Sacr. ibid. Body of christ joined to us by corporal receipt, not by spiritual only. li. 2. cap. 14. Body of christ consecrated of many priests, all one body. ca 28. Body of christ invisible in the Sacrament, a figure of the same body visible. ca 49. Body of christ demonstrated and delivered not in figure but in verity. ca 63. Body of christ how it is called a spiritual meat. li. 3. ca 8 Body of the lamb christ feedeth us. ca 11 Body of christ under form of bread. ca 26. Body of christ consecrated to two ends. cap. 41. Books of scripture sealed to many. li. 1. ca 5 Bread of the new communion differeth not from common bread. li. 1. ca 17. how the same is now used. li. 3. ca 47. Bread broken in the Sacrament the medicine of immottalitie. li. 1. ca 17. Bread by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh ibid. & li. 3. ca 9 20 Bread and wine changed into the body and blood of christ, not in figure but in verity. li. 1. ca 21. li. 2. ca 59 60. 51. 53. Bread and wine offered by Melchisedecfigurs of that which christ offer in his supper. li. 1. ca 29 Bread turned into an holier thing. cap. 31. 37. Bread taken three ways in the vi. of john. li. 2. ca 2. Bread how it is turned into flesh, and why flesh is not seen in the Bless. Sacrament. li. 2. cap. 7. 8. 19 57 & li. 3. cap. 20. Bread that descended from heaven is the body of our Lord. li 2. ca 31 Bread which christ delivered no bare figure but flesh. ca 51. 53 Bread and wine so sanctified in consecration, as it passeth man's wit. cap. 54. Bread given to the two Disciples in Emaus was the body of christ. cap. 65. 66. Bread which we break is the body of christ lib. 3. ca 19 27. Bread seemeth to be in the Sacrament but it is flesh li. 3, ca 20 Bread divided to many is the body of our Lord li. 3. ca 21. Bread, and cup in Saint Paul the body, and blood of christ. lib. 3. cap. 27. 50. Brentius impugneth the form of Baptism lib. 2. cap. 28. C. Canon of the Apostles corrupted by the Proclaimer, li. 3. ca 40 Canon forbiddetb not the priest to receive alove ibi. Capharnaites understood christ carnally lib. 2. cap. 34. had two vain thoughts▪ ibid. Carnal understanding is by reason and senses only cap. 37 Carnal men understanding nothing above their senses, leap back from the understanding of the mystery of the Sacrament cap-33 Cassiodorus how he uttereth Saint Pauleswoordes li. 3. ca 51 Catholic priests following the Schism be in miserable case. lib. 3. cap. 36. Catholic faith described cap. 53. Chastity required in priests. lib. 1. cap. 22. christ turneth the malice of heretics to the profit of his Church. prolog. christ dwelleth in us corporally not only spiritually in Prologue. item lib. 1. cap. 14. lib. 3. cap. 23. & 26 Christ'S real presence in the Sacrament a received doctrine in all the Christian Church. prolog. Christ'S Parliament house the catholic Church ibid. Christ'S interpreting of the scripture proveth the difficulty. li. 1. cap. 7. christ not Solomon the seed promised to David cap. 9 christ and Samson compared ca 10 Christ'S passion conferred to the prophecies thereof. lib. 1. cap. 11. item his resurrection and ascension ca 12. Christ'S body and blood an everlasting sacrifice. cap. 13. item 31. lib. 3. cap. 36. a daily sacrifice. ibi. christ is offered of his Church, and his Church of him. lib. 1. cap. 18. item lib. 3. cap. 36 christ and Melchisedech compared lib. 1. cap. 13. christ offered bread, and wine that is his body and blood. ca 29 Christ'S oblation after the order of Melchisedech overthroweth the heresy of Eutyches cap. 30 christ offered sacrifice in his supper, and commanded it to be contiwed. li. 1. ca 32. 34. item lib. 3. cap. 33 christ commanded himself to be offered lib. 3. cap. 16 christ offered every where is but one body and sacrifice lib. 2. cap. 10 christ gave his own body to his Apostles. cap. 50. 64. he giveth himself to be eaten in the Sacrament, lib. 1. cap. 14. Christ'S words: This is my body, be not figurative. lib. 2. cap. 42. 43. 44. & sequent. christ verine body in the blessed Sacrament not the figure only. lib. 1. cap. 21. item lib. 2. cap. 7. item lib. 3. cap. 7. & 59 christ giveth us the same flesh by which he was joined to us, or took of our nature. lib. 1. cap. 14. item lib. 2. cap. 5 christ is joined to us corporally. lib. 1. cap. 14. christ and the paschal lamb compared. lib. 1. cap. 15. christ in our passouer verily perfectly. lib. 1. cap. 16. 19 in the jews Passover unper fectlie cap. 17 christ if he be received but spiritually then is our passouer all one with the jews Passover cap. 19 christ first eat, and drank his body, and blood, and then gave to his Apostles. and why. lib. 1. cap. 16. item lib. 2. cap. 55. christ gave inconsumptible meat, though Sacramentaries consumptible meat. li. 1. cap. 17. christ consecrated his own body. lib. 3. cap. 51. and commandeth the same to be consecrated. li. 1. ca 20. the priest consecrateth christ and not the pope made the Sacra-Chrysts body. ibid. ca 18 christ did three notable things in the institution of the blessed Sacrament. lib. 3 cap. 16. christ commended to us his body, and blood 24 christ in the law presented in figure represented in the Gospel in verity. lib. 1. cap. 18 christ is now received in verity li. 3. ca 5. & 59 Christ'S very body set before us in earth. lib, 1. ca 18. christ the only begotten Son of God received in the blessed Sacrament ibid. & lib. 3. ca 25 christ verily upon the altar lib. 1. cap. 18. christ giveth his own blood in the cup lib. 2. cap. 61 christ turned the bread into his body and the wine into his blood lib. 1. cap. 20. he made the bread his body. lib. 2. cap. 49. christ saying, this is my body, with the word made the thing cap. 55 christ not man doth consecrate lib. cap. 20. 31 Christ'S words (this do ye) be referred to the substance not to the manner. lib. 1. cap. 27 Christ'S manner in ministering hath no commandment. ca 26. never since used. ibid. christ left the manner of ministration to be ordered of his Apostles cap. 26. & lib. 3. cap. 34. christ in his supper bore himself in his hands lib. 2. cap. 10. 54 christ giveth his flesh in substance verily not in manner grossly. ca 36 christ in his supper the giver and the gift. ca 47. 53 christ the meat that we all feed on. lib. 3 cap. 6. christ is the substance of the blessed Sacrament. cap. 10 Christ'S body as verily received in the Sacrament as it is believed to have hanged on the cross. ibid. Christ'S blood in the Sacrament shed upon the soldiers garments lib. 1. cap. 24 Christ'S body received with mouth both of body and soul. li. 1. cap. 20. li. 2. ca 14. 25. Christ'S flesh is not digested as other meats. lib. 1. cap. 14. it turneth us into it. li. 2. ca 5. lib. 3. ca 59 christ is not there received spiritually, where he is not believed that he may be received really li. 1. cap. 31. christ doth sanctify, and transmute the bread and wine. ibid. See bread. Christ'S body upon the cross called bread li. 2. ca 6 christ doth bless sanctify, and divide his holy body to the receivers. lib. 2. cap 8. Chrysts flesh in the Sacrament giveth life to the worthy receivers li. 2. cap. 6. li. 3. cap. 7. christ in all receivers naturally: in good receivers both naturally and spiritually lib. 2. cap. 20. 24. 25. lib. 3. cap. 6. christ as verily in the blessed Sacrament as he was verily incarnated lib. 2. cap. 24. christ by his incarnation joined to us: we by the Sacrament joined to him, lib. 2. cap. 14. 28. item lib. 3. cap. 27. 59 Christ'S body shall raise our bodies lib. 2. cap. 26. christ feedeth us with a bread, which is his flesh. ca 32 christ moved the jews to believe in his godhead, and to eat the flesh of his manhood. li. 2. ca 2 christ by the Sacrament maketh us one with his body, and among ourselves. li. 3. cap. 26. christ instructed his Apostles in the faith of the blessed Sacrament before he in stituted it cap. 56 christ spoke plentifully of his body and blood in the sixth of Saint john. lib. 2. cap. 55. Christ'S institution is to receive his body and blood in the remembrance of his death. li. 3. cap. 36. Chrysts body is not in the Sacramental bread of the communion. cap. 42 christ why he instituted the Sacrament under two kinds lib. 2. ca 67 christ being wholly under each kind, the people be not defrauded receiving but th'one ibid. christ said Mass. li. 3. cap. 33 christ taught the new sacrifice of the new Testament lib. 1. cap. 34. 37. item lib. 2. ca 56. 58. christ meant a sacrifice li 1. ca 31 christ must of necessity be granted to have offered sacrifice in his supper. ibid. christ ceaseth not to execute his perpetual priesthood and sacrifice. cap. 37 christ offered every where is but one body, and one sacrifice li. 2. cap. 10 christ both in heaven and earth in verity ibid. Christ'S being in the Sacrament is miraculous contrary to the rules of philosophy. ibid. christ body upon the cross, in heaven, and on the altar all one. lib. 2. cap. 15. & 22. christ the Son of man, how he was in heaven, when he spoke in earth. lib. 2. cap. 34. Chrysts godhead and manhood distincted as two breades ca 3. & 15. christ sitteth in heaven, and yet is daily sacrificed by the priest ca 46 Christ'S body on the altar that was in the manger ca 45. christ why he made mention of his ascension in the vi. of Saint john. cap. 34. 35. Christ'S flesh besides nature ascended into heaven, and besides nature giveth life in the blessed Sacrament. ca 34. Christ'S words wrested to xvi. diverse senses by protestants. ca 41 christ was the spiritual rock, not the material and therefore is there no figure in Saint Paul's speech. lib. 3. cap. 3 christ before the consecration of his body, lift up his eyes, and gave thanks to his Father. li. 3. ca 34 christ took the cup of wine mixed with water into his hands, and blessed, and sanctified them. cap. 35 Chrysts blood not only in heaven but also in the chalice ca 25 christ entered in to his Apostles the doors being shut. li. 2. ca 11 christ shall come to judgement with the sign of the cross and prints of his wounds. li. 3. ca 45. christ how he is, hath been, and shall be a figure of himself. ibid. christ what he delivered in his supper. ca 44. christians eat the flesh of christ, as the jews did Manna. li. 3. ca, 6 christians using, no external sacrifice, are less thankful than the jews. lib. 1. ca 32. Chrystians' receiving but a figure as the jews, where is then the verity. lib. 3. cap. 6 christians come to a greater thing in the Sacrament, than the jews did in Manna li. 2. ca 39 chrysostom calleth that blood, which Saint Paul calleth the cup lib. 2. cap. 27. he believed the bread and wine, by sanctification to be made the body and blood of christ. lib. 3. ca 36. chrysostom offered sacrifice in Mass, cap. 37. desired intercession of Saints, and prayed for the dead. ca 39 Chrysostom impugneth Luther denying preparation to be needful before the receipt of the blessed Sacrament. ca 54 Church offering sacrifice in the Mass followeth christ his Apostles and the primitive Church. ca 37 Church must both offer and receive. lib. 1. cap. 37 Church useth ministration for reservation, as Saint Clement ordained. cap. 24. Church falsely charged with error by M. jewel ibid. Church reserving the blessed Sacrament for the sick offendeth not cap. 27 Churches universal observation to be obeyed and be kept. ibid. Church teaching the scriptures to be scriptures teacheth the understanding of them also. cap. 20 Church of Africa understood the vi. of S. john of the Sacrament. lib. 2. cap. 15 Saint Clements saying opened lib. 1. cap. 24. Clement offered Chrysts body and blood in sacrifice. lib. 3. cap. 37. he believed the bread and wine by the holy Ghost to be made the body and blood of christ cap. 36 Cloud a figure of the holy Ghost cap. 2 Communion with christ two ways ca 23 see unity. Communion spiritual by Baptism corporal by the Sacrament cap. 23. 26 Communion under one kind lib. 2. cap. 67. Communion with heretics may not be. lib. 3. cap. 25 Communion in prayer ca 40 Communion bread of the new Church ho we it is used. 47. the body of christ is not there * 2 Communication is a nearer conjunction them participation. cap. 17. 20. Communication what it is ibid. item ca 22 Common prayer of the Church is for the whole Church. ca 40. Comfort small where conscience is confounded. prol. Conference of Christ'S words, and the serpents. li. 2. ca 42. Confession hath three commodities. li. 3. cap. 55. it is to be made truly ibid. Consecration what it is lib. 3. cap. 9 how it is done. li. 1. ca 20. 31. li. 2. ca 8. what is the force. li. 3. ca 14. Consecration the word used by S. Ambrose. lib. 2. cap. 52. by Tertullian. lib. 3. cap. 33. Consecration used by the Apost. and that is used now in the Church, all one. ca 34 35. Consecration and sacrifice avouched by S. Cyprian. li. 1. ca 29. Consecration and sacrifice abolished in the Church that the ministers may more freely keep women. ca 22. councils of more force than Parliaments cap. 25. Cranmers gloseth without warrant upon Chrysost. lib. 1. ca 18. Cranmers' sensual sentence of faith. cap. 16. Cranmer glorious words to cloak evil meaning. cap. 21. Cranmer falsifieth the scripture. li. 2. ca 11. he falsifieth justine. ca 44. Cranmer useth two false sleights in alleging of justine. ibid. Cranmers' heresy improved. li. 2. ca 62. Cranmers' general rule refuted. lib. 3. cap. 30. Creature earthly can not be changed in to a spiritual virtue. cap. 20. Cup of blessing what it is, and why it is called. ca 19 Cyprian and Origen teach that evil men receive the body of christ. cap. 46. Cyril denieth that we receive Chrysts body only spiritually. lib. 2. cap. 16. 26. D. Damasus pope disdenied not to learn of S. Hierom. li. 1. ca 8. Damascen understanded S. Paul to speak of the very body of christ. Cor. 11. li. 3. cap. 51. Daily sacrifice of Christ'S body and blood to be offered. li. 2. ca 57 Daily sacrifice shall cease by antichrist. li. 1. cap. 32. Danger of unworthy receivers. lib. 3. cap. 54. Death to him that will not heat the priest. lib. 1. cap. 6. Decay of devotion cause of shortening of the Mass. li. 3. cap. 34 Dcrees made against priests Marriages. lib. 2. cap. 28 Desire of the eating of the flesh of job applied to the eating of Chrysts flesh lib. 1. cap. 14. Difference between the body of christ and show bread. ca 22 Difference of being of the holy Ghost with us, and of christ. lib. 2. ca 63. Difference between the primitive Church, and the catholic Church now in the use of the B. Sacrament. lib. 3. cap. 57 diverse histories of scripture provoke to sin being not godly understanded and used. li. 1. ca 2. Divine things are with reverence and diligence to be handled. li. 3. ca 1. Doctrine of the primitive Church conferred with the Church now. lib. 2. cap. 43. Doctrine of the Sacramentaries conferred with the Fathers. lib. 1. cap. 21. contrary to the Fathers. li. 2. ca 59 Doctrine of the real presence how it is called new. lib. 2. cap. 50. and that it is not invention of the papists. Doctrine flying the common received understanding of the scripture is to be suspected. ca 40 Dogs cruelly vourowed their Masters, that unreverently had cast the B. Sacrament unto them. li. 3. ca 43 Doubts in the law of God, where to be dissolved. lib. 1. cap. 6. item lib. 3. cap. 1. Disciples in Emaus knew not christ before the eating of the bread. lib. 2. cap. 65. Drink which we drink in the B. Sacrament flowed out of the side of christ. lib. 3. cap. 7. E. Effect of Christ's blessing of the bread, and of the words of consecration. lib. 1. cap. 26. li. 2. cap. 61. & 62. Effect of the B. Sacrament everlast. life. lib. 2 cap. 6. 30. & lib. 3. cap. 7. Effects of the bl. Sacrament proving the excellency thereof, and means to atteing the same. lib. 3. cap. 6. & 14. li. 2. cap. 5. Effectual causes two. cap. 15 Epistle to the Romans full of obscure places, li. 1. ca 4 Ephesine Council understood the vi. of S, john of the Sacrament. lib. 2. cap. 15. Erasmus calleth the error of Berengarius impudent. prolog. error of the Proclaimer therefore arrogant. ibid. Erasmus his judgement of the blessed Sacrament. ibid. Error of Origen. li. 2. ca 55 Error in the Sacrament bringeth many other errors. li. 2. ca 1 Eucharist called the holy body of our Lord by S. Cyprian. ca 13 Eutiches his heresy. ca 68 Euthymius denieth that, which the Sacramen tarries affirm and affirmeth that they deny li. 2. ca 15. Every Christian may not dispute of God. li. 1. cap. 7. Evil men eat and drink the body and blood of christ. li. 2. cap. 16. 24. lib. 3. cap. 46. 49. 52. 54. 57 Evil receivers three sorts. cap. 52 Euells two committed by purting away of confess. cap. 55. Examination of ourselves what it is, and how to be doen. ca 53. Excellency of Sacraments standeth in three points cap. 12 Excellency of the blessed Sacrament above Manna. cap. 14. item 25. excellent titles thereof. cap. 30 Exhortation to preparation by Chrysost. ca 54 F. Fabianus made a law that the people should communicate thrice in the year lib. 3 cap. 40. Faith how it is requisite to the receiving of the blessed Sacrament. lib. 2. cap. 20. lib. 3 cap. 53 Faith that believeth the flesh of christ to be in the blessed Sacrament a spiritual faith li. 2. cap. 37. Faith above senses and reason and teacheth many things contrary to them. lib. 1. cap. 16. & lib. 2. cap. 39 62. 10. Faith 〈…〉 in the mystery of the 〈…〉. lib. 2. cap. 37. Faith judgeth possible that reason judgeth impossible. cap. 10. 30 Faith and Baptism inseparable means of salvation. ca 48 Faith without works sufficieth not in persons of discretion li. 3. ca 1 Faith nourished by the body and blood of christ. lib. 2. ca 49 Faith catholic described. li. 3. ca 53 False Christians more worthy reproach than jews. lib. 1. cap. 19 item lib. 2, cap. 9 False doctrine hath some truth admixed. cap. 12 Fame of the Christian rites among infidels, proveth the presence. ca 42 Fasting for merit punishable by statute. lib. 3. ca 60 Fathers learned of their elders lib. 1. cap. 7 Fathers in the primitive Church spoke of the mysteries often covertly. lib. 2. cap. 3 figures of Christ'S incarnation. li. 1. ca 10 figures be not in all points comparable ibi. Figures of the blessed Sacrament four cap. 15. figures in good things not so good as the things figured: in evil things not so evil ibid. Figurative passouer, and the true passouer both on one table ca 18 figures of the old law, and verity of the new law, be as shadows, and the thing shadowed li. 2. ca 22 figures of things be not marvelous but the Sacrament is marvelous ca 47 Figure taken two ways cap. 49. figures contain what reason conceive, the Sacrament, what faith believeth. cap. 51. Figure of the Sacramentaries excluded from Chrysts words lib. 2. cap. 51. 52. wiped away by Chrysost. cap. 55. denied cap. 58. 59 60. 62. Figure what it must be li. 3. ca 2 Figure giveth not life, but the blessed Sacrament giveth life, ergo etc. cap. 8 figures and things figured compared. cap. 10. Figure may foreshow life, but it can not be life. ca 14 Flesh of christ in the Sacrament hath an unspeakable power. lib. 2. ca 1 Flesh of christ called life, as being the flesh of God, who is life. ca 14 Flesh and blood of christ both under one kind in the catholic manner of ministration: neither of both under two kinds in the heretical Communion. cap. 16. Food of Christ'S flesh cause of our immortality lib. 2, cap. 17. 26. item lib. 3 cap. 24. 58. 59 Flesh of christ meat in plain manner lib. 2. cap. 18. lib. 3. cap. 5 Flesh of christ giveth life and yet remaineth still natural flesh. cap. 27. Flesh profiteth nothing john vi. is not spoken of the flesh of christ, for that profiteth moche. cap. 36. Flesh of christ both natural and spiritual cap. 36. lib. 3. cap. 10. Flesh of the Son of God and the consecrated bread one body. cap. 52. Flesh of christ appeareth not in the B. Sacrament for our infirmities sake. lib. 2. ca 7. 8. 19 57 lib. 3. ca 20. Flesh united to the Son of God by assumption, the same united to us by participation. li. 3. cap. 27. Flesh of christ called spirit. li. 3. ca 10. Flesh of christ received in the B. Sacrament seed of everlasting life. li. 2. ca 57 Form, essence, nature, substance, all one. lib. 2. cap. 7. Forms of bread and wine a speech known to S. August. ca 22. and form of bread remain. cap. 60. Four things called the body of christ. ca 58. Four benefits of the jews numbered. li. 3. ca 1. G. Gelasius his meaning opened. li. 2. ca 68 Gelasius truncatelie alleged by the Proclaimer, avoncheth two things which he concealed. ibid. Genesis not red of the jews before thirty years of age. li. 1. ca 2. Germans acknowledge the real presence. prolog. Good religion professed without good life not available. li. 3. ca 1. God appointed no vain figure. li. 1. cap. 24. God and his spirit in his creatures two ways. li. 3. ca 49. God good by nature, man by participation. li. 1. cap 33. li. 2. cap. 12. God plagueth us in these days for the abuse of the bl. Sacrament. lib. 2. ca 5. God punisheth some temporallie, some eternally, some both ways. li. 3. ca 58. God's word contrary to senses must be believed. li. 2. ca 55. God's order in his Church for doctrine. lib. 1. cap. 6. God's order inverted. ibid. Godhead of christ hath not possibility but to be every where: his manhood hath possibility to be somewhere. li. 2. ca 12. Godhead of the Son filleth his body sanctified by the priest. lib. 2. cap. 28. lib. 3. cap. 25. Gospel hath two commodities. li. 2. cap. 1. Gospel hath not the figures, but the very things, ca 18. Gospel commanded the eating of blood: the law did forbid it. ca 50. Gospel and law compared. li. 3. cap. 15. Greeks affirm the real presence. prol. H. Heresy maketh man enemy to God. prol. Hetesie by arrogancy moche prevaileth. lib. 1. cap. 5. Heresy the farther it goeth the worse it fretteth. cap. 31. Heretics have moved war against the church. prolog. Heretics agree in conspiring against the Church. li. 1. cap. 8. Heretics why they are, not to be followed. ibid. Heretics bark against the truth, as dooges against the Moon. cap. 16. Heretics build there faith upon reason and senses. ibid. Heretics how they allege the fathers. lib. 1. ca 21. li. 2. ca 3. Heretics have no faith but opinions. li. 1. cap. 21. Heretics refuges in reasoning of the Sacrament. ibid. Heretical councils always repressed. ca 25. Heretical expositions of the prophecy of Malch. cap. 33. Heretics call their fancies Gods word li. 2. ca 33. Heretics must be shunned. li. 3. ca 25. Heretics of our time well described. ca 60 Heretics like men in fevers. ibid. Heretics saings compared to the sayings of ethnics. ibid. Hierom of praga condemned. prolog. S. Hierom how he learned the scriptures. li. 1. ca 7. et. 8. he expoundeth the scriptures contrary to the Sacramentaries. ca 39 S. Hieroms' saying opened li. 2. ca 57 he expoundeth S. Paul of the body of christ. li. 3. ca 44. S. Hilary understandeth the vi. of S. john of the Sacram. li. 2. ca 24. Holy Ghost consecrateth the B. Sacr. by the hand and tongue of the priest li. 2. ca 63. Holy Ghost worketh the consecration above our understanding. li. 1. ca 20. li. 2. ca 63. Holy bread used in the primitive church. li. 2. ca 51. li. 3. ca 23. Honour due to God wherein it consisteth. li. 1. ca 18. Honour or dishonour done by the receiver is referred to the Sacr. li. 2. ca 44. Honourable titles, and great effects of the Sa. li. 2. ca 5. Hoopers' gloze. li. 3. ca 60. horns figuration. li. 2. ca 14. How, the question of the faithless answered li. 1. ca 20. li. 2. ca 13. I. james and john's epistles of few underdanded li. 1. ca 5. S. james in his Mass did three notable things. li. 3. ca 37. he offered sacrifice ibid. he prayed for the quick and dead. ca 39 he maketh intercession to Saints. ibid. S. james in consecration directed his speech to God the Father. ca 34. S. james Mass full of knowledge, as the proclaimer granteth ca 39 Ignorance as bold as blind. li. 1. ca 5. Ignorance of the B. Sa. what it is, and how to be removed li. 2. ca 54. Immortality when and how it shall be given li. 3. ca 59 Intention of the Apostles and fathers in the ministration, of the catholics now, and of the new ministers. ca 36. john Wicleff, and john Husse condemned. prolog. joseph and christ compared. li. 1. ca 10 Isaac a figure of christ. ibid. Isichius acknowledgeth the presence of Christ's body and blood in the B. Sa. ca 29. jews' did eat Manna: we our lords body. They drank water of the rock: we the blood of christ. li. 3. ca 9 A jew by a miracle in the S. Sacrament induced to be a christian. li. 2. ca 42. Issue joined with the Proclaimer, for the presence li. 1. ca 21. li. 2. ca. 54. for reservation. li. 1. ca 25.. 26. for sacrifice. li. 1. ca 37. for adoration. li. 2. ca 47. for private Mass li. 3. ca 40. for prayer for the dead. ca 39 judas received the body of christ which is our price. cap. 49. jewel falsifieth. li. 3. ca 46. L Latin church hath, and doth confess the real presence prolog. Lay men for prayer commanded to abstain from their wifes. li. 1. ca 21. Law of Moses had two offices. li. 2. ca 1. Lent fast commanded. ca 48. Liberty a bait of the devil. li. 3. ca 53. Luther condemned. prolog. Luther contrary to himself. li. 1. ca 7. his proud brags and lies. ibid. Luther his strange doctrine. ca 8. and his pride. ibid. Luther's fond opinion of the presence. ca 25. Luther condemned Saint james epistle. li. 2. ca 16. Lutherans doctrine having no appearance of scripture is overthrown even by their own argument. ca 53. Luther's proud contempt of the holy learned fathers. ca 59 Luther where he learned his faith. li. 3. ca 53. Luther is contrary to S. Paul, to Chrysostom and the fathers. ca 54. M Mahomet's patched religion and the Sacramentaries much like. li. 2. ca 10. Manna why it was called a spiritual meat. li. 3. ca 3. 8. Manna a figure of christ ca 4. 5. applied to the Sacr. ca 11. 12. Manna three kinds, ca 4. Manna had xii wonders. ca 12. Manna what it is by interpretation. ca 11. Manna and the Sacr. compared. li. 2. ca 30. li 3. ca 10. 11. 12. Manna moche inferior to the B. Sacr. ca 5. 14. but more excellent than the sacramental bread. ca 12. Manna was from the air, christ from heaven ca 4. a creature: but christ the creator. ca 14. Manna the figure gave but temporal life: Manna the thing giveth eternal life. ibi. Manna gathered more than was commanded corrupted. ca 12. Man eatheth the body of christ. li. 1. ca 16 Marie Chrysts mother by nature, and above nature. li. 1. ca 13. Mass taken two ways li. 3. cap. 33. and what it is properly. ibid. & cap 34. Masses in the primitive Church varied in manner from Chrysts doing. cap. 27. Mass of S. james allowed by the Proclam. cap. 34. Mass of the Apostles, fathers, and of the Church now all one in substance. ibid. Mass called a sacrifice in the Council of Constantinop. ca 35. Mass setteth forth the death of christ more lively than the new communion. cap. 39 Mass the word how it cometh. cap. 32. and in ice within CCCC. hundredth years after christ even by the proclaimers confession. ibid. Masses more than one may be said in one Church and one day. ibid. three said on christ mass day fourteen hundredth years agone. ibid. Masters and teachers of the scripture must be had and consulted li. 1. ca 7. Matters of doubt are to be referred to the priests. ca 6. Matthew and Luke seem to vary in the genealogy of christ. ca 3. Meat of Christ'S supper differeth from common meats. ca 17. Melancthon his mutability. li. 2. ca 41. Melchisedech and his sacrifice treacted of and compared to christ and his sacrifice. li. 1. ca 30. 31. Membres only of Christ'S body know christ. li. 2. ca 65. Memories and monuments of holy and worthy men defaced. li. 1. ca 21. Ministers of the new church can not consecrate. li. 3. ca 34. Ministers of two sorts. ca 36. ministery of Agells about men. ca 38. Miracles wrought in the blessed Sa. li. 1. ca 24. li. 3. ca 42. Misunderstanding mother of heresy. li. 1. ca 7. Misunderstanding of Christ'S words causeth all the heresies of the Sacramentaries li. 2. ca 64. Mocks and skoffs the only arguments of the Proclaimer against the Mass. li. 3. ca 38. Mother of christ, and of Samson compared. li. 1. ca 10. Mouth receiveth that faith believeth. li. 2. ca 15. Mysteries of religion not common to all men. li. 1. ca 7. Mysteries of the church wonderful. li. 2. ca 5. Mystery what it is, and how the B. Sacr. is called a mystery. li. 3. ca 57 My flesh is verily meat john vi. no figurative speech li. 2. ca 20. 21. N Natural order had no place in many of Chrysts doings. li. 2. ca 10. & 12. Natural unity of christ to us. li. 2. ca 24. see unity. Natures two in christ, not two persons. li. 3 ca 51. Nature corrupted could not be brought to incorruption but by the incorruptible body of christ. li. 3. ca 59 Nestorius and Eutiches' heresies. li. 2. ca 15. New law requireth a new presthead. li. 1. ca 13. New ministers manner in their communion. li. 3. ca 34. New church chargeth christ with an untruth. ca 39 Nothing so true but heresy may impugn it li. 2. ca 12. O Obedience to be showed even where corruption of lifeys li. 1. ca 6 Obedience of the new church how it standeth. ca 25. Objection out of Tertullian. li. 1. ca 16. out of S. Austen ca 19 item ca 23. out of S. Clement ca 24. out of chrysostom li. 2. ca 5. out of S. Aug. ca 14 out of Euseb. Emis. ca 19 out S Gregory. ca 25 out of S. Aug. ca 34 out of. Tertull. ca: 49. out of Leo. ca 56. out of Rupert. li. 3 ca 10. Obiction of the Adversary solved. li. 1. ca 18. Objection out of S. Hierom solved. ca 22. Objection upon Melchisedec answered. ca 28 Objection of Chrysts being in diverse places. li 2. ca 12. Objection of the spiritual eating of christ. ca 37. Objections of the Proclaimer against adoration. cap. 44. Objection upon S. basil. solved by damascen. li. 3. ca 18. Objection upon the word bread in S. Paul. cap. 29. item other objections out of S. Paul. ca 44. Objection of the Proclaimer against sole receiving. ca 40 Objection of Oecolamp. ca 45. Ocolampadius denieth that christ affirmeth. li. 3. ca 13. his wicked gloze cofuted ca 15. Oecolamp. condemned. prolog. Oecolamp. contradictions. li. 1. ca 23 Oecolamp. falsifieth Theophila. li. 2. ca 12. and S. Aug. ibid. his wresting and abusing of S August. ca 54. Oecolamp. abuseth S. Paul's words: The rock was christ. li. 3. ca 3 Oecolamp. wresteth the scripture ibid. he mutilateth S. Amb. ca 4. Office of priest to expound the scripture. li. 1. ca 6 Office of consecration instituted by christ as Luther confesseth. ca 20. Offering of bread and wine, not bringing forth of it pertaineth to the priesthood of Melch. sedech. cap. 18 Old law had but figures, new law hath the very things. li. 1. ca 15. 21 Old paschal lamb the shadow, our paschal lamb the thing. ca 18 One thing in many places two ways. lib. 2. ca 12. One altar, one faith one bapt. in the church li. 3. ca 60 One bread that many are made one by, is the body of christ. li. 3. ca 28. Opinion of the jews of the coming of Elias lib. 3. ca 3 Order of God inverted. li. 1. ca 6 Order of priesthood in two points. ca 28 ordinances of elders to be holden for laws, where scripture prescribeth not. ca 27. Origen opened. li. 3. ca 30. Origen in plain words calleth the Sacr. the body of christ. li. 3. ca 5. P Pagans' have day Gods and hour Gods. li. 1. ca 32. Partakers of Christ'S blood dwell with Angels. li. 2. ca 5. Parts of the Sacr. ca 56. Passion of christ settfurth with the prophecies of it. li. 1. ca 11 Paschal lamb had two notable things. ca 15 Passover of the Christians more excellent than the Passover of the jews ibid. Paul by bread ad cup meant the body and blood of christ by the understanding of Chrysost. li. 1. ca 27. li. 3. ca 16. & 24. of S Aug. ca 15. of Oecumenius and Isidor. ca 19 of Theophilact. ca 20. of Anselme ca 21 of Euthymius. ca 37. of S. Hieron. ca 44. of S. Basil. ca 45. of Origen. ca 46. S. Paul why he spoke not of the sacrifice of Melchisedec in the epist. to the hebrews. cap. 18. Paul's words: the rock was christ, cannot be expounded by a trope. li. 3. c. 3 Paul's words abused by Cranmer. ca 16 Paul in all his process of the Sacr. maketh no little mention of any figure. ca 22. Paul saith that our Lord imparteth to us his own body. ca 29 Paul and the vi. of S. john speak of one thing. ca 50. Paul doth often call the Sacr. the body of our Lord. ca 52 Penance and clean conscience necessary for the receivers of the Sacr. ca 55. Peter said Mass at Antioch. ca 36. Peter de Bruis his heresy. prolog. Peter Martyr how he wresteth Theophilact. and his gloze overthrown. li. 3. ca 20. Philippe sent by the holy Ghost to expound the scriptures to the Eunuch, which argugueth the difficulty thereof. li. 1. ca 1. Plagues for breaking of God's order in relig. cap. 6. Polycarpus put out of the calendar. li. 2. ca 3 Practices of the primitive church proving aswell reservation, as sole receiving. li. 2. ca 68 li. 3. ca 40. Practise of profanation lamentable to be seen in england. li. 3. ca 49. Prayer necessarielie required to understand the scripture. li. 1. ca 7. Prayer of the canon in the Mass agreeth with the fathers. The new communion disagreeth. li. 3. ca 35. 36. 38, Prayer for the dead and almose profitable and used in the primitive church, ca 39 Priests office none may do but he that is called li 1. ca 7 Priests ought to be reverenced for their office. li. 1. ca 18 Priests must consecrate offer, and receive. ca 22. Priest must always have the B. Sacr. reserved for the sick. ca 35. Preisthead of christ shall never be changed. cap. 31 Priest maketh God, the cavil of the devil. li. 2. ca 8. priests doing the solemn action of the memorial of christ in the Mass aught to receive under both kinds: Priests not doing the same and other receive under one kind. ca 67 Preparation for the worthy receipt of the B. Sacr. commanded: and the danger of unworthy receipt declared, argueth the real presence. li. 3. ca 56 presence of Christ's body in the B. Sacr. li. 1. cap. 17. 18. & passim per totos tres libros. Presence of christ in the Sacr. no more impossible than other of his works and doings. li. 2. ca 22. Presence of the holy Ghost under the form of the dove and Christ's presence in the Sacr. compared. li. 3. ca 3. Presuptuouse teachers. li. 1. ca 7. Private persons may receive under one kind. li. 2. ca 67. Private communion properly what and where it is. li. 3. ca 41. Private Mass used in the time of chrysost. ib. Proclamation of a new Goliath. prolog. Proclaimer to be pitied ibid. he denieth all, and proveth nothing. li. 1. ca 20 Proclaimer impugneth reservation without reason or authority. li. 1. ca 27. Proclaimer settfurth that now for truth, which S. cyril above a thousand years agone reputed an heresy. li. 3. ca 26. he truncateth S. Hierom. li. 2. ca 53. he falsifieth S. August. li. 3. ca 37. he abuseth Anacletus ca 4. Proclaimer scorneth the Mass. ca 33. & sequ. he findeth three faults in the Canon thereof ca 38. Proclaimer braggeth of the primitive Church in words, but refusith it in deeds. ca 32. Proclaimer indgeth maliciously of all the Christian world. ca 38. proclaimers slight in alleging S. Hierom. ca 41. Prositts coming to us by receiving of Chrysts flesh. ca 39 Profanation of holy things what it is. ca 46. Promise of glad tidings to Abraham. li. 1. ca 9 prophecy not given to all. ca 1. Prophecy of the stock of christ and incarnation. ca 11 Protestants of every sect challenge to them the word of God, and the name of the church. ca 25. Protestants tormented with the prophecy of Malach. ca 33. Protestants compared to the dog in the fable. li. 3. ca 7. Purity of life in two points. ca 53. R Rash readers, and arrogant teachers. li. 1. ca 7. Real body partaken: mystical body partakers. li. 3. ca 28. Real presence li. 1. ca 14. 16. 29. etc. li. 2. ca 15. 20. 43. 46. 49. & sequent. li. 3. ca 5. 8. & alijs. Real presence and sacrifice proved by S. Paul. li. 3. ca 16. 17. 22. 30. proved by Chrysost. ca 36. by Theodoret. ca 56. Receipt of Chrysts body both spiritual and corporal. li. 1. ca 14. li. 3. ca 23. 26. Receipt of Chrysts merits not proper to one Sacrament, but common to all li. 2. ca 5 Receipt of Christ's body maketh our bodies immortal. li. 2. ca 14. see body and flesh. Receiving by ignorance what it is. ca 54. Receivers of the B. Sa. must prepare them selses, and how. li. 3. ca 55. must abstain from the act of matrimo. ca 41. Read Sea a figure of Bapt. ca 2. Represent what it signifieth li. 1. ca 18. Reservation of the Sa. in the Apostles time li. 1. ca 24 and after in the primitive church ibid. &. ca 25 26. 27. li. 2. ca 68 Reservation not against the institution of christ. li. 1 ca 26. agnized by the Nicene Council. ca 25. deniers there of accursed ibid. Reservation in private houses li. 1. ca 24. in the ship ibid. rich and poor eat all one blood. li. 3. ca 6. Richerus a Caluinist forbiddeth to pray to christ. li. 2. ca 48. Right way to understand a caholique author. ca 49. Roffensis never yet answered prolog. his sayings alleged li. 3. ca 12. & 32. S Sacrament hath honourable titles. li. 1. ca 17. it containeth the thing worthy of most honour. ca 18. Sacrament reserved. ca 24. 25. etc. sent to a sick man ibid. carried home to such as were absent. ca 27. Sacrament a figure not of the body of christ, but of his death. li. 2. ca 14. etc. li. 3. ca 44. Sacrament a figure in diverse respects, but not only a figure. li. 2. ca 14. li. 3. ca 8. Sacrament containeth three things li. 2. ca 19 li. 3. ca 42. Sacrament a mystery how and what a mystery is. ca 23. Sacrament hath two parts, and which they be. ca 57 and two offices. ca 15. Sacrament may be consecrated by no other words, than these Hoc est corp.. ca 64. Sacrament a sanctified thing and sanctification. ca 66. Sacrament delivered by christ in his supper under both kinds: in Emaus under one kind proveth both to be lawful. ca 67. Sacrament ministered under one kind by S. Cypr. ca 68 received so of a woman ibid. and upon good friday. ibid. Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament. li. 3. ca 8. Sacrament if it have not the presence of Chrysts body is inferior to Mamna. ca 12 Sacraments diversly numbered by the protostans. ca 13. Sacrament giving life far excelleth Manna ca 14. it is inconsumptible meat. ibid. Sacraments of the new law better, etc. ca 15 sacrament defined. ibid. Sacraments of the new law give grace. ib. and salvation. ibid. compared to the old law by S. August. ibid. Sacram. proved by our lord to be his body. li. 3. ca 53. Sacrament carried home and received as devotion served, and lick wise reserved of holy men in wilderness ca 41. Sacrament delivered to a jew appeared flesh and likewise to an other. ca 42. Sacramentaries condemned by eight councils prolog. their gloze upon S. Cyprian overthrown li 1. ca 17. Sacramentaries make two manner of presence ca 21. they take away the fat and sweet of the bless. Sacr. ca 26. they stumble at a straw and leap over a block. ibid. their chief grounds be natural reasons. li. 2. ca 19 Sacramentaries deny that the fathers affirm, and affirm that they deny. ca 59 they teach contrary to their own rules. ca 60. they deny the excellency of the Sacraments of christ. li. 3. ca 4. Sacramentaries maintain the heresy of Eutyches li. 1. ca 30. and of the Aarrians. li. 3. ca 59 and denying the receipt of Christ'S natural flesh seem to deny the immortality of our flesh after resurrection. ibid. Sacrifice after the order of Melchisedec now diffused throughout the world. li. 1. ca 31. Sacrifice avouched. ibid. propitiatory li. ca 43. li. 3. ca 14. Sacrifice of laud or gratulatory separated from extern sacrifice. li. 1. ca 33. li. 3. ca 30. Sacrifice of the cross, and of the altar all one in substance, but diverse in manner. li. 1 ca 33. Sacrifice of the Christians, a peculiar and special sacrifice ca 35. a full and most holy sacrifice. ibid. full of horror honourable to Angels li. 3. ca 54. immaculate. ca 37. the body and blood of christ. li. 1. ca 36. instituted by christ. ca 31. 32. & li. 2. ca 49. 56. li. 3. ca 33. & alibi. Sacrifice of the Mass of what priest soever offered, is one with that christ offered. li. 2. ca 8. offered in many places is all one sacrifice. ca 10. item li. 3. ca 33. & 60. Sacrifice of the church consisteth of the visible forms of bread and wine and of the invisible flesh. etc. li 2. ca 19 li. 3. ca 6. Sacrrifice of the church proved by S. Paul. li. 3. 16. after the understanding of S. Aug. ca 18. 29. Sacrifice of christ in his supper and Melchisedec compared. li. 1. ca 13. 30. 31. li. 3. ca 17. Sacrifice and Mass caused the Proclaimer to falsify Leo. ca 40. Sampsons' conception and Christ'S compared. li. 1. ca 10. Sanctification, and a sanctified thing be diverse li. 1. ca 66. Satan's final mark he slooteth at. li. 3. ca 32 Satan appeared to Luther and dispured with him of the Mass. ca 42. Satan's power abated by virtue of the Mass. ibid. Satirus saved from drowning by power of the Sa. and his faith commended by S. Ambrose therein li. 1. ca 24. Sects of religion principal in the world four. li. 1. ca 32. Sects of Sacramentaries sixteen. li. 2. ca 41. Sedulius saith that S. Paul spoke of the body of christ. li. 3. ca 49. Serapion being being sick called for the Sa. and received alone. li. 3. ca 41. Show bread a figure of the Sa. and applied to the Sa. li. 1. ca 22. 23. 24. appointed for three things ibid. continually upon the altar. ca 23. School arguments made for the opening of the truth produced by a Protestant to confirm a falsehood li 2. ca 22 Scriptures to be hard proved by seven arguments li. 1. ca 1. Scriptures must be studied with moche labour. ca 5. Scriptures must be learned of the fathers. ca 7. they be full of doubts, and may be drawn to divers senses. ca 6. & 7. 8. Scripture the storehouse of God, and why God would the same should be heard. ib. Scriptures alleged by Oecolamp. against the presence. li. 2. ca 12. Scriptures must be alleged in the literal sense ibid. ca 50. Son of God made flesh is received in our lords meat li. 3. ca 59 Son of God trodden under foot when his body and blood are not believed to be in the Bl. Sa. li. 2. ca 67. Spirit how it quickeneth, and flesh how it Profiteth or not. ca 36. Spirit taken two manner of ways. ca 37. Spirit of unity among catholics: spirit of division among Protest. li. 3. ca 9 Spiritual receiving not figured by the paschal lamb. li. 1. ca 19 Spiritual understanding what it is. li. 2. ca 37. & 39 63. Spiritual and real receipt together wonder full. ca 55. Spiritual knowledge aswell teacheth the substance of christ body and blood to be under the forms of bread and wine, as natural knowledge the substance of natural things to be under their forms. ca 63. Stercoranits of our time li. 1. ca 14. Storehouse of God not common to all. ca 7. Strange doctrines not to be followed. li. 1. ca 8. Substance of Sacraments must be observed the manner may be altered. ca 26. Substance of a thing said to be seen, when only the outward form is seen. li. 2. ca 63. Sinners receive the body of christ really but not spiritually. ca 55. Sixteen sects of Sacramentaries and other like. ca 41. Swearing to much used now a days. li. 3. ca 30. T Table of christ purgeth li. 1. ca 23. Table signifieth sacrifice in S. Paul. ca 31. item li. 3. ca 16. Table of christ terrible of the old Passover not so. li. 2. ca 55 Table of our lord, the body of our lord. li. 3. ca 30. Teachers meet or not meet to be followed. li. 1. ca 8. temptations of our first Parents and men in these days compared. li. 2. ca 41. Tertullian in one saying over throweth three assertions of the Sacramentaries li. 2. ca 42. the same opened and delivered from their sleights. ca 49. Tertullian'S wife received the Sa. secretly, and alone. li. 3. ca 41. Theophilact avoucheth three things against the Sacramentaries. li. 2. ca 60. Three manner of doings touching scripture. li. 1. ca 26. Tradition to be followed li. 3. ca 1. Transubstanciation avouched li. 1. ca 31. li. 2. ca 7. 51. believed of the fathers. ibid. what it is. ca 53. li. 3. ca 14. proved by Isich li. 2. ca 54. & 57 item treacted of li. 2. ca 59 60. 62. Truth must have an excellency above the figure. li. 3. ca W Water of the Rock why it was called spiritual. li. 3. ca 3. Waldo, and waldenses. prolog. Wanton lusts of Bishops and priests reproved. li. 1. ca 22. Washing of the Apostles feet what it signifieth. li. 2. ca 47. Verè the adverb, what force it hath. li. 2. ca 18. Very flesh of christ under form of bread ca 22. the same called spirit ca 39 Verity of Chrysts flesh setforth before us in the Sa. ca 60. Victor excommunicated the Churches of Asia li. 1 ca 24. Wilful reason no sufficient warrant always in the court of faith. li. 2. ca 42. Wine mixed with water in Chrysts cup. li 1. ca 20. 26. li. 2. 43. li. 3. ca 34. 35. it is a divine tradition so to be used, and why it is. ibid. wise men, by hearing may be wiser. li. 1. ca 8. Woman stricken to death for unworthy receiving of the Bl. Sacr. li. 3. ca 58. Wonderful what is properly. li. 2. ca 55. Work of the Sa. miraculous. ca 60. Worthy receivers and unworthy what they receive. li. 3. ca 51. 52. 53. worthiness properly what it is ibid. worldly cares keep men from God. li. 3. ca 40. Untruths uttered by the Procla. three in one place. ca 39 Unbloody sacrifice, the lively body of christ, the altar which the jews may not eat. ca 60. Unity with christ two ways li. 1. ca 14. li. 2 ca 10. 14. 24. li. 3. ca 23. Faults in printing. In this long work (gentle Reader) there can not a few faults be committed in the or thographie, both because the printers were unskilful of our language, and for that the overseer could not be always ready at the press to make corrections. In consideration whereof, and that I have not time myself to gather all, I pray thee of gentleness to bear there with, and for thy skill to correct after these few examples. God be ever with thee. In the prolog the first line: read, have moved: in the xv. line: for primative, primitive and so in other places. In the book first amend the numbers of the leaves, as, for seven. viii. xi. xvi. lx. etc. two. iii. iiii. viii. xl etc. then of the chapters, for thirteen, fourteen, etc. read thirteenth, fortenth etc. and for nine and thirteth. read nine and twentieth. And let the binder look to the order of the Ternions, for the signatorie letters be some wanting: some mysplaced. Finis.