Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 2 · Book 2

Rejoinder to Bristows Reply · Part 2 · Book 2

p. 437The second booke.

CAP. 1.

The Catholikes require their cause to be vprightly tryed by the Sander.holy scriptures, which they hauehave alwaies studied & reuerenced.

THis request is reasonable, if it were Fulke.faithfully meant, but it is nothing but an heretical bragge, because you seeme to hauehave colour in the holy scriptures, for your carnall, and as you call it, real presence, otherwise, what studie soeuer you hauehave followed in your closets, your open writings declare small reuerence vntounto the holy Scriptures. For Pigghius one of them, whome you name to hauehave conuinced these heresies in our dayes, by holy scripture, calleth p. 438the holy Scripture a nose of waxe, and a dumbe Iudge. These I weene be wordes of small reuerence. Eckius, another of them, calleth the Scripture, a blacke Gospell, and an inkish diuinitie. And Hosius, a thirde man sayeth, these wordes of our Sauiour Christ, Drinke ye all of this, if they be vnderstoode generally, aswell of lay men as of Priestes, to bee the expresse wordes of the diuell, and that there is no worde in all the Scripture of power to saue, but one onelyonly worde, Dilige.

And generally, all Papistes, which before our time, and in our dayes, hauehave taken vponupon them the exposition of the holy Scriptures, submitting the vnderstanding of them to the Popes determination, declare, that they reuerence them not as the holye worde of God, but esteeme them as a leaden rule, which they maye drawe to any thing that shall please them. The absuide and lewde interpretations of many of the Popes, and other their applesquires, whereof the subtiler Papists in these dayes, are ashamed, woulde fill a large volume, if I shoulde goe about to rehearse them. The best excuse that Harding can finde for many of them, is that they are spirituall daliance (in the diuels name) by which you may see, what reuerence they beare to the holy scriptures, that make them an argument of daliance.

CAP. II.

It is proued by the worde of God, that euill men receiue the Sander.bothe of Christ in his supper.

The Apologie against which Sander fighteth, professeth, That in the supper (vntounto such as beleeue) there is Fulke.truely giu en the body and bloud of the Lorde. Sander replyeth, that Iudas receiued the body of Christ, ergo not onelyonly they that beleeue. Concerning Iudas, it is a question, whether he receiued the Sacrament or no. Not only because, as Sander confesseth, that some ancient fathers thought that hee went out before the supper, namely, Hilarius in Math, Can. 30. Post que Iudas pr…dit…y p. 439iudicaur, sine quo Pascha accepto calice & fracto pane conficitur. After which thinges Iudas is declared to be a traitour, without whome the Passeouer is made, the cuppe being taken, and the bread being broken: But also by consequence of Sanders owne confession in lib. 1, Cap. 4. fol. 18. where hee affirmeth, that Christe did institute the Sacrament after he had eaten the Paschall Lamb, washed his disciples feete, and then sate downe againe to supper. But S. Iohn testifieth, that Iudas departed immediatly after the soppe receiued, which was before supper was ended. For this soppe could not be the sacrament, (as Augustine thinketh) seeing the worde foreign signifieth a soppe dipped in brothe, and so was this soppe dipped in the platter, and not in the cuppe. But to admitte that Iudas was present, and did receiue the Sacrament; howe proueth hee, that hee receiued the bodie of Christe? That which Christe deliuered, Iudas receiued: Christ deliuered his body, ergo Iudas receiued his bodie. Neither the maior nor the minor of this argument, is out of controuersie. For Iudas receiued not whatsoeuer Christ deliuered: for Christ deliuered a spirituall communication of his body, as Saint Paul witnesseth to them that woulde receiue it, which Iudas receiued not: therefore the maior is false. The minor taketh as graunted, that whereof is all the controuersie: namely, that Christ deliuered his bodie vnderunder the formes of bread, which we deny, affirming that hee gaue bread into their handes, and his bodie after a spirituall manner, to them which receiued it by faith.

The Apologie further affirmeth, the Papists to teach the verie body of Christ to be eaten substantially, not onelyonly of wicked men, but also (which is horrible to speake) of mise and dogges. Sander answereth, that it is not worthe the while to discusse, whether mise & dogs, in some sense eate the body of Christ, because the Catholiks kepe it so warily, y^t neither mouse nor dog may com nigh it: wherin he controlleth the scholemen, who hauehave long disputations & doctorall determinations of that question. In the end he thinketh it worse, y^t wicked men p. 440shoulde eate, then if dogges or mise should eate it. But in deede they are both blasphemous absurdities. As for the fathers, whome he quoteth, for wicked mens eating of the body of Christ, we shal consider in the next Chapter, which is proper for that title. His next argument is out of S. Paul: whosoeuer shall eat this breade, and drinke this cupp of the Lorde vnworthily, shalbee guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. Of this text he reasoneth thus: vnworthie eating, supposeth an eating. It is verie true: but Saint Paul calleth it eating of this bread, and not eating of this bodie. Yea, saith Sander, Saint Paul doeth warily describe that kind of bread, both with an article and a Pronoune: ergo that breade is the bodie of Christ. I denie that argument. The article and the Pronoune, shewe that it is not common breade, but the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ. But howe can hee which eateth this bread vnworthily, bee guiltie of the bodie of Christ, which he eateth not? Verie well. For he which abuseth the Kings seale, is guiltie of y^e kings Maiestie, which he acknowledgeth not. But this argument out of Saint Paul, hee referreth vntounto another time, returning againe to Iudas. That thinge whereof Christ saide to the twelue, Take, eate, and drinke, was taken, eaten, and dronken of all the twelue, and was but one thing onelyonly concerning eating and drinking, that is his body and bloud: therefore Iudas did eat the same that Peter, Iames, and Iohn did.

Wee heard in the last Chapiter of the first booke, that it consisted of two things, by y^e iudgement of Irenaeus, an earthly sub stance, and an heauenly, the one all receiued, the other onelyonly the faithfull, therefore, the antecedent of this argument is false. But if that argument be not plaine ynough, wee must take another. Iudas and Iohn did eate one thing: Eche of them, that foode, whereof Christe sayde, this is my body: but Iohn did truely eate Christes bodie: ergo Iudas did truely eate Christes body. I aunswere, the maior is ambiguous, for if one foode bee taken for one breade, it is true, but if one thing bee taken for the bodye of p. 441Christ, it is the matter in controuersie, and denyed of vsus. Likewise the Minor is ambiguous. For if ye vnderstande eating of Christs bodie truly, eating by faith spiritually, it is true, and as the Apologie meaneth: if you vnderstande eating Christes bodie carnallie, it is false, and denyed of the Apologie, that Iohn did so eate the bodie of Christ. The argument is no better then this: Iudas and Iohn, did heare one Gospel each of them, that whereof it is saide, that it is the power of God to saluation: But Iohn did heare the Gospel to his saluation: ergo Iudas did heare the Gospel to his saluation. But Sander cauelleth, of deliuering of bakers breade, and nothing else, but Bakers breade. Christ offereth two thinges, earthly breade, and his diuine bodie. Nowe if Iudas receiue the one, and refuse the other, what folly is it to reason, of Christes deliuering? which is like as if a man will deliuer an obligation as his deede, and the partie that shoulde receiue it, will not receiue it, but as a scrolle, and so renteth it in peeces. In deede therefore Christ offereth his bodie to all men: but they onelyonly receiue it, which beleeue. But eating by faith, (saith Sander) is a preparation to worthie eating, but the meate is all one, euen as the baptisme is all one, to the wicked and to the godly. I will aske no better example, then of the Sacrament of Baptisme, where indeede, the water, which is the outwarde element, is common to all that are sprinkeled or washed, as the breade is to all that eate: but regeneration, the thing signified by the water, is proper onelyonly to the electe of GOD: Euen so the bodie of Christ, which is the thing signified by the breade, is not receiued but of them, which beleeue vntounto eternall life.

CAP. III.

The ancient fathers teach, that euill men receiue truely the bodie Sander.of Christ.

The first father cited, is Origen, in Psalme. 37. who p. 442Fulke.…aith: that those which come to the Eucharistie, without examining and clensing themselues, are like to men sicke of an ague, who presuming to eate sanorum cibos, the meats of whole men, do hurt themselues. Whereupon Sander gathereth, that the meat of the supper, which is prouided for whole men, is truly, but not profitably eaten of the wicked. But that Origen was of no such iudgment, it is manifest by his expresse wordes, spoken of the eating of the sacrament, & of the eating of the thing signified by the sacrament. In Math. Chap. 15. Et haec quidem de typico symbolicóque corpore. Multa porrò & de ipso veróo dici possunt quod factum est caro verusque cibus, quem qui comederit omninò viuet in aeternu…, quem nullus mallus potest edere. Etenim si fieri possit, vt qui malus ad…c perseueret, edat verbum factum carnem, cum sit verbum & panis vi…s, nequaquam scriptum fuisset, Quisquis ederit panem hunc, vinet in aeternum. And these things truly are spoken of the figuratiue or symbolical body. Many thinges also may be spoken of the worde himselfe, which was made fleshe and very meate, which whosoeuer shall eate, vndoutedly he shall liue for euer, which no euill man can eate. For if it were possible y^t he which continueth still euill, should eate the worde which is made flesh, seing he is the word and y^e bread of life, it had not beene written: Whosoeuer shal eate this bread, shall liue for euer.

The second father is Basil: de baptismo, lib. 1. Cap. vlt. Asking what shall a man say of him, who dareth in vaine and vnprofitably, eate the body and drinke the bloude of our Lorde Iesus Christ? To this I answere, that Basil speaketh not of wicked men, but of the faithfull, in whome the spirit of God was, and yet a great worke of mortification: therefore it followeth, after the wordes cited by Sander, foreign, &c. and therefore much more giuing the holye spirite. They are not wicked, in whome the holy spirit is. Therefore the Aduerbes, Idely and vnprofitably, are not spoken simplie, but comparatiuely, for, not so diligently as they ought, not so profitably as they might.

p. 443The thirde father is Cypriane, de Coen. Domini. The sacraments for their part, cannot bee without their proper vertue, neither doth Gods maiesty by any meanes absent it selfe, from the mysteries. But albeit the sacraments permit themselues to be taken, or touched of vnworthie men, yet those men cannot bee partakers of the spirite, whose infidelitie or vnworthinesse withstandeth such holinesse. This authoritie is flatte against Sander: the wicked may receiue the Sacramentes, but not the spirite of Christ, if not the spirite, then not the bodie, for Christ his bodie, is neuer disseuered from his spirite.

The fourth father is Hierome: but where, hee sheweth not. Opponis mihi, &c. Thou layest vntounto mee the one measure of Manna called Gomor, and wee take the bodie of Christe equallie. According to the merites of them that receiue, that which is one is made diuerse. &c. The Sacrament is one in it selfe &c. There is no question, but that the wicked are partakers of the Sacrament, which is called the bodie of Christe, but of the bodie of Christ in deede, they are not partakers. For it cannot, bee truely saide, of the naturall bodie of Christ, that it is made diuerse, but the Sacrament which is called his bodie, is made diuerse, according to the faith or infidelitie of him that receiueth it.

Augustine is the fifte witnesse: In Epist. 162. Tolerat &c. Our Lorde him selfe beareth with Iudas, hee suffereth a deuill, a thieefe, and the seller of himselfe, to receiue among the innocent disciples, that which the faithfull knowe, our price. Nothing is our price (saieth Sander) but the bodie of Christ. Yet may the Sacrament bee called our price, as it is called the bodie of Christ, for as touching that Iudas receiued not the same with the rest of the Apostles, Augustine sheweth in Ioan. Tract. 59. Illi manducabant panem Dominum, ille panem domini contra dominum. They did eate that breade which was the Lorde, hee did eate the breade of the Lorde, against the Lord. What should I saye more, when Sander confesseth, that Saint Augustine saith, de ciuitat. Dei lib. 21. Cap. 25. Euill men are p. 444not to be sayd to eate the bodie of Christ. But this hee shadoweth with a vaine glosse, that they receiue not the effect of the body of Christ, and citeth other words of August. De verbis Dom. Ser. 22. Non quocunque modo &c. Not howsoeuer a man eate the flesh of Christ, and drinke the bloude of Christ, he abideth in Christ, and Christ in him: but by a certaine kinde of way. As though S. Augustine said (saith he) EueryEvery way, the flesh and bloud of Christ is receiued in y^e supper of our Lorde. But howe shamefully he belyeth S. Augustine: you shall heare by his owne words. Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi, quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi, vt alia taceam, non possunt simul esse & membra Christi & membra meretricis. Denique ipse dicens, Qui manducat carnem meam, & bibit sāguinem meum, in me manet, & ego in eo; ostendit quid sit, non sacramento tenus, sed reuera corpus Christi manducare, & eius sanguinem bibere. Neither are euill men to be said, to eate the body of Christ, because they are not to be accounted in the members of Christ: for to speake nothing of other matters, they cannot be at once, the members of Christ, and the members of an harlot. Finally, he himselfe saying, (He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my bloud, abideth in me, and I in him) sheweth what it is, not as farre as a sacrament goeth, but in verie deede, to eate the fleshe of Christ, and to drinke his bloude. This saying of Augustine may serue to expounde, not onelyonly what he himselfe, but whatsoeuer any other ancient Father, seemeth to saye of wicked men, eating the bodie of Christ: namely, that they doe it, Sacramento tenus, but not reuera, they eate the bodie of Christ, as it may bee eaten in an outwarde sacrament, but not in deede.

The sixte witnesse is Gregorie, in prim. reg. libr. 2. C. 1. Salutis, &c. They receiue not the fruite of saluation in eating of the healthfull sacrifice. Of these words, Sander can gather nothing, but that hee addeth of his owne, that the healthfull sacrifice, is nothing but the naturall bodie of Christ, which Gregorie neither saith, nor meaneth: but the sacrament which is healthfull to them which receiue it faithfully.

p. 445The laste that speaketh (for hee hath sixe or seuen more dombe names) is Beda in Lucam Cap. 22. Whose antiquitie, although it be not so great, as that we should bee bounde to take him, for a lawfull witnesse, yet because he liued before the carnall eating of Christes bodie was receiued, we will admitte him. H… compareth (saith Sander) that man to Iudas, who with his sinfull members, presumeth to violate illud inestimabile & inuiolabile domini corpus, that inestimable, and inuiolable bodie of our Lorde. Howe coulde hee violate it with his members, if no part of his bodie touched it? I answere, by violating the sacrament thereof, which they receiue vnfaithfullie, and contemptuously. Howe can hee treade vnderunder his feete the sonne of God, and esteeme the bloude, in which he was sanctified, cōmon. &c. which neuer came neere the one nor the other, with his bodie? Heb. 10.

Let the reader iudge, whether the iudgement of the Fathers, doeth fauour Sander, more then the Apologie. If any man will see more of this controuersie, he may resort to mine answere vntounto Heskins. lib. 3. from the 46. Chapter, to the 56.

CAP. IIII.

What is the true deliuerance of Christes bodie Sander.and bloude.

The Apologie saieth, that in the supper, there is truely Fulke.deliuered the bodie and bloude of Christ, the fleshe of the sonne of God, quickening our soules, the foode of immortalitie, grace, trueth, life. This doctrine, Sander confesseth to bee sounde and Catholike, but out of it, he will prooue the Popish reall presence, and that by two arguments.

The first reason is: Christ deliuered but one thing at each time, when he said, This, and This: The Apologie confesseth, that hee deliuered his bodie and bloude: ergo hee deliuered neither breade nor wine, but in appearance, and his bodie and bloude onelyonly in deede. I p. 446denie the Maior, for vntounto the faithfull (of whom the Apologie speaketh) he deliuered two thinges, of diuerse natures in one sacrament, or one thing consisting of two diuerse natures, the bread and wine corporally, his bodie and bloud spiritually, as Irenaeus saith. Neither is there such force in this, and this, but that one thing of diuerse natures, or two things in one mysterie, may be signified thereby. When God said: This is the passeouer, it were a madde conclusion to say, it were no Lambe, or, This is the newe Testament, therefore it is not his bloude: because, This can bee but one thing: Yet 'Sander clappeth handes to his owne argument. O masters, trueth is straunge, and by the aduersaries owne weapon, getteth the victorie.

His second reason is, When the bodie of Christ is truelie deliuered, it is deliuered according to the truth of his owne nature. The nature of a bodie, is to be deliuered after a bodily maner: therfore the bodie of Christ is deliuered bodily. The Maior is false, for the bodie of Christ may be truely deliuered, when it is deliuered after a spiritual, and diuine maner. For in the saying of y^e Apologie, truely is contrarie to falsly, & not to spiritually. And all the Papists confesse, that the body of Christ may be, & must be eaten spiritually. Which of them dare say, the bodie of Christ is eaten falsely, when it is eaten spiritually, or not eaten, when it is eaten spiritually, euen without the sacrament? Againe, if Sander like this Maior, I will thus inferre vponupon it: When the bodie of Christ is truely deliuered, it is deliuered according to the trueth of his owne nature: But the nature of a bodie is to occupie but one place at once, and that to fill with his owne quantitie, &c. Therefore the bodie of Christ is so deliuered, as it occupieth but one place, reteyneth quantitie, and all other things required in y^e nature of a true bodie. Finally, whereas Sander in the determination of y^e Apologie, misseth quickening of our bodies, but that he is disposed to play Momus, hee might hauehave founde that he misseth in the foode of immortalitie, which toucheth our bodies as wel as our soules, and more properly.

p. 447CAP. V.

What it is which nourisheth vsus in the supper of Christ.Sander.

The Apologie saith: that by the partaking of the body Fulke.and bloude of Christ, we are nourished to immortalitie. Hereupon Sander inferreth, that nourishmēr is meat really present ergo the bodie and bloud of Christ is really present. This shalbe graunted, that the bodie & bloud of Christ, is really present with them, whom it norisheth, vnderstanding really, for truly and indeede, and vnfainedly. But Christ (saith Sander) gaue with his handes that which nourisheth. In proper forme of speech, this is false: for he had not his natural bodie, and bloud in his hands, but a sacrament thereof, which was a seale, and certaine perswasion vntounto the faithfull, of the performance of his promise, which was the communicating of his body and bloude, which was performed after an heauenly, and spirituall manner.

CAP. VI.

The vnion, which is made by eating Christes reall flesh, must Sander.needes be a naturall vnion, before it be a mysticall.

For this naturall vnion, he bringeth no proofe, but Fulke.promiseth the proofe in other places following: & therfore, vntounto those places I deferre the answere. In the meane time, it is a monstrous absurditie, that seeing the mysticall vnion with Christ, is of all the elect that euer were, he affirmeth y^t it cannot be without a naturall vnion, by eating Christs flesh and bloud, in the sacrament.

CAP. VII.

That the Apologie speaking of the Lordes supper, goeth cleane Sander.from the word of God.

p. 448The wordes of the Apologie, are these: We doe acknowledge the Eucharist or the Lordes supper, to be a Fulke.sacrament, that is to say, an euident token of the body and bloud of Christ. This is to bring men from the word of God (saith he) to y^e traditions of men. For where hauehave you in all the scripture, that the Lordes supper is a signe or token of the body and bloud of Christ, that is, a sacrament? And because these wordes are not found in the scriptures, from the beginning of the Genesis, vntounto y^e end of y^e Apocalipse; writen in so many letters, he fometh and fretteth like a mad dogg, against the authors of the Apologie, for going from the worde of God, to the authority of men, Augustine and Ambrose, &c. Then the which quarels, nothing can be inuented more foolish, or further from all witt, learning, and honesty. For when we appeale to the authority of the scriptures in all thinges, we neuer meant or saide, that all other wordes should be forsaken, which are not expressed in the bible; but that no doctrine is to be credited, by what terme so euer it be vttered, except the same be grounded vponupon the manifest sense and meaning of the holy scripture, either expressed in plaine wordes, or els gathered by necessary consequence. Therefore seing the meaning of the names of sacrament, signe, or token, may necessarily bee proued out of the holy scriptures, and for that cause hauehave ben taken vp and vsed, by the ancient fathers, in the primitiue Church, wee vse them as freely as they did, and as we vse other names likewise, the meaning of which, is plaine to be found in the scriptures, although the termes them selues be not: as Trinity, persons, consubstantiall, &c. If Sander durst deny the names of sacrament, signe, or token, to be agreable to the scriptures, I would take paines to prooue them: but seing he confesseth, that they are good and lawfull to be vsed of the supper of Christ, it were superfluous la bour to trauell in a needlesse question. Among the names, that are giuen to the Lordes supper, in the scripture: That the cupp is called The new testament in the bloud of Christ; and that of S. Paul the supper is called p. 449spirituall meate and spirituall drinke (which last name Sander heaping vp the rest omitteth) it doth proue the names of sacrament, signe, and token, soe inuincibly, that we are no more afraide to vse them, then any of the other expressed in plaine wordes of the scripture. The name of sacrifice, which he enterlaceth by the way, because it is afterward more at large discussed, I omit to write of, at this time.

CAP. VIII.

That S. Ambrose and S. Augustine taught moe then two sacramentes.Sander.

It had bene meet that a sacrament had bene first defined, Ful…and then this trifling should not hauehave arisen, of the word. Sander himselfe vnderstandeth, mysterium in S. Ambrose, for a mystery, or sacrament. And in deed the Greekes call that foreign, which the Latines call Sacramentum. But if eueryevery mystery, shall be a Sacrament, in that sense that baptisme and the Lordes supper are so called, there shall not be onelyonly seuen Sacraments, as he would hauehave, but more then seuentie. The name therefore of Sacrament or mystery, is somtims generally taken for eueryevery secret thing, that hath an hidden vnderstanding, so is matrimony of S. Paul called a mystery, and of Augustine the Sacrament of matrimonie, and ordination is vsed. De bon. Con. Cap. 24. so is oyle and imposition of hands, cont. Donat. lib. 5. Cap. 20. reckoned among the mysteries and Sacramentes. But that which Sander doth alleage out of Ambrose, is inforced: for speaking of the power which priestes hauehave to remitt sinnes by repentance, or by baptisme, he saith, Vnum in vtroque mysterium. Sed dices quia in …auacro operatur mysteriorū gratia, Quid in poenitentia? nonne dei nomen operatur? There is one mystery in both. But thou wilt say, because in baptisme the grace of the mysteries doth worke, What in repentance? doth not the name of God worke in these wordes, although he call them both mysteries? Yet he putteth a manifest difference, for in baptisme he p. 450acknowledgeth the grace of the mysteries to worke, w^t y^t visible seale: in the other, the name of god onelyonly, w^tout a visible seale: which Sander perceiuing, and not being able to answere these places of Augustine and Ambrose which are cited by the authors of y^e Apologie, for the number of the Sacramentes flieth to the authority of the late councell of Florence, not regarding what Ambrose or Augustine hath written, who (he saith) had not the charge to reckon vp how many Sacramentes there are, And I say, that the seuen Sacramentes were not named in any session of that councel, but only in a decree of Eugenius the fourth, vponupon the sur…ised reconciliation of y^e Armenians, which is of small credit, y^e same Eugenius for his notable wickednes, being long before deposed by the councell of Basil, and an other Pope being chosen in his place.

CAP. IX.

That the supper of our Lord is the chiefe Sacrament of all, but Sander.not acknowledged of the Apologie, according to the word of God.

Seing the holy scripture preferreth not the one Sacrament Fulk.aboue the other, and they are both a like effectual seales of the mercy of God to the saluation of his elect, there is no cause, why the Apologie shoulde acknoweledge such excellency of the one aboue the other, as Sander would imagine. But it is a matter of greate importance with Sander, that Dionysius calleth it the Sacrament of Sacramentes, whereby it is not onelyonly proued to be the worthier of the two, but also the chiefe of many Sacramentes. The authority of Dionysius, which he voucheth, as though it were without controuersie of antiquitie, hath often bene disproued, to be without the compase of the sixe hundreth yeares, seing neither Eusebius, nor Hierom, nor Germadius, in their seueral times, did euer heare of any such bookes of Dionysius the Ar… opagite. S. Paules disciple.

But where the Apologie confesseth, the Lordes supper to p. 451be a Sacrament, a signe, and an euident token, of the bodie of Christ, Sander saith, it is constrained, to beleeue many vnwriten verities, and will not beleeue that only, which is written in the scripture, of this supper, that it is the body and bloud of Christ.

Beholde the vanitie of this fonde quareller, because these truethes are not expressed in so many Latine or English words in the scripture, therefore they be vnwritten verities. The froward man himselfe, in the Chapter last before confessed, that mysterium in the Greeke, was the same, that is called Sacramentum in Latine. If therefore the Lordes supper, be called in Greeke mysterium, we may find it in the scripture to be called a Sacrament. For where S. Paul saith: let a man thus esteeme vsus, as the ministers of Christ, and as the dispensers of the mysteries of God: who doubteth but vnderunder the name of mysteries, the Lordes supper and baptisme is comprehended? although the name of mystery, be larger in Greke, then we vse the name of Sacrament in Englishe: yet in spight of the diuell, the name of mysterie and Sacrament, is truly verified out of the scripture of the Lordes supper and baptisme. Likewise the name of signe, being giuen by the holy ghost, vsually, to other Sacramentes, by analogie, must likewise apperteine to this Sacramēt. Ge. 17. Circumcision is called the signe of the couenant, betweene God and the people. Likwise Exo. 12. the bloud of the Paschal Lambe, is called a signe, and S. Paul Ro. 4. calleth the signe of circumcision, a seale of iustification.

Last of all, hauing found in the scriptures, the Lords supper to be a Sacrament, signe, or seale; the argument of relatiues, leadeth vsus by y^e hand, to cal it an euident signe, or token of y^e body & bloud of Christ, giuen for vsus: for that is y^e thing signified, which is proued by these words, This is my body, which is giuen for you, &c. Euen as the Lambe is called the passeouer, which was the Sacrament, signe, or euident token of the Passingouer, and not the Passeouer it self. But Sander vrgeth vsus to answer, p. 452whether the signe of the body, and the body it self may stande together or no? I answere him plainly, except he destroye the nature of things opposite, the signe and the thing signified, cannot stande together at one time, and in one respect: as it is vnpossible, that Abraham can be the father of Isaac, and the sonne of Isaac also. But in diuerse respectes, they may stande together, as Abraham is the father of Isaac, and the sonne of Therah. So the bread and wine cannot be both the signe of Christes naturall bodie and bloud giuen for vsus, and the verie same naturall bodie it selfe. But as it is a diuine mysterie, and heauenly seale, it is truely called that, whereof it maketh assurance, namely, the bodye and bloud of Christe, euen as the cuppe is called the newe testament, whereof it is a seale and assurance, and as baptisme is called regeneration, beeing a seale and assurance therof vntounto the children of God.

CHAP. X.

That the supper of our Lorde, is both the signe of Christes bodie, Sander.and also his true bodie, euen as it is a sacrament.

He requireth diligent eare, as though he had founde out a great argument for his cause, when in deede, it ouerthroweth Fulk.himselfe altogether. For he will shewe, that such a signe as belongeth to Christes institution, must needes hauehave the same trueth present, whereof it is the sacrament. Which being graunted, it prooueth no more the trueth present in the one sacrament, then in y^e other, seeing they belong both to the institution of Christ. But God and Christ (sayth he) cannot institute a false signe or token. I say so also: and withall I say, that seeing God instituted all the Sacramentes of the olde Testament, which were signes and tokens of Christ, Christ was truely present in them, euen as truely as in our Sacramentes: and therefore Saint Paul teacheth, that Our fathers did drinke of the same spirituall p. 453drinke, that wee doe; for they dranke of the spirituall rocke, which rocke was Christ. If Sander coulde content himselfe with such trueth and presence of Christ, as he doeth exhibit in baptisme, and did exhibit in all the Sacraments of the olde testament, which were of his institution, we might soone be agreed. But in the meane time, you see him ouerthrowen in his owne argument. Other matters, not incident to the present controuersie, I omitt, as that the holy ghost in baptisme, at the same instant doeth wash the soule from sinne, as though the effect of baptisme extended no farther, then to the time of washing with water. Likewise, that the outward pronouncing of the wordes ouer the breade and wine, is the Sacrament. Whereby it followeth, that when the sound of the wordes is once past, it is no longer a Sacrament, and consequently, the Papistes must not call that which they worship, the Sacrament of the altar. &c.

CAP. XI.

What signe must chiefely be respected in the Sacrament of Sander.Christes supper, and what a Sacrament is.

There be (if we beleeue Sander) foure kinde of signes Fulk.in the Sacrament of the altar. The first be tokens making & consecrating the Eucharist, which are the words of cōsecratiō: the second, be signes of it made, which are the accidents of bread & wine. The third, a signification of the Church. And the fourth eating, is a signe of a meruailous banket in the life to come. Of these foure, y^e first must be chiefly respected, which is an outward tokē of an inward trueth: the outward token, is called the Sacrament: the inward trueth is called the thing of the sacrament, wherupon the diffinition of a sacrament alleaged by Gratian out of S. Augustine, is this: A Sacrament is the visible forme of inuisible grace. Out of this diffinition, which imployeth two partes of a Sacrament, he wil proue the trueth of the reall presence: for if the bodie be not present (saith he) the words make a false tokē. p. 454I denie the consequence, for the wordes make a true token, and yet the body is not present, after his grosse imagination of bodily manner of presence. His exemplification of the order of priesthood, giuen to the Apostles by these words, Hoc facite, doe and make this, is to make a proofe of one controuersie by another. For we denie the power of making, which he pretendeth there to be giuen, affirming, that it is a commandement to continue that sacrament of his institution, and shewing the vse thereof.

His second argument is, that Christ spake not figuratiuely, because a figuratiue speach can signifie no certeine thing, vntil it be plainly vnderstanded. This I denie: for a figuratiue speache may signifie one certeine thing, which the speaker meaneth, although the hearer vnderstand it not at all. Howbeit that which Christ did here speake figuratiuely, was easily vnderstood of all his hearers, which were well accustomed to such kinde of speaches. But Sander replyeth, that the Apostles were simple men & Idiots, and vnderstood not the scriptures: therefore they could not vnderstand how y^e signe might be called by the name of the thing. I answere, although they were simple vnlearned men in deede, and such as vnderstood not the scriptures, in such full measure as was necessarie for them to discharge so great an office, as was laid vponupon them: yet Sander doth them too much wrong, to make them, or any godly person of y^t time, so ignorant in the scriptures, that they vnderstoode not the nature of a Sacrament, considering they were circumcised, & did celebrate the Passeouer eueryevery yere, the verie name wherof must needes teach them, howe the signe may be called by the thing signified. And therfore it is out of measure ridiculous & foolish, that Sander prateth of the true & first meaning of the wordes of Christ. For what will the vaine iangler make to be the true and first meaning of these wordes of Christ, This cupp is the newe Testament? What verifying of contradictories, what diuers soundings? what true tokens, what things present? O great diuinitie of Popish doctors.

p. 455But the Apologie is confuted by his owne saying, when he calleth the Eucharist an euident token of the bodie and bloud: if it be euident (saith he,) it is quickly vnderstood. Call women and children, and aske them what token the wordes of Christ make. Nay, rather call Turkes & Sarazens, and aske the question, if it must be euident to them vntounto whome the mysterie is not reuealed. The token is euident to them that are instructed, not to such as neuer heard of it, as belike, where Sander hath to do, women and children are. But God be thanked, women and children instructed in the Church of Christ, can tell him howe euident a token it is, of their spirituall feeding, on the bodie and bloud of Christ.

But that wordes must be taken as they commonly sound, he will proue by the institution of the sacrament of Penance, as he termeth it, Whose sinnes you forgiue, they are forgiuen, &c. where, as much is giuen, as is signified by the wordes. If this be true, all cases reserued, both episcopall and Papall, are in case to bee forgiuen, by eueryevery priest of the lowest degree. But here the Apologie, which denyeth the Sacrament of Penance, is charged to hauehave falsified the wordes of Christ, saying, they are meant, whose sinnes you declare to be forgiuen. If the Apologie doe not truely expound the wordes of Christe, yet doeth it not falsifie them, except Sander will saye, that euerie wrong exposition is a falsification. Howe Christes wordes are to be taken, as Sander will not dispute in this place, so neither will I stande here to discusse. But this is a bolde determination of him, that many wordes may signifie vnproperly in other places, but the principall wordes of a Sacrament, cannot be vnproper. For the nature of the thing, doeth limit the interpretation of the wordes. If this doctorall determination be true, then these are proper speaches, The rocke is Christ, the Lambe is the Passeouer: the cuppe is the newe Testament, baptisme is the lauer of regeneration.

And S. Augustines rule, De doct, Christ, lib. 3. Ca. 16. must giuegive place to D. Sanders decree: Si autem flagi…iis, &c. p. 456If the words of scripture seeme to cōmaunde any wicked nor vngodly acte, or to forbid any profit or well doing, it is a figure: Except ye shall eate (saith he) the flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, you shal hauehave no life in you, it seemeth to commande a wicked or heinous act. Therfore it is a figure, commanding vsus to communicate with the Lordes passion, and profitable to kepe in remembrance, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vsus. Againe, Locut. de Gen. lib. 1. fol. 72. Tres fundi tres dies sunt, nō dixit tres dies significāt. Et multū haec locutio notanda est, vbi aliqua significantia earum rerum quas significant nomine appellantur. Inde est quod ait Apostolus, Petra autem erat Christus, non ait Petra significabat Christum. Three basketes are three daies, he said not, they signifie three daies. And this kind of speech is much to be marked where any signifying thinges, are called by the names of those thinges which they doe signifie. Hereof it is, that the Apostle saieth, And the rocke was Christ, hee saith not, the Rocke did signifie Christ.

Finally, where Sander saieth, it is against the nature of a Sacrament, not to signifie plainly, I agree with him, affirming that the bread and wine, which is eaten and dronken, doe plainly signifie, that we are fed spiritually, with the very body and bloud of Christ, vntounto the full assurance of our perseuerance, & continuance in the fauour of God, euen vntill we be put in possession of eternall life, and the wordes in this Sacrament, be as plaine as in the other, but the diuell to aduance the kingdome of Antichrist, hath deuised a monstrous interpretation of them, to make a most abhominable Idoll of desolation of the most holy and comfortable sacrament of Christes death and passion.

CAP. XII.

Which argument is more agreeable to the word of God: it is Sander.a token of the body, made by Christ, and therefore not the body, or els, therefore it is the true body of Christ.

p. 457Sander, to dispute for his life, would take the conclusion Fulk.thus: it is a signe of his body, therfore it is his bodie in deed. So that Sander to dispute for his life, would ouerthrow the nature of opposites, which cannot stande both together at one time, and in one respect. But as though Logike were contrarie to the word of God, hee will hauehave the argument tryed by the word of God. And first he reiecteth the Sacramentes instituted before the incarnation of Christ, which he saith, were signes in part emptie and voide of the trueth, which they signified, because trueth is made by Iesus Christ. As though Iesus Christ concerning the trueth of doctrine, and the grace of saluation, were not yesterday and to day the same, & for euermore, the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde, Hebr. 13. Apocalipse. 13. Secondly, hee bringeth examples of the Angell speaking to Marie of Christe, speaking to the leprous man, to him that had the palsie, to the disciples of Iohn baptist, to the dumme man; to proue, that when at the doing of any thing, an outward signe of an inwarde grace is rehearsed, that which the signe soundeth, the grace worketh.

When Sander shal dispute for his life, he must chuse him an easye aduersary, for els he will soone loose his life, for lacke of good argumentes, if he escape hanging, drawing, and quartering for treason. Except he thinke there be any children among vsus, brought vp in their Catechisme, that bee so ignorant, to thinke the wordes of Christ intending to worke a particular miracle, be signes & Sacraments, in the same nature, that bread & wine is, being apointed by him, to be an ordinary pledg & assurance of his grace, vntounto his whole church. Againe, we deny, that the wordes of Christ are the Sacrament, but wee say with Augustine: Accedat verbum ad elementum: Let the worde come to the element, and then it is made a Sacrament. Last of all, concerning the trueth of Christes wordes: This is my bodie: This cuppe is the Newe testament, &c. wee nothing doubt, but that grace in Gods elect, worketh that which the wordes soundeth, according to the true meaning of them.

p. 458But if Sander could hauehave made his matter good, hee should hauehave reasoned of the water of baptism, which is a signe of regeneration, and if he could proue, that the water in baptisme is not water, but regeneration in deede, because it is a token of regeneration, he should hauehave reasoned somewhat like, for his life. But that which he saith of doing or making, he would not hauehave it wrested to the meere doctrine of Christ, which he spake doing or making nothing: for therein he vsed parables, but Christ (saith he) did, rather then taught in his supper; and therefore, his wordes must be vnderstood euen as they sound. If this rule be true, Christ dranke and gaue wine at his supper, which is the fruite of the vine, according to the sounde of the wordes, and therefore no transubstantiation in the cuppe. But where he saith, that Christ did, rather then taught at his supper, he would hauehave vsus thinke, belike, that Christ did celebrate his supper, like the Popish Masse, in which is much adoe, & no teaching at all. But beside that, all the three Euangelists, do set forth vntounto vsus, the summe of his doctrine. S. Iohn doeth in foure Chapters, from the 13. to the 18. describe at large, that he was occupied in teaching rather then doing. You hauehave heard how Sander would dispute for his life.

CAP. XIII.

The wordes of Christes supper, are not figuratiue; nor his token, Sander,a common kinde of tokens.

The first part of this title, that the wordes of Christes supper, arenot figuratiue, hee prooueth not by any one Fulkeword, & as for y^e other part, y^t Christes token is not a cō mon kind of tokē, which he proueth somwhat at large, he needed not to hauehave proued at al. For it is confessed of vsus, that the sacrament is a more excellent token, then can be ordeined by any man. And where he saith, that none of y^e fathers teacheth, y^t these words: This is my body, &c. be words figuratiue, it shal suffice, to oppose Augustine, who in plaine termes saith these words: Except ye eat y^e p. 459flesh of the sonne of man, &c. are a figuratiue speach. Which wordes notwithstanding, among the Papistes, hauehave the same sense, that these wordes: This is my boDe Doct. Chri. Lib. 3. Cap. 16. the wordes are cited Cap. 11. And what other thing doth Augustine meane, when he sayeth, Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi, sanguis Christi est, ita sacramentum fideifides est. Therefore as after a certaine maner, the sacrament of the body of Christ, is the body of Christ, the sacrament of the bloud of Christe, is the bloud of Christe, so the sacrament of faith (meaning baptisme) is faith. Epist. 23. Bonisacio. Is it not manifest, that he meaneth the one is a figuratiue speech, as well as the other? Fie vponupon this impudent boasting of the Papistes, which care not what lyes they make, so they giuegive not place to the trueth. As for the sayings of Cyprian, Chrysostome, Basil, &c. or any of the auncient Catholike fathers, concerning the wonderfull manner of the presence of Christ in the sacrament, doe all proue a spirituall and diuine manner of eating and drinking the bodie of Christ, as in their proper places shalbe seuerally declared.

CAP. XIIII.

That the supper of our Lorde is no sacrament at all, if these Sander.wordes of Christ (This is my bodie, and this is my bloude) be figuratiue.

Two leaues and an halfe of this Chapiter are spent, Fulke.to shewe the difference betweene figures of Rhetorike and sacramentall figures, and that wordes must be ioyned to the elements to make sacramentes: all which is needeles, for it is commonly knowne, and confessed on both parts: sauing that he would make ignorant Papistes beleeue, that Oecolampadius, Caluine or Peter Martyr, whē they read in Tertulliā, & in Augustine, these words of Christ, This is my body, to be so expounded, y^t is to say a figure or signe of my body, they shoulde vnderstande a p. 460figure of Rhetorike as Metonymia, or Synecdoche, and not a sacramentall token. No, master Sander, they were not so young Grammarians, or Rhetoricians, as you woulde beare fooles in hand, but they could vnderstand the difference of a rhetoricall, and a sacramentall figure, although they coulde tell that a rhetoricall figure is vsed, when a sacramentall token is spoken off, as in so manie examples of the scripture, they hauehave shewed. But nowe let vsus see, what maine argument you hauehave, to prooue that the supper is no sacrament, if the wordes (This is my body, &c.) be figuratiue. The words, saie you, doe not signifie a figure of his bodie, therfore either they worke his bodie, or they make nothing at al. I answere w^t Tertull. & August. The words do signifie a figure of his body. For so do they expound y^e words. This is my body, y^t is to say, a figure or signe of my body, which their expositiō, were false, except those wordes This is my body, doe signifie a figure or signe of his bodie. Therefore Master Sander, you may teach boies, that bodie signifieth a substance and not a figure. Tertullian and Augustine will not not be so aunswered at your handes. They tell you that the interpretation of Christes wordes is such, as proueth his speach to be figuratiue, in spight of your heart. And that eueryevery boye, that readeth this chapter, may laugh at your arrogant impudence, I set downe once againe these words of Christ: This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud, which if they be not confessed of you, to bee figuratiue, you will not confesse that fire is hote, nor water moyst: If they be figuratiue, what Sacrament will be made with them? Where you tell vsus, that the bodie of Christ vnderunder the formes of bread and wine, is a figure of the same bodie walking on earth, suffering on the crosse, or sitting in heauen, you doe as much, as if you woulde teach vsus, that Abraham sitting close in his tent, so that no man coulde see him, was father of the same Abraham him selfe, as he was the sonne Therah, & came with him out of Vr of the Chaldees, and as hee begate Isaac in the lande of Canaan, and as hee is nowe at rest with God in heauen. When you can perswade vsus, I saye, p. 461that one man can be father and sonne of himselfe, then wil we beleeue you, that a figure, and the thing figured, be all one.

CAP. XV.

The reall presēce of Christs bodie is that, which setteth his death Sander.and life before vsus.

The eating of common breade (saith Sander in answere to Fulke.the Apologie) and drinking of common wine, is but a homely manner of setting the death, and resurrection, and life of Christ before our eyes. But if the breade and wine be turned into the same bodie and bloude of Christ, which dyed, rose againe, and wrought all the myracles in the worlde: then is the death, resurrection, and conuersation of Christ, in deede set before the eyes of our faith. Is not this an absolute answere, to tell vsus of the eating and drinking of common breade and wine, when the Apologie speaketh of the Eucharistie, which as Iustinus saith, wee hauehave learned to bee common breade and wine, but the bodie and bloude of Christ, that was incarnated for vsus. Confessing thus much, what neede hath our faith of transubstantiation of breade and wine, into his bodie and bloude, more then of water into the holy ghost in baptisme? Tush (saith Sander) all other wayes of setting the death, resurrection and conuersation of Christ before our eyes, without the reall presence, is painting and shadowing in comparing of this liuely representation. If this be true preaching of the death of Christ, by which he is euen crucified among vsus, as S. Paul saith, Gal. 3. is painting and shadowing: the ministration of baptisme, by which we are ingaffed into the death, buriall, and resurrection of Christ, Rom. 6. is but painting and shadowing with Sander, and no liuely representation. But what affinitie (saith he) hath breade and wine, with the death and resurrection of Christ? I will aske him like wise what affinitie hath water with the death, buriall, and resurrection of Christ? which is not nakedly represented, but so as we are ingraffed into them by baptisme. Rom. 6.

p. 462By this prophane question you may see what faith he meaneth, when he speaketh of setting the death and life of Christ before our eyes, namely an hystoricall faith, which because it is common to true Christians, with diuels, is not the faith, that we come to feede vponupon in these diuine mysteries. But such a faith as applyeth to our owne comfort, the effecte and fruite of the death, resurrection and conuersation of Christ, with the which, the eating and drinking of bread and wine hath as great affinitie, as things corporal can hauehave with thinges spiritual, teaching that the most necessarie and onelyonly sufficient nourishment of our soules, is receiued by faith, euen as the outward signes therof are taken with the bodie Yet Chrysostome saieth Hom. 83. in Math. Ipsum igitur vides, ipsum tangis, ipsum comedis. Thou seest himselfe, thou touchest himself, thou eatest himself. See (saith Sander) whether the Apologie do more truely teach, y^t the signe or token w^tout the real presence, or y^e body it selfe present, doth set forth the death and life of Christ. Then heare Chrysostome in the same homely, speaking of the Eucharistye. Si mortuu… Iesus non est, Cuius symbolum ac signum hoc sacrificium est? Vides quantum ei studium fuerit, vt semper memoria teneamus pr… nobis ipsum mortuum fuisse. If y^e Iesus hath not dyed (as some heretikes affirme) whose token and signe is this sacrifice? Thou seest how great desire he had, y^t we should alwayes keepe in remēbrance y^t he hath died for vsus. But I know he wil presse y^e former words, thou seest himself &c. therfore not a signe, without the reall presence. But seeing the reall presence whereof he speaketh, by his owne iudgement and confession cannot stand without transubstantiatiō, if transubstantiatiō be not y^t real presence which he holdeth is not. And that there was no transubstantiation in the supper of Christ, Chrysostome telleth vsus plainly, Quando hoc mysteriū tradidit, vinum tradidit, when he delyuered this mysterie or sacrament, he deliuered wine. And this saith Chrysostome against thē that vsed to celebrate w^t water. But to helpe out transu…stantiation, he bringeth in Damascen a writer, out of the compasse of the challeng, p. 463which saith De ortho. fid. lib. 4 cap. 14. Non quòd corpus illud … coelo descendat, sed quia panis & vinum in Christi corpus & sanguinem transmutatur. Not as though the bodie of Christ cam… downe from heauen, but because the breade and wine is chaunged into the bodie and bloude of Christ. Damascene helpeth not so much, with the worde of chaunging, as he hindreth you with denying the comming down of the bodie of Christ except you say, it is euerie where. And therefore aduise your self, what presence and maner of change Damascene speaketh of, when the bodie of Christ commeth not out of heauen into the priestes hands. But Cyrillus (saith he) teacheth, That we touch the bodie of Christ when wee come to the holy communion, euen as Saint Thomas touched the side of Christ, when he cryed out, My Lorde and my God. So wee touch that flesh, when we touch the forme of breade, as saint Thomas did touch the Godhead, when hee touched the fleshe of Christ. For in each place, we touch not either the Godhead, or the fleshe visiblie. These are high poyntes of Metaphysike, Master Sander, to touch the godhead, which is insensible, and to touch visiblie, or inuisiblie, except you meane by touching not visibly, to touch that which wee see not as we may handle a thing in the darke, which wee see not. But howsoeuer you would cloake y^e matter by leauing out y^e wordes of Cyril, hee saith, that Christ in the sacrament appeareth visiblie. Where is then your distinction of visible and inuisible presence? nay where is your carnall presence become, which you grounde vppon touching, when he is none otherwise present to be touched, then he is present to be seene, and so saieth Chrysostome also in the place by you cited, Thou seest himselfe, thou touchest himselfe, thou …atest himselft, If Christ be none otherwise eaten, then hee is seene, and is not seene, but by faith, it will follow that he is not eaten, but by faith. And nowe let vsus heare Cyrillus, beginning one sentence before Sād. was disposed to heare him speak. In Ioan. lib. 12. cap. 58 I… reigitur sanctae congregationes die octa…o in eccles…s fiunt, foribus sublimiore modo clausis, visibiliter simul atque inuisibiliter Christus omnibus apparet: inuisibiliter quidem vt Deus, visibiliter autem in corpore. Pr…bet enim nobis carnē suā tangendam. v… p. 464firmiter credamus, quia templum verè suum suscitauit. Quòd autem mysticae benedictionis Communio, resurrectionis Christi quaedam confessio est, verbis ipsius probatur. Fractum enim panem distribuebat, dicens: hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur in remissionem peccatorum: hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Participatio igitur mysterii, vera quaedam confessio & commemoratio est, quod propter nos & pro nobis, dominus & mortuus sit, & reuixerit, & diuina nos benedictionem propter hoc replet. Fugiamus igitur infidelitatem post tactum Christi, & firmi at que stabiles ab omni longè ambiguitate inueniamur. Worthelie therefore the holy congregations are made in the Churches on the eight day, and y^e doores being shut after an highe manner, Christ appeareth to vsus all, both visiblie, and inuisiblie. Inuisiblie truely as God: but visibly in his bodie. For he giueth vsus his flesh to bee touched, that we might beleeue assuredly, that hee hath truely raised vp his temple. For that the communion of the mysticall blessing is a certaine confession of the resurrection of Christ, it is prooued by his owne words For he distributed the bread after it was broken, saying: This is my bodie, which shalbe deliuered for you, for the remission of sinnes, Doe this for the remembrance of me. Therefore the participation of the mysterie, is a certaine true confession and commemoration that for our sakes, and for vsus, our Lord both hath dyed and is reuiued, and through that, filleth vsus with diuine blessings. Let vsus therefore flee infidelitie, after the touching of Christ, and let vsus bee found stedfast and strong, being farre from al doubtfulnesse. You see both Chrysostome and Cyrill agree that Christ is visiblie present in the sacrament, as they agree that he is touched. And as Chrysostome affirmed, that Christ gaue wine, so Cyrill affirmeth that he distributed breade. By both which confessions, it appeareth, that breade and wine, and not the shapes of breade and wine, are giuen in the sacrament, and that the bodie and bloud of Christ is visiblie present, which cannot be vndestoode of the Popish presence, and therfore of necessitie must be ment of a spirituall manner of presence, which is seene onelyonly by faith.

p. 465CAP. XVI.

Our thankesgiuing and remembrance of Christes death, is alsogether Sander.by the reall presence of his body.

I hauehave often shewed, what maner of presence we allowe, Fulke.agreable to the scriptures, and the iudgement of the ancient fathers. But that will not satisfie Sander, except he hauehave a making of Christs body, which making, he saith, is the thankesgiuing for his death. Whereupon it followeth, that seeing, making by his iudgement, pertaineth onelyonly to the priestes, that thanksgiuing also pertaineth only to the Priestes. But Chrysostome (whom hee citeth) maketh thanksgiuing common to all the faithfull, Ipso genere sacrificii, &c. By the verie kinde of sacrifice, inuiting vsus to thankesgiuing for his benefites. And by the way, Chrysostome teacheth, what kinde of sacrifice the celebration of the communion is accounted of him: Namely, a sacrifice of thankesgiuing, and not of reconciliation. And therefore he writeth in the same Hom. 26. in Matth. Propterea & reuerenda & salutaria illa mysteria, qu… omni certè ecclesiae congregatione celebramus, Eucharistia, id est gratiarum actio nuncupantur. Sunt enim beneficiorum recordatio plurimorum, capút que ipsum diuine erga nos charitatis ostendunt, nos que faciunt debitas Deo gratias semper exoluere. Therefore euen those reuerend and healthfull mysteries, which truly we celebrate in euerie congregation of the Church, are called Eucharistia, that is a thankesgiuing. For they are a calling to minde of many benefites, and shew vntounto vsus the verie heade of the louelove of God towarde vsus, and make vsus to yeelde dewe thankes to God alwayes. But to a Christian, saith Chrysostome, Hee himselfe is set before thee dayly, lest thou shoulde be vnmindefull. Beholde (saith Sander) not by a feeble token doubtfully, but by his owne presence he is called to minde. Note heere that he calleth it a feeble token, where Christ is bodilie absent, by which it shoulde followe, that baptisme is but a feeble token, where Christ is not bodily present. p. 466But Christ is present in both his sacramentes, although he bee absent bodily: and so meaneth Chrysostome that he is present spiritually. For in the same Hom. 51. in Mat. he saith, Ipsum enim si volumus, non vestis solùm sed corpus ipsius nobis propositum est, non vt tangamus solummodò, sed vt comedamus & saturemur. For not onelyonly his garment, but his bodie is set before vsus, not onelyonly that wee may touch him, if wee will, but also that wee may eate him and be satisfied. Marke in these words, after what manner the bodie of Christe is set before vsus, to be touched and eaten: verilie euen as his garment is set before vsus to bee touched. But no man will saye, that the garment of Christe is otherwise set before vsus, then after a spirituall manner: no more verily is the bodie of Christ.

CAP. XVII.

The true resurrection of our bodies, commeth by eating Sander.that bodie of Christe, whiche is both true, and is true in vsus.

This is confessed by the Apologie, that the resurrection Fulke.of our bodies to glorie, commeth by the eating and drinking of the bodie and bloude of Christe: but that this eating and drinking, may be without the Sacrament, it is manifest by this, that manie shall bee partakers of the glorious resurrection, which did neuer eate this Sacrament. But nowe let vsus see, what vaine reasons Sander bringeth, to prooue that the resurrection of our bodies commeth by eating of Christ in the Sacrament onelyonly. First Christ prepared a supper, and set it forth vponupon his table, but the breade and wine was prepared by the baker and the vintener: therefore Christs preparing was to make of earthly bread the bread of euerlasting life, which was his body that he deliuered, and they receiued.

All this we confesse. Yea saith Sander, but he delyuered it with his owne handes, or else doubtlesse they p. 467did not eate his bodie. But where is the necessitie of this consequence? For hee saide in respect onelyonly of that which hee delyuered, Take and eate. Yea syr, but howe prooue you, that hee deliuered onelyonly with his handes, that hee deliuered, and whereof hee saide, take and eate? Is there nothing delyuered in baptisme, but the water which is in the hande of the minister or in the fonte? The onelyonly proofe hee bringeth, is Chrysostome, Hom. 82. in Math. where there is no such wordes at all to bee founde, yet thus he citeth them: Cogita quid manu capias, Bethinke thy selfe what thou takes… in thy hande, and keepe it from all couetousnesse and violent robberie: consider againe, that thou tak…st it not onelyonly in thy hande, but also puttest it to thy mouth, and after thy hande and tongue, thy heart receiueth that dreadefull mysterie. Here (saieth Sander) the hande and tongue, receiue the same bodie, that the heart doeth. And yet Chrysostome (if euer hee hauehave such a context) nameth not the bodie, but the mysteries. It is one thing to receiue the mysteries, another thing to receiue the bodie in such manner as the Papistes doe teach. And Chrysostome vsing the same wordes, but not in such context, ad Pop. Antiochen. Hom. 21. hath also linguam sanguine tali purpuratam, & factam aureum gladium, the tongue dyed purple with such bloude, and made a golden sworde. Likewise the eyes, by whiche thou hast seene the secretes and dreadfull mysteries: which sayings doe shewe, that hee spake not of a bodily presence, or receiuing, but of a spirituall receipt and faith, by which wee see Christe present, and acknowledge our tongue to bee dyed purple with his bloude, and to be made a golden sworde, which is not done corporally, but spiritually.

The last argument is, that the Lordes supper hath beene of olde time called the Sacrament of the Altar, by which (saieth hee) wee are informed, that the sacrifice is made vponupon a visible Altar, or table, and so S. Augustines mother confessed, y^t from y^e altar was dispensed, y^t holy sacrifice, wherby y^e hādwriting y^t was contrarie p. 468to vsus, hath bene put out. And we doe likewise confesse, that from the holy Altar or table is dispensed in the holy communion, the sacrifice of Christs death and passion, by which onelyonly, that handwriting was put out, and nayled on the crosse, except you thinke S. Augustines mother was of another opinion, then S. Paul. Col. 2. v. 14. We cōfesse, y^t regeneration by the spirit of God is dispensed out of the holy fonte of Baptisme, and yet it followeth not, that the holy ghost is conteined in the fonte, or water: no more doth the dispensation of the sacrifice of Christes death from the table, prooue that Christs bodie lyeth vponupon the table. The argument of the resurrection of our bodies, which Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyril doe gather of receiuing of the Sacrament, is from the signe to the thing signified: and therefore Tertullian maketh y^e same argument, from the washing of baptisme, and from other ceremonies of annoynting, signing, and laying on of hands, lib. de resurrectione carnis. Caro abluitur, vt anima ema…litur &c. The flesh is washed, that the soule may be clensed. The flesh is anointed, that the soule may be consecrated. The flesh is signed, that the soule may be defended. The flesh is shadowed by laying on of handes, that the soule may be lightened of the spirit. The flesh eateth the bodie and bloude of Christ, that the soule may bee made fa…t of God. What reason is there that there should be a transubstantiation in the last, more then in all the rest? The flesh is washed with water, anointed with oyle, shadowed with mens handes, signed with mens handes: therefore the flesh is fedde with breade and wine, which Sander maketh such a daungerous matter, yet the same is affirmed both by Irenaeus, Cyrill, and Iustinus Martyr.

CAP. XVIII.

Nothing is wrought in the supper of Christ according to th… Sander.doctrine of the Sacramentaries.

We abase not the supper of the Lorde (saith the Apologie) p. 469Fulke.or teach that it is but a cold ceremonie onelyonly, and nothing to be wrought therein, as manie doe falselie slander vsus. Yes (saith Sander) you plucke downe Altars, &c. and call the blessed sacrament of the altar, by vile names, &c: I answere, we plucke downe none, but Idolatrous altars, neither giuegive we any vile names to the blessed sacrament of Christ, but to the stinking Idole of the Papists, which is no sacrament, but a prophane execrament, we call not the honour done to Christes bodie, worshiping of breade, for that which the Papistes worship, is not Christes bodie, but vile bread, although they call it Christes bodie. And when wee teach, that Christ giueth vsus in his supper, an assurance of our spiritual nourishment by him, and coniunction spirituall with him, we teach a worke of Christ in the supper. But you teach not (saith Sander) that any substantiall thing is wrought in the breade and wine. In deede we teach no chaunge of the substance of breade and wine, but that they remaine in their former nature and substance, but we teach a supersubstantiall thing to be wrought by Christs word, which being ioyned to breade and wine, maketh of earthly and bodilie nourishment, heauenly and spiritual foode, to feede both bodie and soule vntounto euerlasting life. And this is sufficient to prooue, that something is wrought in the supper of Christ by our doctrine, bable Sander what he will to the contrarie, although no transubstantiation be wrought, except he will saie, that nothing is wrought in baptisme, because there is no transubstantiation taught either by them, or vsus in our doctrine of baptisme.

CAP. XIX.

The real presence of Christ… flesh is proued by the expresse naming Sander.of fleshe, bloude, and bodie, which are names of his humane nature.

Sander woulde beare men in hande that there is great Fulke,fraude hidden in these wordes, when the Apologie p. 470saieth: that wee affirme that Christ doeth truely and presently giuegive his owne selfe in his Sacraments, in baptisme, that wee may put him on, in his supper▪ that we may eate him by faith and spirite. For by these wordes, His owne selfe, his owne selfe, his owne selfe, so often repeated, they meane no more then the comming of his grace and charitie into our soules, by faith, spirite, and vnderstanding, whollie robbing vsus of that fleshe whiche dyed for vsus, and of that bloude whiche was shedde for vsus. If we did neuer vse the names of giuing his bodie, his flesh, his bloude, wee might perhaps come in suspition of Mani…heisme: but when wee vse these names, and the other of Christe, giuing himselfe, and vsus eating of Christe, which the Scripture doeth affirme, as well as the other, none but a peeuish wrangler, woulde take exceptions to our termes. Of the two natures in one person Christe, there neede to bee no question, but that Sander, by telling what Scriptures are proper to both the natures, woulde by authoritie of one Saint Germanus, I cannot tell whence hee came (for the Louanistes are greate coyners of antiquities) teach vsus that these wordes of Christe, Matth. 28. Behold I am with you to the ende of the worlde, may be meant as well by the nature of manhoode, which wee hauehave with his godhead in the Sacrament, as by the onelyonly nature of the Godheade: and that in this place of Matth. 26. The poore you shall hauehave alwayes with you, mee yee shall not hauehave alwayes. By the worde Mee, hee meaneth not his Godheade, but the nature of his manhoode, as it was when hee spake in a visible forme of a poore man, but not as it is in the Sacrament. What, Master Sander? thinke you to playe bopeepe with the nature of manhoode, in forme visible and not visible? Is not the nature of Christes manhoode, the same whether it bee in forme visible or inuisible? If it bee the same, and the nature of the manhood is simplie denyed to bee present, howe can you make the same nature that is absent to bee present, vnlesse you will saye, this worde Mee signifieth neither his p. 471Godhead, nor the nature of his manhood, nor both together, but the visible forme of a poore man? Fy on these beggerly shiftes, too badde for boyes to vse in their sophismes. S. Augustine is a cleare witnesse against you for vnderstanding of both the textes. Loquebatur de praesentia corporis sui. Nam secundum maiestatem suam, secundum prouidentiam, secundum ineffabiiem & inuisibilem gratiam, impletur quod ab eo dictum est, Ecce ego vobiscum, omnibus diebus vsque ad consummationem saeculi. Secundum carnem verò, quam v…rbum assumpsit, secundum quod de virgine natus est, secundum id quod a Iudaeis prehensus est, quod ligno crucifixus, quod de cruce depositus, quod linteis involutu…, quod in sepulchro conditus, quod in resurrectione manifestatus, non semper habebitis vobiscum. Quare? Quoniam conuersatus est secundum corporis praesentiam 40. diebus cum discipulis suis, & eis deducentibus videndo, non sequendo, ascendit in coelum, & non est hîc. Ibi est enim, sedet ad dextram patris & hîc est, non enim recessit praesentia maiestatis. Aliter secundum praesentiam maiestatis semper habemus Christum: secundum praesentiā carnis, rectè dictum est discipulis: me autem non semper habebitis. Habuit enim illum Ecclesia secundum praesentiam carnis paucis diebus, modo fide tenet, oculis non videt.

Hee spake of the presence of his bodye. For according to his maiestye, according to his prouidence, according to his vnspeakeable and inuisible grace, it is fulfilled which was saide of him: Behold, I am with you alwaies, euen to the ende of the worlde. But according to that fleshe, which the worde tooke vppon him: according to that hee was borne of a virgine, according to that hee was taken of the Iewes, that hee was crucified on the tree, that hee was taken downe from the crosse, that he was wrapped in linen clothes, that he was laide in the sepulchre, that he was manifested in his resurrection, you shal not alwaies hauehave him with you. Wherefore? Because he was conuersant with his disciples 40. daies, according to the presence of his body, and they bringing him on his way by seeing, not by following, he went vp into heauen, & is not here: For he p. 472is there where he sitteth at the right hand of the father, and he is here, for he departed not in presence of his maiestie. Otherwise according to the presence of his maiestie, we hauehave Christ alwayes, according to the presence of his flesh, it is rightly said vntounto the disciples, but me you shall not alwaies hauehave. For the Church had him according to the presence of his flesh a fewe dayes, now she holdeth him by faith, she seeth him not with eies. In Ioan. 12. Tr. 50.

But to returne to Sander, it is the flesh and bloud of Christ which worketh our saluation (saith he) and wee saye no lesse, if the materiall cause may be called a working. He that taketh this from the Sacrament, depriueth vsus of the meane to come to eternall saluation, saith Sander. This I deny, for he that should take away the San crament, cannot depriue vsus of the meane to come by eternall life. Yes (saith Sander) for that redemptiowhich was wrought by his flesh and bloud, is applied to all that bee of a lawfull age, by worthye eating and drinking therof. But where hath he that exception of them that be of lawefull age, or that eate it worthily? Christ speaketh generally and absolutely, of both. And why should we thinke, there is any other meane to apply the redemptiō purchased by the fleshe and bloud of Christ for vsus, then was for the fathers, as before Christ came in the flesh? Faith was the onelyonly meane vntounto them, and the Sacraments were the seales of their faith: What other meanes need we to atteine to the same saluation? He saith, when the flesh of Christ was crucified, the soul of Christ deliuered the soule of Abraham and all the other fathers out of prison. But where findeth he, that Abraham and the fathers were in prison, vntill that time. We find before that time, that Abrahā was in so happy estate, y^t his bosom was a receptacle of comfort for al his faithfull children. Luc. 16.

But to end the matter so euill fauouredly begunne, Sander saieth, that Christ to shew that he would be in his supper by the nature of his manhoode, for that cause named not his person, but his flesh, his body, his bloud; and Saint Paul nameth; his p. 473bones. And therefore marke this againe and againe, beleeue thou …he presence of body, bloud, of flesh and of bones as the word of God speaketh. Marke you Papistes, marke againe, and againe, Sander saith, he named his flesh, body & bloud, because he would be in his supper by nature of his manhood, ergo it is true. S. Paul saith that eueryevery true Christian and member of the Church that was from the beginning of the world, is a member of Christes body and of his flesh, and of his bones, ergo beleue thou the presence of Christs body, flesh and bones in y^e Sacrament. Verily we beleeue pledg and assurance of this cōmunication & vnion with Christ, to be giuen vsus in the Sacrament; but in such manner as it was giuen to all the faithfull before the incarnation of Christ, who were likewise members of Christes body, of his flesh, and of his bones: but such a monstrous presence, as the Papistes do imagine, as we knowe it to be needles, so we affirme it to be against all such places of the scripture, as teach vsus the trueth of Christs humaine nature, to be like vntounto vsus in all thinges except sinne. Heb. 2.

CHAP. XX.

It is a colde supper which the Sacramentaries assigne to Christ, Sander.in comparison of his true supper.

The eating of Christ by faith and spirite, which wee Fulke.affirme, Sander confesseth to be no sleight or colde thinge, but to say that no more is done in his supper, that is sleightly and coldely saide. Why so Master Sander? Partly (he saith) because it may be done without the supper. And is it therefore a colde supper? Because a man may eate at dinner the same meate which he eateth at supper, doth it follow that he eateth a cold supper? may not his supper, be as warme as his dinner? Alas this is a cold reason partly, it is a cold thing to call men, who consist of bodies, to a supper of Christes making, and to giuegive their bodyes none other meate, then corruptible bread and wine, whereas Christ did forbid vsus to worke the perishing p. 474meat, at his banket. You might likewise say, it is a cold bath, to call men which consist of bodies to regeneration, and to giuegive their bodies nothing but cold water, whereas the holy ghoste saith, the washing of the fil thines of the flesh saueth vsus not, 1. Pet. 3. or els Sander maketh another cold & wreched reason, we call men to y^t supper, wherin Christ being receiued by faith, dwelleth in vsus by his spirit, & we are fed vntounto the saluation, both of body and soule. Last of all howe can it be called the supper of Christ, which eueryevery man may make at home without cōming to the table of Christ? For eueryevery man may eate bread and drinke wine, at his owne house, with his wife and children, and remember that Christ died for them, neither will Christ leaue his good deuotion vnrewarded, wherein the supper that you assigne to Christ, consisteth and is fulfilled. Beside the shamelesse slander, that our supper is fulfilled in such a priuate presumptuous acte, marke how he alloweth, the sacrilegious arrogance of him, 'that should vsurp (if any were so madde to doe, as he is to imagine) such a ridiculous counterfeting and mocking of Christes institution: hee doth assure him that Christ will not leaue his good deuotion vnrewarded. But this is but a cold assurance. Like as it is but a cold preparation, which is made by transubstantiation, whereby after so greate broiling, rosting, and saucing, to compasse such cookery as Sander taught vsus in the first booke Cap. 4. such a presence is wrought, as maketh the body of Christ none otherwise present to a faithfull man, then to an infidel, than to a dog, a cat or a rat. Alas that is a cold presence, & a cold body, y^t is w^tout efficay of spirit and life, in them which receiue it. But certeinly the flesh and bloud of Christ, is of another nature, where it is receiued by faith, which is able to warme the stomake of a penitent sinner, whose hart was cold, for feare of Gods iustice, and punishment dew for his sinnes. And when Sander hath prated neuer so whotly, and reasoned neuer so coldly, it will be but a cold comfort, that he can minister with his surmised bodily presence, except he borrowe the chafingdish of p. 475faith and spirituall eating to warme it: which though he confesse, that wee acknowledge, yet he affirmeth it maketh but a sleight and a colde supper, whereas by his owne confession, there is no heate in his fantasied presence, without faith and spirituall feeding: and faith and spirituall eating is a good warme recreation, euen without the Sacrament.

CAP. XXI.

By eating, we touch the bodie of Christ, as it may be touched vnderunder Sander.the forme of breade.

That is (sayeth Sander) as wee are truely sayd to kisse Fulke.the Kinges knee, when wee kisse his hose, vnderunder which the knee is conteined. But that is not properly to kisse the Kinges knee, which is to kisse his hose: for kisse, and not kisse, as I take it, be contradictories. But who can deuise an eating of meate in a supper, which shalbee without touching the meate with teeth and mouth? (saith Sander) Christ sayeth, my meate is, to do the will of my father that sent me Iohn. 4.

And he promiseth his Apostles, that they shall eate and drinke at his table in his kingdome. Luc. 22. This eating and drinking, is without teeth or mouth. And Saint Augustine speaking of eating the body of Christ, sayeth: Vt quid par as dentes & ventrem? Crede, & manducasti. Why doest thou prepare thy teethe and thy belly? Beleeue, and thou hast eate it. In Ioan. Cap. 6. Tr. 25. Againe, Panis quippe iste interioris hominis quaerit esuriem. For this bread seeketh the hunger of the inner man. Tr. 26.

And vponupon these wordes: If any man shall eate of it, he shall not die. Sed qui pertinet ad virtutē sacramenti, non qui pertinet ad visibile sacramentū. Qui manducat intus, non foris, qui manducat in corde, non qui premit dente. But he which perteineth to y^e vertu of y^e sacramēt, not he which perteineth p. 476to y^• visible Sacramēt. He which eateth within, not without; which eateth in his heart, not hee which presseth with his teeth. Likewise, Cyprian de Coen. Dom. Haec quoties agimus, non dentes ad mordendum acuimus, sed fide sy…ra panem sanctum frangimus & partimur. As often as wee doe these things, we do not whet our teeth to bite, but with syncere faith we breake and diuide that holy breade. Thus you may see, howe we may eate that which wee touche not with teeth and mouth. And whereas Chrysostome and Cyrill, as we heard before, saide that Christ giueth his flesh to be touched, they speake improperly, and meane a touching by the mouth of faith, like as they affirme also, that he giueth himselfe to be seene, which is not but with the eye of faith. And it is strange, that Sander dare not as well say, We see him, as, we may see him, vnderunder the forme of breade: as that wee touche him vnderunder the forme of bread: but the matter is, that then he shoulde destroy his doubtie distinction of the bodily presence visible and inuisible. Although Cyrillus, as is shewed before, affirmeth that Christ is visibly present in the sacrament of his body. Touching by beliefe, Sander will not deny at length, although in the beginning, he marueiled how touching could be without the mouth & teeth, but that touching by beliefe, he sayeth, is furthered by touching that visibly, wherein we beleeue y^e flesh of Christ to be inuisibly. A sorie furthering, by touching a bare accident of that which is not there, nor is the proper accident of that which is said to be there. But howe much more furtherance is it to our feeding by faith, to eate substantially, that which is Gods seale and assurance of that foode which nourisheth both bodies and soules vntounto euerlasting life?

It is an olde custome of heretikes (he saith) by assertion of one trueth, to imbarre and stoppe another truth: but so do not we, for we barre not any trueth that is admitted by the Scriptures: but it is a custome of the diuell to be enimie to all trueth, whome the Papistes followe in this their heresie of transubstantiation, denying the breade and wine to be in the Sacrament, whereas p. 477they be in deede, and affirming the naturall body of Christ to be substantially conteined vnderunder the accidēts of bread and wine, euen in the mouth of wicked men, & of brute beastes, which is both false and blasphemous.

CAP. XXII.

The Sacramentaries hauehave neither vnderstanding, nor saith, Sander.nor spirit, nor deuotion to receiue Christ withall.

We hauehave no vnderstanding (he saith) because we say, This is my body, doth not meane, this is my body. Yes Fulke.sir Sophister, we say the wordes to meane his body, after a certeine manner, as Augustine saith, although not after your grosse manner. And howe do you vnderstande these wordes spoken of the other part of the Sacrament? This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud. Will you not say in some sense, it is not the new testament? Secondly, ye hauehave no faith, that beleeue not the working and effectuall wordes of Christ, which were spoken with blessing. Yes forsooth sir, wee beleeue they wrought and brought to effect, whatsoeuer it pleased him to doe by them. Thirdly, we hauehave no spirite, in Sanders corporall iudgement, when wee knowe not the wordes of Christ to be spirit and life, as the which make all that they saide in the consecration of his holy mysteries: but we acknowledge his wordes to be spirite & life, because he neuer giueth his flesh, but with effect of his quickening spirite. And that is a grosse spirite, and a deadly life, which imagineth all that to be made in the mysteries which the words soundeth, for then the cuppe should be made bloud, and the newe testament in his bloud. What is, They are spirite and life, sayth Augustine? in Ioan. T. 27. Spiritualiter intelligenda sunt: they are to be vnderstood spiritually, therfore not according to the sounde of wordes, but according to the minde of the speaker.

It is colde deuotion (saith Sander) that hearing the body of Christ, by himselfe affirmed to be present, can eate without adoring, p. 478and denye godly honour to it. We eate not without adoring (Master Sander) although wee adore not that which we eate bodily, but that which wee eate spiritually, giuing this diuine honour vntounto him, that wee put our whole trust & confidence in his redemption, wherof this externall and visible sacrament is a pledge and assurance.

CAP. XXIII.

The reall presence of Christes body is proued by the confession of the Apologie.Sander.

The Apologie confesseth that Christ is giuen vsus in y^e Fulke.mysteries, that wee may certeinly knowe, we be flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, and that Christ continueth in vsus and we in him. If Christ be giuen vsus (sayeth Sander) in these mysteries, he is present in them: for a gift is not made of a thing absent. Yes, Master Sander, if the Prince at Westminster, giuegive a manor lying in Yorkeshire by letters patents, the Patentee which receiueth his Patent at Westminster, hath the manor truely giuen vntounto him, which is in Yorkeshire. Therefore, a gift by sufficient assurance, may be of a thing absent in nature thereof: and so is Christes body giuen vsus in the mysteries, which are the seale of Gods promise, truely giuing Christes body vntounto vsus, which according to the naturall and corporal manner of presence, is in heauen, and not on the earth. Col. 3. But Sander woulde vnderstande howe wee knowe, that wee are flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, except it be by the reall & corporall presence of Christ in the mysteries? Yes forsooth, wee knowe it by the worde of God, which so testifieth, Eph. 5. and by the spirite of Christ which dwelleth in vsus, Rom. 8. and last of all, we hauehave assurance therof by the holy sacrament, as by a seale, confirmation, and pledge of the perfourmance of Gods promises vntounto vsus.

But a coniunction betwixt the flesh of Christ, & the p. 479flesh of men, cannot be made (saith he) by faith, spirite, and vnderstanding. As man and wife cannot become one flesh by consent of mariage, except in deede they come bodily togither. Yes sir, wee holde, that Christ is actually ioyned to the nature of man, by his incarnation, but this coniunction profiteth not all men, but only them to whome he is ioyned, by spirite, faith, & vnderstanding: and so the incarnation of Christ, made all the fathers of the olde testament, flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone. For otherwise, it is the spirite that quickeneth, the flesh prositeth nothing. What auaileth it the reprobate, that God is become man, ioyned in the same substance of fleshe, bloud and bones, and humane soule? Nothing: because they lacke the spirite of Christ and faith.

Last of all, where he saith, that man & wise cannot become one flesh without carnal copulation, it is a beastly opinion. For he that sayde, they shall bee two in one flesh, spake of the holy coniunction of two persons in mariage, according to Gods institution, before carnall copulation, by which, the acte of generation is sanctified, and the bed made to bee vndefiled, not restraining the coniunction to the coupling of their bodies. For the Scripture called Ioseph and Marie, husband and wife, although there were no comming together of their bodies. And howe can the Papistes affirme Matrimonie to be a sacrament, when the coniunction in one flesh, which is y^e effect thereof, cannot be wrought by the worde of God, but is left in the choise of the man and the woman? Last of all, where Sander saith, there is no other meanes taught in the Gospell, howe Christ may be present in flesh, or his flesh ioyned to our flesh, but by meanes of transubstantiation, it will fall out, that seeing transubstantiation is not taught in the Gospell, neither was thought vponupon sixe hundred yeares in the Church, but the contrarie manifestly proued, that Christ is not present in flesh at all, nor his flesh shoulde be ioyned to our flesh by any meanes. Such trueth is in his assertions.

p. 480CAP. XXIIII.

The contrarietie of the Apologie is shewed, and that the lifting vp of our heartes to heauen, is no good cause why we should lift Sander.the bodie of Christ from the altar.

First he chargeth vsus with great forgetfulnesse. Afterwarde Fulke.to make a shewe of contrarietie, he falsifieth most impudently the wordes of the Apologie, which he cited himselfe in the Chapter last before. Christ giueth him selfe present in these mysteries, &c. therefore he is not here, but in heauen, feeding vsus from thence. This worde, Present, hee nowe addeth, which because he missed before, he would seeme to proue it by reason. Shall I saye, who euer had to doe with such a forgetfull man, or rather, with so shamelesse an heretike? Although the Apologie neuer denyeth simply the presence of Christ in the mysteries, but alwayes, that manner of presence, which the papists affirme, and is now in controuersie betweene vsus.

That the exhortation to lift vp mens heartes, is no good argument to proue that Christ is onelyonly in heauen, he vseth much foolish babling, as though that saying onelyonly were brought for an argument, or that saying of it selfe for a sufficient argument, or that saying for any argument. But where the Scripture sayth, that Christ after his ascension, concerning his humanitie, hath left the worlde, Ioan. 16. (which the Apostles vnderstood to be spoken plainly, and without all parable) and that he sitteth in heauen, and not on earth, Col. 3. the Apologie sayth, this is the cause why the people are exhorted to lift vp their heartes: and not as Sander peruerteth it, because the people are exhorted to lift vp their heartes, therefore Christ is not present in his mysteries.

But lifting vp of heartes with the olde fathers, was to acknowledge the mysteries vponupon the table, to beleeue the sacrifice of the Masse, and not to denye the reall presence of Christ, saith Sander. Doe you not looke for some sound argument, to proue this geare, especially of p. 481him which immediatly before, charged the author of the Apologie, to vse an argument more like a tinker, than a diuine? you shall heare his argument of authority of Chrysostom, Hom. de Eucharistia. Diddest thou not promise the Preist, when he cried, Lift vp your minds and hearts: and saiedst thou not: we lift them vp vntounto our Lord? Will you see a wonderfull matter? The table is furnished with the mysteries. The lambe of God is offered for thee, the Priest is hofull for thee, a spirituall fire floweth from the table. Loe here be the mysteries vppon the table, heere is the lambe of God offered which is the sacrifice of the Masse. But I pray you sir, what is the spirituall fire that floweth from the table? O that is a figuratiue speech, you will say, alluding to the burned offering of the old law. Nay, if ye hauehave figures of rhetorike, then you hauehave no trueth, you hauehave but foolish dreames, you hauehave nothing made by your wordes. Is not this your owne Logike, Master Sander?

CAP. XXV.

What be grosse imaginations concerning the supper of Christ.Sander.

The wordes of the Apologie are these: Cyrillus saith: that in the receiuing of the mysteries, all grosse imaginations Fulke.must be put away. Sander chargeth the fine penner of y^e Apologie, with foule play, in belying Cyrillus, as though he had spoken against the real presence which they beleue, and therefore citeth where Cyrillus speaketh of those grosse imaginations because the place is merueilous euident against him. Would you not think that Sander had great aduantage, that so dare be bolde to raile? you shall heare the wordes of Cyrillus In 11. Anathemat. ad Enoptium, against Nestorius: but whereas shameles Sander cutteth of the one halfe of the sentence, which is merueilous euident against him, I wil set down the whole sentence, euen to the period, and the sentences following also, which giueth some light to the former. Num hominis comestionem nostrum hoc Sacramentum pronun…as, & irreligiosè ad crassas cogitationes vrges eorum qui crediderunt p. 482mentem, & attentas humanis cogitationibus tractare, quae sola, pura & in exquisita fide accipiuntur. Quoniam enim minimè editur diuinitatis natura, propter hoc commune dixerit quis sanctum corpus Domini? Scire autem operaepretium est, quod sicut suprà diximus proprium est corpus eius verbi quod omnia vinificat. Quoniam autem est corpus vitae, viuificum est. Nam per hoc mortalibus nostris corporibus largitur vitam, & mo…ti… imperium euacuat, viuificat autem nos aequali modo & sanctus spiritus Christi. Spiritus est enim qui viuificat secundum e…sdem saluatoris vocem. Doest thou pronounce this our Sacrament, to be the eating of a man? And doest thou vnreuerently enforce the mind of the faithfull to grosse cogitations?

Heere Sander choppeth of: but Cyrill proceedeth: And doest thou attempt to handle by humaine cogitations those thinges which are receiued, by onelyonly pure and vncurious or simple faith? For seeing the nature of the Godhead is not eaten, for this cause shall any man say that the holy body of our Lord is a common body? But it is profitable for vsus to knowe, that as we saide before, the body of that worde which quickeneth all thinges, is a proper body. And seing it is the body of life, it is of power to quicken. For by this it giueth life vntounto our mortall bodies, and doeth make voide the power of death, and in equall manner the holy spirite of Christ doeth quicken vsus. For it is the spirite that quickneth, according to the saying of the same our Sauiour.

Thus farre Cyrillus, whose words doe plainly shewe that he calleth all those grosse and humane cogitations, by which it is saide, that Christ, is eaten in the Sacrament, as a naturall man, and any otherwise receiued then only by faith. Such are the imaginations of the Papistes, that Christ is eaten carnally, euen without efficacy of his spirite, that he is included vnderunder the formes of bread and wine, that he is receiued with the mouth, pressed with the teeth, swallowed with the p. 483throte, essentially & naturally turned into the substance of our bodies, or our bodies turned into him, and an hundreth other such grosse cogitations, as the Papistes hauehave of digestion, corruption of the accidentes, eating of the Sacrament by brute beastes, these be grosse imaginations, of which Cyrillus speaketh, that tende ad foreign, to the eating of a man, or to any kinde of eating the flesh of Christ, other then by faith only. And therefore Sander might hauehave spared his paines in noting tenne other grosse imaginations.

The first, that wee should not imagine Christ to lie, where he saith, it is his bodie, as though we did imagine any such blasphemy.

The second, that wee should not imagine his saying to be darke or obscure, when Cyrillus ad Calosyrium saith, Eo manifestè dicente, sith himselfe saith manifestly. Although wee doe not imagine his wordes to be obscure, yet this is a grosse argument, to prooue that his wordes be not figuratiue, because Cyrill writeth he saith manifestly, that is, it is manifest that he calleth the bread his body, for he saith as manifestly, this cuppe is the newe Testament.

The third grosse imagination, that wee should not thinke any other body to be eaten, but the true body of Christ, who in one person is God and man, as Nestorius thought that the body of a man was eaten, but not the proper body of God the worde. We imagine no such matter, but wee denie that true body to be eaten in the Sacrament otherwise then by faith onelyonly, as Cyrillus teacheth vsus.

The fourth grosse imagination, that wee should eate the body of Christ dead, and passible, whereas it is quicke and of power to quicken vsus, as Cyrill saith, Quoniam, &c: Because the flesh of our sauiour ioyned to the word of God, which is life naturally, is made able to giuegive life, when wee eate it, then wee hauehave life in vsus, being ioyned to that flesh which is made life.

p. 484According to this saying of Cyrillus, wee beleue, that we cannot eate that flesh, except wee hauehave life thereby, but the Papistes grossely imagine, it may be eaten without effect of life. The fift grosse imagination, that we should eate Christes flesh rawe, as the Capernaits: & as grossely do they imagine, which teach, that it is prepared with such cookerie, that all spices, confection, sauces, &c. are conteined in it, as Sander doeth. The sixt grosse imagination, that it shoulde be eaten by peeces, one a shoulder, and another a legg, against which eating Saint Augustine speaketh. And as grosse it is to imagine and meere monstrous, that the naturall bodie should be eaten after a corporall manner, whole of eueryevery men, and in so many places at once. The seuenth grosse imagination is, of the Lutherans, which thinke the flesh of Christ is eaten with bakers breade, whereas Christe woulde not hauehave in his supper an earthly substance of materiall breade. More grosse is the imagination of the Papistes, which holde, that the glorious bodie of Christ must be eaten with vaine accidents of bread and wine, which Sander calleth the veiles and curteines, to co…er the saide flesh, because our eyes are not able to see that glorious and mysticall kinde of presence. Beware Sander, what you say, lest you proue a Sacramentarie. Was the presence of Christ in the Sacrament, another manner of presence, then that presence which the Apostles behelde with their eyes sitting before them? Yea, it was a glorious and mysticall presence. If you coulde holde you there, wee shoulde soone bee agreed. The eight, is to confesse the reall presence, and to denye adoration, let them answere, that defende such presence. The ninth, howe grosse is it to denye it to be a propitiatorie sacrifice? si…h it is his bodye, who is the propitiation for the world. Nay, howe grosse is this consequence? seeing he was but once offered in sacrifice, and by that one oblation, found eternall redemption. Heb. 9. & 10.

The …enth grosse imagination is of him, who teacheth, that the wordes that are spoken of a gift presently p. 485made and deliuered, be wordes of promise, and of preaching Nay rather it is a grosse imagination of him, which teacheth a gift to be made, deliuered, and receiued, when he which receiueth it, is neuer the better for it.

Finally, whatsoeuer the Papistes teach of the Sacrament, it is grosse falshood, and meere humane inuention contrarie to the holy Scriptures, the sense of which, and not the sounde of wordes grossely vnderstoode, is the worde of God.

CAP. XXVI.

What the first Councell of Nice hath taught, concerning Christs Sande…supper.

The Apologie toucheth briefely, that the Councell Fulkeof Nice, as it is cited in Greeke, of some, doth expressely forbidde vsus, that wee shoulde not basely occupie ou… mindes about the breade and wine set before vsus, Sander taketh paines to set downe the wordes at large, and gathereth great matters out of them. Iterum etiam hîc in diuina mensa, &c. Againe, here also in the holy table, let vsus not basely attende the breade and cuppe set before vsus, but lifting vp our minde, let vsus vnderstand by faith: That Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the worlde, to be set on that holy table, to be vnbloudily sacrificed of the priestes, and that we truely taking his owne preciou… bodie and bloud, doe beleeue these to be the mysticall tokens of our redemption. For this cause wee ta…e not much but litle, that we may knowe we take not to fill vsus, but for holines. Out of these wordes, ten argumentes he hath, to prooue, or to helpe to prooue, the reall presence of Christes body vnderunder the formes of bread and wine.

The first is, that bread and wine are set on the table, not to be basely considered, ergo they are changed into the body and bloud of Christ. This is a poore, and a forlorne helpe, and a miserable argument. For the contrary doth followe, the bread must not be basely considered, p. 486ergo it is breade, although it be highly considered and regarded as the water in baptisme.

The second argument, is, that seeing the wordes of consecration be past (in respect of which, the Councell sayeth, the breade and wine must not be basely considered) the wordes did not onelyonly make them a Sacrament, as in baptisme, &c. but also did worke some reall thing vnderunder the formes of bread and wine, which remaineth still, as long as the saide formes and signes remaine. Nay rather, the Councell signifieth, that the celebration of the Sacrament and consecration thereof, is not perfite, before the vse and receite of it: whereof it speaketh soone after, and therefore is not to be basely considered, as common breade and wine, but sanctified to a special vse of an holy Sacrament and pledge of our redemption: as for the formes, and signes, and colours of breade and wine, the Councell speaketh not one worde of them, but of bread and the cuppe, which be substances, and not accidental formes.

The thirde, We must vnderstand (saith hee) not by seeing, but by lifting vp our mindes to heauen by faith. In deede, that is the onelyonly waye to vnderstande the mysticall presence of Christes body & bloud in the Sacrament.

The fourth, We must beleeue, that to be the Lambe of God, which is on the holy table, whereon standeth that which seemeth breade and wine. But the Councell speaketh not of that which seemeth, but of that which is breade and wine, and that by lifting vp of our mindes into heauen, by faith, Wee beleeue it to be the bodie and bloud of Christ.

The fifth, The Lambe is there so, that he is put, laide, and situate there, as a thing may be situate, which is vnderunder the formes of another thing. But if a man should aske you, howe that may bee? I marueile by what thing you woulde exemplifie it, and yet your wordes import a fimilitude. Therefore seeing it is without p. 487example, your position is after an imagined manner. Whereas the Councell neuer thought of anye such quiditie, but that lifting vp our mindes into heauen by faith, wee vnderstande that Christ is dispensed vntounto vsus, by his holye mysteries, as wee are incorporated to him by baptisme, not that one thing is situated as another thing, which is no where, neither any such thing can bee shewed, and therefore is nothing, but an ydle toye of an euill occupyed brayne.

The sixt, The Lambe is so truely made present, that hee is outwardly offered of the Priestes, vnbloudily. Where hauehave you the worde, outwardly, or what argument hauehave you of an outwarde oblation, except you thinke Priestes cannot offer, but outwardly? Naye, rather in that the Councel sayth, the Lamb is offered vnbloudily, it signifieth, that it is not offered for a propitiatorie sacrifice, to take away sinnes, for without shedding of bloud, there is no sacrifice for sinnes, Hebr. 9. but that a remembrance of that onelyonly insacrificable sacrifice of Christe, is celebrated in that holy action.

The seuenth, After the sacrifice made, the people doe partake with the altar, which could not bee, except a permanent substance were made by consecration. The Councell speaketh not of partaking with the altar, but of receiuing the body and bloud of Christ, in the mysticall tokens of our redemption, which ouerthroweth priuate Masse, Communion in one kinde, and transubstantiation, and sheweth the Sacrament not to be perfite, before it be receiued.

The eight, Truely taking of the precious body and bloud of Christ, is to take it really and bodily. The Councell speaketh of no bodily taking, but of taking by faith, when wee beleeue the breade and wine to bee the mysticall tokens of our redemption, wee truely take the precious bodye and bloude of Christ.

p. 488The ninth, taking of that which standeth before vsus on the table, is by the instrument of our bodies: therefore it is deliuered by the corporall ministerie of the priestes, so that all is truely and externally done by the iudgement of the Councell. A shamelesse collection of a false argument. For that which standeth on the table, the Councell calleth breade, and the cuppe, which is taken and deliuered externally, and by corporall instruments, the rest must be vnderstoode by faith, which is not of externall things, but of things inuisible.

The tenth, we truely taking them, beleeue them to be the tokens of our redemption, or as some read, resurrection: for bread & wine be not tokens of our redemption. Did bread and wine redeeme vsus? or did they rise from death, quoth Sander? No verily: But the Councell saith for all that: that these things which are set on the table, namely, bread and the cupp, are beleeued of vsus to be the mysticall tokens of our redemption, which the wordes following do declare. For this cause wee take not much, but litle, that we might knowe we take not to fill vsus, but for holinesse. What can that be, whereof, not much but a litle is taken, but the breade and wine? for the body & bloud of Christ, is not taken in quantitie more or lesse. Secondly, what neede wee by taking litle, be admonished, that it is not to fill vsus, if wee did thinke there were no breade nor wine there, which could fill vsus? Finally, why take we a little for holines, if we take that which is nothing but all holines it selfe, and of his owne nature, whether we take little or much. You see therefore, the Councell ment not to make Christes body a mysticall token of it selfe, which is a monstrous saying, and as monstrous an opinion, but the bread and wine in the sacrament, to be mysticall and diuine tokens of our redemption, wrought in the body and bloudshedding of our sauiour Christ. Wherefore the Apologie without fraude or purpose of deceiuing, hath left out no wordes of the Councell, that make against it, but whatsoeuer it hath omitted, it hath left of that aduantage, it might iustly hauehave taken, if it had throughly p. 489and at large discussed them.

CAP. XXVII.

That the Catholikes hauehave the table of Eagles, and the Sacramentaries Sand.hauehave the table of Iayes.

The author of the Apologie is charged with impudencie, Fulke.for alleaging the place of Chrysostome, in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. speaking of flying high with Eagles, vntounto the bodie of Christ, as though the bodie of Christ were not vponupon the altar, but we onelyonly should by faith ascend into heauen, whereas Chrysostome speaketh of going into heauen by good life also, and not by faith onelyonly. Afterward he rehearseth his words, but without the heade or former part of them, which sheweth that Chrysostome teacheth vsus, howe we should come vntounto Christe, and where wee shoulde finde him. Likewise he translateth corruptly, to drawe them to his imagined flying by good life. Ad hoc enim inducit nos sacrificium formidandum & admirabile, quod inbet nobis ut cum concordia & charitate maxima ad se accedamus, & aquilae in hat vita facti, ad ipsum coelum euolemus, vel potius supra coelum. Vbi enim cadauer (inquit) illie & aquilae. All this hath Sander left out. Cadauer domiri corpus propter mortem, nisi enim ille cecidisset, nos non resurrexissemus. Aquilas autem appellat, ut ostendat ad alta eum oportere contendere, qui ad hoc corpus accedit, & nihil cum terra debere ei esse commune, ne que ad inferiora trahi & repere, sed ad superiora semper volare, & in solem iust…tae iniu…ri, mentis que oculum acutissimum habere. Aquilarum enim, non graculorum haec mensa est. For vntounto this doeth the dreadful and wonderfull sacrifice bring vsus, which commandeth vsus that with concord and greatest charitie we come to it, and being made Egles in this life, we flie vp vntounto heauen it selfe, or rather aboue heauen. For where the carcase is (saith he) there also be the Egles. The Lordes body is the carcase, through his death, for except he had fallen, we had not risen againe. And he nameth eagles, to shewe, that he must get vp on high, which commeth to this body, and that he ought to hauehave p. 490nothing to doe with the earth, nor to be drawne downe and creepe to the lowe places, but alwayes to flie vp vntounto the high places, and to beholde the sonne of righteousnes, and to hauehave the eie of the minde most cleare. For this is the table of Egles, not of Iayes. Iudge now whether Chrysostome meane to tell vsus, that the bodye of Christe is vppon the altar, or in heauen. For wee must bee made Egles, not to hoouer vppon the table, but to flie vp into heauen, or rather aboue heauen. Wherefore must wee flie into heauen or aboue heauen? because Christ is there. Wherefore must hee that commeth to this bodie contende vntounto the highest place, and to hauehave nothing to doe with the earth or lower places, if the bodie of Christ lyeth belowe vppon the table? But wee must hauehave a moste cleare eye of the minde, (sayeth Sander) to see the bodie of Christ vnderunder the formes of bread and wine, as an Egle flying on high, will fee a fish vnderunder the water, and catch it, as Augustine writeth. But Chrysostome teacheth vsus, not to flye vponupon high, to looke downe from on high, and see the bodie of Christ vnderunder the water or clowdes of accidentes, but alwayes to flye vp on high, and to beholde the sonne of righteousnesse, which is in heauen, and not belowe on earth; for if the bodie were come downe so lowe as the table, what neede wee flye from it, to beholde it from so great a distance?

And whereas hee sayeth, that wee are Iayes, because wee see weakely, and content our selues with a base banket of breade and wine: I woulde hee knewe, wee hauehave a moste cleare eye of the minde, which through that base banket of breade and wine, can beholde and see the verie bodye and bloud of Christe, sitting aboue all heauens, and flye so high with the winges of faith, that wee not onelyonly see it, but also that wee are thereby fedde and nourished into eternall life.

That wee thinke good workes to bring small ayde to life euerlasting, it is, because wee flye like Egles to an higher cause, the onelyonly mercy of GOD in p. 491Iesus Christ, and Papistes bee like Iayes flying belowe, which thinke the vnperfect works of earthly and sinfull men, can helpe to bring them to perfecte happinesse in heauen. But (saith Sander) hee speaketh of the table, whiche standeth in the Church before vsus, hee speaketh not nowe of heauen, which is aboue the sunne. This saith Sander, without all proofe and against all reason. For Chrysostome saith, it is the table of Egles, therefore it is an higher table then the table in the Church, where vntounto we must flie vpwarde alwayes, euen into heauen, where that bodie, which once was deade, is nowe sitting in glorie, yea aboue all visible heauens, and therefore aboue the sunne. So that y^e table in Chrysostome, signifieth metonymically, the spirituall meat and drinke, which the faithfull receiue by faith onelie, whereof the table on earth, with that which is on it, is onelyonly a Sacrament, pledge & assurāce. But Chrysostome in the same homily saith: If no man will rashly handle, an other mans garmente, howe dare wee to our greate shame and reproch, receiue this pure and immaculate bodie, which is the Lorde of all, which is partaker of the diuine nature, &c. Heere (saith Sander) Chrysostome sheweth vsus, to receiue the bodie of Christe, from the holy table or Altar, as truely concerning the substance thereof, as wee may truely touch another mans garment. I answere, hee speaketh in this place neither of Altar nor Table, and seeing hee hath before shewed, howe and from whence, Christes bodie is in deede receiued, if afterwarde, he call y^e externall Sacramentes by the names of y^t which they signifie, and performe to the worthie receiuer. What proofe is that, for the carnall presence? Neither doth he shewe at all, how truely Christes bodie is taken but what iniurie it is vntounto his bodie, to hauehave his sacraments despised or vnworthily receiued.

CAP. XXVIII.

The breade which is the meate of the mind…, and not of the p. 492Sander.bellie, can be no wheaten breade, but onelyonly the breade of life which is the bodie of Christ.

This saying of Cyprian (saieth Sander) prooueth that Fulke.the substance of breade remaineth not: for materiall breade, cannot be meant of the minde, but of the bellie. Yes forsooth, as well as materiall water c…n serue for the washing of the minde. And yet Saint Peter saith, it is not the washing of the body, but the aunswere of a good conscience which is baptisme that saueth vsus. Wherefore it may be materiall breade though not prepared to feede the body, but consecrated as a sacrament to feede the minde. The plaine meaning of Cyprian is, that the body of Christ, entreth not into the body of man, but into the minde: being no bodily foode, but spirituall foode, as the Apostle calleth it. 1. Cor. 10. As for that which Tertullian saith, The fleshe is fed with the bodie and bloud of Christ, y^t the soule may be made fatte in God; I hauehave shewed before, howe it must of necessitie be vnderstoode, of the externall sacrament, which beareth the name of that whereof it is a sacrament, seing he speaketh there altogether of the externall signes receiued in the bodie, and vertue thereof applyed to the soule. But Cyprian saieth further, in the same treatise de coen▪ dom. Panis iste &c. This breade which our Lorde gaue to his disciples, being chaunged not in shape, but in nature, is made flesh, by the almightie power of the worde. This place is often alledged by the Papistes, for transubstantiation, but Cyprian did meane no such matter, but onelyonly that common bread by the almightie power of the worde of God, is chaunged from the nature of common breade, whiche is a bodily foode, to bee an heauenly and spirituall foode, as I hauehave declared more at large in answere to doctor Heskins. lib. 1. Cap. 17. and shall hauehave better occasion to speake of the same place repeted afterwarde.

CAP. XXIX.

Sacramental eating differeth from eating by faith alone, whereof p. 493Sander.onelyonly Saint Augustine speaketh in the place alledged by the Apologie.

The Apologie to shewe the naturall bodie of Christ, Fulke.not to be sought on the earth, but by faith in heauen, citeth this place of Aug. Tr. 50 in Ioan. How shall I hold him, that is absent? How shal I reach forth mine hand in…o heauē, that I might hold him there sitting? Reach out saith he faith, and thou hast caught him. Here Sander scoffeth out of measure, saying that Augustine in that place spake not one whit of the Sacrament, but of beleeuing in Christ, that hee speaketh not to the faithful, but to y^e vnbeleeuing Iewes; and therefore it is one thing to receiue Christ by faith alone, another thing to receiue him by faith and sacrament together. In deede it is true, that Christ may bee receiued by faith alone, without the sacrament, and it is as true, that Christ is receiued by faith alone, with the sacrament, seeing by this place of Augustine, it is shewed, that Christ is absent from the earth, and to be sought in heauen onelyonly by faith. No (saith Sander) although he be absent to infidels, that are not baptised, yet hee, is not absent to the faithfull, that are admitted to the Lords table. As though Augustine in the same treatise, sheweth not at large, that the bodie of Christe is not with the Church on earth, vponupon these words, The poore you shal hauehave alwayes with you, but me you shall not hauehave: the place I hauehave ci…ed at large before, and in the same treatise, sheweth how Christ is present in the holy sacramēts, namely in one as he is in the other. Quid est enim non semper, & quid est semper? Si bonus es, si ad corpus Christipertines, quod significat Petrus▪ habes Christum, & in praesenti, & in futuro, In praesenti per fidem, in praesenti per signum Christi, in praesenti per baptismatis sacramentum, in praesenti per altaris cibum & potum. Habes Christum in praesenti, sed habebis semper: quia cùm hinc exieris, ad illum venies, qui dixit latroni: H…die me…um eris in Paradiso. Si autem malè versaris, videris habere in praesenti Christum quia intras ecclesiam, signas te signo Christi, baptizaris baptismo Christi, misces te membris Christi accedis ad altare Christi, in praesenti habes Christum sedmalè viuendo non semper habebis. p. 496duplicate page p. 497duplicate page p. 494What is meant by not alwayes, and what is alwayes? If thou be a good man, if thou pertaine vntounto the body of Christ, which Peter doth signifie, thou hast Christ, both in this presēt time, and in y^e world to come. In this presēt world by faith, in this presēt world by y^e signe of Christ, in this present world by the sacrament of baptisme, in this present world by the meate and drinke of the Altar, Thou hast Christ in this present world, and thou shalt alwayes hauehave him. For when thou shalt depart from hence, thou shalt come vntounto him, which saide vntounto the theefe: This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise. But if thou leadest an euill life, thou seemest to hauehave Christ in this present world, because thou comest into the Church, signest thee with the signe of Christ, art baptised with the baptisme of Christ, ioynest they selfe with the members of Christ, commest vntounto the Altar of Christ, thou hast Christ in this present worlde, but by euill liuing thou shalt not alwayes hauehave him. By these wordes it is euident howe Christ is present in the meate and drinke of the Altar, namely as he is present in Baptisme, which is not corporally but spirituallie. Secondlie, y^t the vngodly so receiue Christ in the sacraments, that they onelyonly seeme to hauehave him, when in deede, they hauehave nothing but the signe of him. Thirdlie, that all the faithfull in Augustines time, receiued as well drinke as meate at the Altar. Last of all, while Sander iesteth at the penne… of the Apologie, hee sheweth him selfe most ridiculous of all. For although Augustine speaketh of the Iewes by Apostrophe, which hee wisheth might be… conuerted, yet hee speaketh in an homily or Sermon to the faithfull for their instruction, at which neuer a Iewe was present. And where as Sander argueth, that because no infidell was admitted to bee present in time of masse, therefore Augustine might not lawfully talke to a Iewe of the mysticall presence of Christ in the Sacrament: hee sheweth double follye, for why might hee not expounde euen to the Iewes, that which our Sauiour Christe him selfe spake to the vnbeleeuing Iewes of the eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud▪ p. 495and secondly, when hee preached publikely of that mysticall presence, or writ of it in bookes which hee set abroade, to bee redde of all men, howe coulde hee prohibit infidels to heare the one or reade the other? And yet I knowe the ancient Fathers, had such regarde to speak of the mysteries of our religion, before infidels, that they shoulde not take an occasion to scorne them or deride them. Neuerthelesse they were not so daungerous, as Sander imagineth: Iustinus Martyr in his Apologie to the heathen emperors and Senate of Rome, and in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Iewe, feareth not plainely to expresse what the faith of the Christians was concerning these holy mysteries, wherefore Augustine although in these wordes he spake not of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament, yet in other words of the same homilie, as you hauehave seene, hee speaketh of the presence of Christ, euen in his sacraments.