Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 2 · Book 5

Rejoinder to Bristows Reply · Part 2 · Book 5

p. 630The fift Booke.

To the Preface.

IN this fift Booke, he laboureth to peruert, what soeuer saint Paul hath written of the sacrament, to drawe it to his reall presence. And that he might be more bolde, without all shame to reiect the scripture, he would hauehave it to be considered, that Augustine affirmeth Sainct Paule to dispute (according to the apostolike manner) more plainelie, and rather to speake properly, then figuratiuely. In deede Augustine affirmeth (as Sander saieth) that the Apostle in these wordes, He that will not labour, let him not eate, speaketh rather properly, then figuratiuely: but that all his wordes of the sacrament, be proper and none figuratiue, he neither saide not thought. And yet he saith, that manie thinges, and almost al things in the Aposto like writings, are after that manner, de Oper. Monac. cap. 2. But Sander of meere fraude to deceiue the ignorant, left out those wordes, because he woulde hauehave men thinke, that Augustine speaketh either peculiarly of the sacrament, or generally of euerie worde that is in the Apostles writing. Wherefore although the Apostle vse more commonly to speake properly, then figuratiuely: yet it followeth not, that speaking of the sacrament, which is afigure in his owne nature, he shoulde not speake rather figuratiuely then properly: and yet God be thanked, he hath spoken so plainely, that all the transubstantiators in the world, shall not be able to cleere themselues from his authoritie.

CAP. I.

The reall presence of Christes bodie and bloud, is proued by the …der.blessing and communicating of Christs bloude, whereof saint P… speaketh.

p. 631The cup is blessed, y^t it might be the bloud of Christ Fulke.vntounto all y^e worthy receiuers of it, vntounto whom only it is y^• cōmunicating of the bloud of Christ. But this prooueth no real prefence. Yes (saith Sander) a blessing made by words, worketh that which the words do signifie: and therefore, bring mee no more (saith he) those paltrie examples, I am a …ore, I am a vine, the rocke was Christ: &c. for none of these were spoken by the way of blessing. Heare you not, howe this Turkish dog blasphemeth the words of holy scriptures and calleth them paltrie examples? but let that goe. When blessing & words are ioyned (saith he) we are certified, that those words are not figuratiue, nor only tokens & bare signes: but working & making that which is said, &c. This is y^e maine poste of Sanders building, which if it be prooued rotten, then his house standeth vponupon a false ground. In Genesis 49. blessing and wordes are ioyned together, and yet moste parte of the wordes are figuratiue. Iacob in the name of God, and by his holy spirite, blessing his sonne Iuda, saith: Iuda is a lyons whelpe▪ Likewise▪ Isachar is a strong asse, Nephtali is an hynde let goe… Ioseph is a fruitfull branche, Beniamin is a rauening wolfe.

The like figuratiue speaches are in the blessinges of Moses the man of God, Deut. Cap. 33. Therefore blessing or consecrating prooueth no reall presence, nor excludeth figuratiue speaches. As for only tokens & bare signes, we neuer acknowledge the Sacraments to be such, but effectuall and working signes in them that receiue them worthily. But Ambrose is cited, to proue that the blessing of God in the Sacrament, is able to change the nature of things: which we confesse: but Ambrose speaketh not of transubstantiation, for in the same place, D… ijs qui myst. Cap. 9. hee declareth his meaning Iufficiently. Vera vtique caro Christi, quae crucifixa est, quae sepu…ia est: Verè ergo carnis illius sacramentum est Ipse clama… Dominus Iesus, Hoc est corpus meum, &c. It was the true fleshe of Christe that was crucified, that was buried: therefore, this is truely a Sacrament of that flesh. p. 632Our Lorde Iesus himselfe crieth out, This is my body; before the blessing of the heauenly words it is called one kinde, after consecration, the body of Christ is signified. He himselfe calleth it his bloud, before consecration it is called another thing, after consecration it is called bloud.

But now▪ concerning the worde of communicating, Sander saith that it sheweth both the effect wrought by blessing, which is the presence of the bloud of Christ, and the finall cause why it is made, verily to communicate vntounto vsus the merites of Christes death, where the said bloud was shedde for the remission of sinnes. If the chalis after blessing; had no bloud in it: how did it communicate to vsus the bloud of Christ? This is Sanders deepe diuinity. As though the bloud of Christ, is not communicated to vsus in baptisme, for the remission of sinnes, by the merites of Christes death, where yet the bloude of Christ is not really present. But seing the Apostle saith, that the cuppe of blessing which wee blesse, is the communicating of the bloud of Christ, it followeth that the wicked, which hauehave no fellowship with Christ, receiue nor the bloud of Christ in the cuppe, and consequently, that the bloud of Christ is not really present. Yet Chrysostome giuing the literall sense, (saith Sander) of those wordes, writeth thus, Eorum autem huiusmodi est sententia, quod est in calice, id est quod a latere fluxit, & illius sumus par…icipe…. Of these wordes this is the meaning: The same which is in the chalice, is that which flowed from the side, and thereof we are partakers. I answere, Chrysostom doth so giuegive the literal sense, that he meaneth the bloud of Christ to be no otherwise then sacramentally in the chalice: for in the same Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. 10. he affirmeth, y^t Christ suffereth himselfe to be broken in the Sacrament, which he suffered not on the crosse: That wee are the selfesame body, that we receiue. Finally, to shew where we are partakers of Christes body, he saieth that by this Sacrament, we are made eagles, and flye vp to heauen, or rather aboue heauen, for where the dead body is, thither will the eagles be gathered.

p. 633CAP. II.

The reall presence is prooued by the name of breaking and communicating.Sander.

He brabbleth much, of breaking, forgetting that it is Fulke.bread which Saint Paul saith to be broken: but common bread (saith he) cannot hauehave such vertue, y^t Christ might be knowne thereby, as he was of the two disciples, in the breaking of the bread which S. Augustine thinketh to be the communion. I answere, the Sacrament, although it be very bread, yet is it not common bread, but consecrated, to be a seale of our spirituall feeding by the body of Christ, and therefore as sufficient to testifie our communication with Christ, as water in baptisme, the cleansing of our soules with his bloud.

In handling the word of communicating, he bringeth in a distinction of foreign and foreign, out of Chrysostom, which is vaine and to no purpose, seeing the Apostle vseth both the wordes for one. For when he had said, we are one bread, and one body, being many, he giueth a reason thereof: foreign: For we all are partakers of one bread. Now concerning the matter of communicating of Christ, Sander saith, it can not be by a bare signe and token. And wee say euen the same, but by a Sacrament, wherein Christes body and bloud is not really present, it may be. For els how are they that are baptised only, made members of Christ, and hauehave a true communicating of his body and bloud? yea, how had all the fathers before Christes incarnation, this communicating of Christes body and bloud? without which they were no members of Christ, the like I say of raysing of our bodies, not by a figure of Christes body, but by the vertue of his body it selfe, which vertue if it could not be communicated to our bodies, otherwise then by reall presence in the Sacrament, as Sander falsly dreameth, that Irenaeus shoulde meane, by what meanes should the resurrection of all them be wrought p. 634which hauehave not receiued the Sacrament? O shameles, and yet most blockheaded kinde of reasoning! As for Irenaeus, hee prooueth the resurrection of our bodies against the heretiks, by that they are fed with the body & bloud of Christ, in the Sacrament, by their owne confession. But he doth not hold it necessary, that who so euer i… partaker of the resurrection of the righteous, must receiue the Sacrament, or the naturall body of Christ, really present in the Sacrament. For we hauehave communication with God the father & with Iesus Christ by faith, as S. Ioan teacheth, 1. Ioh. 1. in the Gospell preached and receiued. And whereas Sander saith, that S. Irenaeus neuer dreamed of bloud, that should be receiued from heauen: I demande what is the heauenly part of the Sacrament? When Irenaeus affirmeth that it consisteth of two thinges, an earthly thing, and an heauenly thing, lib. 4. Cap. 34. I suppose y^t the heauenly thing, can be nothing but the body and bloud of Christ, which seing he affirmeth it to be a heauenly thing, verily it can not be conteined in an heauenly vessell, nor be receiued but from heauen.

CAP. III.

The presence of Christ in his supper, is prooued by the one bread, …ander.which being receiued of vsus, maketh all one body.

Nay, this vnion which is spiritual of vsus and Christ, and of vsus one with another, inuincibly prooueth y^e presence …ulk.of Christ to be spirituall and not carnal: for it is the spirit of God which maketh this vnion, and not the flesh of Christ, which is one of the termes to be vnited, and not the meane of the vnion. For by the spirite of God, wee are as verily vnited vntounto y^e body of Christ in baptisme, as in the supper: therefore the reall presence is not necessary for this vniting. I passe ouer how ignorantly Sander abuseth y^e example of fire conuerting all things into it selfe, to shewe how Christ which is a consuming fire, turneth vsus into his body, whereas God in respect of his p. 635Iustice, and not of his mercy, is in scripture called a consuming fire. Where he saith, the vnion can not be made by wheaten bread, I agree with him: but wheaten bread and the fruit of the vine, receiued according to Christes institution, may testifie that vnion vntounto vsus, as well as elementall water in baptisme, which is made by the spirit of God. So saith Cyprian, lib. 1. Ep. 6. ad Magnum: that Quā do &c. when Christ calleth bread which is made of many graines, his bodi, he signifieth our people which he bare, to be vnited vntounto him; and when he calleth wine, which is pressed out of many grapes and bunches, and brought into one, his bloud, he signifieth likewise our flock, coupled togither by commixion of the multitude, that is ioyned in one. Cyprian saith, bread and wine made of graines and grapes, and not the forme of bread, which was made of graines, & is now no bread, as (Sander saith) doth represent this vnion. Neither did any auncient writer say, or thinke, that by the accidentes and not by the substance of bread, and wine, our coniunction is represented.

CAP. IIII.

The reall presence is prooued, by ioyning together all the former Sander.wordes.

Now must we hauehave a further tast of Sander his tedious Fulke.Sophistrie, in ioining the wordes together. The bread which we break, is the communicating of Christs bodie, because we being many, are one breade, and one bodie, for we all partake of the one breade. Here bread being thrise named (saith hee) is put to expresse one and the same mysterie. But that is false: for in the first and last place, breade is put for the earthly matter of the mysterie, or sacrament. Against this Sander replyeth, and saith: that if we once take the substance of common bread, to be the thing which is broken, neither is that substance the communicating of Christes bodie, nor wee are all one materiall breade.

p. 636I might likewise reason thus: if the bread that is broken, be the substance of the bodie of Christ, neither is … the communicating of the bodie of Christ, neither a… we the substance of the bodie of Christ: for the bodie of Christ and the communicating thereof, differ as much, as the substance of a thing, and the accidents of y^e same. S. Paul affirmeth it to be the accident, ergo it is not the …bstance. Wherefore, to auoide all cauilling: the bread which we breake, is the communicating of Christes to…ie spiritually & sacramentally: not really, corporally, & substantially. Against this, Sand…r riseth vp and saith, that if to bee, is interpreted to signifie, then in the next verse, where it is saide, we that are manie, are one bread, and one bodie, we are said to be the figure of one bread, because it is one verbe and one nowne in both places. A simple cause, as though one verbe and one nowne in diuerse places may not be diuersly taken. And yet we can not be called one bread, but figuratiuely, that is like vntounto one loafe of bread, made one of many graines, & one bodie, that is like vntounto one bodie, consisting of diuerse members spiritually vnited together. But Sander vrgeth vsus further by the wordes of breaking and partaking: if the bread broken be materiall bread (saith he) wee partake of the materiall bread, and yet the bread whereof we partake, is by Saint Paul named one, for seeing it is broken, it is not still one. I answere: wee partake all of one materiall breade, which is either one in lumpe, or kinde, to signifie, that wee doe spiritually communicate with the onelyonly bodie of Christ by faith. As for Sanders cauill, that the bread is not one still, seeing it is broken, is an impudent Sophisme. For neither can Christ at one time, and in one respect be called whole and broken. Do not they all eate of one sheepe, which eate of it after it is deuided in partes? The lawe commanded one sheep for eueryevery houshold, which was the same Sacrament in spirituall signification and effect, that the one bread and cup is vntounto vsus. So we all eate of one material bread, and are spiritually made one mysticall bread and bodie, not so many a… eate the materiall bread, but so many as eate p. 637it worthily by faith. Wherefore the vertue of coniunctio is not in that which is eaten with the mouth, as Sander would hauehave it seeme, but in the mightie working of the spirite of God, who not onelyonly in this Sacrament, but in all Sacraments of all times, hauehave wrought the same spirituall vnion, in all the faithful of all ages, who al make one Church and one bodie, whereof Christ is the head, and eueryevery one of the elect is a member.

CAP. V.

Howe we are one mysticall bodie.Sande…

Sander maketh two meanes of our coniunction in Fulke.this mysticall bodie, faith, and the Sacraments. but in verie deede, the spirite of God, is the only principal meane which worketh this incorporation in Gods elect, sometimes, not onelyonly without the Sacraments, but also without actuall faith, as in infants which perteine to Gods election. Faith in men of yeres, is an assurance of this coniunction: The Sacramentes are a confirmation of faith. Wherefore the bread which we breake, is so a cō municating of the mysticall bodie of Christ, as it is an vndoubted seale of our faith, by which we are assured of this communication, before wee come to the communion: and therefore no necessitie of the bodily presence, vnderunder the fourme of bread. For the bread that we breake is none otherwise the bodie of Christ, then wee are made one bodie, and one bread. But wee are made one bread and one bodie, spiritually and sacramentally: therefore the bread is the bodie of Christ spiritually & sacramentally. Sander asketh, Howe could one bread and one bodie be put to signifie one thing, but that in deede bread and bodie are here in substance the selfe same thing? I answere, if bread and bodie be the selfe same thing, and the selfesame thing that the Sacrament is: then is not the Sacrament the naturall bodie of Christ, for wee are not made the naturall bodie of Christ, but his mysticall bodie, by …rtaking of this bread.

p. 638Sander replieth, that this vnion is in respect of the nan… rall bodie of Christ, which I doe not deny, but I affirme that the naturall body of Christ is communicated vntounto vsus by spirituall and heauenly working of his spirite, and not by corporall mingling or ioyning of the same to our bodies: which also Augustine in serm. ad infantes a…d Bedam, cited by Sander, doth plainly testifie. Nulli est allquatenus, &c. No man ought by any meanes to doubt, but that he is then made partaker of the body and bloud of our Lorde: when he is made a member of Christ in baptisme, neither is he alienated from the company of y^t bread and that cuppe, although before he eate y^e bread & drinke that cuppe (being placed in the vnity of Christes body) he depart out of this world. For he is not depriued of the partaking and benifite of that Sacrament: for so much as himselfe hath found that thing, which the Sacrament doth signifie, whereas Christ said, except ye eate my flesh and drinke my bloud, ye shall not hauehave life in you. Out of this place, although it be directly against transubstantiation, yet Sander is able to prooue it. If the body of Christ (saith he) were not really vnderunder the forme of bread, how could he that is baptised, be partaker of the benifit of this Sacramēt? was he made partaker of bread and wine? No forsooth, but he is made in baptisme partaker of the bodie and bloud of Christ, which is signified by that bread and cuppe. So saith Augustine, or who so euer was author of that sermon, and therefore the bodie of Christ is none otherwise present, in the supper then in baptisme.

But take away that bodie of Christ (saith Sander) from the forme of breade, and there is no signe of vnitie in Christ: for eueryevery loafe betokeneth vnitie, but not in Christ. Againe, let the substance of breade remaine, and signifie the mysticall bodie of Christ, which is absent, the vnion of Christ and his members is signified to be as farre asunder, as heauen is distant from earth. I answere, this is poore Sophistry, yet much vsed by Sander, disioyning thinges y^t ought to be ioyned togither: beside y^t this wise reason would proue likewise, p. 639that baptisme is no signe of perfect vnitie in Christ, because Christ is not really present with the forme of water, but the substance of water remaining on earth, and …he bodie of Christ to whom wee are incorporate, is in heauen. Howe be it wee teach the presence of Christ in his mysteries, such presence I say, as is meete for his glorious maiestie, namely by his spirite, which ioyneth heauen and earth together, and maketh our vnitie to be perfect, although in nature and place wee bee neuer so farre distant. And such presence of Christ in his sacraments wee acknowledge, as may stande with the truth of his naturall bodie, which if hee hauehave not like vntounto ours in all thinges, except sinne, and such infirmitie as our bodie is subiect vntounto through sinne, in vaine, should wee looke for the redemption of our bodies by him, and the conformation of them vntounto his glorious bodie.

The vnitie that saint Hilarie spake of, wee allowe. lib. 8. de Trinit. If Christ assumpted truely the flesh of our bodie, and wee take truelie vnderunder a mysterie, the flesh of his bodie, and by this wee shall bee one, because the father is in him, and hee in vsus: howe is the vnitie of will affirmed, when the naturall propertie by the which Sacrament is a Sacrament of a perfect vnitie?

In this saying, Hilarie reprooueth the Arrians, which affirmed that the vnitie of Christ with his father, was not an vnitie of nature and substance, but of will only. But seeing the vnitie that wee hauehave with Christ, which is prooued by his taking of our flesh truely, and by giuing his flesh truelie vntounto vsus vnderunder a mysterie in y^e Sacrament, to bee an vnitie in substance, and not in will onelyonly, it is absurd to say, that the vnity of Christ and his father should bee one lie in will. Now let vsus see, what poyson the Spider sucketh out of this wholsome flower.

First he noteth, that we truely take the flesh of Christ: I graunt vnderunder a mysterie, as Hilarie saith, so many as receiue y^e Sacramēt worthily, for els wicked men should be p. 640vnited to Christ, as he is to his father. Secondly, the mysterie with Sander, must be the forme of bread, but that I denie, for the forme of bread is no secrete, but a visible and naturall thing. Wherefore, the mysterie vnderunder which, we truely take the flesh of Christ, must be that secrete and wonderfull manner, by which Christ doeth communicate his flesh vntounto vsus. Thirdly, he sayeth, that worde Proprietie, doeth signifie a person, because Augustine saith, Christ is a vine by similitude, non per proprie…atem, not by propertie, where by propertie, Augustine meaneth properly, and not a person. Wherefore Hilarie meaneth, that the naturall propertie of incorporating y^t meate that is eaten in the Sacrament, is a Sacramento… holy signe of a perfect vnitie, such as is made betweene the meate and the eater, and not such an agreement only, as is betweene friends, that are of one mind. Therefore Sander doeth openly and violently falsifie Hilarie, where he saith, the naturall proprietie of Christ by a Sacrament is a sacrament, interpreting property for person. After he hath thus abused Hilarie, he commeth to Augustine, de ciuitate Dei, lib. 10. Cap. 5. This is the Sacrifice of the Christians, we being many, are one body in Christ: the which thing also the Church celebrateth in the Sacrament of y^t altar, knowne to the faithfull: where it is shewed to her, that in that sacrifice, which he offereth, her self is offered.

Here Sander maketh a foolish Dialogisme, betweene Christ and his father reprouing him, that he hath gotten such a goodly mysticall bodie, of the bakers making, &c. But Augustine speaketh of an Eucharisticall sacrifice, offered in the celebration of the Lordes supper, by the Church, in which the Church her selfe is offered in a mysterie, or holy signe of our coniunction with Christ, which is celebrated in the Sacrament. And so doeth Augustine interpret hemselfe Cap. 5. Sacrificium ergo visibile inuisibilis sacrificij sacramentum, id est sacrum sigr…m. The visible sacrifice, is a sacrament: that is to say, an holy signe of the inuisible sacrifice: which inuisible sacrifice, is by him expounded to be merciemercy, and p. 641charitie, & yelding vp of our selues vntounto the obedience …f God, vntounto which the reall presence of Christ is nei…er necessarie, nor at all required, seeing he hath once …fered vp a full sacrifice of perpetuall effect, for the re…emption of all the elect of God.

His allegorie of building, as it is vaine, and no argu…ent, but of Sanders owne authoritie, so I passe it ouer, … vnworthie any answere. But I cannot passe ouer that … y^e conclusion of his fantastical building, he saith, Once …enie the flesh of Christ to be really present in the Sa…ament of the altar, &c: and there is no reason, why wee …ould be called his mysticall bodie, or flesh of his flesh, and bone … his bone. By which saying, he denyeth all the Patriarks … Prophets to be members of Christ, flesh of his flesh, …nd bone of his bone. But we knowe, that by Christs in…arnation and communicating of his fleshe and bloud …nto all his elect, by his spirit, they with vsus, and we with …hem are all members of Christ: flesh of his flesh, and …one of his bone, without that grosse and fantasticall presence in the Sacrament: and this communication is sealed vntounto vsus, as well by baptisme as by the supper. Sander citeth Irenaeus, Chrysostome, Cyrill and Theodoret, to prooue, that it is the naturall flesh and bones of Christ, whereunto we are ioyned: and further vrging the similitude of mariage, whereunto our spirituall coniunction is resembled, not more grossely then filthily, compareth our perfect vnitie with Christ, vntounto the acte of generation in marriage, about which matter he spendeth two or three leaues. Whereunto I answere, shortly, that we do acknowledge, that we are truely vnited to the naturall bodie and bloud of Christ, which he tooke of our nature, by such meanes as is common to all the elect of God, which can be nothing else but his spirite, although y^e same be assured vntounto vsus by faith, & our faith therein effectually confirmed by all the Sacraments of God, and especially, by the supper of our Lorde, but not onelyonly thereby.

As for the presence of the bodies to be ioyned, which Sander requireth, is no naturall presence in one proper p. 642place, more of Christes bodie comming downe from heauen into eueryevery one of our bodies, then of al our bodies comming from all partes of the world into one. But the bodie of Christ keeping his owne proper place… heauen, as Augustine affirmeth, by his spirite wee are all brought vp vntounto him, as the Apostle saith, Eph. 2. not …e brought downe vntounto vsus. Finally where Hilarie lib. 8. de Trin. saith, He hath mixed the nature of his fleshe vntounto … vnderunder asacrament: he meaneth not of anie carr…ll manner of mixture, but such as is, sub Sacramento vnderunder a sacrament …nd mysterie, that is by the visible sacrament, taught to bee truely, but yet after a spirituall manner, Likewise where Chrysostome saith in Ioan. 24. It is brought to passe by the meate which Christ hath giuen vsus, that we may bee conuerted into that fleshe, not onelyonly by louelove but in deede. No Christian man can vnderstande this conuersion that is made in deede or in the thing it selfe, to bee carnall, but onelyonly spirituall. For what madnesse were it to say, that wee are turned into the naturall fleshe of Christ, after a corporall manner? To conclude, Sander cannot prooue his fleshly presence, without manifest falsifying of Cyrillus both in words & sense. For thus he citeth him in Ioan. lib. 10. cap. 15. iu deede it is cap. 13. … mystica benedictio in no…is fiat, nonne corporallier quoque facit communicatione carnis Christi? For as much as the mys…al blessing is made in vsus, doth it not make Christ to dwell in vsus corporally through the communicating of Christes fleshe? Can the mysticall blessing make Christe dwell corporallie in vsus, if it selfe hauehave not Christes flesh corporally in it? But Cyrill saith not that the mysticall blessing is made in vsus, but the vertue of the mysticall blessing, which maketh Christ to dwell corporally in vsus. For thus he writeth against the Arrians: Anfo…tesse putat ignotam nobis mys… benedictionis vir…tem esse? Quae cùm in nobis fiat, nonne …porali…er quoque facit communicatione carnis Christi, Christum in nobis habitare? &c. Or else perchance doth he thinke that the vertue of the mystical benediction is vnknowen vntounto vsus? which when it is wrought in vsus, doth it not make Christ to dwell in vsus also corporally by communicating p. 643of the fleshe of Christ? It is therefore the vertue of the mysticall blessing, and not the reall presence of Christes bodie in the Sacrament, that maketh Christe …o dwell in vsus corporallie, and by naturall paticipation, …s hee saith afterwarde. By which tearmes, yet Cyrill doeth not vnderstande, any corporall or naturall manner of coniunction, but a true and vndoubted vniting of vsus to the nature and bodie of Christ, which is performed by the vertue of his holy spirite, after a wonderfull and vnspeakeable manner.

But it is a daintie matter, that Sander vppon the wordes of Saint Paul: ye cannot be partakers of the table of our Lorde, and of the table of Diuels; saith, Our …ewe brethren, granting the diuels a reall table, will …ot allowe anie such to Christ. What meaneth our olde enimie, thus to bable in his instrument and spokesman Nicholas Sander? Doe not wee allowe Christ a reall and visible table, wheron the visible sacrament is ministred? If he meane that Christ is really present, at his table, as the diuells are at their table, let him aduise himselfe, whether they that are partakers of y^e diuels table, are incorporate to the diuell, by eating the diuell actually, into their bodies, or by communicating with his idolatrous ceremonies: if onelyonly by the latter, what neede hauehave we of his often vrged reall presence to bee made partakers of the Lordes table, and to bee incorporated vntounto him? When for a sacramental coniunction the ceremonie is sufficient, for a true incorporation the spirit of God onelyonly bringeth it to passe, both with the sacramentes, and without them, in eueryevery one of Gods electe which is a member of Christ.

CPAP. VI.

The reall presence is prooued by the example which Saint Sander.Paul vseth concerning the Iewes and Gentiles.

p. 644First, he would prooue, that the Christians hauehave a sacrifice, Fulke.because Saint Paul vseth the examples of the sacrifices of the Iewes and Gentiles: but he seeth not the analogie. S. Paul cōpareth not the sacrifice of the Christians with the sacrifice of the Iewes and Gentiles, but y^• feast of the sacrifice of the Christians, with the feastes of the sacrifices of the Iewes & Gentiles. Nowe the Lordes supper, is the feast of the onelyonly sacrifice of Christ, once offered by him, which maketh vsus to communicate with his sacrifice, if we receiue it worthily, as the feasts of the Iewish and idolatrous sacrifices, made the partakers cō municate with their sacrifices, & them to whom thei are offered. And whereas the Apostle saith, we hauehave an altar wherof they hauehave no power to eat, that serue in the tabernacle: he meaneth y^t the ceremoniall Iewes, can hauehave no participation of the sacrifice of Christ, except they renounce their Iewish obseruations. Or if you wil vnderstand it of such sacrifices of praise, as the Apostle within fewe lines after speaketh; or of the Lords supper, which is a remembrance of Christs onelyonly sacrifice, as some hauehave done, the cause of the real presence is neuer awhit holpen. Yes (saith Sander) This then being the meat of our altar, it followeth, that this meat is no lesse present vponupon his holy table: then that which the Iewes or Idolaters did eate, was present a… their sacrifices: but that which they did partake, was really presēt, and receiued into their mouthes. Therfore, likewise Christes fleshe is really present, and receiued into our mouthes. I denie the minor or assumption of this syllogisme. For the diuels, wherof the Gentiles did partake, were not really present in the meate which they did eate, nor receiued into their mouthes. The like I say of the altar of the Iewes, wherof they were partakers which did eat of the sacrifice. Wherfore this argument may be rightly turned backe vppon Sanders neck. The diuels and the altar, whereof the Gentiles and Iewes were partakers, were not really present in the meate, nor receiued into their mouthes: therefore the flesh of Christ, whereof the Christrians are partakers, is not really present in the bread, nor receiued into their mouthes.

p. 645CAP. VII.

The reall presence is proued by the kinde of shewing Christes …eath.Sander.

The shewing of Christes death, wherof S. Paul speaketh (saith Fulk.…ander) is both by deede and worde. The eating of Christes bo…e, and drinking his bloud, proueth that he was dead really: for a …hing is not eaten while it liueth, wherea… the figure of Christes …odie eaten, doth shewe a figuratiue death past. I answere, the …nely eating proueth not his death past: for the Sacra…ent was eaten before he died, which that Theophylact might salue, he saith, that Christ sacrificed himself from …hat time wherein he deliuered his bodie to his disciples: which is all one, as if he said, that Christ died more then once, directly contrary to the scripture. Heb. 9. But seeing in the determination of God, and in respect of the effect of his death, he was the lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde, the institution of the Sacrament shewed his death before he died, as wel as after. But how the bloud of Christ was really separated from his body, before his passion, otherwise then in a Sacrament, or mysterie, let Sander tell, if he can. And where he saith, a figure eaten, can shewe but a figuratiue death past, it is vtterly false: for the figures of the lawe, shewed not a figuratiue, but a reall death to come. And doeth not baptisme, where is no reall presence, shewe the Lordes death, buriall, and resurrection truely past? But Sander will helpe the matter, by false pointing a place of Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. Quia enim morte Domini liberati sumus: huius rei memores in edendo & potando, carnem & sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus: Because we are deliuered by the death of our Lorde, being mindfull of this thing in eating and drinking, wee signifie the fleshe and bloud which were offered for vsus. Which Sander thus englisheth: Because we are made free, through the death of our Lorde being mindfull thereof, wee in eating & drinking flesh and bloud, shewe the things that were offered to death for vsus.

p. 646The example he bringeth out of Damascen, of them that defended the carying of dead mens bones, because they put them in remembrance of death, is friuolous, & maketh nothing to the purpose: for I will demaunde of Sander that vrgeth so egerly the real presence for shewing of Christes death: is the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament dead or aliue? if it be aliue, as I am sure he wil say, what similitude hath it with y^e dead bones, and howe doeth it shewe his death which is eaten aliue, except it be in the dead figures of bread and wine, which hauehave no life? If the death be represented only in outward shewes, seing the bodie that is receiued is aliue, what is become of Sanders diuinitie and Logike, y^t the figures or shewes of a dead bodie cannot shewe but a figuratiue and imagined death. As for the argument, a consequentibus, holdeth aswell of the Sacrament, as of the matter therof, ye eate the Sacrament of Christ crucified, ergo Christ is crucified. But Sander would separate all doctrine from the Sacrament, and knowe howe we should shew him to hauehave died, by onelyonly eating it. I aunswere, by onelyonly eating of a liuing bodie, we could not knowe that he had died: therefore doctrine of necessitie must be ioyned with the outward action.

And further, where he would knowe, whether Christ did institute this Sacrament, to shewe his death past in deede, or past… a bare shadowe: I answere, he instituted it before his death, and therefore not so much to shewe the historie of his death to come or past, as to shewe the vertue of his death, by which his bodie was broken, and his bloud shed, that it might be meate and drinke vntounto vsus. And when the Apostle saith, wee shewe the Lordes death, he meaneth not onelyonly the bare storie thereof, but the fruit and effect thereof: wherefore Sander playeth the foole egregiously, to bable so much of Christs death past in deede, or in shadowes to come: For the olde Sacraments, did not only prophecie of an action to bee done, but also did confirme the faith of the godly, in the fruits & effects of the passiō of Christ. Finally, Chrysostome in 1. Cor. 24. speaketh figuratiuely, where he p. 647saith, when thou feest this bodie set before thee, say with thy selfe: This bodie nailed and beaten, was not ouercome of death. This bodie, the sunne seeing crucified, turned away his beames, &c. but he expoundeth himselfe sufficiently in the same Homily, where he saith, we must be Eagles, & flie into heauen, where the bodie of Christ that died for vsus, remaineth. In the same sense, that it is called the bodie of Christ, he applyeth to the Sacrament such things as were proper to the bodie of Christ. But as for transubstantiation, which the Papists woulde gather out of this place, in many places he sheweth, that he acknowledgeth not, and ad Caesarium monachum, he doth expressely denie it.

CAP. VIII.

The reall presence is proued by the illation which S. Paul maketh Sander.concerning the vnworthie eating & dr…ing of euill men.

The illation proueth no real pr…ce by any consequence Fulke.in the worlde. Hee that dispitefully abuseth, or negligently cōtemneth y^e princes seale offered vntounto him, offendeth against the maiestie & person of the prince, & yet the maiestie and person of the prince, is not really present vnderunder the formes of parchement and waxe. But Sander saith, the vnworthie shewing of Christs death, is the vnworthie eating. Who will graunt him, that shewing of Christes death, is nothing but eating of the Sacrament? Neither doth S. Paul confesse (as Sander impudently affirmeth) that euil men may hauehave the bodie & bloud of Christ in their mouthes. He saith: who so eateth this bread, & drinketh this cup of the Lord vnworthily, (for so much as the same is honoured with the names of the bodie & bloud of Christ, is guiltie of the bodie & bloud of Christ, which he despiseth in these mysteries. But it is not bread & wine whereof S. Paul speaketh, because he doeth name it, This bread (saith Sander) For seeing the Pronown This doth shewe a thing present to some sense or other. S. Paul being absent, could not shew… any thing by any corporall action: then it remaineth, that the thing whereunto (This) doeth point, is the bodie of Christ, whereof he spake before. p. 648This Grammaticall Logike, is meete for Papisticall diuinity. I thinke there was neuer man, that set his penne to the paper, that wrot more impudently. What say you, Master doctor Sander? Doth the Pronowne This, alway shewe a thing present to some sense or other? To what sense is the body of Christ present, in that thing, whereof it is saide: This is my body? And doth the absence of Saint Paule hinder him to speake of breade in saying, This bread; and further him to speake of Christes naturall body, in saying, this is my body. This learning, Master Sander, passeth my vnderstanding. What saied I, this learning? I knowe not how to speake, seing the pronowne This, doth shew a thing present to some sense, or other, but the learning, shewed in this. Tush, I must say in such kind of reasoning, is an higher matter, then can be conceiued by any sense, witt, reason, or vnderstanding. Neither is his sharpnes lesse in answering obiections, then in making of argumentes. For if you obiect, that Christ meant the signe of his body: he answereth, that seing Saint Paule named no signe, as (This) can not point to that which was not named, so it must point onelyonly to the thing named before, which was the body of Christ broken for vsus, therefore this bread, meaneth that body of Christ and none other substance. I blame not Master Sander, if he will not hauehave. (This) to point to a signe, which was not named, seeing he will not hauehave it point to bread, which w^t y^e Pronown This, is named, but to the body of Christ, which in another sentence was named. So that by this bread, he doth not mean this bread, but that body. But seing he can allowe, but one substance present, and that body in the same truth is named, this bread: what reason is there, that the thing which the word of God calleth bread, and al reason and eueryevery sense confirmeth to be bread, should not be naturall breade, but taken figuratiuely: and that which is by the word of God onelyonly, called the body of Christ, all sense and reason reclaiming, that it should be his naturall body must neuerthelesse be his naturall body, and by no meanes must be thought to be taken figuratiuely?

p. 649CAP. IX

The reall presence is prooued, because vnworthy receiuers are Sander.guilty of Christes body and bloud.

A man is guilty (saith Sander) either for doing an euill Fulke.deede, or leauing a good deede vndone: or doing a good deede after an euill manner, and after the last manner is he guilty, that receiueth vnworthily. I will not deale with his diuision, nor inquire whether eueryevery one that receiueth vnworthily, doth a good deede after an euill manner. But to the purpose of the reall presence: his deede (saith Sander) is eating, which thing he so really doth, that S. Paule affirmeth him to eate and drinke damnation to him selfe. Why so, Sander? is that which he eateth and drinketh really damnation? if it be, then surely he eateth nor drinketh really the body and bloud of Christ, which are in an other predicament then damnation. But if to eate and drinke damnation, be spoken figuratiuely, where the sense is by eating to deserue damnation, why may not eating and drinking of the bodie and bloud of Christ, be spoken figuratiuely, where the sense is by eating and drinking, to be assured of saluation, wrought by the body and bloud of Christ? But no man is guilty (saith Sander) for doing more then he actually doth: therefore the vnworthye receiuer actually doth eate the bodye and bloud of Christ, whereof he is guilty. I deny the argument, which is a balde petition of y^e principle, for the vnworthye receiuer is guilty of the bodye and bloud of Christ, not for eating and drinking it, but for eatig this bread vnworthily, & so contemning the body of Christ, or not discerning the Lordes body, as the Apostle saith. The antecedent is also false: for a man is guilty especially in the sight of God, for his euill mind, purpose, affection, which often are more then actually he doth. As in y^e similitude of abusing the Princes seale, which I vsed in the Chapter last before. But Sander exclaimeth against the shamelesse interpretation of heretikes, which imagine that S. p. 650Paul said, he that eating by mouth materiall bread at Christs … per, refuseth to eate by faith the bodie of Christ sitting in heauen … guiltie of not eating Christs bodie. Who euer heard of such a …? Nay rather, who euer heard of such a lie? For, which of y^• Sacramentaries (as you call them) doeth so interprete S. Paul? Although we say, that he is guiltie of Christs bodie, which contemneth the same in his Sacrament: and either receiueth it negligently, or els refuseth to receiue it contumeliously. For, not only the reprobates receiue vnworthily, but sometimes also the elect, of whome the Apostle especially speaketh, disswading them from receiuing vnworthily, wherby, as by other sinnes, they pro uoke God to punish them, & deserue eternal damnation, if god should deale with them according to their deserts. But to condemne a man for eating the bodie of Christ, who did eat only the figure of it, semeth great vniustice to Sander. And yet the scripture neuer saith, that any mā is condemned for eating the bodie of Christ, but for eating the Sacrament vnworthily, he is guiltie of the bodie & bloud of Christ, wherof that is a Sacrament. Tush (saith Sander) if it were so meant, the talk of Saint Paul would no more hang together, then if it were said: he y^t toucheth vnworthily the kinges garment, is guiltie of murthering his person. I answer, first the Sacrament of the bodie & bloud of Christ is a thing y^t more neere cō cerneth Christ, then y^e kings garment doth concerne the king, & therfore the similitude is nought: but yet he y^t w^t contempt toucheth the kings garment, is guilty of cō tempt of the kings person. And he that of malice, thrusteth his weapon through the kinges garment, might iustly be guiltie of murthering his person: euen so, and much rather, as the neglect or contempt of the Lords sa crament is lesse or more, so much is the guiltines against y^e Lords person, although his bodie & bloud be no more touched by the contemners, then the kings person, by y^e abusers of his garment, image, crown, scepter, seal, or instrument. Sander after this, professeth, that he is loath to heap vp in this place the manifold witnesses of the auncient fathers, cōcerning that euil men eat Christs body, whose words he hath partly touched before, li. 2. Cap 3. p. 651And I am as loth to repete, y^t I hauehave so often answered vn …o him & others: therfore I wil only note y^e places, wher … fathers cited by Sander, are both rehersed more at larg & fully answered. Namely, Theodoret in 1. Cor. Cap. 11. …llud autem, &c. In mine answer to D. Hesk li. 3: Ca. 52. Pri…osius, li. 3. Ca. 50 Sedulius, … Ca 49. S. Hierom in 1. Cor. Cap. 11. …i 3. Ca. 54, Chrysost: in Math. Hom. 83. li. 3 Cap. 46. Augustin. de baptismo cont. Donatist. li. 5 ca. 8. li 3. ca 48. As for Haymo & Theophylact late writers, I wil no… sta…d vponupon their authorities. There remaineth only Cy…l in Ioan. li. 9. Ca. 19. vponupon these word…, Exiuit. conti…, Iudas went out by & by after the supper, &c. which Sander citeth thus: Timet diabolus benedictioris virtutem, n… s…intillam in animo cius accenderit. The a…uell feareth the vertue of the consecration or blessing, lest perhaps it might hauehave kindled a sparke of grace, or of repentance in his minde. But the words of Cyrill, howsoeuer it bath pleased M. Sander to mangle them, are thus: Timet, vt credo, diabolus ne morando locus poenitentiae detur: & quasi a temulentia mentem suam rectius cogitans homo cripiat, hac de causa festinat & impellit. Nam etiam Iudam cùm post panem omnino se parauerit, tum moram tum benedictionis virtutem timens, ne scintillam in animo eius accenderit, ac inde illuminauerit, & ad meliora retraxerit, magna praecipitem agit ecleritate. The diuel, as I think, feareth, lest by tarying place might be giuen to repentance, & the man thinking better, might deliuer his minde, as it were from dronkennes. For this cause he maketh haste & driueth forward. For with great celeritie, he driueth euen Iudas hedlong, when after the bread, he had altogither prepared himself, fearing both the delaie, and the vertue of y^e blessing, least it hath kindled a sparke in his minde, and thereof hath lightened him, and drawen him to better thinges. This saying of Cyrillus doth no lesse differ in sense and vnderstanding from Sanders slanderous report of him, then it doth in forme & context of wordes, from that which Sander affirmeth to be his saying. For Cyrill plainly caleth it bread which Iudas had receiued. Again it was the vertue of the blessing, and not y^e presence of y^e body of Christ, which the diuel feared. What is this for the reall presence?

p. 652ACP. X.

The reall presence is prooued by the kinde of discerning … SanderLordes body.

First, he laboureth to proue that the fault of the Corinthians, Fulke.was not malicious contempt of Christ, but such contempt as riseth of negligence and lack of discretion. Thē he reasoneth thus: because S. Paul chargeth them to be guiltie, not onelyonly of Christes worship and name, but also of his owne bodie and bloude, with which fault he neuer burthened any other then the vnworthy receiuers, or the Iewes that laide iniurious hands vpō Christ at his death, it must needes be, that such a communicant receiueth Christs naturall bodie. I answere, not onelyonly they are guiltie of Christes bodie and bloude, which receiue the communion vnworthily, and which laide violent handes on Christes person, but euen they also, that crucifie the sonne of GOD againe, of whom the Apostle speaketh, Heb. 6. verse. 6. and corrupt the bloud of his Testament, by which they are sanctified wholy. Heb. 10. vers. 29. Neither are they burthened with a greater fault, then they committe, which vnworthily receiuing the pledge of Christes presence, are saide to offend against Christ himselfe. But Sander vrgeth the argument of discerning further: because the Apostle biddeth them put a difference betweene Christes bodie and all other meates or creatures in the world, it is euident, that none other mea…e or creature is present besides the bodie of Christ. I deny the argument, which followeth as this. He that despiseth circumcision, hath broken the couenant of God, as God saith Gen. 17: ergo circumcision, is nothing but the couenant of God, and not an outward seale and signe thereof. He that despiseth Baptisme, despiseth the bloude of Christ, and the spirit of God, by which baptisme is sanctified: therefore the water of baptisme is the bloud of Christ or the holy Ghost really. Wherefore he y^t discerneth not the Sacrament, which is called, and to the worthy receiuer is in…ede p. 653the body and bloud of Christ after a certaine ma…r, from common meate, is guiltie of the bodie and …oud of Christ, and yet no necessitie of reall presence …ereby enforced.

Last of all Chrysostome is cited in 1. Cor. Hom. 28. …at the receiuer neede to consider nothing else, but …ho is set foorth, and the greatnes of the thinges sette …rth. Therefore (saith Sander) it is not breade and …ine that is set forth, but the body and bloud of Christ. … answere the body and bloud of Christ is set forth, by …e visible creatures of breade and wine. Neither did …hrysostome otherwise teach, in all his writinges, al…hough intreating of so high a mysterie, hee speaketh many times figuratiuely and hyperbollically. as Hom. 6. he saith, The Church in which the sacramentes are ministred, is the place of Angels, the place of Archangels, the palace of heauen, heauen it selfe. Nam & hîc …oelum dubitas? Mensam istam vide, cuius gratia constituta sit & quapropter. For doest thou doubt that heauen is here? behold this table, for whose cause and wherefore it is set.

CAP. XI.

No figure which is not in substance Christes body, can make Sander.any man by eating it negligently, guiltie of Christes naturall bodie.

Sander confesseth, that when a man by willfull contempt Fulke.doth breake or defile y^e kings image, it is reputed all one, as if he had striken the prince himselfe, not because the deede is one, but because his will is vttered no lesse in abusing the signe, then if he had iniuriously touched the prince himselfe. But he saith, this similitude is not like, because saint Paul maketh his argument rather vponupon the reall fact it selfe, then vponupon the will or minde of the dooer. I answere, there is no worde in saint Paul, to prooue that he maketh his argument vponupon the reall fact, which is eating and drinking, but vponupon eating p. 654and drinking vnworthily, which is with a will and mind not discerning the Lords bodie. Secondly Sander obiecteth that the Apostle speaketh not, of wilfull contempt, but of negligent doing. I answere, the argument holdeth as well or neglecting, as of contemning, y^t which Ch… commaunded to be regarded, although it be a greater fault to contemne, then to neglect.

Secondarily (saith Sander) they y^t say the signe, image, or figure of Christs bodie is abused, must shewe wherein y^t figure doth consist, and then he maketh a metaphysical discourse of figures and images, external & internal &c. But I wil plainly shew him wherin the figure doth consist: not that breade and wine in any thing that the eye discerneth, in forme or shape, are like to Christs bodie and bloude, but in the vse and ende of them, which is to nourish bodily, as the body and bloud of Christ broken and shedde for vsus, is made spirituall meate and drinke to feede and nourish vsus spiritually, of which spirituall feeding and nourishing, the bread and wine, being sanctified to that vse, are not a bare, naked or emptie signe, Image, or figure, but a fuil perfect, and effectuall seale, confirmation and assurance to as many as receive y^• same bread and wine, being nowe made so high a sacrament worthily. Neither is there any other presence or Christs natural body required therin thē in baptisme of his body and bloud, where vntounto we are incorporated thereby, then in any of the sacraments of the old Testament, namelie, then in Manna, or the shewbread: of which Sander speaketh. But it is a thing neuer heard of (saith Sander) that either Manna or the shew breade vnworthily eaten, or baptisme vnworthily taken made any man guiltie of Christs owne bodie and bloud: therefore there is some other substante vnderunder the formes of bread and wine, then was in Manna &c: Although y^e scripture saith not in so many words, y^t he that did eate Manna vnworthily, was guiltie of y^• body of Christ, yet in effect it saith the same, and the same by necessarie consequence, may be inferred. He that did eate the same spirituall meate, y^t we do, vnworthily, was so guiltie: the fathers did eate the same spiritual meat vnworthily, for God was not pleased p. 655…ith them, (as y^e Apostole saith) therfore they were guil…e of the bodie and bloud of Christ. If Sander will reply …nd say, it was not the same that we eate and drink: First … Paul saith expresly, the rocke was Christ, of whom wee …te and drinke. S. Augustine de vtilitate poenitentioe, cap. 2. …aith expressely, they did eate the same spiritual meate y^t …ve doe, for Manna was Christ vntounto them. Cyrill in Ioan. …b 3. cap. 34. saith, that Christ by the figure of Manna was giuen vntounto those old fathers. The like by Analogie, is prooued of all other sacraments. But Sander replyeth, the …ewes must then hauehave prepared & examined themselues …uerie day, which is not reade of: who doubteth, but the Godly Iewes so did, that receiued Christ by the figure of Manna and the Rocke? and it is reade, y^t they which did not receiue those sacraments worthily, were therefore ouerthrowne in the wildernes. Why then (saith Sander) if it were so, it had required more perfection in the law, then nowe is vsed forsomuch as we receiue our maker perhaps but once a yeare, and surely at the most but once a day, wheras they did eate Manna as often as hunger prouoked, for 40. yeares. The Law which is spirituall, requireth more perfection then any man can performe: but to argue what perfection is required of vsus by that we vse corruptly, is as grosse a fault in reasoning, as theirs was in vnworthy receiuing. The scripture requireth oftner communicating then once a yeare. In the primitiue Church they receiued euerie day, & so often they were to prepare and examine themselues. And what if I say, that euerie day, although a man doe not receiue, hee ought to vse as great preparation and examination of himselfe, as when he doth receiue? But wee receiue but once a day, at y^e most (saith hee,) verily they receiued oftner, because it was not onelie a spirituall meate, but a bodily meate also necessarie for the maintenance of their liues, as our Sacrament is not, wee may eate breade which is not the Sacrament, so coulde not they at that time. Howe be it, when so euer wee come into the presence of God to pray, which wee ought to doe more then once a day, I would know, what preparation or examination, is necessarie for them that receiue p. 656the Sacrament (excepting the onelyonly relation of receiuing) but a Christian man is bounde to vse the same as precisely when he offereth his prayers vntounto God. I speak not (as Sander doth) howe vnreuerently men vse to pray, but how they ought to behaue themselues in the sight of God.

CAP. XII.

The reall presence of Christs bodie is confirmed by the oft repeating Sander.of the name of flesh, bodie, bloud, eating, drinking, and such like wordes.

And why is not the reall presence of breade and wine Fulke.prooued by the oft repeating the names of breade and cuppe, and the fruite of the vine: as for eating and drinking, are more proper for breade and wine, then for the bodie and bloude of Christ, of which they cannot be saide, but figuratiuely: especiallie, seeing you hold, that the bloud of Christ in the cuppe, is not really separated from his bodie, howe can you properly say, that the bloude of Christ is drunke, when onelyonly the bodie with the bloude in it, is swallowed downe the throate? Saint Paul calleth the Sacrament breade at the least sixe times, after consecration. As for the often repetition of flesh and bloude, in the 6. of saint Iohn, pertaineth nothing to the Lords supper. But let vsus see master Sanders autorities, for this argument of repetition. First Euthymius borrowing the saying out of Chrysostome, saith: Hoc dixit, This he saide, confirming that he spake not obscurely, or parabolically. Yea sir, but Euthymius saith otherwise, if it had pleased you to cite his saying whole: Caro mea verè est cibus. Verus est cibus siue aptissimus, vtpote animam qu… propriissima hominis pars est nutriens. Et similiter de sanguine. Aut hoc dixit confirmans quod nō aenigmaticè, neque parabolicè loqueretur. My flesh is meate in deede, it is true meate or most apt meate, as which nourisheth the soule, which is the most proper part of man. And likewise of the bloud. Or else he saide this confirming that hee spake not obscurely p. 657or in parable. Chrysostome in Ioan. Hom. 46. Quid autem significat: caro mea verè est cibus, & sanguis meus verè est potus? Aut quod is est verus cibus, qui saluat animam: aut ut eos in praedictis confirmet, ne obscurè locutum in parabolis arbitrarentur. What meaneth this: my flesh is meate in deede, and my bloude is drinke in deede? Either that he is the true meat, that saueth the soule: or else that hee might confirme them in that was saide before, lest they shoulde thinke that hee had spoken darkely in parables. By both these places, which are disiunctiue sentences, it is plaine that the flesh and bloude of Christ is meate to feede the soule, which must needes be spiritually, because the soule cannot eate carnally, and then you see howe plaine and without parable the speach of Christ is to be taken.

Next these are cited Oecumenius in. 1. Cor. 11. Per hoc quod frequenter ait (corporis & sanguinis domini) manifestat, quod non sit nudus homo qui immolatur, sed ipse dominus & factor omnium: vt videlicet per haec ipsos exterreat. By this y^t he often saith (of the bodie and bloud of our Lord) he sheweth that he which is offered, is not a bare man, but y^e Lord himselfe, and maker of all thinges: to the ende verilie that he might put them in a terrour by these thinges. This writer affirmeth nothing, but that the breade, and cuppe is not the sacramēt of a bare man, but of him that is both God and man: therefore not the bare substance of breade (saith Sander.) I confesse, but a Sacrament of the flesh and bloude of the sonne God.

Thirdly he citeth Saint Basil de Baptism. lib. 2. cap. 3. Vehementius simul que horribilius &c. The Apostle setteth forth and declareth more vehemently, and more fearefully, the condemnation, by repetition. What is this to the reall presence? But Augustine de opere Monachorum cap. 13. saith: Neque enim &c. For it is not said in one place or shortlie, so that it may be drawen or peruerted into another meaning by the ouerthwarting of neuer so subtil a Sophist. But what, I pray you? that mē ought to work with their hands. Doth not this make much for the reall presence, confirmed by oft repeating of the names of bodie and p. 658bloud? when bread and cuppe &c. be as often repeated?

But to conclude, Cyrill in Ioan. lib. 4. cap. 11. writeth in the same sense (saieth Sander) Non obdurescamus &c. By Master Sanders leaue, I will repeate the wordes of Cyrillus, a little more at large, that wee may see in what sense he writeth. Quapropter saluator varia oratione, mo… aenigmaticè atque obscurè, modò dilucidè atque apertè candemrem Iudaeis proposuit, …vt excusari nequeant, si resilierint: sed mali malè perdentur, tanquam manu propria in animam suam gladium immittentes. Iterum igitur planè clamat: Ego sum panis qui de coelo descendi. Illa figura imago vmbráque solùm fuit. Audiatis hoc dilucidè dictum: Ego sum panis viuus: si quis manducauerit ex hoc pane, viuet in aeternum. Non obdurese v… igitur, toties veritatem a Christo audientes. Non est enin. ambigendum, quin summa supplicia subiucri sint, qui saepius haec à Christo iterata non capiunt. Wherefore our sauiour by diuerse kinds of speach, sometimes enigmatically and obscurely, sometimes cleerely and plainely, hath set forth the same thing vntounto the Iewes, so that they cannot bee excused if they start backe: but being euill men, might be destroyed euilly, as they that with their owne hande thrust a sworde into their owne soule. Therefore he cryeth out againe plainely: I am the breade which came downe from heauen. That was a figure, image, and shadowe onelyonly. Heare you this which is clearely spoken: I am the liuing breade, if any man shall eate of this breade, hee shall liue for euer. Therefore let vsus not harden our selues, hearing the trueth so ofte of Christ. For it is not to be doubted, but they shall suffer most extreme paines, who receiue not these things so often repeated of Christ.

Out of this place first I note, that sometimes Christ spake in this Chapiter obscurely, and figuratiuely, contrarie to that which Sander before woulde seeme to affirme out of Euthymius and Chrysostome. Secondly, that Cyrillus speaketh not of the wordes, whose repetition Sander vrgeth, but of the matter of our spirituall feeding by Christ onelyonly, often repeated in the sixte of Iohn. Thirdely that Cyrillus vnderstandeth the p. 995matter of this Chapiter to bee all one, contrarie to that which Sander before hath stoutly defended, that Christ speaketh not of the Sacrament, vntill hee come to that saying, And the breade which I will giuegive, is my flesh.

Fourthly, that Cyrill affirmeth Christ to hauehave beene the breade of life which was receiued of the godly Fathers, vnderunder the figure of Manna: And last of all, that the wordes following, And the breade which I will giuegive, is my flesh, which I will giuegive for the life of the worlde, Cyrill vnderstandeth of the death of Christ, and not of the sacrament, for which Sander straue so much in the thirde Booke.

The saying of Cyrillus vponupon the wordes of Christ: And the breade which I will giuegive, is my fleshe, &c. is in the 12. Chapiter of the same Booke. Morior inquit pro omnibus, vt per me ipsum omnes viuificem, & caro mea omnium redemptio fiat: morietur enim mors morte mea, & simul mecum natura hominum resurget. I dye saieth hee for all men, that by my selfe I may giuegive life to all, and my flesh may bee made a ransome of all: For death shall dye by my death, and the nature of men shall rise againe together with me. You may nowe iudge in what sense Cyrillus writeth, and howe farre the sense of Sander is from the meaning of Cyrillus.