Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 2 · Book 6

Rejoinder to Bristows Reply · Part 2 · Book 6

p. 995The sixt Booke.

To the Preface.

BEcause the adoration of the Sacrament doeth most of all conuince the reall presence, Sander pretendeth that he hath appointed this booke seuerally to proue that poynt, whereas in deede hee laboureth for the most part to prooue the adoration by the presence, which is a beggerlie crauing of the principle, or that which is in question.

p. 660CAP. I.

The adoration of Christes bodie is prooued out of the P…ph… ▪ Da…id in the 21. Psalme.Sander.

The adoration of Christes bodie, is no question betweene vsus, but whether the sacrament is to be adored, y^t Fulke.thereby the reall presence might be proued. The place of the Psalme 22. after the Hebrewes, is this, verse 26. I will paye my vowes before them that feare him. The poore or meeke shall eate, and be satisfied, they shall praise the Lord seeking him: your soule shall liue for euer. All the ends of the earth shall remember, and be conuerted vntounto the Lord. And all the families of the Gentiles shall bow themselues before thee. Because the kingdome is the Lordes, and he hath dominion among the Gentiles. All that be fat on the earth, shal eate, and bow downe themselues, before him they shall all fal downe, which descend into y^e duste. In this prophetical Psalme Christ proseth three things, that the faithfull shall bee sedde and nourished by him, that they shall praise God and that they shall hauehave eternall life. But for as much, as Christ nourisheth the faithfull, otherwise then by the sacram…t, it is great violence to draw this prophecie, only, or chiefly to the sacrament, as Sander doth. As for adoration of the sacrament, heere is no colour for it. Christ promiseth plainely, that such as he hath redeemed shall praise Iehoua, shall worship him, fall downe before him: but of worshipping the meate whereof they eate and are satisfied, there is no mention in the worlde. I passe ouer his fantasticall application of the words of the Psalme, and meddle onelyonly with y^t which is pertinent to the question. But the kingdome of God requireth an inuisible presence (saieth Sander) concerning the person of the king. But yet visible concerning the formes of bread & wine, to the end his mebers may know where to worship him. And must wee hauehave y^e visible formes of bread and wine, that we may know where to worship him? Why, doe wee not knowe, that he is ascended into p. 661heauen, and sitteth on the right hand of God the father? shall wee not worship him sitting at the right hande of god in heauen? S. Paul willeth vsus to seek those things that are aboue, where Christ is, and not those things that are on earth, because Christ is in heauen. Col. 3. But that this interpretation of the Psalme, to be meant of the sacrament, is not of Sanders inuention, we must heare the iudgement of the elder writers. And first he beginneth with Hierome in Psal. 21. Vota Christi: The vowes of Christ are his natiuitie, and passion: the vowes of the church are good workes: or els I will offer the mysterie of my bodie and bloud, with them who celebrate those things in his feare. Although this writer referre the text partlie to the mysterie of the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament, yet hath he no worde of adoration of the Sacrament: but reserreth it altogether to God and Christ, beside that his exposition farre differeth from Sanders explication. The like sayings he alleageth out of Augustine, Cassiodorus, Beda, & Euthymius, all which affirm this prophesie of eating, to perteine to eating the body of Christ in the Sacrament, although not onelyonly to it. But what say they to adoration of the Sacrament? Forsooth (saith Sander) manducauerunt & adorauerunt, are both referred to one thing, they hauehave eaten the Sacrament, therfore they hauehave adored the Sacrament. I deny the maior: the text is plaine, that they hauehave adored, bowed, and fallen downe to God, & not to that which they hauehave eaten. If I say, Sander hath eaten & giuen thanks: do I mean that he hath giuen thanks to his meate, or to him that gaue him meate? This is a miserable argument. But S. Augustine doth fortifie it. For he saith vponupon that Psalm, Euen the rich of the earth hauehave eaten the body of y^e lowlines of their Lord, neither are they so filled as y^• poore, euen vntounto imitation, sed tamen adorauerunt, but yet they hauehave adored. I heare that they hauehave worshipped, but I heare not that they hauehave worshipped or adored the Sacramēt. And if you say they hauehave worshipped or adored the bodie of their Lords humilitie: how proue you, that they worshipped y^e same really present in the Sacramēt? p. 662Or that the Sacrament may be called y^e bodie of y^e lords humilitie? If this wil not serue, Augustine is more plaine in Ep. 120. ad Honora…m, ca. 27. Suprà dictum est, &c. It was … before, the poore shal eat & be filled. But here it is said, all y^e rich of y^e earth hauehave eaten & hauehave adored. For they also are brought to the table of Christ. And they take of his bodie & bloud. But they adore only, & be not filled also, because they follow not. For although they eat Christ the poore man, yet they disdaine to be poore. And againe, because God hath raised him from the dead, & hath giuen him a name which is aboue eueryevery name, y^t in y^e name of Iesus euerie knee shold be bowed, of things heauenly, earthly, & vnderunder y^e earth. They also moued w^t the fame of his highnes, & with the glorie of his name, (which glorie is spred round about in the Church) they come themselues to y^e table, they eate & adore, but yet they are not filled, because they do not hūger & thirst af ter righteousnes. Al this while I heare adoring of Christ, but not of the Sacrament, nor of the bodie of Christ really present in the Sacrament. I would hauehave al men that eat the Sacrament, not only to eat, but also adore & giuegive thanks, not to the Sacrament, but to him that spiritually feedeth vsus by the Sacrament. But …eda expoundeth y^e adoring thus: Adorabunt, quia cum quadam exteriori veneratione accedent. They shall adore, because they shall come w^t a certein outward reuerence or worshiping. Although Beda liued in a corrupt time, yet y^e Sacrament in his time was not worshipped. Therfore, he speaketh of a certeine outward reuerence, y^t men vsed in comming to the lords table, which is vsed of all them that worship not the Sacrament. For if Beda had meant as Sander woulde hauehave him, he should not hauehave said, a certeine externall worshipping, but w^t all honor & worship, both inwarde and outward, which we must vse, when we come to worship Christ himselfe.

CAP. II.

The adoration of Christs bodie is proued againe out of the Prophet Sander.Dauid, Psal. 98.

The Latine text is, Exaltate Dominū Deū nostrum, & … p. 663Fulke.scabellum pedū eius, quoniam sanctū est. Exalt y^e Lord our God, & worship his footstoole, because it is holy. Sander cōfesseth, y^e Hebrew readeth: because he is holy. So might he hauehave confessed, y^t the Hebrew readeth: worship at the stoole of his feete, which is at y^e arke, tabernacle, or tēple which is called by Dauid. 1. Chr. Ca 28. the footstoole of Gods feete. And y^t the sense of this verse is all one with y^• last verse of y^e same Psalm, which euen the vulgar Latine interpreter readeth thus: Exaltate Dominum Deum nostrum, & adorate in monte sancto eius: quoniam sanctus Dominus Deus noster. Exalt ye y^e Lord our God, & worship in his holy mountaine: because y^e Lord our God is holy. In both verses is one word of worshipping, the same preposition before y^e word, y^t signifieth his footstoole, and y^t word which signifieth his hil or mountaine. Therfore y^e Latine interpreter should not hauehave said worship his foot stoole, but worship in or at his footstoole, as he saith, in or at his holy hill. Wherefore, y^e Prophet Dauid in this place speaketh nothing for worshipping of the bodie of Christ any way, if his own words, rather then the words of y^e translator be considered. Wherfore the foundatiō of this worship of the Sacrament, is vtterly ouerthrowen. But Sander saith, that the Arke & the temple being the footestoole of God, toward which, the Iewes did pray, did signifie, that the flesh of Christ should be adored, not only in heauen, but also in the Sacrament, which is the arke, temple, & vessel, conteining the self same substance of Manna, which sitteth at the right hand of God the Father. Did I not tell you in y^e preface, y^t he would not proue the presence by the adoration, but the adoration by the presence, which is all in question? who shall grant y^t the Sacramēt is such an arke, temple, & vessel, as he affirmeth? But many of the old fathers, vnderstood the footestoose for the bodie or flesh of Christ, affirming y^t it was to be worshipped. To this I answer, first, they were all deceiued in their ground of scripture, that so tooke the footestoole. Secondly, some of thē affirming y^e flesh of Christ is to be worshipped, had no relation vntounto y^e sacrament. Thirdly, they y^t said it was to be worshiped in y^e sacrament, vnderstood worshipping otherwise then y^e Pa pists teach & practise, namely, for reuerencing of Christs p. 664flesh in the mysteries, without any imagination of carnall presence. Hierom, the first author cited by Sander, for this purpose in Psa. 98. saith, There be many opinions of the …ootstole, what it should be. But heere the Prophet meaneth our Lordes body, wherein the maiesty of the diuine nature standeth as it were on a footstoole.

This is spoken of the humanity of Christ, without any respect vntounto the Sacrament, therfore it followeth: Quid autem adorari debeat, &c. And that he ought to be adored: the Apostles taught at his ascension, when they returned vntounto Ierusalem worshipping. But also these thinges are to bee referred to our Lordes crosse and to his holy soule. The next is Ambrose de Spir. Sanct. lib. 3. Cap. 13. Per scabellum, &c. By the footstoole, the earth is vnderstanded, by the earth the flesh of Christ: which at this day also we adore in the mysteries: which the Apostles as we hauehave said before, did adore in our Lord Iesus: for Christ is not deuided, but one. Here (saith Ambrose) the flesh of Christ is adored in the mysteries: he saith not that the mysteries are adored as the flesh of Christ. Christ is honored or contemned in the poore, in his Ministers, in Magistrates, in his word, in al his creatures: It followeth not, that Christ is really present in the poore, in his Ministers, in Magistrats, in his word, in all his creatures. Neither can it be prooued, that by mysteries, Ambrose meaneth only the Sacrament of Christes supper. Againe when he saieth, wee worshippe the flesh of Christ in the mysteries, which the Apostles worshiped in Iesus Christ, it followeth, that the mysteries and Iesus Christ are diuerse thinges, and not all one. But when the same Christ is worshipped in the mysteries, that was worshipped in his proper person, it followeth as Ambrose saieth, that Christ is one and not deuided. Thirdly, is cited Augustine, in Psa. 98. who interpreting the footstoole to bee the flesh of Christ, which he hath giuen vsus to be eaten to saluation, saith: Nemo autem illam carnem manducat, nisi prius adorauerit, &c. And no man eateth that flesh, except he hauehave first adored it, it is found out, how such a footstoole of our Lordes may be adored, and that we should p. 665not only offend in adoring, but we should sinne in not adoring. Here Augustine saith, the flesh of Christ must be adored before it be eaten: and who doubteth of that? For hee that honoureth not Christe come in the fleshe, shall neuer be nourished by his flesh and bloud. But Augustine is so farre of, to teach vsus that Christs flesh is to be adored, as really present in the Sacrament, that he doth expresly denie, his naturall body and bloud to be eaten and drunken, for thus hee saith to the Capharnaites in the person of Christ: as euen Sander reporteth: ye shall not eate this body, which you see, nor drink that bloud which they shall shedde, who shall crucifie mee. I hauehave commended a certeine Sacrament to you, being vnderstoode spiritually it will make you liue. Although it must needes be celebrated visibly, it must be vnderstanded inuisibly. Howe thinke you Sander auoydeth the force of this place? First he saith, the last words must agree with the first, and then both are true. Very well, he spake before of a spirituall manner of presence, and eating of Christ in the Sacrament, because he now denieth the corporall presence. Secondly he answereth, that Augustine speaketh of the visible forme, and not of the substance of the body of Christ, which is inuisible. O abhominable impudence. Augustine saith, you shal not eate this bodye, nor drinke that bloud. Sander saieth: These wordes body and bloud, are taken for visible formes, and not for the substance. …r Christ tooke not that greatnesse and quantity of flesh of his mother, wherein he walked: for his greatnesse increased from the state of an infant, to the state of a perfect man. But I pray thee Sander, if with shamefastnesse thou hast not lost all thy wit, tell me whether Christ was crucified in the state of an infant, or in the state of a perfect man? Augustine denieth the eating and drinking of that body which was crucified, and that bloud which was shedde, when he was crucified, which body also he demeth, that the Church hath present vponupon earth. in Ioan Tr. 50. Tsll me whether it was the visible forme of bloud which was shedde on the crosse, or the very substance of his bloud. If thou say it was the very substance, which thou must p. 666say, except thou be a Marcionite or Manichee, then it was the verie substance of his bloud, which Augustine denyeth to be drunken in the Sacrament.

But Augustine (saith Sander) was so fully persuaded, that the fleshe of Christ was to bee adored vnderunder the forme of bread, after consecration, that he reacheth the Christian people to adore it, not as common flesh, but as the flesh of God, for whose sake we adore it. Cù…d …erram quamlibet, &c. when thou bowest thy self, or fallest down before any earth looke not upon is as earth, but looke vponupon that holy one whose footstoole it is, which thou adorest, for thou adorest for his sake. Now (saith Sander) what is it to say, before any earth? doubtles before any host cōsecrated, &c.

Doubtlesse this is a clearkly interpretation, that quae…ibet terra, any earth, or, eueryevery earth, that a m…n doth bowe vntounto, is a consecrated host. Not onelyonly the flesh of Christe is earth to bee worshipped, but all Princes and Magistrates are earth to bee worshipped, in respect of whome Augustine saith, cùm ad terram, &c. when thou bowest downe to any earth, consider God and not man, whome thou worshippest in that man, euen as in worshipping the flesh of Christ, wee stay not in his flesh, but ascend vntounto his spirite: for thus his wordes runne, Numquid autem caro vi…ificat? What, doth the flesh giuegive life? Our Lord himselfe hath said, when he spake of the commending of the same earth, It is the spirite that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. Ideo & ad terram quā libe… cùm te incli…as, &c. Therefore also, when thou bowest, and castest downe thy selfe vntounto any earth whatsoeuer, behold it not as earth, but that holy one whose footstoole that is, which thou adorest, for thou adorest for his sake: Therefore here also he hath added: worshippe his footstoole, because it is holy, &c. The coniunction, also, which Sander hath craftily suppressed, declareth, that Augustine speaketh, not onelyonly of worshipping the flesh of Christ, as the footstoole of God, but also of worshippe giuen to any other earth, which must wholy bee referred to God. You see how inuincibly it is prooued, that catholike men in S. Augustines time, vsed to bowe down and to adore the Sacrament of the altar, as San…no no more vntruely then ridiculously doth vaunt and …gge, vponupon the worshipping of any earth.

CAP. III.

It is proued out of the Prophets, that it can be no Idolatry to Sander.…ship the body & bloud of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar.

Sander first presupposeth the body and bloud of Christ Fulke.… be really present in the Sacrament, and then he defen…h it is no Idolatry to worshippe it. But this is contra… to his promise, for he vndertooke to prooue, the reall …ence by the adoration, that is dew to the Sacrament, …d not the adoration by the reall presence. But it is a …onderful absurditie with him, to say that it is Idolatry. … worshippe with godly honor, the body and bloud of …hrist in the Sacrament of the altar. First because this say…g presupposeth externall Idols not to hauehave bene taken away by …e comming of Christ: which is against the expresse worde of God. If all externall Idols had bene taken away, by the coming of Christ, the Apostles would not so seriously hauehave warned men to beware of all Idolatry, 1. Cor. 10. of the pollutions of Idols, act. 15. 1. Iohn. 5. &c. Secondly, it presupposeth (saith he) that Idolatry should be maintained by Christians, by Publike doctrine and vniuersall practise in open Churches, &c. Not by true Christians, but by false Christians, the times of Antichrist, as was prophecied Apo. …3. & 9. Thirdly, it presupposeth, that Christ gaue occasion by his owne word, that Idolatry should be committed to bakers bread, &c. Christ gaue none occasion to worshippe bread, more then to worship a dore, or a vine tree. Last of all, it is a most foolish thing to say the Bishop of Rome was the cause of that worshipping, and also to teach that hee is Antichrist. Nothing more agreeable to reason, then that Antichrist should set vp an Idole, that he himselfe by it might aspire to the greatest honor. But Antichrist (saith Sander) is an aduersary, and setteth himselfe against Christ, but the Pope calleth himselfe the vicar of Christ, and the seruant of seruantes. VnderUnder the colour of these titles, he arrogateth to himselfe power and honor aboue Christ, to giuegive pardō in papers sealed with lead, a poena & culpa, when he teacheth, that the pardon y^t Christ sealed with his bloud, is only a culpa, frō y^e fault, but not from y^e punishment. And yet the Popein his Canon lawe, refuseth not to be called God aboue al Gods.

p. 668Secondly, Antichrist aduaunceth himself aboue all that i… … shipped as God, therfore he wil not how to an externall Id… commeth of superstition and pusillanimitie. I answere, … Pope although he stoop not verie low to the sacram… of the Altar, which is carried before him on a pal…, when he himselfe is carried on mens sholders: yet he pretendeth a familiar kinde of reuerence, not of super… on, but of subtiltie and fraude, to couer his pride by hypocrisie, that with deceit of vnrighteousnes, he may preuaile in them that perish. 2. Thess. 2.

Thirdly, Antichrist shall shew false signes and wonders to deceiue wicked men by. So hath the Pope & his members do… an infinite number, wherof the Legends, & other lew… bookes are stuffed ful. And euen Pius Quintus late Pope counterfeited casting out of diuels.

Fourthly, Antichrist is aduaunced aboue all idols, th… shall set vp no idoll but himselfe, therefore, if the Pope set … idol, he is not antichrist. I answere, the Pope hath set vp … idols but to aduaunce himself aboue them all. For although he hath set vp the idolatrie of y^e Sacramens, calling it god & man; yet what papist thinketh it not … meritorious to worship & kisle y^e Popes feete at Ro…, then to worship the sacrament daily in his owne pa… church? What right Papist trusteth not more in a pa… of the Popes, then in any thing y^t he loketh to receiue frō y^e sacrament of y^e altar? & wherfore this & an hundred such like matters, but y^t the Pope hath aduauced hims… aboue y^• idols, which he himself hath made, & cōmanded men to worship, not for Christs honor, but for his owne diuelish aduancement. As for the profession of the Pope, to worship Christ in the Sacrament, in the signe of the crosse, in praying to his saints, by which Sand…r worlde discharge him frō antichristianitie, is nothing el… but hypocrisie in him, which hath no religion, as it hath openly bene proued by a number of them. Iohn the …. being condemned for denying the immort… of the …ale: Other Popes of our time, calling the Gospel a fable of Christ, requiring there pork in despite of God, & openly blaspheming his maiestie, &c.

p. 669As for the Godhead of Christ, and honor due to his …anhoode in respect of the vnitie of person, is nedelesse …bo… to prooue the adoration of the Sacrament, except …s adunation to the sacrament, in one person bee first …ooued.

But Esay saith, Chap. 2. The Lorde aboue shall bee …xalted in that daye, and Idols shall be vtterly destroi…d. It is verie true, where the Lorde is exalted, but that … not in all places of the worlde, neither euer was, but …nely where God hath set vp his true Church, which is …is kingdome. Therefore all the prophecies cited by …ander: Ier. 30. Ez. 30. Mich. 1. Zoph. 2. Zac. 13. Psa. 9. & an …undreth more y^t are of the abolishing of Idols and ido…atrie, are to be vnderstood abolishing thē srō the true …ingdom & Church of Christ, not out of all the world, …r out of the kingdome of Antichrist, and companie of …alse Christians, as Sander woulde beare fooles in hand. And I meruell, if any be so foolish to be persuaded, that there can be no Idolatrie, cōmitted in worshipping that for God and Christ, which is a meere creature. But Saint Augustin writeth: in lib. de diuin. d…m. That it was forespoken of the Prophets, y^t the Gentiles should worship one God, the false Gods, whome they worshipped before, being cast out. S. Aug. saith truely of the Gentils, they are become true Christians. But were al the Gentils such frō the comming of Christ vntounto S. Augustines time, which was 400. yeres? or be al the gentiles such at this day? yea, were there not of thē that were called Christians, worshippers of Images in S. Augustines time? Doeth he not write De moribus eccl. Cath. lib. 1. Chap. …4. of false Christians: Nouimultos esse sepulchrorum & picturarum adoratores, I knowe there are manie of thē which are worshippers of sepulchres and pictures. See then if Sander hauehave any shame to cite Augustine, for his purpose, which is, y^t no Idolatrie can bee committed since Christes time, especially of them that are called Christians. Beside Augustine, hee abuseth the name of Athanasius de in…ar. verb. Vbi nominatur &c. Where Christ or his faith is named, thence al Idolatrie is driuen, & y^• deceitful guiles of p. 670y^e diuel are detected & made open. Loe (saith Sand, … name of Christ putteth away all Idolatrie. Yea sir, where it … truely professed & beleeued, not wheresoeuer it is …ounded & heard with y^e outward eares. This therfore pro… not y^e contrary, but Papistes worshippers of bread & …, yea of stockes & stones, be Idolaters, as well as y^e barb… rous people in the new Indies, where Christ & Christi… faith is named, but not imbraced nor beleued, oftenti… of y^e namers thēselues. But Ie. in li. 2. in Esa ca. 4. affirme… Post &c. after y^e cōming of Christ, al idols to hauehave hold… their peace. If Sand. were not a proud asse, which disd… neth to learne, I would teach him, y^t Ierom speaketh o… oracles & answeres, which by y^e diuel are giuen at diu… idols, al which, not only Ierō a christiā, but also Pluta… an heathen man, affirmeth frō y^t time to hauehave ceased and not to hauehave spoken any more. But Hierom was neue… … impudent to affirme, y^t there could be no idolatry cōm… ted since y^e time of Christ. Yet San. affirmeth, y^t lightly n… so much as any heretik, yet hath professed to worship… artificial Idol, made w^t the hands of mā. You may se, h… lightly this man is seene in y^e old writers, or els how impudently he dissēbleth y^t which he knoweth. First Sim… Magus accounted y^e father of al heretikes did set forth the Images of himselfe and of Helena his harlot to be worshipped of his disciples, euen as the Images of Iupiter, Minerua, &c. were among the Gentiles. Epiphani… lib. 1. Tom. 2. praefat. and Augu. Haer. 1. Secondly Carp… crates made Images priuily of Iesus, and of Paul, and … Homer and of Pythagoras, and did offer incense vntounto them and worship them. Epiph. and Aug. Lib. 6. Thirdly the Gnostikes had Images painted in colours, and some of golde and siluer and other matter, which they saide were the Images of Iesus made vnderunder Pontius Pilate whē he liued among men. Epiph. Haer. 27. Fourthly the Melchisedechians which were in Arabia Petraea, Robam, and Edom, worshipped the Image of Moses, which they made. Epip. contra Melch. Haer. 55. Finally the Collyridians committed Idolatrie vntounto the Virgine Marie. Epipha. cont. Collyrid. Haer. 79. Beside so many false Christians as in S. Augustines time worshipped p. 671pictures & sepulchres. And to omit them y^t worshipped Images in France, whō Gregorie vntounto Serenus affirmeth to hauehave committed Idolatrie, although he disallowed the breaking of the Images.

But Papists are not so insensible (saith Sand.) to worship bread made with the bakers hand. why not? as well as to worship metal, wood, & stone, in your images. yet Chrysostome saith, there were fewe cities left in his time, in which Idolatrie was vsed: & there is no citie in Christendome where y^e sacrament, hath not ben worshipped (saith Sander) for so many hundreth yeares. Yes sir, where the Waldenses were in Calabria, in France, Boëmia, & other places, your bread worship preuailed not. And God be thanked, there are nowe many hundred cities, in which y^t Idolatry is not openly cōmitted, except it be by stelth in corners, & so no doubt, but heathenishe Idolatrie, was cō mitted in most cities in y^e world in Chrysostomes time, considering what number there were of heathen men, in all places. Therefore where Sander saith, y^t all Christians for euer hauehave worshipped the sacramēt as y^t very body & blod of Christ, is vtterly false, seeing it is not much aboue 300. yeres, since Pope Honorius made y^e decre of y^t kind of worship, which Sand. defendeth: which decree had ben in vain, if al Christiās for euer had worshipped it. But Sand. at length asketh, if ther be no idolatry in Christendō? he answereth to much of inward idolatry, but no outward idolatry at al. Inward idolatry he coūteth, couetousnes & heresies: so was Luther y^e first idolater of our age: thē Zuinglius, thē Caluin, & the sacramentarie english idol, y^e vanitie of which assertion, to hauehave cited, is abundanly to hauehave cōfuted. He concludeth, y^t to say y^t the blessed sacrament of Christ is an Idol, seemeth necessary to employ, that Christ instituted an Idol. This implicatiō must come frō such a senseles Idol, as Sand, is, for otherwise they y^t hauehave eies & see, & eares & heare, can easily conceiue, y^t an holy sacramēt instituted by god, by abuse of Idolaters, may be turned into an Idol, as was the brasen serpent, & therefore was broken by Ezechias. Neither did Christ giuegive any occasion of Idolatrie, by his wordes in the supper, more then God did by his commaundement in the wildernes.

p. 672CAP. III.

The adoration of Christes bodie in the sacramen… proued out of the new Testament.Sander.

The Apostle saith, the vnworthie receiuer, eateth and drinketh damnation, not putting a difference betweene Fulk.our Lordes bodie, and other meates (saith Sander.) And this difference is in two pointes, the first in due preparation of our selues, which is required in other sacramentes to receiue the grace of God, the seconde is, in respect of the substance of the meate, that is receaued, which is to be honored and adored. I answere, the earthly substance is not to be adored, the heauenly substance is to be adored in heauen where it is really present, and not vppon the earth: and as well in Baptisme, as in the supper. But Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. …8. saith, hee eateth vnworthily: who considereth not as it behooueth, the greatnes of the things set forth, not weighing diligently the greatnes of the gift. Hee speaketh not of the effect (saith Sander,) but of the substance of the Sacrament: because he saith afterwarde: If thou doest learne diligently who is s… foorth: thou needest to account nothing else. I aunswere that admitte he speaketh of the heauenly substance of the Sacrament, that is Christ, yet he aduocheth no reall presence of him vnderunder the formes of bread and wine, for Christ is set foorth in all his Sacramentes, both of the olde Testament and the newe. Christ washeth vsus in baptisme euen as hee feedeth vsus in his supper, and hee purgeth vsus with his bloode, as verily, as hee feedeth vsus with his bodie and bloode. Neither doth Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. meane any other thing: when he saith, Wee must iudge that he is the Lorde, whose blood we drinke in a mysterie. For to drinke the bloode of Christ in a mysterie, is to drinke it spiritually, by meane of a Sacrament, euen as to bee washed with the blood of Christ in a mysterie, is to bee purged by the bloode of Christ, by meane of the Sacrament of Baptisme. Wherefore p. 673the conclusion that Sander inferreth, is false, and hath …o ground nor consequence, wee must iudge the sub…ance of this Sacrament, as the substance of him that …s G…d, therefore wee must adore the substance of this …acrament as God. For admit that I must adore the bo…ie of Christ which is God, yet it followeth not, that I …ust adore it vnderunder the visible formes of the breade and …ine. For the body of Christ which (as Irenae us saith) …s the heauenly part of this sacrament, is in heauen, and …ot vnited to the bread and wine, or to the shapes of thē …n personall vnion, more then the bloode of Christ, or …he holy Ghost vntounto the water in Baptisme, & yet I must …dore the heauenly substance of the sacrament of Bap…isme, as that which is God, or in personall vnion vnited …o God, as is the humanitie of Iesus Christ our Sauiour. But Chrysostome saith further, in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. The verie table is the strength of our soule, the sinewes of the mind, the bond of confidence, our foundation, hope, health, light, life. I answere, this is nothing else, but the effect of our redemption, whereof we are assured, by participation of that table. As for the heauenly substance, that it is in heauen, Chrysostome sufficiently declareth, when hee affirmeth in the same Homily, that we must become eagles, and flee into heauen, for where the dead bodie is, thither wil the eagles be gathered. Wherefore the adoration, that is defended cannot be prooued by the true substance of the sacrament considered, but by the reall presence and personall vnion thereof vntounto the outward elementes: which if Sander cannot shewe, hee laboureth in vaine, to tell vsus of the true substance of the sacrament, which wee confesse to bee the bodie and bloode of Christ, vntounto the worthie receiuer: but not personally vnited to that breade and wine, or the shapes of them. But nowe let vsus heare, what he hath to say, out of Saint Augustine, Epi. 118. ad Ianuarium: who answereth the question: Whether they doe better, that receaue the communion euerie day, or they which at certaine times onelyonly. Neuter eorum exhonorat &c. Neither of them depriueth the bodie and bloode of our Lorde of honour, if each of them p. 674striue who may honor best, the most healthfull sacrament. For as well the Centurion as Zacheus did honor our Sauiour in manner by contrarie meanes: the one by receiuing him with ioie into his house: the other by saying, Lorde, I am not worthie, that thou shouldest enter vnderunder my roofe. And as among the Iewes, Manna tasted to euerie man, according to his owne will, in the mouth of the faithfull: euen so it is to bee iudged, concerning the receiuing of that sacrament, into eueryevery Christians mouth. For both one man for honor sake, doeth not take it eueryevery day: an other for honors sake, dareth not to omitte to take it in any daie: As Manna would no loothsomenes, so this meate will no contempt. For the Apostle for that cause saith, it to hauehave beene vnworthily receiued of them, Qui hoc non discernebant a caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter debita, which did not discerne this thing, from other meates by a veneration singularly due. For streight, when he had said, he eateth & drinketh damnatiō to himself: be said moreouer, Not discerning our Lordes bodie, the which appeareth sufficiently in all that place in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, if it be diligently marked. This place to Sander, seemeth merueilous notable, for honor due to the sacrament. And who is he that thinketh the sacrament not to bee honorable? Verily hee that honoreth not the sacrament of baptisme, is an heretike: and yet hee that adoreth the water of baptisme as the holy Ghost, or as the bloode of Christ, is an idolater. But Sander hath no lesse then ten obseruations of this place, which for tediousnesse I will not rehearse all, but onelyonly such as in which I dissent from him. In the fourth obseruation he noteth, that we must striue to honor the sacrament, whether by this meane or that it skilleth not, so it be honored. If he vnderstand of those two meanes, of which Augustine speaketh. I agree with him, if he meane that it skilleth not by what meanes so euer we honor the sacrament, I say, he hath no such grounde in Saint Augustine. In the fifth obseruation he saith, If it were in deede the substance of bread and wine, hee would neuer exhort vsus to bee so carefull, howe to p. 675honor a meere creature, were it neuer so great a signe. I answere, we honour not a meere creature, when we honour the sacrament, for his sake that instituted the same: for we honour God, and yet the earthly substance of the sacrament is indeed the substance of bread and wine. We honor not a meere creature, when we honor a magistrat, and yet the magistrate, in substance is a man. In y^e ninth obseruation, he asketh what is a veneration or worshipping singularly due, but such a worship, of which sorte there is but one, and in the tenth hee saith, such a worshipping that onelyonly is, which is due to God: who as he hath no fellow in nature: so he hath no partaker in honor. I aunswere, the veneration, honor, worship, or reuerence, due singularly to the sacrament, is spoken of Augustine in comparison of all other meates, and not of all other thinges in generall. His wordes are, Which did not discerne the sacrament, from all other meates by a reuerence singularly due to it, that is to say, of all other meat, onelyonly the sacrament ought to hauehave that reuerence or honor: Euen so the water of baptisme must bee discerned from all other waters, veneratione singulariter debita, by a veneration or reuerence singularly due vntounto it, being consecrated to the mysticall washing away of our sinnes, and yet no diuine honor must be giuen to the water of baptisme. Wherefore S. Augustine meaneth nothing lesse, then that the sacrament shoulde bee worshipped as God & man, really present vnderunder those visible shapes of bread & wine, as Sander impudently doth slander him. But it is worthie to be remembred (saith he) That Augustine vseth the word Sacramentum, for the substance of Christes fleshe conteined vnderunder the signe of bread. Who wil graunt this vntounto Sander? well, if you will not graunt it, he hath reason to prooue it. For Augustine (saith he) would neuer hauehave granted, that either the substance of materiall bread, or the forme thereof, ought to be honored. For honor can be giuē to no vnreasonable creaturs. Is this that Sander, which defendeth the honoring of images? or else be images reasonable creatures? But hee careth not what he saith, so he may seeme to say something, to the matter in hande.

p. 676In deede Augustine woulde neuer defende that diuice honor shoulde be giuen to the sacrament, but there is a kinde of honor, which may bee giuen, euen vntounto the vnreasonable creatures, not in respect of themselues, but in respect of him, to whome all honor, and glorie is dewe, if they be of him taken and appointed to any honorable vse.

Last of all, we must consider, what it should meane, that Augustine saith, The Sacrament may bee honored by our absteining, sometimes from receiuing it into our mouthes, whereas it is no honor to God, if wee shoulde any moment absteine to feede on him by faith, and in spirite. Therefore it is a worthier kinde of substance, which is receiued in the sacrament, then the grace is which is the effect of spirituall eating. For his grace cannot come, except wee first bee made meete to receaue it. But his bodie maye come to our bodies, and so maie condemne vsus, before we are meete to receiue it. To this friuolous collection I aunswere, that there is no honor done to the Sacrament, by absteining from it, but by humilitie, as the similitude of the Centurion declareth, who counted himselfe vnworthie that the Lorde shoulde come vnderunder his roofe. Againe, Augustine defendeth not the acte of either of both partes, as good of it selfe, but making that to be indifferent, he onelyonly defendeth their intent and meaning, which was to yeelde due reuerence to the Lordes sacrament, the one by often receauing, the other by humble intermission, least the offences, shoulde in their weake nature, breede contempte of so high a mysterie. For although wee ought continually to feed on Christ by faith, yet it is not necessarie, nor conuenient, nor possible that the pledge and seale of this spirituall feeding, shoulde euerie moment be receaued. But only at such times, as the Church & Elders thereof shall thinke expedient, for the renuing of our remembrance, and confirming of our faith by the visible tokens of Christes institution. So that no worthier substance can bee gathered to bee receaued in the Sacrament, then the grace of God. And where Sander saith, that his grace cannot come, except wee bee first made meete to p. 677… I answere, that we are not made meete to receiue the grace of God, but onelyonly by the grace of God preuenting all preparation of our owne. As for his bodie comming into our bodies, when it is prooued out of the worde of God, it shalbe graunted, but not before.

Finally, whereas he gathereth it is the same substance of Christ, which is receiued: of which y^e Centurion said, I am not worthie y^t thou shouldest enter vnderunder my roofe: I answere, he may no more vrge the substance of Christ, in the one similitude of the Centurion, then he wil alow me to vrge it is not the same substance, by the other similitude of Manna, which Augustine likewise vseth. As for the same words of the Centurion, vsed in the Lyturgie, ascribed to Chrysostome in adoring the sacrament, I denie that any adoration is meant vntounto the Sacrament, or that those wordes are spoken vntounto the Sacrament, but vntounto Christ in heauen, whose Sacrament that is. What is said or done in the Masse booke, I neither knowe, nor care. That Origen Hom. 5. in diuersos, exhorteth them that receiue the Sacrament, to vse that speach of the Centurion, it prooueth neither adoration, nor carnall manner of presence. For immediatly before, he hath these wordes: Inerat & nunc dominus sub tectuns credentium, duplici figura vel more. Nunc enim quando sancti & Deo acceptabiles ecclesiarum antistites sub tectum tuum intrant, tunc ibidem per eos dominus ingreditur. Et in sic existimas tanquam dominum suscipient. Et aliud: quando sanctum cibum, &c. The Lorde doth now also enter vnderunder y^e roofe of the faithfull in a double figure or manner. For nowe when the holy and acceptable to God, the rulers of the Churches, doe enter vnderunder thy roofe, then euen there, the Lorde by them doth enter. And thinke thou, euen as receiuing the Lorde him selfe. And againe, when thou receiuest that holy and incorruptible meate &c. Beholde Origen saith, Christ entreth in a figure, and after such manner as he entreth by his ministers: of which entrance, hee teacheth man likewise to say, Lorde I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter vnderunder my roofe: therefore this saying importeth no substance of the naturall bodie of Christ p. 678really present in the sacrament.

CAP. V.

That the fathers of the first sixe hundreth yeares after Christ Sander.did adore the bodie and bloude of Christ in the sacrament of the Altar.

The first, which is Dionysius, falsely called y^e Areopagite, Fulke.could be no writer of y^e first 600. yeares, whom neither Euseb. nor Hieronymus, nor Germadius, gatherers of all ecclesiasticall writers, before their time did knowe, Concerning his saying, I referre the reader to mine answere to Heskins, lib. 2. cap. 47. As for Pachymeres cannot be elder then his autor Dionyse, on whom he writeth his Paraphrasis. The next is Cyprian, which lib. 2. Ep. 3. saith, that our sacrifice is Christ: but Christ is to bee adored (saith Sander:) ergo the sacrifice which is the Sacrament. I answere, whatsoeuer after any manner is called Christ, is not to be adored. Whosoeuer receiueth any of Christs disciples, receiueth Christ: but hee shalbe an Idolater, if he giuegive diuine honour to him, which is due onelyonly to the person of Christ. The like answere I make to that Ambrose saith, de ijs qui myst. cap. 9. that Christ is in the Sacrament: To Ignatius, Ep. ad Rom. calling the Sacrament the breade of God, the heauenly breade, the breade of life: To Euseb. lib. 10. cap. 10. calling it a Sacrifice full of God, and the dreadfull Sacrifices of Christes table: To Cyrillus, lib. 3. in Ioan cap. 37. saying, that by the mysteries wee are made partakers of the diuine nature. Neither doe the sayings of Cyrillus, nor Hilarius, lib. 4. cap. 18. prooue a personall vnion of Christ with the Sacrament, when they say it maketh Christ to dwell in vsus corporally, and by a naturall participation: for they say not so simplie, but vnderunder a Sacrament, vnderunder a mysterie: &c. that is, the Sacrament doth assure vsus, that wee are truely made partakers of the bodie and bloude of Christe, after an heauenly and diuine manner, and not onelyonly are ioyned p. 679to him in louelove and faith, and will, but are made flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, by his incarnation and holy spirite, vniting vsus vntounto him, in a mystical bodie, not in a personal vnion: for if any thing which is truely the bodie of Christ, must be adored with diuine honour, the Church of God should bee so adored, which is the bodie of Christ, and so called in the Scripture.

Finally Hesychius calling the Sacrament the breade of life, and the mysticall loaues, which quicken vsus, &c. gaue no diuine honour vntounto it, as personally vnited vntounto Christ, but as to an holy mysterie, and seale of our spirituall feeding and coniunction with Christ. For Hesychius affirmeth, that mysterie to bee both breade and flesh, in Leuit. lib. 2. chap. 8. But Sander vppon these sayings, buildeth that the Fathers affirmed, that which was on the table, to bee the diuine substance, yea the substance and nature of God which is to be adored, and cannot be eaten corporally, but in the Sacrament. And yet no one father, that hee hath cited, saieth any such thing. If Cyrill say, we are by the mysteries made partakers of the diuine nature: Saint Peter saith by Gods promises we are made partakers of the diuine nature, 2. Pet. 1. Yet not of the diuine substance: And to saye, the Godheade can be corporally eaten, in the Sacrament, it is monstrous heresie. When Cyrillus saith, Christ dwelleth in vsus corporally, hee saith not by eating the Sacrament, wee eate GOD or Christ corporally, but the power of the mysticall blessing maketh Christ to dwell in vsus corporallie, by participation of the fleshe of Christ.

But let vsus yet heare a more full witnesse, which is Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. the place although it be fully answered by mee against Heskins lib. 2. cap. 45. yet because Sander maketh so manie obseruations vponupon it, I will set it downe againe. Hoc corpus &c. The wise men reuerenced this body in the manger: and being men without good religion and barbarous, they worshipped it with feare and much trembling after a long iourney p. 680taken. Let vsus therefore who are the citizens of heauen, at lest follow those barbarous men. For when they sawe, the manger and cottage, and not any of those thinges which thou nowe seest: they came with most great reuerence and quaking. But thou seest that thing, not in the Manger, but in the Altar: not a woman which might hold it in her armes: but the Priest present, and the holy ghost copiously spredde vponupon the sacrifice which is set foorth: Neither lookest thou barely vponupon the bodie, as they did: but thou knowest the power of it, and al the order of dispensing thinges. And thou art ignorant of none of these thinges, which were done by him, and thou hast beene diligently instructed in all things. Let vsus be stirred vp therefore, let vsus quake, and let vsus professe openly a greater deuotion, then those barbarous men: lest if we come barely, and coldly, we ieoparde our head into a more vehement fire. Out of this place Sander would hauehave the reall presence and adoration of the sacrament prooued. But this place prooueth neither of both. For he speaketh figuratiuely, of seeing the bodie of Christ, of seeing the holy ghost spredde vponupon the Sacrifice, &c. which cannot bee referred to the eyes of the bodie, but must needes hauehave a spirituall vnderstanding. The bodie of Christ is so present, as it may be seene, but it cannot bee seene but spiritually, therefore it is not present but spiritually. This is sufficient to shewe that Chrysostome spake not of the popish reall presence, therefore not of their manner of adoration. Nowe let vsus see what wise arguments Sander can picke out of this place.

First we must note these comparisons: The Altar, the Manger, the Virgin, the Priest, the Wisemen, the Christians, the adoration of the one and the other: but this last comparison is forged, for Chrysostome requireth our imitation of the wise men, in comming to the Sacrament with reuerence and trembling, with earnest desire and affection, not in giuing honour to the outwarde creatures, but to him y^t is seene by faith. Further, Sander chargeth him to say, it is y^e same bodie in both places, which Chrysost. saith not, although it be the same body which p. 681is receiued spiritually in the Sacrament, w^t that which y^e wise men did worship: yet it followeth not, y^t the same real body is present vponupon the altar before it be receiued, to bee there worshipped. Sander vrgeth Chrysostomes words, vides in altari, thou seest it on the altar. Lo it is vponupon the altar, and not onelyonly comprehended by faith, but by the meane of the forme of bread it is seen. What say you, Sander? is the body of Christ seene? then is hee present visibly. It is a madde kinde of corporall sight of his bodye which is through the forme of bread. You were wont to tell vsus, that a substance is said to be seen, where the proper accidents thereof are seene. And are the accidents of bread the signes now of the body of Christ? O newe Philosophy and Theology! but I pray you sir, if the body of Christ be not only comprehended by faith, but also seen by meane of the forme of bread: by what meane is the holy ghost seen? whom Chrysostome likewise affirmeth to be seen as the body of Christ is. Will you neuer be ashamed of those impudent shiftes, in wresting the holy scriptures, and sayinges of the ancient fathers? As for the foure reasons that Christian men should rather worship the Sacrament, then the wise men did Christ in the cottage, be in vaine. For Chrysostom draweth no example of their worshipping, to worshippe that which is visibly seene in the Sacrament, or the elementes thereof, but of comming with reuerence vntounto the bodye of Christ, which is really in heauen, whereof we are made partakers after an heauenly and spirituall manner in the Sacraments, not by bringing the body of Christ downe vntounto vsus, but by our ascending vp vntounto him, as Chrysostome sheweth plainly, by that long allegory of the Eagles, which he vseth in the 24. Homily. Neither doth Chrysostome say, that as those vngodly barbarous men, did worshippe his body in the manger, and handes of a woman, so we being godly and ciuil, must worshippe it lying on the altar, or in the priestes hands, in the forme of bread. But he exhorteth by this exāple, his auditors, to come often, decently, & with dew reuerence & preparation, to the participation of the holy mysteries, p. 680duplicate page p. 681duplicate page p. 682in which the same body of Christ (though after an other manner) is seene and dispensed.

But Chrysostom saith more plainely, Hom. 28. I will shewe thee that in the earth, which is worthy of highest honor. Where can he shewe it (saieth Sander) but on the altar, pointing to the host? Yes forsooth, he can shew it to the eies of faith: for to the bodily eies he can shew nothing but breade and wine, which is worthy of small honour. But yet it followeth more plainely, As in the pallaces of Kinges, not the walles, not the golden roofe, but the Kinges body f…tting in the seate of maiestie, is the worthiest thing of all: so is the body of Christ the worthiest thing in heauen, which is now sett forth to the earth, to be seene. What could y^e greatest Papist in Europ say more, quoth Sander? Verily no Papist that is aduised what hee saith, will say the body of Christ is set forth on earth to be seene, but onelyonly by the eies of faith: and so the Lord of all thinges, is shewed by preaching, by ministring of the Sacramentes, but not to bee seene with eies of the body, but with y^e eies of y^e mind. Wherfore seing Christ is set forth to be seene on earth, which sight cannot be but by faith, Chrysostome meaneth of a spiritual sight, shewing, & manner of presence, and not of a bodily sight, shewing, or manner of presence. Neither doe we inuent any shiftes, as Sander saith, to auoide the adoration in question, for it shall neuer be prooued, that the Sacrament was adored in the primitiue Church, in such sort as it is worshipped and commanded by the Papistes. But beside Chrysostome, wee must hauehave a plaine authority of Theodoret, who disputing against an Eutychian, that denieth the humanity of Christ, reproueth him by the example of the Sacrament, wherein two thinges are found: (saith Sander) but Theodoret saieth there are two natures and substances, breade and wine, and the body and bloud of Christ. Neque enim signa mystica, for the mysticall signes after sanctification, depart not out of their nature. For they remaine in the former substance, figure and forme.

But now heare y^e shameles glosse of Sander. In substance, p. 683because the formes of bread and wine subsist, by the power of God, and hauehave their being now by them selues, as they had it before in the nature of bread and wine. So that in substances is not in substance, but in accidentes, wherevpon it will followe in Theodorets argument, that Christ hath not now the substance of his humanity, but the substance of accidents thereof. Secondly hee saieth, The formes remaine in their former nature, because they nourish no lesse, then the substance of bread it selfe would hauehave done, if it had remained.

And is it the shapes or formes of bread and wine that nourished before, while the substance remained? was it the former nature of the formes, to nourish? O monster of impudency! If the substance and not the shapes did nourish, the shapes now nourishing as this new Philosopher affirmeth, remaine not in their former nature, but hauehave taken vponupon them a newe nature, which no formes or shapes beeing accidents euer had before. But hitherto Sander hath done nothing, but by intollerable impudence, sought to shift of the authority of Theodoret, which is so plaine and direct against transubstantiation.

Now followeth the place for adoration, which he citeth in Greeke, for more credit foreign &c. The mystical signes are vnderstoode to bee those thinges, which they are made, foreign, and are beleeued & reuerenced. Sander had rather say, adored as being those thinges which they are beleeued to be.

Heere can be no lesse, then reall presence and adoration. And yet Theodoret meaneth neither of both in such sorte as Sander would hauehave him. The mysticall signes are spiritually the bodye and bloud of Christ, so to be beleeued and so to be esteemed, reuerenced, honored, and adored, not by any actuall conuersion of the elementes into the bodye and bloud of Christ, but by the grace of God making the same spiritually, which the signes represent outwardly.

And so shal Theodoret expound himselfe, Dialogo primo, p. 684Qui enim &c. He which called his naturall body, wheat and bread, and nameth himselfe againe a vine, euen hee hath honoured the tokens that are seene, with the name of his body and bloud: not changing their nature, but adding grace vntounto the nature. And whereas Sander concludeth vponupon the place by him cited: Therefore worshippe is not giuen to them as to images, which represent a thing absent: It followeth immediatly after the wordes by him cited Dial. 2 Cenfer ergo imaginē cum exemplari, & videbis similitudinē. Oportet enim figurā esse veritati similē. Compare therefore the image, with the paterne or sampler, and thou shalt see the similitude. For the figure must be like the trueth. Theodoret calleth the same mysticall signes, which are reuerenced, the image, and the figure, which represent the body of Christ, which is the principal sampler, whereof the Sacrament is an image, and the trueth, whereof the Sacrament is a figure. Se you not what reall presence he maintaineth? Who so will more at larg see Theodoret cited and obserued, he may reade the 52. and 56. Chapiters of mine answere to the third booke of Doct. Heskins.

CAP. VI.

The adoration of the body and bloud of Christ is prooued by Sander.the custome of the Priestes and people of the first 600 yeares.

First he citeth the liturgies of Iames, Clement, Basil, Fulke.Chrysostom, all which beare conterfeit names, and yet say nothing to the purpose. They report that the deacon said let vsus be attent with the feare of God, and with reuerence. What is this for adoration? we also charge men to come w^t feare & reuerence, to y^e cōmunion. Again, y^e Priest said before y^e receiuing of the cōmunion, Sancta▪ sanctis, Holy things, are for holie men. Sander laboreth to prooue, that they spoke of the Sacrament, as though we denied that the Sacramental! bread and wine were holy things, when they are consecrated to be the body and bleud of Christ, to the worthie receiuers.

p. 685But Chrysostome ad pop. Antioch. Hom. 61. vppon the same saith: Considera, &c. Marke, I pray you, the kingly table is set before the Angels ministring at the table, the king himselfe is present, and thou standest by idle. Thy garments are foule, and thou carest not. But if they are cleane, then adore and receiue. This adoration Sander would referre to the holy things, but he cannot enforce it, wee adore and communicate, yet wee adore not the Sacrament.

Chrysostome in the same Homilie saith: that we eate him which sitteth aboue, which is worshipped of Angels, &c. by which it is euident, that the presence of Christ in the mysteries, is after a spirituall manner, not that he is bodily present. As for the eleuation, and the things praised with an hymne, that Dionysius speaketh, although they prooue no adoration of the Sacrament, yet I will not stande vponupon them, because it is cleare that Dionysius was a writer out of the compasse of sixe hundreth yeres, that Sander hath bound himselfe vntounto, howsoeuer the Papistes impudently woulde affirme, that he was Saint Paules scholler, whose writinges were not heard of in the Church for sixe hundred yeres after Christ. Next Dionysius the counterfeit Areepagite, followeth Basil de spiritu sancto. Cap 27. Inuocationis verba, &c. The words of inuocation vsed in the shewing of the breade of the Eucharistie, and the cuppe of blessing, which of the Saintes hauehave left in writing to vsus? In that place in deede Basil defendeth ceremonies receiued by tradition, which are not contrarie to the worde of God, among which he nameth the wordes of inuocation, which wordes Sander will hauehave to be the order of saying Masse, and prayers, and yet after referreth to certeine wordes, which the people aunswered, when the Priest saide, Holy thinges are for holy men. One is holy (saide they) one is the Lorde, one Iesus Christ in the glorie of GOD the father, with the holy Ghost, Amen.

But these are wordes of declaration, who is holy, not of inuocation. Wherefore the wordes of inuocation p. 686were some prayer that was made for the worthie receiuing of the mysteries, and not made to the mysteries, as Sander imagineth. And wheras vponupon the worde foreign, he would not onelyonly grounde shewing of the mysteries, readie to be receiued, but also lifting vp of them, it is a simple argument, for foreign doeth not so properly (as he saith) betoken a shewing, by lifting vp, as to ordeine, to institute, to appoint, and so wee neede not vnderstand any shewing, but an appointment, or ordering of the bread and cuppe to be the Sacrament.

Passing ouer Maximus and Germanus, two late writers, concerning the shewing and eleuation of the mysteries vsed in their time, I come to Eusebius Emissenus, Hom. 5. in Pasc. Cùm ad reuerendum altare salutari cibo potúq…, &c. When thou commest vntounto the reuerend altar, to be refreshed with the wholesome meate and drinke: Looke with faith, vponupon the holy bodie and bloud of thy God, honour it, wonder at it, touche it with thy minde, take it in the hande of thy heart, and especially, receiue it with an inwarde swallowing.

This place being altogether of spirituall beholding, honouring, & receiuing, yet is not Sander ashamed to cite it for carnall presence, and ad oration of the Sacrament. But howe I pray you? forsooth, hee telleth vsus where to hauehave it: on the altar. Naye sir, faith respecteth not things that are visible, therefore not the altar, nor that is seene vponupon it, but him that is in heauen, which is represented by that which is seene corporally.

Nowe, seeing the beholding must bee with faith, and the receiuing with the hande of the heart, and inward swallowing: who will graunt vntounto Sander, that the honouring must bee with outwarde reuerence, to that which appeareth breade and wine, but with inwarde and spirituall reuerence, dewe to Christ which is in heauen?

But Sander hath a quarell against the English Homilies, for translating altare the communion, and salutari cibo potúq…, spirituall meates. I thinke the writer meant p. 687not to translate, but to giuegive y^e sense: but I know not what Sander meant in translating this place, for that which Eusebius sayeth, Cordis manusus…ipe, to giuegive none English at all, but leaue it cleane out. As for the saying of the receiuers, Lorde, I am not worthie that thou shouldest enter vnderunder my roofe, it hath beene shewed alreadie, howe it was vnderstoode of Origen, and may be saide of them that neuer meant to adore the Sacrament.

And whereas Sander sayeth, none other Lorde entreth vnderunder the roofe of his mouth, beside that breade: I marueile, whether he meane to teache vsus, that tectum is Latine for the roofe of a mans mouth, whereas wee hauehave alwayes taken it for the roofe of an house. Christe is sayde to enter vnderunder the roofe of our house figuratiuely, when hee dwelleth in vsus by faith spiritually. As for eating vnderunder the roofe of our mouth, it is a grosse imagination vnworthie of the maiestie of Christ.

The last author is Cyrillus of Ierusalem in Catech. Mystag. 5. who biddeth the communicants, to take the king and the bodie of Christ in the hollow of the right hande, saying, Amen, and to sanctifie their eyes therewith, vsing all diligence, that no crumme thereof perishe or fall away. What needed that precept (saith hee) if it were common bread?

Verely, I take it for a meere superstitious precept, although it were giuen to young nouices, newly admitted to the communion: and yet it prooueth not the Popish reall presence, vnlesse you thinke a legge or an arme falleth off, if a crumme be lost. What, when a mouse eateth vp all in the Pixe? And what can it be but the substance of breade which hath crummes, that may fall from it?

Cyrillus in the same place sayeth: foreign. For whatsoeuer thou shalt leese, it is manifest, that in it thou hast lost as it were, parte of thine owne bodie.

p. 688I thinke you will not say, that the bread is changed into the bodies of the communicants, that in leesing a crum, they leese a parte of their bodies. Hee meaneth therefore a spirituall reuerence to be giuen to the holy mysteries, which was signified in careful keeping of the external figures. Well, after the communion of the bodie, Cyrillus biddeth the people come to the chalice of Christes bloud, bowing downe, and saying in the manner of adoring & worshipping, Amen. If he bad the people come to the chalice of Christes bloud, he was no Papist, & though he bid them come bowing downe, & saying in worshipping. Amen: yet you finde not that he biddeth them bowe downe to the chalice, or to adore that which is in it, as you do. We come to the communion with reuerent gesture and bowing downe, yet we adore not the Sacrament. But if hee meant adoring of the Sacràment, why did he not bidde them bow downe and worship the bread, as well as the cuppe?

Finally, that Cyrillus acknowledged no transubstantiation, it is plaine by his words in the same booke: where hee sheweth y^t after the ministers of y^e church are sanctified by the spirituall hymnes that were song, they besought their louing God to sende his holy spirit vponupon the things that were set foorth, and to make that bread the bodie of Christ, and that wine the bloud of Christ. Then it followeth, foreign. For whatsoeuer the holy Ghost hath touched or embraced, that must needes be sanctified and changed. You see Cyrillus meaneth no change of substance, but such as is in all thinges that the holy Ghost commeth vntounto. Where it is saide in the Actes, the Apostles returned adorantes, worshipping, wee may safely vnderstande, that they returned worshipping of Christe, as well as of the Father and the holye Ghost: but here is no like assurance, that the Sacrament is to be worshipped, therefore adorantes is not of necessitie or congruitie to be referred vntounto it.

p. 689CAP. VII.

Thereall presence of Christes bodie & bloud vnderunder the forms Sander.of bread and wine, is proued by the testimonies of the auncient.

The sayings of the doctors, because he hath alreadie Fulke.alleaged in eueryevery article & Chapter, he professeth nowe briefely to shewe, by what generall Chapters a man may be vndoubtedly assured of their beliefe & doctrin. And first, because diuerse of them alleage the almightie power of God to defende the veritie of those wordes and deedes: I answere, that allegation prooueth no real presence. For the almightie power of God is more considered in feeding vsus with the bodie and bloud of Christ, which is in heauen, then in Popish transubstantiation. Yet Sander misunderstandeth Irenaeus, li. 4. ca. 34. as hee misquoteth lib. 5. for lib. 4. How can they be sure, the breade wheron thankes are giuen to be the bodie of their Lord, & the cup of his bloud, if they say not him to be the sonne of the maker of the world? In these wordes Irenaeus reasoneth not of the diuine power of Christ, which the heretikes granted, but they denied him to be y^e sonne of that God, which made y^e world: therfore, by the institutiō of the Sacrament in bread & wine, which are creatures of the world, Irenaeus proueth, that the father of our Lord Iesus Christ, was the maker of the world, & not another iust God, as the heretikes affirmed. Cyprian in deede in serm. de coen. Dom. allegeth the omnipotencie of God for that wonderful conuersion of the nature of common bread, to be made the flesh of Christ: but he meaneth not transubstantiation, but an alteration of the vse of the creature, to bee a meane to feede spiritually with the flesh of Christ, as by the whole discourse of that Sermon it may appeare. Hilarie, li. 8. de Trin. alleageth y^e diuinitie of Christ, to proue the Sacrament to be truely flesh and bloud: which wee grant, as he affirmeth vnderunder a mysterie, and after a spirituall manner. Finally, Basil in Reg. bre. q. 172. Ambros. de ijs qui init. Cap 9. &c. Chrysost. de sacerdot. lib. 3. Emissenus hom. 5. in Pasc. Cyrillus in Ioan. li. 4. cap. 13. & 14 places p. 690often cited & answered, do all vse the argument of omnipotencie, but not to proue the Popishe carnall or reall maner of presence, but to proué y^t Christ doth aboue the reach of mans vnderstanding, feede vsus truely with his flesh & bloud, and as Damascene saith, by an inscrutable meane (for he had not learned transubstantiatiō, though otherwise he were a corrupt writer, in diuerse things) as he doth regenerate vsus in baptisme.

The second general Chapter is, that no man requireth credit to be giuen to a figuratiue speach, but the fathers require credit to be giuen vntounto it, therfore it is not figuratiue. I denie the major, for he that requireth not all the figuratiue speaches in y^e scripture to be credited, in their true meaning, is an heretike. If these wordes had beene figuratiue (saith Sander) we should hauehave bene warned by the watch men of God to beware of them. Nay, to beware of misunderstanding them, so wee are directly by Augustine, De d…ct. Christ. lib. 3. Cap. 16. & by others. And who is so madde to denye these wordes of the cup, to be figuratiue? This cup is the newe Testament in my bloud. Againe, there is neither Basil, Epiphanius, Cyrillus, Ambrosius, Chrysostome, Eusebius, or any other that requireth these words to be credited, but they also shewe, that they are spiritually and mystically to be vnderstanded.

The thirde generall Chapter is, that the fathers affirme the trueth of Christes flesh, and his flesh to be ea…en truely in the Sacrament, therefore his substance is really present in the Sacrament. I denye the argument, for it is the true fl…sh of Christ, whereof wee are truely made partakers, yet it followeth not, that the same should be bodily present, but wee are fedd therewith, & vnited thereto after a spirituall manner: the bodie of Christ remaining locally in heauen, and no where else, a… both the Scripture, our creede, and the ancient fathers do tea…h vsus.

The fourth Chapter general is, that they which name y^e … of Christ a figure, a Sacrament, or remēbrance, a …ne, symbole, token, image, type (for so many terms th…y hauehave▪ although Sander list to rehear…e but y^e three p. 691first) do not exclude the substance of Christs flesh: but shewe that it is present vnderunder the signe of another thing, after a mys…icall & secrete manner. I answere, although they exclude not …he substance of Christes flesh, from his supper, yet shewing the bread and wine to be signes, tokens, & remembrantes, they exclude the Popish reall presence, vnderunder the accidents of bread and wine. For signes and the things signified must needs be diuerse, yea, opposite as relatiues. As when Cyprian saith: the diuine substance hath vnspeakably infused it selfe in the visible Sacrament, hee meaneth not the substance of Christes fleshe, nor of his godhead, but the grace of God giuen to the visible Sacrament. D… Coen. Dom. And when Hilarie saith: Wee take the flesh of his bodie vnderunder a mysterie, he meaneth not, that the accidents of bread is a mysterie, but the whole dispensation of the Sacrament. Likewise, when Cyril of Ierusalem saith: vnderunder the figure of bread, the bodie is giuen: hee meaneth, that breade is so a figure of the bodie, that as the figure is giuen outwardly, so the bodie is receiued inwardly.

Augustine, de verb. Apost. serm. 2. The bodie and bloude of Christ shall then be life to eueryevery man, if that thing which in the Sacrament is visibly receiued, be in the truth it selfe eaten spiritually, &c. Behold (saith Sander) there is a thing in the sacrament, & so really it is there, that it is visibly receiued. What a miracle Sander hath founde! but what thing is that which is visibly receiued, breade and wine, or the bodie of Christ? It must needes be the body of Christ (saith he) vnderunder the forme of breade, for nothing els is to be eaten spiritually. And is the body of Christe present inuisibly, as all Papistes affirme, and yet receiued visibly? This is strange Logike. But why may not the breade and wine be eaten and drunken spiritually, when they are by faith vnderstoode to be the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ, to feede the soule as they are corporally digested into the bodie? be not our soules washed spiritually by meanes of the water in baptisme?

p. 692The fift generall head. He that alleageth a cause why the flesh and bloud is not seene in the mysteries, presupposeth (although an inuisible) yet a most reall presence thereof. I answere the allegation of that cause, presupposeth no Popish reall presence, but sheweth that presence to bee spirituall and not corporall: as Ambrose doth plainly in y^e place which is truncally alleaged by Sander, who taketh onelyonly the taile thereof. De sacra. lib. 4. Cap. 4. Sed fortè duis, &c. But perhap… thou saiest: I see not the shewe of bloude: But yet it hath a similitude. For as thou hast receiued the similitude of his death, so thou drinkest the similitude of his precio…s bloud. That there may be no horror of raw bloud, and yet that the price of our redemption may worke. What argument can bee more plaine then this, that which we drinke is the similitude of his bloud, ergo it is not his reall bloud? As for Theophylact a late writer, I will not stand vponupon his authority.

The sixt generall head. They that acknowledg a chang of the substance of bread into Christes body, must needes meane a reall presence of that body. I answere none of the ancient fathers, acknowledged transubstantiation, but a change of vse, and not of substance in the bread and wine. The places which he citeth of Iustinus, & Cyprian, I hauehave satisfied before often times, namely Iustine, against Hesk. lib. 2. Cap. 43. and Cyprian lib. 2. cap. 28. … are the places which he quoteth, and be of antiquitye, in mine answere to Heskins, Gregory Nyssen. in or. Cathechet. in the second booke Cap. 51. Eusebius Emiss. or. 5. in. Pasch. ibidem, also Euthymius ibidem. Isychius in Cap. 6. Leuit. the same booke Cap. 54. Ambros. de myst. init. lib. 2. Cap. 51.

The seuenth generall Chapiter. All that affirme the externall Sacrifice of Christes bodye and bloude, must needes teach the reall presence thereof. I answere, none of the ancient fathers, teach the externall Sacrifice, but of thanksgiuing and remēbrance for the redemption by Christes death. The places of Dionysius and Eusebius Pamphili, which he noteth, are answered against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 35. The councell of Nice hath bene satisfied p. 693in this booke, lib. 2. Cap. 26.

The eight head, is the adoration lately confuted.

The ninth, that they affirme wicked men to receiue y^e Sacrament, for which he sendeth vsus to his authorities cited, lib. 2. Ca. 7. & li. 5. Ca. 9. where thou shalt finde y^e confutation, as of the rest so quoted by him.

The tenth, that they teach our bodies to be nourished with Christs flesh & bloud, li. 2. Ca. 5. li. 3. Ca. 15. & 16.

The 11. that they teache vsus to be naturally vnited to Christ, lib. 5. Cap. 5.

The 12. that they affirme Christes bodie to be on the altar, in the handes, in the mouthes, and the bloud to be in the cuppe. lib. 2. Cap. 5.

The 13. that they giuegive it such names, as onelyonly may agree to the substance of Christ, &c. for which he quoteth Cyprian de Coena Domini, answered by mee against Heskins, lib. 1. Cap. 29. And Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. aunswered in the fourth Chapter of this booke.

The 14. that they teache eueryevery man to receiue the same substance in one measure and equall portion, for which he quoteth lib. 1. Cap. what is the supper, & lib. 4. Cap. 12.

The 15. that they vse in shewing how it is sanctified, the verbs of creating, making, working, consecrating, representing, &c. for which he quoteth Cyprian de Coen. Do. answered by mee against Heskins. lib 2. Cap. 7. Also Hierome in 26. Matth. answered against Heskins, lib. 1. Cap. 18.

The 16. that they spake of it couertly, saying norun… fideles, least the infidels should mocke at it, for which hee citeth Augustine & Chrysostome, is a feeble argument, to proue the reall presence, for other spake openly, euen to Infidels, as Iustinus & Tertullian.

The 17. that they hauehave applyed it to the helping of y^e soules departed, as being the verie selfe substance that ransaked hell, is false, & not proued out of Aug. lib. Conf. 9. Ca. 13. nor Cyprian, li. 1. Ep. 9. as I hauehave shewed against Allen. li. 2. Cap. 9. & Cap. 7.

p. 694The 18. that they taught it to be the truth which hath succeeded in place of the old figures, for which he quoteth Augustine de Ciuitate Dei, li. 17. Cap. 20. where no such matter is, but that the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ is offered in bread and wine in steede of all the old sacrifices, & deliuered to the cōmunicants, by which he meaneth a sacrifice of thanksgiuing, and not of propitiation.

The 19. that they vsed by the knowne truth therof, to proue that Christ had flesh & bloud, for which he quoteth Irenaeus, lib. 4. Ca. …4. answered by me often times, & namely contra Hesk. li. 2. Cap. 49. And Theodoret in dialog, which you shall finde contra Hesk. li. 3. ca. 52. & 56.

The 20. that they hauehave farre preferred it before baptisme, that no crumme might be suffered to fall downe: for which he quoteth Cyrill. Catech. Myste. 4. answered in the Chapter next before.

The 21. that the catechumeni admitted to heare the preaching, might not sec the Eucharistie, that no man might eat it except he were baptized, and kept the commandement, and yet the catechumeni had a sanctified broad, which was a signe of Christ. For the former parte is cited Dionysins de Eccles. Hier. Cap. 3. for the later, August. lib. 2. de peccat. merit. & remiss. Cap. 26.

To this I aunswere, that these ceremonies and obseruations partely friuolous, partely superstitious, are too weake argumentes to prooue the matter in question. So that in steede of the testimonies of the auncient fathers, wee hauehave little beside quotations, and vaine collections.

CAP. VIII.

The reall presence of Christes bodie is prooued by the faith of the whole Church of God, in all times and all ages.Sander.

To omit that curious question, what shall become of Fulke.all our fathers that so long hauehave beleeued th'e reall presence: p. 695&c. it is a great vntrueth, that Sander affirmeth Berengarius to hauehave bene the first that preached & taught against the reall presence. For the opinion of the reall presence was not taught before Antichrist was openly shewed in the see of Rome in any place, nor immediately after commonly receiued, but in the seuenth or eight hundreth yere, as superstition, idolatrie, and false doctrine began to increase, both in the East and West: it began to take strength, but yet not to be fully confirmed, as it appeareth in the writings of Damaseene, the seconde Councell of Nice, and other writers since that time. Neither was the errour then vnreprooued, for the Councell of Ephes. 3. which condemned images, gaue a true vnderstanding of the supper. Bertrame, whome Sander affirmeth to be but suspected in his booke De corpore & sanguine Domini, which is extant for eueryevery man to reade, plainly determineth against the Popish reall presence and transubstantiation.

And whereas Sander offereth a large scope, as he saith, that we should name one bishop in the whole earth, who before the time of Berengarius, reprooued the teachers of the reall presence, as heretikes: I can name none so conueniently as Aelfricke, sometime Archbishop of Canterburie, with al the Saxon bishops in his time, who set foorth an Homily to be read on Easter day vntounto the people, and allowed certeine Epistles of the saide Aelfricke, in which is conteined a plaine and manifest denyall of that bodily presence, for which wee striue, and an approbation of the onelyonly spirituall manner of presence, which wee teache.

If Sander will cauill, that although they so taught they reproued not the teachers of the reall presence as heretikes I referre it to the iudgement of all indifferent men, how they would hauehave accused any man that obstinately should hauehave maintained a doctrine contrarie to their common beliefe and consent. Howe the fathers of the primitiue Church beleeued, concerning the blessed Sacrament, & namely S. August. (whom Sander half p. 696suspecteth, and yet saith he is not against them, because his communion is not forsaken) it hath ben plentifully and often shewed, & is not here to be repeted.

But Hilarie saith, it is the profession of our Lorde, & the faith of the Church, that the Sacrament is truely the flesh and bloud of Christ: therefore there is no place left of doubting. Certeinly we doubt not, but to the worthy receiuer, the Sacrament is the same which Christ affirmeth it to be, after a spirituall manner: but wee are out of doubt, that our Sauiour Christ reteining the nature of his bodie, would not make the same insensible, impalpable, incircumscriptible, &c. It is not therefore the presence, nor the reall presence rightly vnderstood, but the bodily presence, which we denye, and no man affirmed for sixe hundred yeres after Christ, except perhaps Marcus the heretike, that changed the colour of y^e wine by inchantment, that it might bee thought that Christe had dropped his bloud into his chalice, as Irenaeus testifieth, lib. 1. Cap. 9.

Likewise, we aunswere to Epiphanius, we belieue the wordes of Christ to be true, which by grace hath giuen vsus bread and wine to bee his bodie and bloud spiritually, euen as the water of baptisme to be regeneration, which similitude Epiphanius vseth, euen as he doth this of the supper, to shewe that wee are truely made according to the image of God, not by nature, but by grace. Epiph. Anch.

But Sander hath a pleasant similitude to shewe, that the Papistes are not gone from the Apostles, and auncient fathers, because a man liuing in these dayes, should be vniustly charged with treason, for disobeying of William the Conquerour, or being the sonne of him that disobeyed William the Conquerour, when he answereth, that he liued not vnderunder that king, and al his ancestours in their dayes were obedient to such kings vnderunder whome they liued. A worshipfull similitude. But if William the Conquerour made a lawe, that whosoeuer committeth these things, or these things, shalbe deemed p. 697a traitour, and it is prooued that thou hast committed some of them, what will the former answere auaile thee? it is the doctrine, and not the persons of the Apostles and auncient fathers, from which you are accused to hauehave departed. But which of the successours of the Apostles (saith Sander) sent Berengarius to preach that doctrine, whereof they helde the contrary? I aunswere, so long as Berengarius taught that doctrine, which the Apostles themselues commaunded to bee taught, he needed no speciall commission from them y^t were departed from the Apostles doctrine, to reprooue them, for he was sent of God, who opened his eyes to see the trueth, and their errours, that sitting in the chaires of the Apostles, taught a doctrine contrarie to the faith of the Apostles.

But Sander will at once prooue that all citizens of y^e house of God, through the world, witnessed w^t one voice, and in one worde, that they beleeued the bodily presence. For the olde custome was, at the wordes of consecration, and at the time of the receiuing the Sacrament, which was saide to be the bodie and bloud of Christ, to say, Amen: that is, to affirme it was so. And this Sander prooueth by manie witnesses, which is needelesse: for wee knowe it as well as he. But this prooueth no carnall nor bodily manner of presence, except Sander can proue, that it was tolde them, this to bee the body and bloud of Christ, without any figure, really, corporally, present vnderunder the onelyonly shapes of bread and wine, as they teache nowe. Yes (saith Sander) a figuratiue speach soundeth otherwise, then we must thinke, whereto (Amen). must not be answered What shall wee then answere to these wordes of Christ, This cuppe is the newe testament in my bloud? are not these the wordes of consecration also?

But what was meant by Amen, and what the Sacrament is, S. Augustine teacheth serm. ad infantes: Si ergo vos estis corpus Christi & membra, mysterium vestrum in mens a positum est: Mysterium Domini accipitis ad quod estis. Amen p. 698respond…tis, & respondendo subscribitis. Audis ergo corpus Christi & respondes, Amen. Esto membrum corporis Christi, vt verum sit Amen tuu…. &c. Therefore if you be the bodie, receiue the Lordes mysteries, whereunto you are. You answere Amen, and by so aunswering, you subscribe. Be thou a member of the bodie of Christ, that thy Amen may be true. These wordes declare, that not the reall presence was aduouched by the worde Amen, but the spirituall participation of the mysticall body of Christ by the faithfull.

But Leo, Ser. 6. de Ieiu. 7. mensis saith, Sic sacrae, &c, you ought so to communicate of the holy table, that ye dout nothing at all, of the trueth of the body and bloode of Christ, for that thing is taken in the mouth, which is beleeued in faith. And Amen is in vaine answered of them who dispute against that which is receiued. In these sayings Sander vrgeth, that it is receaued with the mouth, as though Leo did meane, that whatsoeuer was beleeued in faith, was receaued in the mouth, yet the worde is are sumitur, it is receaued by the mouth, which is not all one with, in the mouth. For the bodie of Christ may be receaued by the mouth, as by an instrument that receaueth the visible sacrament thereof, and yet the body is not receaued into the mouth. But Leo speaketh manifestly, against the Manichees, which denied that Christ had a true bodie: exhorting Christians not to doubte thereof, for except they beleeued faithfully, that Christ had a true bodie, they coulde not with their mouth receaue a sacrament of that body, which they beleeued not to bee, nor truely answere Amen, when they disputed against the trueth of that bodie whereof the visible sacrament was a signe, token, and argument, and so vsed by Tertullian, againste the Marcionites that likewise denyed the veritie of Christes body.

Wherefore in this Chapter, Sander prooueth nothing lesse then in the title he promiseth.

p. 699CAP. IX.

That no man possibly can bee condemned, for beleeuing the Sander.bodie of Christ to bee really present in the sacrament of the …ltar.

His title is of no man possibly, but his demonstration Fulk.is a simple poore man persuaded chanceably so by his teachers vponupon coulour of Christes almightie power, and will pretended in promising, that he will giuegive his fleshe and wordes, in saying; this is my body. As for them that are simplie deceaued, they stand or fal to God, I will neither iudge of their condemnation, nor absolution. But such as obstinately defende, that error, contrarie to their owne conscience, as a great number of the Papistes, which pretende faith, and seeke nothing else but the ouerthrowe of faith, and the glorie of God, for as much as that error employeth a deniall of the trueth of Christes humanitie, and consequentlie the trueth of the resurrection of our bodies, which must be made like vntounto the glorious bodie of Christ, and inferreth manifest Idolatrie in worshipping that for GOD, which is a meere creature: I see not howe they can escape eternall damnation. As for their defence which Sander maketh, is friuolous. First of the almightie power of God, which is to doe whatsoeuer he will, and is agreable to his glorie, and not whatsoeuer we will imagine. He can not therfore make his body to be in many places at once, or to bee without dimension of quantitie, or to bee inuisible and intangible, because hee hath determined of his will to the contrarie in fiue hundreth places of scripture. which testifie of the trueth of his humanitie, like vntounto his bretheren in all poyntes, without sinne. Neither doeth it derogate from his omnipotencie, that hee can not doe contrarie to his will, which were against his owne glorie.

p. 700It is no infirmitie in God, that he cannot lye, that hee cannot sinne, that he cannot denie himselfe, nor doe contrarie to his will & glory; but an argument of his power, wisedome, and goodnesse.

And whereas Sander saith, that Christ hath determined his will in saying: The bread which I wil giuegive, is my flesh, which I will giuegive for y^e life of the world: I answere, hee hath determined no such will of giuing his flesh in the Sacrament by these wordes, but of giuing his flesh to suffer death for the redemption of the worlde, which is the bread whereof he speaketh so often in that Chapiter to be eaten spiritually by faith, not onelyonly in the supper, but in baptisme, & without both y^e sacraments, by faith onelyonly, which was eaten of all the faithfull before the incarnation of Christ, without the eating of which breade of life, no mortall creature can bee partaker of eternall life. Further, where Sander saith: that Christ saide, This is my bodie, and gaue his twelue disciples twelue fragments or peeces, whereby he shewed, that hee made the substance of his body present vnderunder y^e formes of bread in diuers places &c: I answere, he declared no will of multiplying his bodie in diuers places at one time by such words or fact. For seeing he had so often before testified, y^e truth of his humanity, in somuch y^t he termed himselfe vsually, the sonne of man, and afterward offered his body to be touched and handled for triall of y^e truth of his resurrection: these wordes were not sufficient, to teach his disciples, y^t his natural bodie could at one time be visible and inuisible, tangible and intangible, in locall situation and not in locall situation, to be whole in one place, and whole in manie places, to hauehave quantitie actually of length bredth, and thickenes, & to hauehave no quantitie, actually of length breadth & thicknes: these contradictions I say being against nature, reasō, sense, his former doctrine, and the scriptures touching the trueth of his naturall bodie, and his argument taken of the senses after his resu…rection, coulde not bee perswaded with onelyonly saying, This is my bodie, for as much as they had hearde him saye manie thinges in like p. 701phrase, where no like vnderstanding could be imagined, and the scripture speaking of the sacraments, vseth ordinarily to call them by the names of these things whereof they are sacramentes. Wherefore there is no doubt, but the disciples vnderstood these words figuratiuely, sacramentally, and spiritually. And concerning the fragments and peeces whereof Sander speaketh, he is a shamed to call them fragments or peeces of bread, as Cyrillus doth, of whom he borowed the phrase, lest he should acknowledge breade to be any part of the Sacrament. But what declaration can he make of the will of Christ, concerning transubstantiation of the breade into his bodie, which euen the schoolemen affirme, cannot be prooued out of the scriptures? And seeing Sander in his fond Dialogisme, induceth Christ saying: that one of his works cannot be contrarie to another: seeing his ascension, abiding in heauen, and comming from thence to iudgement, are contrarie to this imagined presence; and those articles are plainely and manifestly set forth to be beleeued: howe can these onelyonly foure wordes, This is my bodie, which may hauehave another interpretation, agreeable to all the sayings and workes of God, make such a declaration of the will of Christ, as thereby the trueth of his humanitie remaining after it was assumed of the deitie and the resurrection of our bodies depending thereupon, the ascension, abyding of Christ in heauen, and his comming from thence to iudgement: although in words they be not denyed, yet are and must be brought in doubt, question and vncerteintie? The other false bragges of this interpretation, vniuersally receiued and alwayes taught and beleeued, I omitte, with his shameles slaunders of Luthers life, and death, wherof the one hath beene sufficiently, and many times confuted: the other is so well knowen, and to so manie wise and godly, with whom he liued and among whom he dyed, that next vntounto the autoritie of the scriptures, no one thing more discouereth the falshood of the Papists, then their impudēt slanders and lyes, maliciously deuised against the true professors of the Gospel.