Christian Questions and Answers Part 2, Catechism · Question 201 – Question 228
200. Queſtion.
Thou ſaydeſt alſo in the beginning that the ſimple worde doth conſiſt in two thinges, to wit, in the woordes themſelues and in the thinges ſignified by the woordes: and that there fore the Sacramentes are ſo farre off, from the ſimple and naked woorde, that they alſo are ſet before our eyes, & therefore are called of Auguſtine [viſible words.] And therfore it may bee, yea that the moſt wicked doe vnderſtand aſwell the outward word it ſelfe, as the thinges ſignified by it, to wit, this by the ſounde, but thoſe by the vnderſtanding. Why therefore doeſt thou not thinke the like alſo in the Sacramentes: too witte, that both the Sacramentes and the thing ſignified: the Bread and the Wine, yea, and Chriſte too bee receiued of all: of ſome too witte, of of the beleeuers too life, but of others, too witte, of the vnwoorthie, to damnation?
Anſweare.
Firſt, that which thou ſayeſt, too wit, that of whomſoeuer the outward woord is hearde, that they ſhoulde alſo perceiue that which is ſignified by it, thou knoweſt is not alwaies true. For it hath no place in them, who ſpeaking in a ſtrange tongue, ſo heare that they doe not vnderſtand, which falleth out to moſt men vnderunder the papacie. Yea how manie doe heare thoſe that ſpeake vntoo them in a knowne tongue, who yet notwithſtanding vnderſtande not the very meaning of thoſe things that are ſpoken: For therefore we goe to ſchooles, and to Schoolemaiſters, not onelyonly too learne the tongues, but eſpecially that wee may vnderſtande in deede thoſe things, whoſe ſoundes we perceiue wel ynough. Now this thing is much more to be acknowledged in diuine then in common matters, and by their owne nature more agreeable to this our vnderſtanding. But goe to let vsus graunt that that in the ſimple woorde and in the Sacrament, there is hearde and alſo vnderſtoode of all that which is ſignified by both: yet for all that I will not graunt, that the thing ſignified, that is to ſay, Chriſt, is receiued of any others then of thoſe that receiue him woorthily, that is to ſay, that come vntounto him with fayth. For this receiuing, which by a Sacramental figure (as we hauehave ſayde before) in the woords of eating & drinking is ſignified, & by the effect is called of the Apoſtle the communion or ſpiritual vnion, doth not only reſpect the hearing of our eares nor our vnderſtanding onelyonly, but declareth that which is the onelyonly propertye of fayth alone, to witte the ſpirituall application of Chriſt himſelfe.
201. Queſtion.
Is not this the ſelfe ſame thing that ſome ſay, to wit that aſwell the bread & the wine, as alſo the very bodie of Chriſt and his blood is receiued both of woorthy and vnwoorthy, but that the fruite of Chriſt is onelyonly receiued of them which are indewed with faith?
Anſweare.
No not ſo, the which I ſhall eaſily ſhewe thee by a fitte ſimilitude. For let vsus put the caſe that there is not onelyonly declared by woordes to ſome ſicke man of ſome learned Phiſitiō in an vnkowne tongue, but alſo in very deed ſome ſuch medicines ſet foorth which are required to the curing of him, and that the ſicke man doeth neyther vnderſtande what the Phiſition ſayeth, nor what is offered vntounto him. And the Phiſition hath doone his parte, who notwithſtanding hath done that hee hath doone in vayne. Suche are they who come altogether vnwoorthie too the Lordes Table, beeyng altogether ignoraunte of thoſe thinges that are there ſayde and miniſtred, too whome neuertheleſſe the whole Sacramentes are ſette foorth. Yea lette vsus put the caſe in the ſeconde place, that the ſicke man in deede heareth what the Phiſition ſayeth, yet vnderſtandeth not the meaning of his ſayinges, eyther becauſe hee is not attentiue, or elſe becauſe hee is not ſkilfull of thoſe thinges whereof hee heareth the Phiſition entreating. Suche are they alſo who come themſelues vnwoorthely too the Lordes table, too witte, with a mynde not rightly prepared to vnderſtande thoſe things which are doone there. Let vsus further put the caſe that the ſicke man doeth well vnderſtande both his Speeches, and whatſoeuer the Phiſition geueth him, but yet notwithſtanding deſpyſeth the thinges hee hath both hearde and well vnderſtoode. Nowe I demaunde of thee, whether thou canſt rightly ſay, that ſuche tyme of ſicke men, eyther of the firſt or ſecond or thirde ſorte doe receyue the medicines that are offered them?
Queſtion.
No not ſo. For the firſte ſorte neither receyue the woorde nor the thinges, the other onelyonly vnderſtand the woorde, finally the thirde ſort though they vnderſtand both, yet in verye deede they neglecte bothe the woorde and the thinges.
Anſweare.
Thou thinkeſt rightly. For it is one thinge too vnderſtande that whiche is ſayde, another to apply that to thy ſelfe which thou vnderſtandeſt, This Phiſition of whome I ſpeake is hee that rightly adminiſtreth the Sacramentes: the Elementes, and Sacramentall Ceremonies rightlye ſet forth, is the talke of this Phiſition: The medecine that is offered is Chriſt him ſelfe with his giftes, the onelyonly remedie againſt death only to be applyed vntounto vsus by the iuſtrument of faith as al the ſcripture witneſſeth. Herupō gather how greatly they are deceiued which deceyue both themſelues and others, who reaſon ſo that they ſaye, when the whole ſacraments, that is, as well the ſignes as the very body and blood of Chriſt himſelf, are miniſtred to al commers, that it is alſo receiued of al, albeit the fruites of the Sacrament are receiued of the faithful alone, as though forſooth Chriſt could otherwiſe be receyued then to euerlaſting life.
202. Queſtion.
Yea, but doth not Chriſt alſo iudge, as he dooth ſaue? that is to ſay, is hee not ſet foorth aſwell to iudgement of vnbeleeuers, as for the ſaluation of beleeuers?
Anſweare.
Yes verely. But being receiued, he ſaueth: but beeing neglected, he iudgeth. Therfore it is not truely ſaid, that he is receiued of ſome to life, but of other ſome to death, albeit indeede hee be the ſauiour of life vntounto ſome, to wit, to them, of whom hee is receiued by fayth: but to other ſome a ſauour of death, to witte, too them of whome hee is not receiued. For deathe is not of Chriſt, who is alwayes life, but of the contempt of Chriſte.
203. Queſtion.
I pray thee let vsus come at the length too that of whoſe expoſition this controuerſie ſeemeth chiefely to depend, to witte to the verie true and natiue expoſition of the woords of the inſtitution.
Anſweare.
And which doeſt thou thinke too bee that ſame inſtitution?
Queſtion.
Too witte, this is my bodye that is giuen for you, and this is my bloode of the newe Teſtament, which is ſhedde for many, for the forgiueneſſe of ſinnes.
Anſweare.
But I ſay, that the inſtitution dooth comprehend not onelyonly what is geuen: But alſo what is preſcribed, both too the miniſter and too thoſe which come to theſe myſteries. For all theſe thinges muſt concurre in this action.
Queſtion.
That I may admitte this, yet notwithſtanding I thinke that there is controuerſie about theſe which I hauehave rehearſed.
Anſweare.
Yea, and of others alſo. For thou knoweſt that there is queſtion alſo what is broken: and the worde doe you, is taken of ſome for ſacrifice you, and againe for, make you the body & blood of Chriſt of bread, as of late, Santeſius was not aſhamed to write. But God willing we will weigh all theſe things in their proper place.
204. Queſtion.
Nowe I pray thee proceede to the expounding of thoſe things which I hauehave ſpoken of: and firſt of all, ſaye thou, howe thou thinkeſt that ſame This is my body, is to bee interpreted.
Anſweare.
I ſay, that this ſame propoſition dooth conſiſt of a ſubiecte a Predicate and a coupling Verbe (as they ſpeake in Schooles.) The ſubiect is declared by the pronoune, This, they attribute by the tearme of the Body, the copulatiue is the verbe ſubſtantiue is.
205. Queſtion.
But what is the ſubiect?
Anſweare.
Too witte the ſame that Chriſte reached foorth, taken and broken, to witte, that ſame breade as the Euangeliſtes doe expreſſe. Therefore the woord This, can declare nothing els but This Breade, too witte, the element of this action.
206. Queſtion.
Nowe what is the attribute?
Anſweare.
That ſame veryt bodye of Chriſte giuen, and that ſame bloode ſhedde for vsus. And therefore thoſe ſame determinations are added that is is giuen: and that is ſhedde.
207. Queſtion.
And howe are theſe ſo ioyned togeather, that the one may be ſayde of the other?
Anſweare.
To wit, this is the nature of thinges which be deſparate or ſundrie, that when they altogeather diſagree in kinde, the one can not properly bee ſayde of the other by no reaſon: becauſe otherwiſe thinges ſhould not bee diſcerned from thinges by their ſpecificall fourme. Therefore if thou take this propoſition properly, it ſhall bee no leſſe falſe, that bread is the body of Chriſt, then that a gourde is a man. Therefore it muſt needes be a figuratiue ſpeach.
Queſtion.
But thou art not ignorant that the very letter is toughly mainteyned as wel of the defenders of tranſubſtantiation as of conſubſtantiation.
Anſweare.
So they ſay. But of them we ſhall ſay afterwardes. Nowe it is ynough for me to declare the doctrine of our Churches, and to ſhewe vponupon what reaſon it ſtandeth vntill that we ſhall confute the contrarie opinions.
208. Queſtion.
In what thing then placeſt thou the figure? what? in the Subiect?
Anſweare.
No, not ſo. For that ſame true bread taken, broken, and giuen is properly ſhewed in that pronoune.
Queſtion.
What, onelyonly the bread?
Anſwere.
Yea, onelyonly. For as we ſhall ſay in his place, it is not meete here in any caſe to ſet the figure Synechdoche. This notwithſtanding is true, that ſo is ſhewed not ſimplie common bread, but Sacramentall bread, that is, bread appoynted to a Sacramentall vſe.
209. Queſtion.
What, doeſt thou place a figure in the predicate?
Anſweare.
I knowe that certaine men doe charge vsus ſo, and that not in one kinde of ſclaunder. For ſome doe accuſe vsus as though we ſhould heere vnderſtād by the bodie of Chriſt, the Church: as though forſooth wee ſhould bee ſo madde, not to marke that thoſe wordes, which is giuē for you, can not bee vnderſtoode of the myſticall bodie: or as though in the other member there ſhould be ment ſome myſticall blood. But others becauſe we interprete the bodie the Sacrament or the ſigne of the bodie, by and by they cō clude, that wee make a double bodyed Chriſt, or els that we attribute (I cānot tel what) phantaſtical bodie, of which notwithſtanding God be thanked, neyther of both is admitted of vsus. For wee are ſo far of frō that, that we ſhould ſay that another then that true and onelyonly bodie of Chriſt giuen for vsus, is to be ſaid of that bread, that we contrariwiſe contend that whole Chriſt God & man, is there denominated of another nature, to wyt, the bodily, and that for that cauſe which we hauehave ſhewed before.
210. Queſtion.
But if the figure be neither in the Subiecte nor in the Predicate, it is no where.
Anſweare.
Thou gathereſt not rightly. For thou omitteſt the third, that is to ſay, the copulatyue which knitteth the ſubiect with the attribute. I ſay then that the figure is in the very kynde of attribution, that is, that in very deede the true bodie and properly taken, is ſayde alſo of the true bread properly taken, but figuratiuely, not properly. So if wee ſay that Circumciſion is the couenaunt: or the Scepter is the kingdome, or that the Paſchall Lambe was Chriſte, it muſt needes be that the figure be placed neither in the Subiect nor in the Attribute: but in the Copulatiue or kinde of attribution.
211. Queſtion.
Why therefore doe you interprete the body the Sacrament, or the ſigne or figure of the body?
Anſweare.
It is all one to ſay, that that bread is the bodye of Chriſte, but not properly, but not as it ſignifyeth the ſame Sacramentally: and to ſay that the bread is not that body, but onelyonly the Sacrament of that body. Therefore that difference that our aduerſaries obiect here vntounto vsus, is moſt vayne and fooliſh. That the fathers aſwel Greeks as Latines, hauehave ſpoken both wayes, it is more often ſhewed of our men, then that we ought ſo often to repeate their ſayings.
212. Queſtion.
But nowe what manner of figure ſayeſt thou that this is?
Anſweare.
I ſay that it is a Sacramental Metonymia, whereby is brought to paſſe, that the name of the thing Sacramentally ſignified, is giuen to the ſigne: or whereby the ſigne is ſaid to be the thing it ſelfe, to the ſignifying whereof it is giuen: the which thing I hauehave prooued before by many like examples.
Queſtion.
Why doeſt thou ſo often beate that ſame word [Sacramentally] into our heades?
Anſweare.
That I may alwayes meete with that ſame ſhamefull ſclaunder of theirs, who as often as they heare the name of ſigne and ſignification, they crye out that we make the Supper of the Lorde of none effect, and as it were tranſfourme it into an idle picture. Vnderſtande therefore a Sacramentall Metonymia to be that figure, whereby is brought to paſſe, that the ſigne is ſayde to be that thing, for the ſignifying whereof it is ſo offered to the outwarde ſenſes by a fitte analogie and proportion, and by the will of God, that therewithall is offered to the vnderſtanding and to fayth that ſame thing ſignified, to bee receyued and ſealed truely and in very deede.
213. Queſtion.
But it is harde that ſome thing ſhould be ſayd to be that, that onelyonly it ſignifyeth to the minde.
Anſweare.
Naye rather as I hauehave before taught, this ſame figuratiue kinde of ſpeaking is much more fitte and expreſſe, and therfore alſo more vſual, then if by proper ſpeaking the ſignes ſhoulde be ſaide to ſignifie ſome thing. For when they are ſaid to be the thing it ſelfe that they ſignifie, they altogether leade the mynde of the beholder from the viſible thing, to behold the inuiſible, and to lay holde vppon it by Fayth: which is the ende of Sacramentes.
Queſtion.
Notwithſtanding, I would hauehave this confirmed vntounto me, by plaine & euident reaſons, to wit, that theſe propoſitions, This is my body &c &. This is my blood. &c are to bee taken figuraliuely.
Anſweare.
I will doe it, and that gladly. For what can be more acceptable vntounto mee, then ſo to open this trueth that all coulour and ſleight being remooued, it may be ſeene of all men euen as it is. Now I will ſo order my proofes that in the firſt place I will bryng myne argumentes from theſe very woordes of the inſtitution, This is my bodie: and ſecondly of the reaſon which is takē from the affirmation of the Subiect. Nowe that, that wee ſhall ſay of the bodie, I woulde alſo to bee vnderſtoode of the blood.
214. Queſtion.
Nowe then, what is thy firſt argument?
Anſweare.
That which he tooke, brake, and reached, the Lord commaunded to bee taken and eaten. This ſame hee ſayde to be his bodie.
But he tooke that very ſame breade, brake it and deliuered it, &c. the Euangeliſtes witneſſing the ſame.
Therefore hee ſayde, that that ſame bread was his bodie. But thinges that are vnlyke contrary in nature, can not be ſpoken properly of them ſelues. But bread and the bodie of Chriſt are things diſagreeing by nature. Therefore they can not properly be ſayde the one of the other. It remayneth therefore, that, foraſmuche as this ſpeeche of Chriſte is true, it bee vnderſtoode figuratyuely.
215. Queſtion.
But what now is the other argumēt?
Anſweare.
In eueryevery proper and reguler affirmation of the Subiect, eyther the generall worde, or the worde of propertie, or the worde of accident is affirmed of the ſpeciall: or the ſpeciall of the ſingular, but the body of Chriſt is neyther the generall worde, nor the worde of differencie, nor the worde of propertie, nor the worde of accident. nor the ſpeciall in reſpect of the bread. Therfore it can by no maner of meanes be ſayd of the bread. Notwithſtanding it is ſaid and that truely, when it is ſpoken of Chriſt. Therefore figuratiuely.
216. Queſtion.
Shewe alſo the thirde.
Anſweare.
If the body of Chriſt be ſpoken properly and regularly of this bread, then the things that agree to the body, agree to the bread, and contrariwiſe. But to be borne of the virgine Marie, to bee hungrie to die for vsus, to be crucified, to riſe againe &c, agree to the bodye of Chriſt, but not vntounto bread, And contrariwiſe to bee ſowen, reaped, threſhed, kneded, & baked, agree in deed to bread: but by no meanes to the body, therefore by a reguler and common vſuall maner of ſpeach, the bread can not be ſayd to be the body of Chriſt.
217. Queſtion.
Shewe the fourth.
Anſweare.
If that be a naturall propoſition, eyther the ſame is ſayd of it ſelfe, or els not the ſame, but a contrarie. But neyther of both is true. Therefore it can not be a naturall propoſition, That the ſame can not be ſaid of it ſelfe, it appeareth plainely by theſe reaſons. Firſt becauſe in any identicall propoſition, that is, where the ſame thing is affirmed of the ſelfe ſame, the Subiect & the predicate muſt not differ in the thing, but in the name onelyonly: as when I ſay a blade is a ſworde, as a target is a ſhield, the ſonne of the virgin is Chriſt, but bread and the body of Chriſt are not words of the ſame ſignification, but thinges altogeather diuers: therefore they make not an identicall Propoſition. But if noweAn identicall propoſition is a propoſition affirmatiue of it ſelfe. ſome froward perſon will hauehave one and the ſame ſubſtance too bee declared in theſe two words, firſt ye muſt ſhew that neither bread ceaſeth to be bread, nor ye the bodie ceaſeth to be a bodie. Furthermore in a propoſition Identical, the ſubiect and predicate are conuertible, or ſtanding one for an other. Therefore if this propoſition were identicall or one, the bodie of Chriſt might as truely bee ſaid to be baked in an Ouen, as it is truly ſaide that bread is the body giuen for vsus. Therfore it is not as the ſchoolemen ſpeake, an identicall propoſition.
Now againe, that nothing diuers, is herein naturally ſaid, is thus prooued by a neceſſary conſequence. If the body as ſome thing diuers ſhould bee regulerly ſpoken of bread, ſurely eyther it ſhould be ſpoken eſſentially, or as the cauſe, or as accidentary. We hauehave ſhewed in the ſeconde argument that it is not ſpoken eſſentially, as neither being vntounto breade as the general, or as the difference, nor as the ſpecial, in reſpect of the ſingular. Now it can much leſſe be the cauſal affirmation. For neither hath a bodie the reaſon in reſpect of bread, of the efficient cauſe, nor of the end: but the inward cauſes, to wyt, the matter and fourme are referred to the eſſential affirmation. Finally, it can not bee any accidentall affirmation, for as much as the body is no accident, yea and though it were, yet it can not be an accident to bread.
It remaineth therefore, that by neyther of both wayes, that ſame can be, either a naturall or a proper Propoſition.
218. Queſtion.
Tell the fift.
Anſweare.
If that ſame bread were properly the bodie of Chriſte, it ſhoulde alſo be perſonally vnited to the Sonne of God, Of which ſhould folow thoſe ſame three moſt abſurd and falſe thinges, that the ſacramentall & perſonall vnion are one and the ſame, that Chriſt in this Sacrament ſhould conſiſt of three natures perſonally, eſſentially vnited & knit togeather: to be ſhort, that the bread and the wine ſhould be aduaunced into a condition infinitely better then the Church it ſelfe. For ſo the bread ſhould properly be the very body of Chriſt: but ye Church ſhould be the body of Chriſt but figuratiuely or myſtically: neyther is there any faythfull man that is very Chriſt, but onelyonly a partaker of Chriſt.
219. Queſtion.
I pray thee adde alſo the ſixt.
Anſweare.
If that ſame bread bee properly the body of Chriſt, & that ſame wine properly the blood of Chriſt, as they are diſtinct ſignes, ſo alſo the body ſhalbe ſeparated from the blood: or either ſigne ſhalbe properly whole Chriſt. Nowe if this later be true, the letter ſhal not ſimplie be kept, but a ſynechdoche muſt be placed: as for example it muſt hauehave bene ſayde properly, This bread is my body and my blood: and this cup is my blood and my body. And to what purpoſe I pray you had there needed a double element?
220. Queſtion.
And wilt thou adde aſ ſo the ſeuēth?
Anſweare.
That which is ſayde to be with another thing, or in an other, or vnderunder an other, without commixtion beeyng alſo ioyned with a moſt neere knitting together, cannot properly be ſayde too bee that thing it ſelfe: As for example ſake although the ſoule and the bodie be ioyned togeather perſonally and inſeparably, yet notwithſtāding no man wil ſay ye the bodie is the ſoule, or the ſoule is the bodie. Much leſſe therefore the ſacramental coniunctiō ſhal bring this thing to paſſe, that the bread ſhall properly be the very body of Chriſt.
221. Queſtion.
Wilt thou alſo rehearſe the eight?
Anſweare.
If that ſame bread be properly the bodie of Chriſte, then it ſhoulde ſeaſe to bee bread, foraſmuch as theſe twoo thinges are wholly in kinde vnlike. But if it ceaſe to be bread, now the ſacrament ſhall not conſiſt of theſe two thinges one earthly and the other heauenly, vnleſſe thou call the earthly ſhadowes, that is to ſay, accidences without a ſubiect. But theſe being ouerthrowne, the proportion of ſubſtances ſhalbe alſo ouerthrowne, & therefore the whole reaſon of a ſacramēt ſhalbe ouerthrowne. It muſt needes bee therefore, that that breade be called the body of Chriſt figuratiuely.
But now I come to the other ranke of argumentes, to witte, drawen from thoſe wordes which goe before and followe thoſe former, This is my bodie, and from the circumſtaunces and conferences of other places of the Scrypture.
222. Queſtion.
Tell the firſt.
Anſweare.
I ſay out of the former woordes, too wit, he tooke and brake, that this is playne, that that which he tooke coulde not properly of Chriſte hee called his owne bodie, as of whom it coulde not bee ſayde that hee tooke, helde and brake himſelfe to himſelfe, but as one that gaue and brake the breade of hys body receiued in too his handes, to his Diſciples manifeſtly beholding him. Therfore Auguſt. that he might molliſie, that ſame ſacramental Metonymia he ſayde that Chriſt did after a certaine ſort beare himſelfe in his owne handes, namely, leaſt it ſhoulde ſeeme to bee a vayn Sacrament, the name of the thing ſignified is geuen vntoo the ſigne: The ſame alſo is to be thought of the cup, as wee ſhall ſhew in his proper place, into which vndoubtedly, Chriſt had neuer yet powred foorth that ſame blood of his conteyned in his body.
223. Queſtion.
Tell the other.
Anſweare.
If the body ſhould properly be ſpokē of the bread, and the blood of the wine, then the words folowing ſhould properly alſo be ſpoken of the bread which is geuen for you: & which is ſhedde for you, both which is moſt falſe.
224. Queſtion.
Rehearſe the thirde.
Anſweare.
By that that is added, Do this in the remembrance of me, it is playne that the body is not properly ſo called of the bread, nor the blood of the wine, becauſe they were there preſent together in the ſame place whereas bread & wine were: Nowe remembrance is not of thinges preſent, but of thinges abſent. Therfore Bernard in his 33. ſermō vppon the Canticles diſputing of the ſelfe ſame thing, oppoſeth Faith, and the ſhewe (that is, that that is ſeene with the eyes) and alſo remembrance and preſence.
225. Queſtion.
Shew the fourth argument.
Anſweare.
The ſame appeareth playnely by thoſe woordes that are added, 1. Cor. 11. 16. As often as yee ſhall doe this, yee ſhall ſhewe foorth the Lordes death till hee come. Verily hee that ſhall come is not yet come, or if hee bee nowe properly come, theſe myſteries are no longer to be celebrated. Now all theſe thinges followe, not onelyonly if the bread be properly the bodie, but alſo if, within, or vnderunder the Bread and Wyne hee bee preſent in the ſelfe ſame place where there is bread and wine.
226. Queſtion.
Declare the fift.
Anſweare.
So I gather it from the Circumſtaunce of the time. At what time the Lorde ſayde of that wine, This is my blood which is ſhed for many, for the remiſſion of ſinnes, as yet it was not ſhedde foorth out of the veſſell of the bodie of Chriſt, neyther euer after is it read to be gathered in any veſſel. Therfore in that cuppe then there was not properly that blood of Chriſt ſhedde for vsus betweene the handes of the tormentours, neither nowe alſo is it. Muche leſſe therfore was that wine thē or now is that ſame blood properly ſhed for vsus. But that ſame propoſition is figuratiue which teſtifieth vntounto vsus, that wee truely and ſpiritually through faith are partakers of Chriſt himſelfe and of his paſſion and of all other his giftes.
227. Queſtion.
Declare the ſixth,
Anſweare.
I gather alſo by that, that Chryſoſtome hath written, that Chriſt hymſelfe was a Partaker of thoſe ſignes. Hom. in Matth. 83. But if his body ſhoulde be ſpoken properly of that bread which Chriſt did eate, and his blood of that Wine which Chriſt dranke, then ſhoulde Chriſt properly eate and drinke himſelfe.