Common Places — Peter Martyr Vermigli

Common Places · Peter Martyr Vermigli

30 Out of the ſecond Dialogue we hauehave theſe wordes. SOD. We muſt doubtleſſe (according to the prouerbe) remooue eueryevery ſtone that we may attaine vntounto the trueth, eſpeciallie in ſetting foorth the doctrine of God. ORTH Shew me then: whereof the ſignes (which be offered vntounto God by the miniſters of holy thinges) be myſticall ſignes. SOD. Of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. ORTH. OF the true bodie or not? SOD. Of the true bodie. ORTH. Very wel ſaid: for they muſt be a principall patterne of the Image. For the painters doe followe nature, and they paint the Images of thoſe thinges that be ſéene. SOD. Thou ſayſt true. ORTH. If then thoſe diuine myſteries be examples of a bodie being, then is the Lordes bodie now alſo a bodie, and is not changed into the nature of diuinitie, but is repleniſhed with diuine glory. SOD. In good time haſt thou mooued this ſpeach of diuine myſteries: for thereby will I ſhew thée a changing of the Lordes bodie into an other nature: aunſwere therefore vntounto my queſtions. ORTH. I will aunſwere. SOD. What calleſt thou that gift which is offered before the prieſtes inuocation? ORTH. We muſt not ſpeake openly: For it is very lykelie that ſome here preſent be not yet throughlie inſtructed. SOD. This is a diffuſe aunſwere. ORTH. Looke what ſéede it was, ſuch meate it is. SOD. But how doe we name the other ſigne? ORTH. This name alſo is common betokening a figure of the cup. SOD. How dooſt thou call thoſe thinges after ſanctification? ORTH. The bodie of Chriſt, and the bloud of Chriſt. SOD. And doeſt thou beléeue, that thou receaueſt the bodie and bloud of Chriſt? ORTH. Yea verily I beléeue it. SOD. Therefore euen as the ſignes of the bodie and bloud of the Lord, be one thing vndoubtedlie before the inuocation of the prieſt, but after the very inuocation be changed from one to an other, and become other thinges: ſo likewiſe the bodie of the Lord, after it is receaued, is changed into diuine ſubſtance. ORTH. Thou art caught in the ſame nettes which thou haſt layd. For thoſe myſticall ſignes, after ſanctification doe not change their owne proper nature: Note that the ſignes do not caſt away their old nature.for they in very déede remaine in their former ſubſtance, both in figure and forme, and are euen ſo ſéene and handled as before: and the thinges that are doone, are vnderſtood and beléeued & honored, as though they were ſuch as they are beléeued to be. Compare therfore the Image with the principall figure, and thou ſhalt ſée the ſimilitude. For a figure muſt agrée with the trueth. For that very bodie it ſelfe hath his firſt figure, and forme, and circumſcription, and (to ſpeake plainlie) the very ſubſtance alſo of a bodie. But after the reſurrection it became immortall, and it is accounted woorthie of the ſeate which is at the right hand of God, and is woorſhipped of all creatures, as a bodie being of the Lordes owne nature. SOD. Howbeit that myſticall ſigne changeth his firſt name, and is not afterward named by that name which it was firſt called, but is called a bodie. Wherefore the trueth it ſelfe, muſt now be called God, and not any more a bodie. ORTH. Thou appeareſt ignorant vntounto me: it is not onelyonly called a bodie, but alſo the bread of life: for ſo the Lord called it. Yea and we alſo call this a diuine bodie and a quickening bodie, and the maiſters bodie, and the Lordes bodie, teaching, that it is no common bodie of euerie man, but the bodie of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt, who is God and man: euen Ieſu Chriſt, yeſterday and to day, and the ſame for euer.

31 There is extant an Epiſtle in the Lybrarie of Florence (albeit not imprinted) of Chryſoſtome to Caeſarius the Moonke in the time of his ſecond baniſhment, Chryſoſt.An example of that Epiſtle is extant with the Byſhop of Canterburie.written againſt Appolinaris and others which confoū ded the diuinitie and humanitie of Chriſt. Chriſt is both God and man: God becauſe he cannot ſuffer; Man, becauſe of his paſſion and ſuffering: One ſonne, one Lord, one and the ſelfe ſame doubtleſſe poſſeſſing one dominion, and one power of the natures vnited (although they be not together of one ſubſtance) and each one of them being vnmingled kéepeth an acknowledgement of his owne propertie: for this cauſe that they be two thinges not confounded. For like as before the bread be ſanctified, we name it bread, and the ſame being ſanctifyed, by the diuine grace by meanes of the prieſt is vndoubtedlie deliuered from the name of bread, and is accounted woorthie to be called the Lords bodie, although the nature of bread hauehave remained in it, and is declared not to be two bodies but one bodie of the ſonne: euen ſo this diuine foreign, that is to ſay, the nature of an ouerflowing bodie, hath made both theſe one ſonne and one perſon. Heſychius in the 20. Heſychiusbooke vppon Leuiticus the 8. Chapter: Therefore he commaundeth that the fleſh ſhould be eaten with bread, to the intent we might vnderſtand the ſame to be called a myſterie of him, becauſe it is fleſh and bread together. Gelaſius.Gelaſius againſt Eutiches wrote that in the Sacrament of the Euchariſt the ſubſtance and nature of bread and wine doe not ceaſe to be: and he maketh a compariſon of this Sacrament with Chriſt, in whom both the natures aſwell diuine as humane remaine whole, euen as in this Sacrament dooth the nature of bread and of the bodie of Chriſt. Gregorie in the regiſter: Gregorie.while we take aſwell the ſwéete bread as the leauened bread, we are made one bodie of the Lord our Sauiour. Bertram.Bertram in his little booke De Corpore & Sanguine Domini, ſaith as touching the natures of the ſignes, that according to the ſubſtāce of the creatures looke what they were before conſecration, the ſame they remaine afterward. Bernard.Bernard in his Sermon De Coena Domini, manifeſtlie ſetteth foorth a ſimilitude of a King, whereby any man receaueth either the faith of wedlock or the poſſeſſion of ſome dignitie: as it commeth to paſſe in the conſecration of Byſhops, where the King, or the Croſiers ſtaffe, or the labels of the Miter, be ſignes of thinges giuen and graunted, and yet no vaine ſignes. For the thinges which they ſignifie are moſt certainelie giuen. The very which I hauehave ſhewed to be doone in Sacramentes.

32 Now let vsus confute the Argumentes of theſe men wherby they indeuour to prooue their Trāſubſtantiation. As touching y^e firſt, A confutation of the arguments for tranſubſtantiation.we anſwere that Chriſt promiſed his fleſh or his bodie or bloud for to be meate and drinke, and that in the 6. of Iohn: Verſe. 51.which he perfourmeth ſo often as we beléeue that he truelie dyed for vsus. He alſo performed it whē in the ſupper he inſtituted this Sacrament: For vntounto that ſpirituall eating, The meaning of the propoſition, This is my bodie.he added ſignes. But ſpeciallie they obiected, This is my bodie: about the trueth of which ſaying ſtandeth the Controuerſie: howbeit onelyonly as touching the manner: for both aſwell they as we affirme the propoſition to be true, and we contend onelyonly about the ſenſe. They affirme the propoſition to be plaine, and wée on the other ſide ſay, …uguſtine.that Auguſtine De doctrina Chriſtiana teacheth, that wee muſt not ſo interpret one place as it ſhould be againſt many other, but ſo as it may agrée with the reſt. Neither muſt they alwayes obiect a plainneſſe of the ſenſe, otherwiſe when it is ſaid: Gen. 1. 6.Let vsus make man to our owne Image and likeneſſe [the heretickes named] Anthropomorphitae ariſe and inferre, The Heretikes called Anthropomorphitae.that God hath a bodie and a ſoule and other members as we ſée them to be framed in man. Thou ſayeſt that this Similitude muſt be referred vntounto the ſoule, becauſe through it man beareth rule ouer other creatures as God dooth: but they ſay, that theſe thinges be there written of man, and that thou vainlie goeſt about to attribute to a part, namely to the ſoule, that which is pronounced of the whole. Ioh. 4. 24. Luk. 24. 39.Thou againe obiecteſt, That God is a ſpirit, and that a ſpirit hath not fleſh and bones, and ſo by other places of the Scriptures, thou gathereſt y^e ſenſe of this one place. So ſaid the Arrians that they had a plaine ſenſe of that place: The ArriāsThe father is greater than I. Thou reſtraineſt this vntounto the nature of man, Ioh. 14. 28.becauſe in other places, the diuinitie of Chriſt is declared vntounto thée: as in the firſt of Iohn and in the Epiſtle to the Romans the 9. Iohn. 1. 1. Rom. 9. 5. 1. Ioh. 5. 20. Luk. 22. 36.Chapter: and in the 5. Chapter of Iohns Epiſtle Chriſt ſaith: He that hath not a ſword let him buy himſelfe one. Whereby he ſéemeth to ſtirre vp vntounto reuenge: In interpreting of one place, we muſt hauehave reſpect vntounto other placesbut and if thou hauehave reſpect vntounto other places, thou ſhalt perceiue it is ſpoken figuratiuely. Paul ſayth: 1. Theſſ. 5. 17.Pray you without intermiſſion. The Heretikes called foreign.Vp roſe the [heretikes called] foreign, who thought that we ſhould apply our ſelues to perpetuall and cloſe whiſpering prayers, when as neuertheleſſe it is ſaid elſewhere: He that prouideth not for his owne, 1. Tim. 5. 8.and eſpeciallie for his houſhold, renounceth his faith, and is woorſe than an infidell. And againe: Let all thinges be doone by order: And againe: 1. Co. 14. 40 2. Theſſ. 3. 10.He that laboureth not let him not eate. The [heretickes called] Chiliastae, that is the Millenarij, The Millenarii. Apo. 20. 7.thought that they had a moſt plaine word in the Apocalips the 20. Chapter as touching a thowſand yeares, wherein Chriſt ſhall raigne with his Saintes. And the Sabellian hereticks ſayd: The Sabellians.There is no difference betwéene the father and the ſonne, by reaſon of that place: Ioh. 10. 30. Iohn. 14. 9.I & the father be one, Alſo Philip: He that ſeeth me, ſeeth alſo the father: Ioh. 10. 38.and as I am in the father, ſo likewiſe the father abideth in me. Theſe thinges the heretickes ſaid were plaine, and made for them. The Ebionites.The Ebionites affirmed Chriſt to be a meere creature, and they ſaid that theſe wordes, My God, my God, Mat. 27. 46why haſt thou forſaken me, might not otherwiſe be vnderſtood, ſéeing that God neuer forſaketh himſelfe. And becauſe that it is written in the 6. Verſe. 54.of Iohn: He that ſhall eate my fleſh, and drinke my bloud ſhall not dye at any time: ſome hauehave ſaid, that it followeth that they which hauehave lawfully communicated once cannot periſh euerlaſtingly. Which error Auguſtine De Ciuitate Dei dooth manifeſtlie reprooue. And the wordes of the Canticles of Salomon: The C… ticles of Salomon.if thou receaue them as they appeare at the firſt ſhew, be no other than verſes of louelove or a wedding ſong. It is not méete therefore to pretend alwayes a perſpicuitie of wordes. Chriſt ſaid: He that hath eares to heare, Matt. 13. 9.let him heare, and he that readeth, let him vnderſtand. Neither is it conuenient foorthwith to take quicke holde of the firſt ſenſe, neglecting and not conſidering other places. Chriſt ſaid vntounto the Apoſtles, Matt. 16. 6.Beware ye of the Leuen of the Pharaſies. They ſtraightway thought y^t he ſpake of bread, when he ſpake as concerning doctrine. He ſaid alſo, Ioh. 11. 11.Lazarus our friend ſleepeth. There lykewiſe the Apoſtles miſvnderſtood him: If he ſleepe he ſhall be ſafe, when as he ſpake of death. Againe, the Lord ſaid: Deſtroy this Temple, Iohn. 2. 19.and in three dayes I will raiſe it vp againe: Neither vnderſtood they, that he meant as touching his bodie. He that ſhall keepe my commaundements, ſhall not dye for euer. Here alſo the Iewes thought that he ſpake of the common death. Groſſely did Nicodemus vnderſtand the new byrth. Iohn. 3. 4. &c. Iohn. 4. 11.No leſſe did that woman of Samaria erre, as concerning that water which Chriſt promiſed her. And the Hebrewes erred when Chriſt ſaid vntounto them: Iohn. 8. 5 6.That Abraham ſawe his day, and reioyced. Wherefore, let them not alwayes ſay vntounto vsus, that this ſcripture, This is my bodie, is plaine: for we will aunſwere them: it is playne, as touching the ſignification of the wordes. But the ſenſe of them is not plaine, as in the lyke ſentences it dooth appeare: Chriſt is the Rock, 1. Cor. 10. 4 Iohn. 1. 29. 1. Co. 10. 27 1. Co. 10. 7Chriſt is the Lambe, Ye be the bodie of Chriſt, We that be many are one bread. All theſe be the words of God, and we may pronounce of them that they be plaine, that they be manifeſt: yet for all that, none of them inferre Tranſubſtantiation.

33 Wherefore there is no cauſe why perſpicuitie ſhould be ſo much pretended. A firſt declaration of the propoſition: This is my body.It behooueth by other places and circumſtances of the ſcripture to regard well what is héere meant. Wherefore wee will expound this propoſition in ſcanning of it more déepely. God meant to drawe man vntounto him by ample promiſes, becauſe he woulde bleſſe him and make him happie: and becauſe we hauehave vnbeléeuing hearts, he woulde hauehave manie benefites to appeare towardes mankinde, whereby he might allure the ſame vntounto him. Wherefore, he not onelyonly gaue vsus fréely all creatures, but alſo in the time of the floud, deliuered mankind (which otherwiſe had yll deſerued) from the deſtruction of the waters. He declared himſelfe verie mercifull vntounto Abraham: alſo he gaue good ſucceſſe vntounto the ſtocke of Iſaac and to his ſéede Iacob, that it ſhould be increaſed in Egypt. And when they were there oppreſſed, he deliuered them, he gaue them a verie happie land, and he exalted them to the dignitie of a kingdome and Prieſthood: but yet they were alwaies vnbeléeuing men, and ſmally perſwaded themſelues of the good will of God towards them. Wherefore becauſe of their infidelitie hée caſt them into diuerſe captiuities, and afterward he deliuered them. Finally that there ſhould be no place left to doubt of his goodneſſe, he beſtowed the chiefeſt of all benefites vppon vsus, namely his owne ſonne indued with mans fleſh, that he ſhould die vponupon the Croſſe for our ſaluation. Which benefite was ſuch, Rom. 8. 31.that (as Paule ſaide vntounto the Romans) howe could it be, but that he gaue all things together with him? And leaſt it ſhould be forgotten he would hauehave it renued in the memorie by the ſacrament of the Euchariſt, that we ſhould reuolue in our minde by faith, that Chriſt by him was deliuered vntounto death for vsus: and that in beléeuing we ſhould eate his fleſh, and drinke his bloud. Which that it might the more effectually be doone, the tokens both of bread & wine were added, which might mooue vsus more earneſtly than bare wordes could doe.

Mat. 26. 26 Iohn. 6. 35. He compareth the propoſition This is my bodie, with that in the 6. of Iohn: I am the bread of life34 Therefore when he ſaieth: This is my bodie, he meant no otherwiſe than he promiſed in the 6. of Iohn: I am the bread of life. He ſpake of himſelfe, as touching the bodie and fleſh deliuered vntounto death, or rather to be deliuered, as by his words it is manifeſt. Neither would he any other thing but that theſe things ſhoulde be vntounto vsus breade and meate, whereby our mindes ſhoulde be confirmed and cheriſhed: and by the minde, the bodie; and finally the whole man. Wherfore in the Supper Chriſt did nothing elſe, but that he tranſpoſed the propoſition, and as before he had ſaid that his bodie and fleſh is bread, ſo nowe on the otherſide he ſaieth (in ſhewing bread) that the verie ſame is his bodie: and while he pronounced, This is my bodie, it was euen as if he had ſaid: My bodie being receiued by faith, ſhall be vntounto you in the ſtead of bread, or as it were bread, wherby you ſhall bee ſpiritually fed. Wherefore let the ſenſe be: I giuegive vntounto you bread to eate, and in the meane time, I ſet forth vntounto you my bodie which ſhall be faſtened vntounto the Croſſe, that with a faithful memorie, and attentiue minde, ye may eate it ſpiritually with your ſelues: and as ye with the bodie eate bread, ſo with the minde, ye may féede vponupon my fleſh. What is more eaſie & plaine than this interpretation? And that doeth more better agrée with the promiſe which the Lord maketh vntounto vsus in the 6. Chapter of Iohn? But and if any man will contende, that that firſt ſaying of Chriſt: I am the liuely bread, is taken for the diuine nature, as Chryſoſtome ſéemeth to take it: firſt we ſay that this doeth not well agrée, becauſe Chriſt had ordered his ſpéech concerning the eating of his bodie, & in the ſtead of earthly bread, he offered to the Capernaites his fleſh to bée eaten, which thing by the courſe of his ſpéech doeth plainely appeare, although he ſay that the bread came downe from heauen: becauſe oftentimes that which is of the Godhead, is alſo communicated with the humanitie. But if this expoſition of Chryſoſtome be of ſo great force with them, let that alſo preuaile with them when he ſaieth afterwarde, that the ſaying of Chriſt: Verſe. 5….The bread which I will giuegive is my fleſh, which I will giuegive for the lyfe of the world, doeth belong vntounto the Euchariſt. Neither hath he alone affirmed this, but the reſt of the Interpretors doe alſo conſent vntounto him. Therefore when as the Lord ſaith there, that The bread is his fleſh, he nowe teſtifieth the ſame in y^e ſupper: for the bread being ſhewed, he ſaid, This is my bodie. He pronounceth both in the one place, and the other, that his bodie or his fleſh is breade, namely, of the ſoule, and of our regenerated ſubſtance, which [bread] is ſpiritually eaten. And ſo there ſhal be no conuerſion of the propoſition, but it ſhall be vnderſtoode after the ſelfe ſame manner both in the one place and in the other. What figure is admitted in this propoſition, This is my bodieBut if thou vnderſtand y^e whole together, to wit the bread and the thing offered by the bread, that is, the bodie of Chriſt, we admit the figure Synecdoche: for it is ſpoken of the whole or of the one part which is vnderſtoode of the other. But if thou referre the ſaying vntounto bread, which both ſignifieth, and offereth vntounto vsus the bodie of Chriſt to be eaten, it ſhall be the figure of Denomination, to wit, when the name of the thing ſignified is attributed vntounto the ſigne. In this interpretation alſo all thinges are eaſie, abſurdities are ſhamed, and one place of the ſcripture is not contrarie to the other ſcriptures.

35 They ſaid, if place be thus giuen vntounto figures, the Heretickes will peruert all things. Vnleſſe we vſe figures, we cannot ouerthrowe heretikes.I on the other part ſay, that vnleſſe wee vſe figures, as it appeareth in thoſe things which we hauehave cited a little before, the Heretickes hauehave the ouer hand. For they alſo will vrge the proper ſenſe, that ſenſe I meane which ſtraightwaie offereth it ſelfe. OnelyOnly this remaineth to ſhewe that ſuch a phraſe and figuratiue ſpéeche is verie often in the holy ſcriptures: Such figuratiue ſpeeches as this, are moſt familiar in the ſcriptures. Luke. 8. 11.and this will eaſilie be doone. Wee reade that The ſeede is the word of God: The rocke was Chriſt. Albeit I knowe ſome doe cauill, 1. Cor. 10. 4and woulde no figure to be héere alſo, becauſe Paul tended his ſpéeche vntounto the ſpirituall rocke, which they ſay is Chriſt verilie, and not figuratiuelie. Howbeit Auguſtine and Origen bee on our ſide, who plainely ſay that the ſame outward Rocke ſignified Chriſt. But leaſt we might ſéeme to ſhift off that which is obiected, wée ſay, that if they will vnderſtand, The ſpirituall Rocke, let them alſo in this place vnderſtand ſpirituall and allegoricall bread: and as touching the ſame wee ſhall truely and without figure confeſſe it to be Chriſt. Moreouer y^e Lord ſaid: I hauehave choſen you twelue, and one of you is a Diuell, Iohn. 6. 70.yet was not Iudas therefore tranſubſtantiated into a diuell. Of Circumciſion it is written: My Couenant ſhall be in your fleſh: Ioh. 17. 13.whereas the Circumciſion is not the couenant, but onelyonly a ſigne of the Couenant. Verſe. 20.In the 33. Chapter of Geneſis, it is ſhewed that Iacob builded an Aultar, which he called the mightie God of Iſrael. Exo. 17. 15.And Moſes in Exodus, after the victorie againſt Amaleck, called the Aultar which he builded Iehouahneſi, Ier. 23. 6.God my banner: and Ieremie maketh mention of a Citie that was called Iehouah Zidkenu, God our righteouſneſſe, becauſe theſe ſhoulde bee Monuments of thoſe things which they expreſſed in names. Iohn. 5. 35.Of Iohn Baptiſt it is written, that he was a burning and a ſhining Candle: alſo, Mat. 17. 12he is Helias, if ye will receiue him. Chriſt ſaieth of himſelfe: Iohn. 15. 1.I am the vine and ye bee the branches. Iohn. 10. 7. 1. Pet. 2. 6.I am the doore. Of himſelfe alſo it is written, that Hee is a ſtone ſet for a ruine and reſurrection. Deu. 12. 23.In Deuteronomie The bloud is the life. Whereas it is that wherewith the life is preſerued and ſignified. Gen. 37. 37Of Ioſeph, his brother Iudas ſaide: Let him not be ſlaine, he is our fleſh. By which phraſe of ſpéech was ſignified, the naturall coniunction of kindred. 1. Co. 10. 17Paul ſaieth That manie be one bread, which we muſt vnderſtand figuratiuelie. And Chriſt breathed vponupon his Diſciples and ſaide: Ioh. 20. 22.Receiue ye the holie Ghoſt. Yet is not the breathing tranſubſtantiated into the holie Ghoſt. In Geneſis: Gen. 6. 3.My ſpirit ſhall not abide in man becauſe he is fleſh. And in Iohn: The word became fleſh, Iohn. 1. 14.wherein is the figure Synecdoche: for the whole man is vnderſtoode vnderunder the name of fleſh. And the Lorde vppon the Croſſe ſaide: Woman, behold thy ſonne: Ioh. 19. 26.and to the Diſciple, Behold thy mother: yet were they not tranſubſtantiated: they remained the ſame that they were before: but there was appointed a new order, a new relation and reſpect to be had betwéene them. Of Chriſt it is ſaid: That he is our peace, Ephe. 2. 14.whereas he is onlie the cauſe of our peace. Againe, Iohn. 6. 62.My words be ſpirit and life, whereas they only ſignified or brought theſe things vntounto the beléeuers. Iohn. 1. 29.Iohn ſaid of Chriſt, Behold the lamb of God, yet was not his nature changed into the nature of a Lambe.

36 We reade euerie where in the holie ſcriptures, Pſal. 19. 10. Pſal. 105. 5. & 118. v. 13that the wordes of the Lorde are iudgement, trueth, & righteouſneſſe: whereas theſe things be therein onelyonly ſignified and expreſſed. And this ſimilitude doeth excellently well agrée with the ſacraments which are ſaid to be viſible wordes. Wee hauehave in the Apocalips: I am Alpha and Omega, that is, Apoc. 1.….the beginning and ende of all things. And Paul ſaieth of his Goſpell which he preached: It is the power of God to ſaluation vntounto euerie one that beleeueth: Rom. 1. 16whereas it is onelie the inſtrument whereby the power of God declareth it ſelfe vntounto men that ſhall be ſaued. And as touching the Goſpell of y^e croſſe, he ſaieth, 1. Cor. 1. 21.That vntounto the vngodly it is fooliſhneſſe, that is, it ſignifieth a fooliſh thing vntounto that kinde of men. But he addeth, Ibid. 24.That vntounto the godlie it is the power and wiſedome of God, becauſe it repreſenteth theſe things vntounto them. And as touching the lawe it is ſaid, Deu. 30. 15that He ſet before the Hebrewes life & death, bleſſing and curſing, that is, by ſignification of the lawe, by the promiſes & threatenings which were expreſſed in the ſame. In the Booke of Geneſis the vij. Gen. 41. 26kine and the vij. eares of corne are ſaide to bee the vij. yeares, 1. Kings. 11. 31.and this was as touching the ſignification. Ahia the Prophet of Silo gaue vntounto Ieroboam ten péeces of his torne mantell, & ſaid that he gaue him the kingdome of the x. Tribes. Ver. 10.In the firſt Epiſtle to y^e Corinthians the xj. Chapter Paul wrote that the woman ought to hauehave on her head power, foreign, that is, a couer, whereby the power of the huſband is ſignified. And in the ſecond Epiſtle to the Corinthians it is written, 2. Cor. 5. 21That God made Chriſt to bee ſinne, namely as touching the ſimilitude and repreſentation of the fleſh. Leuit. 7. v. 2. 7. & 37. Oſee. 4. 8.Yea and the ſacrifice which was offered for ſinnes, is called ſinne. And the Prieſts were ſaide to eate the ſinnes of the people, that is, the ſacrifices which were offered for the ſinnes of the people. In Ezechiel it is written, Eze. 36. 25I will poure vponupon you pure water: and by water, he ſignifieth y^e holy Ghoſt. The verie which thing we reade of Chriſt when he ſaieth: Iohn. 4. 14.He that ſhall drinke of this water, and the reſt that followeth: where the Euangeliſt calleth to minde, y^t he ſpake of the ſpirit which they were to receiue. Exo. 12. 27.Of the Lambe, we read that it was called the Paſſeouer, although ſome indeuour to denie it. But in the Hebrewe it is, Zebah peſah hu: The ſacrifice is the Paſſouer. By ſacrifice cannot otherwiſe be vnderſtoode, but eyther the beaſt ſlaine for ſacrifice, or elſe the ſame action of offering the ſlaine beaſt. Euen ſo we hauehave the bodie of Chriſt, expreſſed both in the bread, and in the wine, and in the action aſwell of eating as of drinking. The Lambe was not that Paſſouer of the Angel, but onelyonly a monument and ſignification therof. Mat. 26. 17Chriſt ſought a place where he might eate the Paſſouer with his Apoſtles. And by the Paſſouer he vnderſtood thoſe meates, and thoſe things conſecrated which did betoken the paſſing ouer. 1. Cor. 5. 7.Paul alſo ſaid: Chriſt our Paſſouer is offered. In which place he called Chriſt himſelfe our ſolemnitie and our paſſing ouer. Which wordes cannot otherwiſe be vnderſtoode than by a figure. And that Lambe was not that paſſing ouer of the Angell which then ſhould be, but was alreadie doone of old, y^e memorie whereof was repreſented by thoſe outwarde ſignes. Héere alſo we hauehave y^e bodie of Chriſt, which before time ſuffered; not that it is now deliuered to be crucifyed, or whoſe bloud is now to be ſhed.

37 And if they would expound theſe wordes of Chriſt rigorouſly, Where a ſigne ſhould be, there the …rſaries admit none, and where it ſhould not be, there they will … one.when he ſaith, This is my bodie which is giuen for you, it ſhould be néedefull for them to ſay that the bread was to be crucified, or at the leaſtwiſe Chriſt hidden vnderunder accidentes, as they appoint in the Sacrament. For Chriſt ſhewing that which he had in his handes, ſaid that the ſame ſhould be deliuered and ſhed for them. But if they ſhall ſay: it was in déed the ſame that was deliuered, but not after the ſelfe ſame manner, or in that forme, then they ſéeke interpretations and ſhiftes, and take not the propoſition ſimply. The very which thou maiſt perceiue in theſe wordes, Is deliuered and is ſhed. The which, if (while we vtter the wordes of conſecration, they be vnderſtood of vsus as they ſound, the bodie of Chriſt will be ſignified, that it is preſentlie crucified, and his bloud preſentlie ſhed, or within a while to be ſhed. But they would hauehave theſe wordes to be conuerted into the preterperfectence, that we may vnderſtand that the bodie is deliuered, & that the bloud is ſhed: and this is to deale figuratiuelie when as one tence is taken for another. And whereas Paul ſaid, That they which eate vnwoorthilie, are guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord: 1. Co. 11. 27alſo they eate their owne condemnation, becauſe they put no difference of the Lordes bodie: it is nothing. For Ambroſe anſwereth, as touching the firſt, while he interpreteth that place: They ſhal be puniſhed for the Lordes death, becauſe he was ſlaine for them, who make no account at all of his benefit. Wherefore (as we hauehave heard) he interpreteth them to be guiltie of the Lordes bodie: yet is not Tranſubſtantiation required herevnto. And they which receaue vnwoorthilie are ſaid not to put a difference, that is, to hauehave the Lordes bodie in no eſtimation: becauſe ſo great is the coniunction betwéene the ſignes and the thinges ſignified, as the reproch of the one redoundeth vntounto the other. On this wiſe ſpake Paul, when he ſaid: 1. Cor. 11. 4A man praying or propheſying with his head couered diſhonoreth Chriſt: where plainelie he would hauehave that redownd vntounto Chriſt which was doone about the head of the man, The con… melie of the Sacrament redoundeth to the bodie of Chriſt, which is the thing of the Sacrament.becauſe it ſhould be the ſigne of Chriſt. It is alſo to be conſidered that Paul wrote vntounto the Corinthians, who were not altogether voide of faith, but mē troubled with ſome infirmities. And we ſaid not that this kinde of men onelie doe receaue the ſignes, and hauehave not the bodie of Chriſt, but this we affirme of the Infidels, Epicures, Atheiſtes, and ſtrangers from the Church. Wherefore it might rightlie be ſaid vntounto them, not onelyonly as touching the ſignes, but alſo as touching the matter of the ſacrament, that they were guiltie of the bodie and bloud, becauſe they made no difference of the Lordes bodie, ſéeing they receaued them without faith, and expreſſed them not in lyfe. And in this place this alſo is to be conſidered, that Paul when he intreateth of the ſacramentall action, that is to wit, of the eating and drinking, maketh mention of bread, and ſaith: Ibid. v. 27.He that eateth this bread. But afterward when he would exaggerat the fault, hee maketh mention of the Lords bodie: and if we make an account and iuſt reckoning, [we ſhall finde] that in the whole Treatiſe of this Sacrament, the Apoſtle more often expreſſed bread, than he made mention of the bodie of the Lord. For thou maiſt very well finde that he mentioned bread fiue times and onelie foure times, the bodie of the Lord.

The reaſōs that prooue a figure to be in theſe words, This is my body.38 But now muſt we ſée, what thoſe thinges be that mooue vsus to vnderſtand this ſpeach This is my bodie, figuratiuelie. Firſt let vsus conſider, that Chriſt was preſent at the ſupper, wherefore there was no néede that he ſhould ſhewe his bodie vntounto his Apoſtles: For they ſawe him. Further how might it be that he could eate himſelfe really and corporally? That he in very déede communicated with his Apoſtles, not onelie the fathers affirme, but Chriſt himſelfe ſaith it, as thou haſt in Matthewe: Mat. 26 29.I will not hereafter drinke of this fruit of the vine. Moreouer we hauehave regard to that which is heere ſpoken, of Remembrance, wherein the figure is ſhewed. And we ſée, that theſe men change the tences; and y^t which is pronounced by the future or by the preſent tence, as touching the deliuerie of the bodie and ſhedding of the bloud, they interpret it by the preterperfectence. We conſider afterward, that they cannot be without ſignes in their conſecration, becauſe they vnderſtand this verbe Is, for, It is changed, it is tranſubſtantiated, or it is made. And Chriſt ſéeing he inſtituted a Sacrament, it is méete that by ſignifications, and figuratiuelie the ſignes ſhould be vnderſtood, according to the nature of a Sacrament, which is that it ſhould be a ſigne. Wee hauehave alſo reſpect vntounto the aſcenſion of Chriſt into heauen, vntounto the trueth of the humane nature which he tooke vppon him: and alſo vntounto that which is written in Iohn, when it is ſaid vntounto the Capernaites: My wordes be ſpirit and life, Iohn. 6. 63.the fleſh profiteth nothing, namely being carnally eaten: it is the ſpirit which quickeneth. And againe we doe conſider Paul who here moſt manifeſtly nameth it bread: 1. Cor. 10. & 11.where notwithſtanding theſe men would hauehave it to be a figure, who are ſo greatly againſt our figure. Alſo wee heare Paul teſtifie, 1. Cor. 10. 1that the forefathers had the ſelfeſame Sacrament that we hauehave. For by the iudgement of Auguſtine, it was not ſufficient for him to ſay, that they had ſpirituall meate and drinke, but he added, The ſelfe ſame. Ibidem.And againe leaſt thou ſhouldeſt doubt, the Apoſtle alſo expreſſed, Baptiſme: which he ſaith, that they obtained in the ſea, and in the clowd, whereby it appeareth, that they not onelyonly among themſelues, but euen with vsus alſo had the ſelfe ſame Sacramentes. We ſée likewiſe that the ſpeaches adioyning are vnderſtood figuratiuelie. For in theſe it is ſaid: 1. Co. 10. 16The bread which we break, is the communion of the bodie of Chriſt. And againe: 1. Co. 11. 25This cup is the new Teſtament. The which thinges we hauehave oftentimes rehearſed. Moreouer it dooth not well agrée with the bodie of Chriſt, to be eaten. And by theſe thinges it appeareth at large what ought to be ſaid to the ſecond Argument, in the which they obiected, that the ſentence muſt not be vnderſtood by a figure, vnleſſe that there were ſome other thing before or after, which ſhould mooue vsus to the ſame. And they vrged that particle: Which ſhall be giuen for you, that we rather retaine it in the proper ſenſe: but this is manifeſtly falſe, ſéeing we there change the tences. Neither doe we take it to be the bodie that was deliuered, forſomuch as that was viſible and paſſible. Neither can both the conditions of a corruptible bodie, and the qualities of a glorifyed bodie, be in one and the ſelfe ſame ſubſtance or ſubiect, ſo as one and the ſame bodie may be paſſible and impaſſible, together at one time. Further we hauehave ſhewed what other places leade vsus to admit theſe kinde of figures, I meane Synecdoche, or Denomination.

39 We will aunſwere to an other Argument as touching thinges diſtinct, or as the ſchoolemen call them Diſparata, different, Howe things diſtinct or va… l…e, may be of ſtrēgth to make a propoſition.among which no mutuall predication can be. Thoſe things which be ſo ſeueral or differēt, if an Analogie or ſignification doe happen, may now be ſo ioyned together, as they ſhall be of ſtrength to make a propoſition. And this we perceiue to be doone, not onelyonly when it is ſaid by the Lord: Luke. 8. 11.The ſeede is the worde of God. Againe: I am the vine: Iohn. 15. 1.but alſo euen of Paul, when he pronounceth that we bée one bread. And againe he ſaith: The bread which we breake is the communion of the bodie of Chriſt. And againe: 1. Co. 10. 18.Ib. ver. 17. 1. Co. 11. 25This cup is the new Teſtament in my bloud. Neither doe we much paſſe that ſome ſay that Matthew and Marke did plainelie and manifeſtlie vtter: This is my bloud of the new Teſtament. Mat. 25. 28 Mat. 14. 24.For we deny not, but that theſe Euangeliſtes thus wrote, but in the meane time we ſay that the wordes alſo which Luke and Paul hauehave muſt be receaued: And we ſay that thoſe, euen as other ſentences, which we did now cite, conſiſt of wordes that doe much differ and that after the manner of the Logitians may be called Diſparata, that is, differing one from an other. But by Analogie and ſignification, they be very wel and fitlie ioyned together.

40 In an other Argument it was ſaid: that Chriſt whē he vttered This is my bodie, ſaide not, this ſignifieth my bodie, or repreſenteth my bodie, this bread is a figure or ſigne of my bodie. Againſt theſe we reply that Chriſt ſaid not that his bodie lyeth hidden in thoſe accidentes without a ſubiect, neither affirmed, that the ſubſtance of bread ceaſeth to be, or is changed or tranſubſtantiated into his bodie. Furthermore I maruell that theſe thinges be obiected, ſéeing among the fathers theſe expoſitiōs are found. For they oftentimes ſay, that the bodie and bloud of Chriſt is repreſented, is ſignified, is notified, is ſhewed: and the ſignes of bread and wine they call, a ſeale, a figure, and a type, and an example of lyke forme. Neither is there cauſe why any ſhould cauill that they referre theſe ſignes or figures vntounto the death, Teſtimonies of the Fathers, by which they call the ſacraments ſignes and figures.and not vntounto the bodie of Chriſt, becauſe the fathers manifeſtlie ſay, that the bodie and bloud is ſignified, and that ſignes and figures are giuen of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. Which that thou maiſt know to be true, among many places of the fathers wée will here ſet foorth theſe few. AuguſtineAuguſtine De Catechiſ. rudib. As touching the Sacrament which he receiued, he ſaith in déed that there be viſible ſeales of diuine thinges, but that the very inuiſible thinges be honored in them. The ſame AuguſtineThe ſame father De Ciuitate Dei the 10 booke and 5 Chapter: Wherefore the viſible ſacrifice is a Sacrament of the inuiſible ſacrifice, Ierom.that is, it is a holy ſigne. Ierom in his 4 booke vppon Matthew Chap. the 26. That euen as in the prefiguration of him, Melchiſedeck the prieſt of the high God did in the offering of bread and wine, ſo he himſelfe alſo repreſented the trueth of his owne bodie and bloud. And to ſet aſide the teſtimonies of y^e holy ſcriptures & the ſayings of the holy fathers, Bertrā ſaith that that bread which is called the bodie of Chriſt, and the Cuppe which is called the bloud of Chriſt, is a figure, Tertullianbecauſe it is a myſterie. Tertullian againſt Martion the 4 booke: he hauing receaued bread and diſtributed it vntounto his diſciples made it his bodie, ſaying: This is my bodie, Cyprian.that is, A figure of my bodie. Cyprian in his 2 Epiſtle the 2. booke: We ſée that in the water the people be vnderſtood: in the wine, the bloud of Chriſt is ſhewed. Ambroſe in his booke De his qui initiantur Myſterijs. Before the bleſſing of the heauēly words an other kinde is named, after conſecration the bodie of Chriſt is ſignified. The ſame father De Sacramentis the 4. booke and 5 Chapter: Doe thou this oblation for vsus, being recorded in writing to be a reaſonable and acceptable oblation, becauſe it is the figure of the body and bloud of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt. The ſame father vppon the xi. Chapter of the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinth. We being mindfull hereof, doe in eating and drinking, ſignifie the fleſh and bloud which are offered for vsus. And ſtraightway after: According to the figure, whereof we receaue the cup, being the myſticall bodie, for the defence of our bodie & ſoule. Bernard in his Sermon De Coena Domini: To this end therefore the Lord drawing towardes his paſſion, prouided to adorne his owne people with his grace, that the inuiſible grace might he giuen by a viſible ſigne. Chryſoſt.Chryſoſtome vppon the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinth. the x. Chapter: For what doe I call the Communion? We be euen one and the ſelfe ſame bodie. And what ſignifieth bread? The bodie of Chriſt. And what become they that doe receaue it? The bodie of Chriſt. Baſiliu….Baſil in his Liturgie calleth it an example of like forme and that after baptiſme. Auguſtine De Trinitate the 3. booke and 4. Auguſtine.Chapter: The Apoſtle might in ſignifying preach the Lord Ieſus Chriſt by the tongue, otherwiſe by an Epiſtle, otherwiſe by a Sacrament of his bodie and bloud. The ſame father againſt Adamantus: The Lord doubted not to ſay: This is my bodie, when hée gaue a ſigne of his bodie. Againe, vppon the 3. Pſalme: He admitted Iudas vntounto the feaſt in which he commended and deliuered his diſciples the figure of his bodie and bloud. Alſo againſt Maximinus in the 3. booke & 22. Chapter: In the Sacramentes is conſidered not what they be, but what they ſhew, becauſe they are ſignes of thinges which being one thing doe ſignifie an other. Hereby thou ſéeſt that the fathers doe not miſlike: nay rather they appoint a ſignification of the bodie in this Sacrament. Furthermore we hauehave ſhewed out of the holy ſcriptures, that ſuch manner of ſpeaches there be, where the verb ſubſtantiue Is, is taken, for, It ſignifieth. And ſo this is become a ſlender Argument. Therfore whereas they obiect, that Chriſt ſayd not, It either ſignifieth, or it repreſenteth: we aunſwere that it may be ſo vnderſtood out of the holy ſcriptures, and this we hauehave plentifullie ſhewed before. Neither as they thinke doe we argue on this wiſe: This ſaying is elſewhere had after this manner, therefore it muſt be ſo vnderſtood alſo in this place: but we onelyonly preuent them, who whē they ought to prooue their Tranſubſtantiation, doe bring This is my bodie, which place is in controuerſie, and the ſenſe doubted of. They obiect vntounto vsus an abſolute ſenſe, and they obſtinately ſtand therein, which by other places of the ſcripture appeareth not to be firme, ſéeing this ſaying is very oftentimes to be vnderſtood otherwiſe in the holy ſcriptures. We for our opinion of the Euchariſt hauehave many other reaſons. Neither doe we bring this as our owne Argument, but onelie we aunſwere them when they obtrude ſuch a phraſe, that it moſt often ſignifieth otherwiſe, and that therefore of the ſame it is weakely concluded by them.

41 Afterward they argue as touching adoration, That by affirming bread to remaine after conſecratiō, there is no Idolatrie committed.that if there remained bread, it ſhould be adored in the Sacrament. I maruell that theſe men are ſo mindefull of true adoration, when as otherwiſe both pictures & images are woorſhipped among them. But they ſay that they woorſhip not theſe things, but thoſe which be repreſented by the ſame. But how commeth it to paſſe that they will not graunt the ſelfe ſame thing of bread if it remaine, that it ſhall not be woorſhipped, but that which is ſignified thereby? Further why did they not with the like reaſon remooue from thence accidentes, leaſt thoſe peraduenture ſhould be worſhipped? Perhappes they will make this excuſe, that none will there worſhip accidentes, when as we know neuertheleſſe that the pictures and figures which they ſuffer in the Temples be accidents, before which men doe fall downe. For if they would worſhip the ſubſtances of wood or of ſtones, they ſhould hauehave eueryevery where in the woods and in the ſtreates which they might woorſhip. Againe, rude and ſimple men cannot diſtinguiſh or put a difference betwéene accidentes and ſubſtance. And they that feine themſelues to be mooued with ſo great a zeale, ought to tranſubſtantiate the cup, leaſt perhaps when it is ſhewed it ſhould be woorſhipped. And certainlie this hath alwayes ſéemed vntounto me to be a very light Argument, although it be obiected by y^e Schoolemen, yea & thoſe of no ſmall account. It is moreouer obiected, that vnleſſe Tranſubſtantiation be appointed, then in this Sacrament, two natures or bodilie ſubſtances ſhall be put both together and in one and the ſelfe ſame place. Who wil not here maruell, that theſe men hauehave ſo great religion and reuerence towardes nature, as though they would not violate the lawes thereof: where neuertheleſſe they appoint accidentes to be thinges hanging without a ſubiect: which is moſt of all againſt the decrées of nature? And through their abſurd deuiſe they eſcape not that which they feare: becauſe when they affirme the accidents to remaine, among thoſe accidentes there is a bodie that hath quantitie, & dooth occupy a place, whereas alſo they would hauehave the fleſh of Chriſt to be corporally preſent, The aduerſaries are compelled to put two quantities and two bodies together.which hath a quantitie, and that it lyeth hidden vnderunder accidēts, they muſt of neceſſitie graunt that there are two quantities and two bodies together. But according to the opinion which we affirme, there is no perill of this abſurditie.

42 They ſaide moreouer that it agreeth not with the dignitie of Chriſt, that his bodie ſhould be ioyned to the ſubſtance of breade; which is a verie vaine thing: For it is not affirmed, that of the bodie of Chriſt and the nature of bread, is made one ſubiect, as of the diuine nature and humane nature in Chriſt. Neither yet doe we ſée what greater dignitie there is of the Accidents, than there is of the bread; that if the bodie of Chriſt bee aſſigned to be with them, it might not aſwel remaine with the ſubſtance of bread. And ſéeing the diuine nature is ſaid to be euen in hell without abridging the worthineſſe therof: and this bodie (as they iudge) is deliuered to be eaten truely and ſubſtantially euen of the wicked, who be moſt vnpure, and moſt vnworthy of the ſame: why are they afrayde onelyonly in reſpect of dignitie to ioyne the body and bloud of the Lord vntounto bread and wine, eſpecially when there muſt be a cōiunction of the ſignification? Moreouer they had a conſideration of the ſacrifice: for they ſay, that the bodie and bloud of the Lord are offered in Maſſes, and if this alteration be not then, we ſhall offer nothing but onelyonly the thing ſignified and ſhadowed. Here ſhall Cyprian anſwere for vsus, who vntounto Coecilius the 3. Cyprian. What is a ſacrifice in the Suppe… of y^e Lord.Epiſtle and ſecond Booke ſaieth, that it is the Paſſion of the Lorde which wee offer. And who knoweth not that the Paſſion of Chriſt is not preſent in the hands of the ſacrificer, ſith it is a thing that was doone in times paſt: whereof there is made a memoriall, and for the which thankes are giuen vntounto God? But all this that they pretend in this Argument is a fained deuiſe, whereby they imagine that the ſonne of God himſelfe is by the Prieſt properly and truely offered vntounto the father. Wherein how greatly they erre, the place now ſerueth not to declare.

43 Now muſt we ſhewe that which they afterward obiected, Certaine rules for vnderſtanding of the Fathers, when they ſpeake of this Sacrament.that as touching the opinions of the Fathers which ſéeme to be againſt our purpoſe, they make not againſt vsus. But before I come to the expounding of them, I am minded to ſay ſomewhat before which may be vſed as certaine rules for vnderſtanding of the Fathers, Of theſe rules, looke in the Treatiſe againſt Gardiner, the firſt partſéeing they ſpeake moſt loftily, and deale moſt earneſtlie of this matter of the Sacrament. Firſt it muſt be conſidered that the holie Scripture hath bin accuſtomed as it were by turnes to attribute that which is of the ſignes vntounto the things: and againe which be of y^e things to aſcribe them vntounto the ſignes. The ſelfeſame manner alſo doe the fathers vſe, ſo as thou ſhalt oftentimes perceiue them to intreate of the things, as though they ſpake of the ſignes: and on the other ſide ſo to write of the ſignes as though they intreated of the things, and of that which is ſignified. This maie verie wel accord by reaſon of the great likeneſſe which is betwéene them by the appointment of the Lord. Hereof Auguſtine vntounto Boniface, gaue a plaine aduertiſement, that is Sacraments the names be changed. Another rule is: that if thou diligently conſider, thoſe things which are ſpoken before & after, thou ſhalt alwaies perceiue the fathers to teſtifie that this foode is ſpirituall and not meate of the throte, The Fathers alwaies teſtifie the foode to be ſpirituall.bellie, or téeth. A thirde rule is, that if they at any time ſaie, that we communicate with Chriſt carnally, ſo as the bodie alſo is nouriſhed in the Euchariſt: theſe things muſt be ſo taken euen as wee vnderſtand that the ſonne of God (when he was conceiued of the virgin and tooke vponupon him the nature of man) did then take part of our fleſh. What the Fathers meane, if happilie they ſay that wee communicate with Chriſt carnallie.Further we abide in him & he likewiſe abideth in vsus, when as we beléeue his wordes, and when by faith wee receiue the ſacraments: becauſe in ſo communicating, there is added vntounto vsus the ſpirit: And our fleſh and bodie, which were alreadie of the ſelfe ſame nature with Chriſt, are become of the ſelfe ſame conditions with him, they are made capable of immortalitie and reſurrection, and when they obey and ſerue the ſpirit, they are truelie nouriſhed vntounto life euerlaſting. And ſo is our bodie two manner of wayes fed in the Euchariſt; firſt it is fedde by ſignes, ſecondly by this renuing vntounto life euerlaſting. And thus is Chriſt ſaid to dwel in vsus by this ſacrament. And as touching the firſt communicating that we hauehave with him by natiuitie and incarnation, thou haſt a teſtimonie out of the Epiſtle to the Hebrewes the 2. Verſe. 14.Chapter. Forſomuch then as children are partakers of fleſh and bloud, he himſelfe likewiſe was partaker with them. Moreouer, conſider that the word of conſecrating, ſignifieth nothing elſe among the Fathers than to dedicate a thing common and prophane vntounto a holie vſe: How the fathers vnderſtand this word To Conſecrate.and this is to make it holy. Wherefore there is no cauſe, that when we méete in the Fathers with the word Conſecration, we ſhould ſtraight waie faine vntounto our ſelues Tranſubſtantiation. But that there is ſome alteration made there, we denie it not; namely in that thoſe things are now made ſacraments, to ſignifie vntounto vsus effectuallie that by the power of the holie Ghoſt as touching the minde and faith, wee muſt offer and exhibite the bodie and bloud of the Lorde. The difference betwéene vsus and the Capernaits.Further it muſt be knowen, that betwéene vsus and the Capernaites, as touching the matter it ſelfe, there is no difference. They thought that they ſhoulde eate the verie bodie and the verie fleſh of Chriſt: which alſo we graunt to be doone. But the difference is in the manner and waie of eating. That which they thought ſhoulde bée carnally doone, we teache to bee ſpiritually doone. Otherwiſe the true bodie and the true bloud is exhibited, becauſe faith comprehendeth not feigned things but true things. Alſo when it is read in the Fathers, that the bodie of Chriſt is contained or had in theſe myſteries: by theſe words is nothing elſe to be vnderſtood, than, betokened, ſhewed, declared and ſignified.

44 And when thou heareſt the Fathers ſay, What the Fathers meane, whē they ſay that the bread or wine remaine no… in &c.that bread and wine is no more in the ſacrament, this thou muſt not abſolutely vnderſtand, but as touching thy ſelf, when thou doeſt faithfully communicate. For there thou muſt not thinke either of the bread or of the wine: It behooueth that thy minde and thy ſenſe doe onelyonly cleaue vntounto the things which are repreſented vntounto thée. Therefore it is ſaid, Lift vp your hearts, when as thou lifteſt vp thy minde from the ſignes vntounto things inuiſible which be offered vntounto thée. Alſo the holy ſcriptures ſhun not this kinde of figure. Paul ſaieth, Ephe. 6. 12.Our wreſtling is not againſt fleſh and bloud, who neuertheleſſe denied not that the bodie and fleſh doe grieue the ſoule and muſt be bridled ſéeing he writeth in another place: Gal. 5. 17.The fleſh luſteth againſt the ſpirit. Neither yet was he ignorant, that there be manie euill men who be called fleſh and bloud, by whom yet we bee troubled, and with them wee hauehave dayly wreſtling. But Paul meant of that chiefe and principal contention, from whence theſe other hauehave their originall. He ſaid alſo that In Chriſt there is neither male nor female, Gal. 3. 28.neither bond nor free: when as neuertheleſſe theſe offices and theſe perſons, are not remooued from Chriſt and his Church: nay rather there be precepts particularly deſcribed of them. But Paul vnderſtoode that theſe things are not in Chriſt as concerning the obtainement of regeneration, forgiuenſſe of ſinnes, and life euerlaſting, which are the chiefeſt of all in Chriſtianitie. And in the diſſtributing of theſe myſteries Chriſt reſpecteth not theſe ſtates and conditions. The ſame Apoſtle writeth, 1. Cor. 4. 20that The kingdome of God is not in worde, and yet woulde he not therefore that Sermons, Admonitions, and Readings which be doone by the word ſhould be remooued from the Church, which is the kingdome of God, but he onelyonly reſpected that high power and efficacie of the ſpirit, whereby all things ought to be ruled in y^e Church. Thus the Fathers ſpeake when they denie that the nature of the ſignes doe remaine: which muſt not (as we hauehave ſaid) be ſimplie vnderſtoode, As touching our owne faith and cogitation, the natures of bread and wine remaine not. Faith maketh things preſent. Gal. 3. 1.[but that is meant] as touching our faith and cogitation, which ought not to ſtaie vponupon them. Hereunto thou maiſt adde, that faith is of ſo great efficacie, as it maketh things to be preſent, not forſooth reallie or ſubſtantially, but ſpiritually: for it truely comprehendeth them. And on this wiſe did the Apoſtle ſay, That Chriſt was crucified euen before the eyes of the Galathians. And ſo was Abraham ſaide to hauehave ſéene the daie of the Lorde. Iohn. 8. 56.And after this maner, the olde Fathers had in their ſacramentes the ſelfe ſame Chriſt which we alſo doe inioye. And thus thou ſeeſt that vntounto this preſence is not required that the matter of the ſacrament as touching naturall conſtitution doe change place or be preſent with vsus with all the materiall & naturall conditions thereof. It is alſo to be vnderſtood by interchange and participation of properties, that becauſe the diuine nature of Chriſt, is moſt truely preſent with vsus, the ſelfe ſame may be communicated with his humanitie. Iohn. 3. 13.As Chriſt, when he ſpake vponupon the earth: ſaid that the ſonne of man is in heauen: and ſo he attributed vntounto the humanitie that which belonged vntounto y^e diuinitie. After what maner the humane nature may be ſaide to be preſent in y^e ſacrament.And after this maner I might graunt, that the humane nature of Chriſt is preſent with vsus in the Communion, if it ſhould be expounded by communicating of properties one with another. Laſtly, if thou demaund why the fathers vſed theſe figures and exceſſiue ſpéeches: Why the fathers vſed exceſſiue ſpéeches as touching theſe matters.wée ſay, partly to followe the phraſe of the Scripture, partly to pearce more vehemently the mindes of men. Further to the intent they might ſhew that this ſignification of Sacraments is not as it were Comical or Tragical. For in thoſe each player may repreſent Hector or Priamus, & there followeth nothing beſides of any great importance. But here the thing repreſented, is by the power of the holy Ghoſt, both giuen and imprinted in our mindes by faith, and there followe manie giftes and graces, and eſpecially a ſecrete and vnſpeakable vnion with Chriſt, ſo as we truly become one with him.

45 But the firſt obiection was out of Irenaeus, who ſaieth that the earthly breade being conſecrate, is not common bread, but is become the Euchariſt. This doe we willingly admit, affirming that it is not héere common bread, but holy, and which now, as he ſaid is become the Euchariſt. But that which followeth, makes more on our ſide. For he writeth that the Euchariſt conſiſteth of two things, that is to wit, heauenly and earthly, and ſaieth not, of the Accidents of an earthly thing. He addeth afterward: Euen ſo our bodies receiuing the Euchariſt, are not corruptible, hauing the hope of the Reſurrection. And if ſo great a chaunge in our bodies be ſet forth by him, as he maketh it equall to the change of the bread (for he ſaith: euen as that bread is no more cōmon bread, ſo our bodies are no more corruptible,) what néede ſhall there be of Tranſubſtantiation, ſéeing he maketh theſe changes to be equall aſwell in the one as in the other? Next of all was Tertullian alleaged: To Tertullian.and he alſo expoundeth his owne ſelfe: He not onelyonly ſaith: The Lorde hauing receiued the bread, made it his bodie when he ſaid, This is my bodie, but he added: That is, a ſigne of my bodie. They obiected out of Origen, To Origen.that he wrote that the Lord confeſſeth the bread to be his bodie. This doe not we denie, but all the ſtrife is as touching the maner how it is become the bodie of the Lorde: and hereof he himſelfe plainely teacheth elſewhere that there lyeth a figure, and that this breade is called the nouriſhing word of the ſoule, & he teacheth that we muſt not holde our ſelues vntounto the bloud of the fleſh, but vntounto the bloud of the word. To Cypriā.Cyprian ſéemeth to ſpeake more hardlie, when he ſaieth that this bread is changed not in ſhape but in nature. Howbeit we muſt hauehave regarde what he wrote vntounto Coecilius, namely that with the wine, is ſhewed the bloud of the Lord: and that if the wine ceaſe to be in the cup, it cannot appeare that the bloud of the Lord is there. And whereas he nowe ſpeaketh of changing, that alſo wée graunt. Howbeit a ſacramentall changing, What manner of change of the bread is graunted.& then we confeſſe, not that the ſhape, or the forme and accidents of bread hauehave this gift to become ſacraments, but that the nature and ſubſtance it ſelfe of breade and wine is chaunged into the ſacraments of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. And as the ſubſtance it ſelf of bread, and not the forme nouriſheth, euen ſo the bodie of Chriſt both nouriſheth our ſoule and it foſtereth the bodie and renueth it. And as the ſubſtance it ſelfe of bread conſiſteth of many graines, ſo the myſticall bodie which it repreſenteth hath many members ioyned together. Whereupon aſwell we as our aduerſaries ſay that the forme, (that is the appearaunce and ſhewe of the bread) is not changed, but that it is the ſubſtance which is chaunged. And they woulde hauehave a change to be by caſting awaie of the nature of bread, but we onelie affirme a ſacramentall change. And Cyprian himſelfe maketh againſt our aduerſaries: for they change not the ſubſtance of bread, but they take it vtterly awaie. We ſay, that it is changed, as that which is become the bodie of Chriſt, that is a ſacrament of Chriſtes bodie which before it was not. Beſides theſe things, Nature among the authors of the Latine tongue, doeth not alwaies ſignifie ſubſtance, Diuers ſignifications of nature.but power, wit and propertie. Wherfore Cicero de Somnio Scipionis: The proper nature and power of the ſoule is, that it ſelfe ſhould be mooued by it ſelfe. And vntounto Lentulus: That is the nature and Religion of thy Prouince. And when it is ſaide the Nature of Herbes, the nature of ſtones, and ſuch like. Which ſignification doeth well agrée with the ſaying of Cyprian.

To Ambroſe.46 They obiect Ambroſe, and eſpeciallie in his bookes De Sacramentis, which bookes ſome hauehave thought to bée none of Ambroſe workes. The Biſhop of Rocheſter is earneſt againſt them that ſo thinke: And hée ſaith, that we muſt in any wiſe giuegive credite to Auguſtine, Certaine bookes aſcribed to Ambroſe concerning ſacramentswho aſcribeth theſe bookes vntounto Ambroſe: And he openly teſtifieth, that Ambroſe wrote the bookes de Sacramentis, and he citeth the prologue vppon the Bookes of Chriſtian doctrine which I hauehave oftentimes read, and neuer finde that which this man writeth. Vnleſſe perhaps he meane that which he wrote in his books of Retractatiōs, when he maketh mention of his writings of Chriſtian doctrine, there perhaps hée hath ſome ſuch thing. Moreouer, this I know very well, Certaine ſpéeches of Ambroſe.that Auguſtine againſt Iulian the Pelagian cited Ambroſe De Sacramento Regenerationis vel de Philoſophia, yet not theſe Bookes De Mysterijs vel de Sacramentis. And the things which be there cited are not found in thoſe bookes De Sacramentis. But I paſſe not hereof. Admit that they be the bookes of Ambroſe. They do not altogether diſagrée with vsus. For he oftentimes maketh mention of ſignifying, and that theſe ſacraments are named and called the bodie of Chriſt, the which we denie not. And if at any time hée make mention of changing or conuerſion, theſe wordes muſt be vnderſtoode of ſacramentall changing. Further the ſelfe ſame father muſt be peruſed what hée ſaith in an other place. Firſt in his Treatiſe De Officijs the 4. booke the 48. Chapter: Héere is the ſhadow, héere is the Image, there is the truth: A ſhadow in the Lawe, an Image in the Goſpell, the truth in the heauenlie places. Before time a Lambe was offered, a Caulfe was offered: nowe Chriſt is offered, but he is offered as a man, as it were receiuing paſſion, but he offereth himſelfe as a prieſt, that he may forgiue our ſinnes; héere, in an Image, there in trueth: where as an aduocate with the father, he maketh interceſſion for vsus. And vponupon the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians, as we hauehave alreadie cited, he ſaieth: In eating and drinking wee ſignifie the fleſh and bloud of Chriſt which are offered. And when he ſpeaketh of the bloud, hée ſaieth, that we receiue a figure thereof, that is, the myſticall Cup. Againe the ſame father in theſe Bookes De Sacramentis in the 4. Booke and 4. Chapter manifeſtly affirmeth our changing into Chriſt. The which wee hauehave oftentimes noted in other Fathers.

47 Now there remaineth that we conſider of Chryſoſtom. An expoſition of Chryſoſtome.They alledged this ſimilitude of waxe, the which being put into the fire, as touching the ſubſtance there is deſtroyed, ſo as nothing remaineth: ſo (ſaith he) thou maiſt think that the myſteries be conſumed by the ſubſtance of Chriſts bodie. What (ſay they) can be more manifeſt for Tranſubſtantiation? But here I thinke it good to examin Chryſoſtom himſelf, whereby ye may plainelie perceaue how rightlie thoſe things are noted, whereof we ſpake before, as touching the ſayinges of the fathers. He in the 83 Homilie vponupon Matthew ſaith: The exceſſiue ſpéeches of Chryſoſtome.Many ſay that they would, and doe couet to ſée the forme and ſhape of Chriſt, alſo to behold his garments and ſhooes. But he giueth himſelfe vntounto thée, not only y^t thou maieſt ſée him but alſo y^t thou maiſt touch him. Do we not here vnderſtand y^t he attributeth vntounto y^e matter of the ſacramēt that which belongeth vntounto the ſignes: namely, that the bodie of Chriſt may be touched and ſéene, which who ſéeth not to be true onelyonly as touching the ſignes? Again in the ſame Homilie, He reduceth vsus, (as I may ſay) into one lumpe together with him, and that not alonely by faith, but he maketh vsus in very déede his bodie. And the ſame he wrote in the 60. Homilie, and in the 61. vntounto the people of Antioch: We are not onelyonly in faith but in verie déede mixed with the bodie of Chriſt.That we I ſay not onelie by faith and louelove, but alſo in very déede are made and mixed with the bodie of Chriſt, and if this be ſo, that we be not tranſubſtantiated, and yet neuertheleſſe ſo néerely ioyned with Chriſt, what néede is it for the bread to be tranſubſtantiated, that it may bee made the bodie of Chriſt? But there might ariſe a doubt, as though Chryſoſtom maketh againſt vsus which affirme this receauing by faith: ſéeing he ſaith that we not onelyonly by faith, but in verie déede alſo are mingled with him and changed into him. But here it muſt be vnderſtood, that although we hauehave ſayd, that the bodie of Chriſt and his bloud be eaten and drunke by faith, yet after this receauing by faith there followeth not a feined but a true coniunction betwéene vsus and Chriſt: whereby not onelie our minde is vnited with him but alſo our bodie and fleſh hath his renewing from thence, and we are truelie made the members of the Lord and doe receaue him to be our head, from whence we perpetuallie drawe both ſpirit and life. And this is it that Chryſoſtom ſaid, that we are in very déede ioyned with Chriſt. And againe in the ſame Homilie vppon Matthew he ſaith, that theſe be ſignes of the Lord Ieſus whereby we ſtoppe the mouthes of the heretickes which demaund how Chriſt ſuffered. For if he had not had true fleſh and had truely ſuffered, in vaine ſhould theſe ſignes be. In the ſame Homilie he ſaith, that our tongue is made bloudy in receauing of the Sacraments. And leaſt thou ſhouldeſt cauil that the bloudineſſe, w^t which together with the wine or the accidentes of the wine, (as they terme it) our tongue is made bloudy ſhould be vnderſtood to be inuiſible, in the 60 Homilie which y^e ſame father had to the people of Antioch, he writeth that our tongue waxeth redde with this bloud: where eueryevery man may ſée that it is Hyperbole or an exceſſiue ſpeach. And in Encaeniis he ſaith, that the bloud in the cup is drawne out of the ſide of the Lord: which cannot be beléeued as it is ſpoken, ſéeing the ſide of the Lord is not at this day open, and from thence the bloud is not drawne.

Chryſoſtom declareth his owne exceſſiue ſpéeches.48 He writeth moreouer in the ſame Homilie: Dooſt thou ſee the bread or the wine? he aunſwereth God forbid. Certainlie if he ſhould here aſke the ſenſes, they would aunſwere, that it is not true that he ſaith. For by the iudgement of our ſenſe, A negatiue is ſomtime vnderſtoode by a compariſon.the bread and the wine is preſent: but he ſpeaketh truelie when he addeth: Thinke not ſo, becauſe in reſpect of our iudgement, bread and wine doe ceaſe to be there. The ſame father writeth: Thinke not thou that thou receaueſt of man the bodie of Chriſt, but of the Seraphin that is preſent, and with a payre of tongs he deliuereth vntounto thée a fierie cole. Here I thinke not, that they would hauehave the Miniſter or Paſtor to be tranſubſtantiated which deliuereth the Sacramentes vntounto vsus. And he added, Let vsus runne together to ſucke forth the bloud which floweth out of the ſide of the Lord. Theſe thinges the Schoolemen themſelues dare not ſpeake. For they write that the bread and wine is changed into the ſubſtance of the bodie and bloud, yet not ſo, as to the true ſubſtance of the bodie of Chriſt any thing either commeth or departeth away. And in the 61. Homilie vntounto the people of Antioch he ſaith, that Chriſt not onelyonly gaue himſelfe vntounto vsus to be ſéene, but alſo to be touched and felt, vppon whoſe fleſh alſo we faſten our téeth. That which belongeth vntounto the ſignes is attributed to y^e things.In which place thou ſéeſt, that that which appertaineth to the ſignes, is attributed vntounto the thing ſignified by the Sacramentes. For our tooth reacheth not vntounto the ſubſtance of the bodie of Chriſt, but onelyonly vntounto the bread and ſignes and Sacramentes. The ſelfe ſame father in the 60. Homilie vntounto the people of Antioch ſaith, that we ought not to thinke that the hand of the prieſt reacheth the Sacramēt, but muſt iudge that the hand of Chriſt ſtretched foorth dooth deliuer the ſame. And that he himſelfe alſo in baptiſme executeth the office, namelie of baptiſing. And in the 61. he admoniſheth that we ſhould conſider that in this Sacrament we leaue Chriſt ſitting in heauen, who is woorſhipped of the Angels. By all this it is plaine, that this father of ours prouided by all meanes, to call foorth the mindes of the communicantes from the groſſer ſort of ſignes and from outward tokens to the meditation of diuine and heauenlie thinges. And it is a woonder, that theſe men, who ſo diligentlie examine places of the Fathers, bring not that foorth which is in the 61. Homilie vntounto the people of Antioch: That they are both impudent and obſtinate, Againſt thoſe which ſtand by & cōmunicat… not.which ſtand by at the adminiſtration of the Sacraments, and doe not communicate. Wherein he affirmeth, that they doe manyfeſt iniurie vntounto Chriſt. But leaſt we ſhould ſwarue from that which is propounded in the Argument, namelie in the Homilie in Encaeniis, as touching the waxe which in y^e fyre runneth all abroad: we aunſwere that Chryſoſtom eftſoones in that place hath this verbe, Thinke thou: that we may vnderſtand that theſe thinges muſt not be vnderſtood but as touching our faith and cogitation whereby in communicating we comprehend not bread and wine by themſelues, The ſimilitude of waxe vſed by Chryſoſtome and Cyril.but we ſeeke the thinges, which by a ſignification and that effectuall are ioyned hereunto. We moreouer bring foorth a lyke ſimilitude out of Cyrill the 10. booke the 13. Chapter vppon Iohn, where he ſaith, that waxe being molten, and mingled with other waxe, ſo that of two is altogether made one dooth reſemble that which is doone in the receauing of this Sacrament: which is, that we ſhould in very déede be made one with Chriſt. The ſelfeſame he hath in the 4. booke and 17. chapter. And if ſo be y^t this ſimilitude of waxe betwéene Chriſt and vsus, hauehave place without tranſubſtantiation of our bodie, y^e very ſame may be affirmed of the ſimilitude of Chryſoſtom, which he putteth betwéene waxe and the ſignes or myſteries. Further our aduerſaries ſhould be demaunded whether they will hauehave theſe ſimilitudes to be made alike in all reſpects. Which if they wil graunt, they muſt alſo take away the accidents out of this Sacrament. For the waxe which is applyed to the fyre is not onlie deſtroyed as touching y^e ſubſtance, but as touching the accidentes. But & if they will not hauehave the ſimilitude to take place in this behalfe, then ſhal it alſo be frée vntounto vsus to vnderſtand all this, as touching our cogitations of y^e minde & comprehenſion of faith: and we will confeſſe that as touching y^e thing it ſelfe, y^e nature of bread & wine goeth away, and that our minde onelyonly cleaueth vntounto the things ſignified, & to that which by the ſignes is offered vntounto vsus: y^t is, vntounto the bodie & bloud of Chriſt. And of Chryſoſtom thus much hath bin ſaid, wherein we may ſée how truelie thoſe things hauehave place, which we ſpake before of the fathers.

To Auguſtine.49 Auguſtine was afterward obiected, who ſhould ſay vppon the 33. Pſalme, that Chriſt bare himſelfe in his owne hands, and that verilie in the laſt ſupper, when he diſtributed the Sacrament to his Apoſtles: And this doe not we denie. Howe Chriſt bare himſelfe in his owne hands.For what ſhould let Chriſt to beare his bodie in his owne handes, if by Bodie, thou vnderſtande the Sacrament of his bodie? And this is it that Auguſtine addeth in the end of this place, After a certaine manner: as if he ſhould ſay: He did not abſolutelie beare himſelfe, but after a ſort he is vndoubtedlie the verie ſame whō we nowe ſaide him to be. They oppoſe vntounto vsus the ſame Auguſtine, in the third booke De Trinitate, where he ſaith, y^e bread, is brought vntounto this viſible forme by the hands of men, but that it cannot be made ſo great a Sacrament, without the inuiſible working of the holie Ghoſt. It is much to be maruelled at, why theſe men acknowledge not in this ſacrament anie other worke of the holy Ghoſt beſides tranſubſtantiation. For the name of the working of the holie Ghoſt in this ſacrament being heard, they ſtraightway inferre tranſubſtantiation: whenas notwithſtanding theſe ſignes cannot be aduanced, or tranſlated to the ſtate and condition of Sacramentes, but by the helpe of God: to wit, by the inſtitution of the Lord, by holy wordes, and by ſtrength of the holy Ghoſt. Becauſe theſe holie thinges doe no longer poſſeſſe our minde after an ordinarie and common manner, There is néede of the holie Ghoſt to make theſe Elements to be ſacramentsbut by an effectuall and moſt vehement force of the ſpirite: and by the ſtrength and operation of the ſelfeſame holie ſpirit, our mindes and ſoules are furthered to imbrace the matter of the Sacramentes. Nowe come we to Auguſtine, who vppon the 99. Pſalme, vppon that ſaying, Worſhippe ye his footeſtoole: Pſal. 99. 5.dooth inquire diligentlie, what manner of footeſtoole that ſhoulde bee; And at the length he findeth that it is ſaide in the Scriptures: that the earth is his footſtoole. Eſay. 66. 1.But howe ſaith hée ſhall we worſhippe the earth? Is it not written: Thou ſhalt worſhip the Lord thy God, and him onelyonly ſhalt thou ſerue? And is it not commaunded that we ſhould not worſhippe thoſe thinges, which be in heauen, or vponupon the earth, or in y^e waters, or vnderunder the earth? But he ſaith afterwarde, that there is a certaine earth, which iuſtlie maie and ought to be worſhipped: For the ſonne of God (ſaith he) tooke y^e nature of man vppon him, that is fleſhe of the virgine: and that in the holie Scriptures is called earth: forſomuch as our bodie is taken out of the earth. But that the fleſh of Chriſt ought to be worſhipped, hereby it appeareth, becauſe when he gaue y^e ſame to be eaten, none did eate it but he firſt worſhipped. Theſe words of Auguſtine can make nothing againſt vsus, becauſe we denie not but y^t the fleſh of Chriſt muſt be worſhipped by reaſon of the coniunction that it hath with the diuine nature. Here the contention is whether the ſame fleſhe lie cloſe hidden vnderunder the Accidents, not whether it ſhoulde be worſhipped. But they ſay: if it were not there in the Sacrament, and that breade ſhould be there, it would be Idolatrie. VntoUnto which we aunſwere, that they fall into as great a perill, for they ought to remooue the accidentes leaſt thoſe ſhould be worſhipped, and to tranſubſtantiate the verie cup it ſelfe. But in a Sacrament wee diſtinguiſhe the ſignes from the things, To the ſignes is ſome honor giuen, but without adoration.and vntounto the ſignes we giuegive ſome honor, to wit, that they ſhould be decentlie handled, and ſhoulde not be deſpiſed: For they be holy things once dedicated vntounto GOD. And as concerning the things ſignified, namelie the bodie & bloud of Chriſt, we graunt that thoſe ſhould bee readily and chéerefully worſhipped. For Auguſtine in this place ſaith: We ſinne not in worſhipping the fleſh of Chriſt, but we ſinne in not worſhipping of the ſame. After what maner we ſhould worſhip y^e fleſh of Chriſt.But he aduiſeth in the meane time that we ſhould not cleaue vntounto the fleſhe of Chriſt, but lift vp our minde vntounto the diuine nature, whereunto the fleſhe is ioyned by a knot not poſſible to be vndoone. Otherwiſe he ſaith: the fleſh profiteth nothing, but it is the ſpirite that quickeneth. Wherein thou maiſt note that this ſaying of our Sauiour which is in the 6. of Iohn, is vnderſtoode by Auguſtine duplicate page duplicate page as touching the fleſh of Chriſt, but not of the carnall vnderſtanding as ſome will hauehave it.

50 And as touching adoration, I will knit vp in few words, & will rehearſe what I hauehave elſewhere ſpoken, in my expoſition of the Epiſtle vntounto the Corinthians: In what things adoration conſiſteth.namelie, that the ſame conſiſteth in inuocation and confeſſion, which is of two ſortes: aſwell of the heart as of the mouth, and in thankſgiuing. And thoſe things are due both vntounto God and vntounto Chriſt, God and Chriſt muſt be worſhipped whereſoeuer they declare themſelues vntounto vsus. Looke the Dialogue of both natures in Chriſt and in the treatiſe againſt Gardiner.whereſoeuer they ſhewe themſelues vntounto vsus. And this is doone thrée manner of wayes: Firſt by the internall worde when as by the power of the ſpirit of God anie vehement cogitation of God and of Chriſt, entereth into our mindes. Then followeth worſhipping: becauſe wee either confeſſe or inuocate, or elſe giuegive thankes. Sometime theſe thinges declare themſelues vntounto vsus by the outward worde, when as we our ſelues reade the holie ſcriptures, or elſe heare godlie ſermons: Then are we oftentimes ſtirred vp to inuocation or elſe to other things which belong to y^e order of ſeruing God. Finallie Chriſt and GOD otherwhile declareth him ſelfe by outwarde ſignes, as vppon mount Syna: VntoUnto Eſay vnderunder the forme of a king ſitting vppon his royall ſeate, in the Arke of the Couenaunt, in the Sacraments: and there alſo worſhipping is giuen vntounto him. But euen as Auguſtine admoniſhed that we muſt not ſettle our minde vppon the fleſhe, but wee muſt hauehave acceſſe vntounto the Godhead: Whether in receiuing y^e Euchariſt, it be lawful to vſe adoration by y^e outward ſignes.So I héere admoniſh that in worſhipping, when we receiue the Euchariſt, wee muſt not ſtaie in the ſignes, but muſt worſhip in ſpirite and trueth Chriſt ſitting in heauen at the right hande of his father. And this becauſe the ſimple ſort doe not vnderſtande, by reaſon of the confirmed and grounded errour of tranſſubſtantiation, therfore I thinke it not vnprofitable if we woulde forbeare from outward worſhipping, namelie from proſtrating or knéeling, vntill ſuch time as theſe might be inſtructed. Inwarde worſhipping maie be vſed without danger: neither would outward worſhipping in his owne nature be euill: for manie doe knéele and worſhip deuoutlie, at the hearing of thoſe wordes: And the word was made fleſhe, and yet is it not to be ſaide that thoſe words be worſhipped, but the things ſignified. And why may not the ſame be doone here, ſo that the ſignes be not worſhipped, but that which is ſignified by them? Howbeit in theſe dayes for the cauſe aforeſaide, perhappes outwarde Adoration is not méete, vnleſſe that oftentimes mention ſhoulde bee made hereof in Sermons.

51 Neither let anie man take an occaſion of my ſayings, Whether pictures & Images are to bée worſhippedthat it ſhould be lawfull to worſhippe either Images or pictures, becauſe God and Chriſt ſéeme otherwhile to declare themſelues there effectuallie. For we hauehave the plaine worde: Let vsus not make vntounto our ſelues Images for to worſhip. But as touching the words of the holie ſcripture and the Sacramentes, nothing letteth that we ſhould adore in the hearing or receauing of them, becauſe thoſe things are inſtituted by the worde, will, and commaundement of God, Of the remnants of the Euchariſt after the vſe of the Sacraments.that we maie be prouoked to the ſeruice of GOD which conſiſteth in adoration. Neither oughteſt thou to gather hereby, that the remnantes of the Euchariſt muſt bee worſhipped. For whatſoeuer ſtrength the ſignes hauehave, that they hauehave by the holie Ghoſt, by the words of the Lord, and by his inſtitution, which thinges without the vſe of the ſacrament are not extant. And whyle we eate & drinke, there is a promiſe. Wherefore that opinion of conſecration was not vniuerſall, becauſe in the time of Heſychius (as hee himſelfe teſtifieth vponupon Leuiticus) the remnantes of the Euchariſt were burned. And euen this thou haſt in Origen vppon Leuiticus: although it bee the ſame booke which is aſcribed vntounto two. And Clement the Biſhop of Rome, (as appeareth by his decrée, which is de Conſecratione, diſtinct. 2.) ordained that the remnantes of this ſacrament ſhoulde be eaten by the Eccleſiaſticall perſons. We denie not that they were ſometime kept, but this was doone without adoration and ſuperſtitious worſhippinges. They were giuen vntounto children and vntounto Women, to be caried vntounto the ſicke, Of the Euchariſt ſent from houſe to houſe.as appeareth out of the Hiſtorie of Euſebius Caeſarienſis and out of Ierom. And I would not willinglie ſaie, that the receauing of theſe remnants after that manner out of the holie congregation and beſides the rite appointed by the Lorde was a iuſt communion, which neuertheleſſe I graunt the ſicke might hauehave ſo that they repeated the holie wordes, and that ſome faithfull men did there communicate among themſelues. For where manie doe not communicate, the nature of the ſacrament is not retayned. Chriſt ſaide: Take ye, eate ye, and drinke ye. The breade is broken which pertaineth vntounto diſtribution. And in their Canon they ſaie manie thinges, the which vnleſſe manie doe communicate, be lies. Moreouer it is called a ſupper, a Communion, a gathering together. Which names little agrée with priuate action. Neither doe we at anie time read of priuate maſſes among the olde Fathers. Honorius y^e Biſhop of Rome, brought in a decrée, that the Euchariſt ſhoulde be kept: and he added, that honour and reuerence ſhould bee doone vntounto it when it ſhall be caried about. Which if it had béene doone before his time, it ſhoulde hauehave béene néedleſſe for him to make ſuch a decrée. And to ſpeake briefelie we affirme that this Sacrament, (as before hath béene ſayde) hath not his force or efficacie, except when it is exerciſed and receaued: which alſo thou ſéeſt to come to paſſe in all other Sacramentes.

T Hilarie52 Hilarius is obiected againſt vsus. But he had verie great controuerſies with y^e Arrians, againſt whom he dealeth, becauſe they thought that betwéene the father and the ſonne there is no coniunction, vnleſſe it bée by a conſent of will. Againſt theſe Hilarie ſaith: I demaunde of you whether betwéene vsus and Chriſt, there be a coniunction by the propertie of nature or by an agréement of the will? For the Arrians woulde lay holde of that place wherein Chriſt prayed, that we might be one together with him, euen as he and the father be one betwéene themſelues. There is a place in Iohn the 17. Verſe. 21.Chapter, where it is ſaide, Euen as thou father art in me, and I in thee, that they alſo may bee one in vsus. The Heretikes added that wee hauehave no coniunction with Chriſt, vnleſſe it be as touching the conſent and will: and by this they inferred that betwéene the ſonne of God and the father, there happeneth no other vnion or coniunction than this. Wherfore it was the part of Hilarie to ſhew that we be naturallie vnited with Chriſt, to the intent he might conclude, that the ſonne alſo is naturally ioyned to the Father. His proofe is on this wiſe: If the word of GOD did truelie take vppon it the nature of man, hée doeth naturallie communicate in his fleſhe with vsus, and we are ſaid to remaine in him, becauſe he hath in himſelfe our nature. And ſemblablie in the Lords ſupper, if we truelie receaue his fleſh, we doe participate naturallie with him, and he doth truelie dwel in vsus. And thus Hilarie argueth from the trueth of Sacraments, which we denie not. And this was the vſe of the old fathers, that they drewe their Arguments from Sacramentes as from thinges beſt knowen. But there is none of theſe things againſt our opinion. For Hilarie contendeth not that the fleſh of Chriſt is hidden and couered vnderunder Accidentes or in this Sacrament; but hee onelie affirmeth, that we in communicating are trulie ioyned to y^e fleſh of Chriſt, the which we denie not. But conſider with mee y^t the ſelfe ſame father, not much before thoſe words which he ſpeaketh of the Euchariſt ſaith the ſame of Baptiſme, that by it we are ioyned vntounto Chriſt and one with an other, not onelie in the vnitie of aſſent and will, but alſo in the vnitie of nature. So that ye ſhall be conſtrayned there alſo to appoint Tranſubſtantiation, if for that cauſe yee bring it into the Sacrament. Chryſoſtome is not farre from this vſe of taking Arguments from Sacramentes: who in the 83. Homilie vppon Matthew ſaith (as we cited before) that theſe be ſignes of the Lord Ieſus, whereby we both bridle and ſtoppe the mouthes of Heretikes. For they ſaie verie often: Howe did Chriſt ſuffer? And wee on the other ſide obiect: If Chriſt had not true fleſh, theſe ſignes be in vayne. And this doth rightlie follow, becauſe they ſhoulde elſe repreſent vntounto vsus fained things. And thus were the Manichees, Marcionites, and ſuch like peſtilent ſectes, put to ſilence by them.

53 As touching Leo the Byſhop of Rome, To Leo.there is no cauſe why we ſhould trouble our ſelues much, becauſe he in the ſentence obiected againſt vsus both affirmeth a myſticall diſtribution, and ſetteth downe a ſpirituall ſuſtenance and a vertue celeſtiall, and ſayth that we doe paſſe into the fleſh of Chriſt, euen as he tooke our fleſh vponupon him. They cite Emiſenus, whoſe wordes are read, To Emiſenus.De Conſecratione, diſtinct. the firſt: but there, if thou looke well vppon it, thou ſhalt finde theſe wordes: Touch thou with thy minde, and with the hand of thy heart take hold of the bodie of Chriſt. By which wordes it is plain, that he affirmeth vsus to eate the bodie of the Lorde ſpirituallie. Further he vehementlie vrgeth (as other of the fathers doe) our changing into Chriſt, the wich neuertheleſſe (as we ſée) is without Tranſubſtantiation. Why we ſo often make mencion of the chāging of our ſelues in receiuing of the Sacramentes.I know that ſome may woonder why we ſo oftentimes oppoſe the changing of our ſelues againſt the changing that the fathers ſéeme to affirme to be in the ſignes which they conſtantlie ſay are all one: and ſome imagine that there is a farre other cōiunction betwéen the bodie of Chriſt and the ſignes, than is betwéene vsus and the bodie of Chriſt, and that therefore the Analogie and proportion holdeth not, although the fathers doe appoint both the one and the other. To this we aunſwer and ſay, that our Argument is moſt ſtrong becauſe it is from the greater to the leſſe by a negatiue. For the ioyning together of Chriſt vntounto vsus and with them which communicate, is greater than it can be with the ſignes. The communicants are more ioyned vntounto Chriſt, than are y^e ſignesSeeing therefore in reſpect of vsus tranſubſtātiation is not required, much leſſe ſhall it be in ſignes. But that we be more ioyned together vntounto Chriſt than y^e ſignes be it thereby appeareth, inſomuch as that coniunctiō was inuēted bicauſe of this. Further the words and the ſpirit whereby the ſignes are conſecrated, do much leſſe belong vntounto other things than vntounto men.

VntoUnto Theophilact.54 Of Theophilact we ſay that he is a late writer, and who perhappes liued in thoſe times when as many queſtions were begunne to be mooued touching Tanſubſtantiation vnderunder Nicholas the Byſhop of Rome in the time of Lanfranck and Berengarius. Further he was a man of no great iudgement, as it may appeare by his interpretation of Iohn the 3. Chapter at the ende: where he blameth the Church of the Latins by name, as touching the procéeding of the holy Ghoſt, that it procéedeth from the father and the ſonne. So as we will not thinke his authoritie to be ſo great, as it ought to preiudice the trueth: yet neuertheleſſe we will examine his ſayings. He affirmeth bread not to be the figure of the bodie of Chriſt: and that in his treatiſe vppon Matthew. But and if he meane a voyd and vaine figure, he ſaith rghtlie, neither doe we appoint ſuch a figure: And we doubt not, but that this is his interpretation, becauſe vponupon Marke he ſaith that it is not a figure onelie: otherwiſe if he ſhould vtterlie denie it to be a figure, he ſhould be againſt the reſt of the fathers, whom we hauehave manifeſtlie prooued to affirme that it is both a ſigne and a figure. He ſaith that breade is tranſformed, that it is chaunged, and tranſelementated: which ſpéeches, if hee vnderſtand ſacramentally, we miſlike them not. For bread and wine be ſacraments, and doe paſſe into the Elements of diuine things, & they put on a ſignifying forme. But they ſay that this Father writeth: Therfore the fleſh and bloud is not ſéene, leaſt we ſhould abhorre it. But if thou wilt ſharply vrge theſe words, we will obiect that which hee writeth vponupon Marke, That the kindes of bread and wine are changed into y^e vertue of the bodie and bloud.to wit, that the kinds of bread and wine are chaunged into the vertue of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. And if thou wilt ſay that he in an other place ſaieth not: Into the vertue, but into the bodie & bloud of the Lord: we aunſwere, that this is the interpretation of thoſe wordes, that theſe ſignes take vntounto them the vertue of the things, by which vertue the Sacramentes hauehave no leſſe than if the things themſelues were there; and (as I hauehave ſaide) the abhorring is taken away if wee appoint the ſignes to be chaunged, not into the thing, but into the vertue. More violent ſéemeth an other ſaying of his, which he hath vponupon the 6. Chapter of Iohn, where he writeth: Euen as while Chriſt liued vponupon the earth, the bread was chaunged into his fleſhe by an vſuall way of nouriſhment, through naturall tranſmutation, ſo this bread is chaunged into the bodie of Chriſt. Yet neuertheleſſe wee graunt that this compariſon is generallie taken. For we denie not, but that there is a ſacramentall change euen in this ſacrament. But and if thou ſhalt ſay, that thou wilt take this ſimilitude according as it is brought: that ſo truelie is the bread chaunged into the ſacrament of the Euchariſt, as in the meate and ſuſtenance of Chriſt it was conuerted into his fleſh while hee liued heere, there will followe an abſurditie verie repugnant vntounto thine owne opinion: to wit, that the accidents of the ſignes muſt not bee retayned in this ſacrament, becauſe they were not there kept in the ſuſtenance of Chriſt while he liued here. Furthermore the ſame interpreter vponupon the 6. Chapter of Iohn writeth vponupon theſe words: He that eateth my fleſh and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in mee and I in him. He ſaith that this is done while hee is after a ſort tranſelemented and mingled with vsus. Where againe thou ſéeſt that he, as doe the reſt of the Fathers, affirmeth ſo great a change of vsus into Chriſt, as he writeth that we be tranſelementated into him. And thus much of Theophilact.

55 Among the latter men, To Anſelmus and Hugo.they alleage Anſelmus, Hugo, and Richardus, and the Victorines. Howbeit ſéeing in their time the opinion of tranſubſtantiation was obtruded, they with their writings ſerued the time. Neither ought the new inuention of theſe men be periudiciall to the opinion of the moſt ancient Church and the opinion of the olde Fathers. But among others, they ſéeme to make great account of one: and that is of Iohannes Damaſcenus, who in the 4. To Iohn Damaſcen.Booke of the Catholike faith the 14. Chapter wrote moſt amplie of this matter. But I finde that this man liued vnderunder Leo Iſauricus Emperour of Greece. In what age he liuedAnd betwéene Gregorius Magnus Biſhop of Rome, and this Iohn there were welnéere a hundreth and twentie yéeres. And when as now in the time of Gregorie, manie ſuperſtitions and inuentions of men were heaped vp in the Church, al things grew to be worſe and worſe. Wherfore it is no maruell that this Damaſcen inclined vntounto manie ſuperſtitions and vntruthes. The iudgement of Damaſcen in matters of Diut…i…And of howe great iudgement he was aſwell in matters of doctrine as alſo in expounding the holie ſcriptures, we hauehave a proofe. For he maruailouſlie fauoureth Images, and for the defence of them entered into great daungers. And in this ſelfe ſame fourth Booke, he wrote a particular Chapter of that matter, wherein hee not onelie willeth that they ſhoulde be made, but alſo be worſhipped and honored. Moreouer he had in ſo great eſtimation the Reliques of Saintes departed, as vppon them alſo he ſpent a whole chapter wherein he feared not to call them the fountaines of Gods giftes. And hee is bould to ſay, that we ought by faith to worſhip the Saints, which ſaying is intollerable, ſéeing faith is onelyonly due vntounto God and his word. He hath a Sermon of Purgatorie, wherein he affirmeth, that Traianus the Emperor, and Idolater and perſecutor of Martyrs, was deliuered from the paines of hell, and that by the prayers of Gregorie. And y^e Falconilla alſo an Idolatrous woman was by the prayers of a certaine other mā ſaued, when ſhe had béene now dead and detained in the paines of hell. And he bringeth in a fable of one Macarius, which talked with the ſkul of a dead man, of whom he heard, that in time of ſacrifice of the Maſſe, y^e ſoules of the dead which are tormented in paines, are in more eaſe: and he ſprinkleth al his Sermon with theſe fables. And the ſelfſame man whē he writeth of the Reſurrection, indeuoureth to prooue the ſame in the booke of Geneſis: where we reade that the Lord ſaid to Noah: Thou ſhalt not eate fleſh with the bloud, Gen. 9. 4.for your liues will I require at the handes of beaſtes. He will require them (ſaith hée) at the Reſurrection, yet forſooth beaſtes doe not dye for man. It ſéemes that he knew not the lawe made by God in Exodus, Exo. 21. 28.where hée commaundeth the Oxe to bée ſlaine, which ſhall puſh with his horne and kill a man. And in the Chapter De Virginitate, he writeth: If Adam had not ſinned, men had not bin ioyned together in Matrimonie for procreation ſake: and becauſe he ſeeth, that the ſentence of God: Gen. 1. 28.Increaſe and multiplie, is againſt him, he ſaith, that perhaps men might hauehave multiplied by another part of the bodie. Among the ſchoole diuines none would hauehave ſpoken theſe wordes. The ſame man wreſteth Baſil.The ſame man wreſteth Baſill: For when he perceiueth him to ſay that bread and wine be foreign, that is, patterns or examples of y^e bodie of Chriſt, he expoundeth him that he meaneth, before conſecration. And this is moſt abſurde. For before conſecration they hauehave no more in them than other common meates. And if they ſhould ſo ſignifie the bodie & bloud of Chriſt, they ſhould be already ſacraments before the vttering of the wordes of the Lorde. Moreouer in the Maſſe of the Gréekes, they openly pray after conſecration, that the breade may become the bodie and bloud of Chriſt: And namely the caſe ſo ſtandeth in the Maſſe of Baſill, that thoſe wordes be put after conſecration. And in our Canon, if it bee well conſidered, it is named bread after conſecration.

Common Places, Part 4 · Chapter 10 · Treatise (2 of 3)