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

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

p. 18156 But now muſt we ſée his Arguments. The firſt is taken from the power of God. For ſéeing he was able by his word to make heauen and earth to bring foorth Plantes, Beaſtes, Byrdes, and Fiſhes; why maie hee not of breade make his owne bodie? Which kinde of Argument is moſt weake: neither is the diſputation now as touching the power of God. For wee denie not that God can turne bread into fleſh, but the whole contention is, whether he will doe it or no. Another of his Arguments is deriued from the ſpéeche of Chriſt. For (ſaieth he) it was not ſaide of the Lorde: This is a figure or ſigne of my bodie, but it is pronounced to be the Lordes owne bodie. But vntounto this Argument we hauehave before anſwered. And if this man when he denieth the ſacrament to be a figure of the Lordes bodie, doe meane this abſolutely, he hath almoſt all the fathers againſt him, who in this place doe acknowledge a figure. But if he vnderſtande it not to bee a figure onelie, to wit, a fruſtrate or voide ſigne, that alſo doe we willingly graūt. Albeit he mingleth certaine wordes in his writings, whereby it may be perceiued, that he meant not ſo groſſely as he maketh ſemblance for. For he ſaith, Damaſcen after ſome ſort defended.that the bread of the communion is no ſimple bread, but it hath the Godhead ioyned with it. Which wordes we will willingly admit, for we ſay not that it is here common or ſimple bread, but it is now ſanctified and turned into the nature of a ſacrament. And it may be ſaide that the Godhead is therefore ioyned vntounto it, becauſe the holy Ghoſt vſeth it as an inſtrument to our ſaluation. Further he maketh a compariſon thereof with Baptiſme: wherein hée ſaieth that God hath vſed to condeſcend vntounto our cuſtome and vſuall manners. And becauſe men are woont to be waſhed with water, and annoynted with oyle, therefore God ioyned vntounto theſe things his grace and ſpirit in Baptiſme: Euen ſo ſéeing the cuſtome of men is to eate bread, & drinke wine, vntounto thoſe things he ioyned his Godhead. But if he had followed theſe tranſubſtantiators, he would not hauehave ioyned vntounto, but vtterly extinguiſhed the natures of bread and wine. And the nature of this compariſon requireth, p. 182that euen as the ioyning together of Baptiſme with the grace and holie Ghoſt doeth not repell or extinguiſh the nature of water, euen ſo the matter of this ſacrament doeth not deſtroy and caſt away the being of the ſignes. He ſaieth alſo, that God did ſo condeſcend to our cuſtome, as that by things vſuall and agréeable to nature we maie attaine to that which is aboue nature. Wherein he toucheth our tranſmutatiō into Chriſt. But it muſt bee marked that he ſaieth the ſignes of the ſacraments be according to nature: and thoſe if thou appoint to be onelie accidents without a ſubiect, or which hauehave the bodie of Chriſt hidden vnderunder them, they bee no more according to nature. In déede he vſeth woordes in which hée ſaieth that the nature of bread is changed, conſumed, & become the bodie of Chriſt. Which wordes if they be vnderſtoode as touching the change of the Sacrament, they doe not make againſt vsus. And wheras he ſaith that theſe things do happen aboue nature, we graunt. For it is no naturall thing, that a Sacrament ſhould be made of common breade, no more than the fountaine of regeneration is naturallie made of water. But and if thou demaund of him the manner of this tranſmutation into the bodie of Chriſt, he ſaith alſo that it is not eaſie for vsus to expreſſe the maner how in naturall nouriſhment, bread is changed into our fleſh. But of this ſimilitude, how it may be taken, we ſufficiently intreated before when we ſpake of Theophilact. If thou vnderſtand this ſimilitude generally, and applieſt it vntounto a Sacramentall changing, it ſufficeth: but if thou wilt hauehave the compariſon to be made ſpecially of ſuch a changing, as is of the ſuſtinance in our bodie, when it is conuerted into fleſh: then thou ſhalt not onelyonly make the nature of bread to giuegive place, but the accidents.

How the two parts of the ſacrament are called Sacraments.57 He addeth that breade is made the bodie of Chriſt, and Wine and Water his bloude, ſo neuertheleſſe as they be not two but one. If he referre, One, vntounto the cuppe and bread, as if he ſhould ſaie that theſe bée one Sacrament, we contende not much, becauſe in this action, as in one ſacrament, Chriſt euen as ſuſtenance is giuen vntounto vsus. Albeit in receiuing both the parts of this Sacrament the Church feareth not to ſaie in the plural number, that here be ſacraments: And in the Collects of the maſſe, after communion thou readeſt oftentimes: The Sacraments which we hauehave receaued, and the reſt that followeth. But if they ſhall ſaie: They be one, ſo that after conſecration the bread and bodie of Chriſt ſhould nowe be all one, and not two, by reaſon of Tranſubſtantiation that is incident: wee oppoſe the ſaying of Irenaeus, wherein he writeth that the Euchariſt doeth conſiſt of two thinges, namelie of earthlie and heauenlie: Alſo Gelaſius the Pope, who argueth from the coniunction of breade with the bodie of Chriſt, the natures remaining whole, that the humane and diuine nature in Chriſt are ioyned in one, both the one and the other remayning whole, and inuiolate. He addeth moreouer, Origen. Whether y^e Sacrament be caſt into the draught.that this Sacrament is not caſt into the draught. And ſurelie it cannot otherwiſe be ſpoken of the Tranſubſtantiators: For ſéeing they appoint nothing in the Euchariſt beſides the accidentes and the nature of Chriſtes bodie, none of theſe thinges belong to the draught. But againſt theſe thinges I obiect a moſt manifeſt place of Origen vppon Matthew the 15. Chapter, Mat. 15. 11.Matt 15:11where he interpreteth theſe wordes: That which goeth into the mouth defileth not man. And hee ſaith, If it defile not, neither doeth it ſanctifie. But what ſhall we ſaie of the breade of the Lord? Is it true that it neither ſanctifieth nor yet defileth? He aunſwereth: That if anie thing maie ſéeme to bee vnpure, it doeth not defile vsus, vnleſſe it be through an euill conſcience: Euen ſo that which is ſéene and is called holie, vnleſſe that righteouſnes and integritie of life be with vsus, it doeth not ſanctifie. For if this had wherewithall of his own nature to ſanctifie, there had not béene among y^e Corinthians ſo many weake & feeble, and ſo manie that ſlept. 1. Co. 11. 301 Cor 11:30Wherefore that which in the Lordes breade is material paſſeth through into the bellie, and is caſt into the draught. But whatſoeuer commeth by prayer and by the worde of the Lord, profiteth the ſoule according to the meaſure of faith. Wherefore the matter is not profitable, but the word which is added doth profit the ſoule. And leaſt thou ſhouldeſt think that he ſpeaketh of anie other meat, he bréefelie repeateth, & ſaith, Theſe things are ſpoken concerning the myſticall bodie of Chriſt. None will take exception hereunto, that Origen ſometimes erred in doctrine, ſéeing Ierom, Epiphamus and the auncient fathers, which moſt diligentlie ſcanned his errours, neuer made mention that he iudged ill of the Euchariſt: This would they not hauehave doone if he had tranſgreſſed in ſo great a matter. And in the ſelfe ſame place he moſt plainelie added, The wicked doe not eate the bodie of Chriſt.that the wicked doe not eate the bodie of Chriſt, becauſe it is a quickening bodie, and hee which eateth it dwelleth in him. Wherefore againſt this Iohn Damaſcen being but a late writer and not verie famous, p. 183let Origen be oppoſed, a moſt auncient Father and of great renowne.

To the Councel of Epheſus.58 After theſe matters, that was obiected the which Cyril in y^e name of the councel of Epheſus wrote to Neſtorius the Biſhop of Conſtantinople. For then there was a diſputatiō againſt him who affirmed the humane perſon in Chriſt to bee altogether ſeuerall and diſtinct from the perſon of the ſonne of God, ſo as there ſhould be no other manner of coniunction except it be of dignity. Againſt him is argued from the nature of Sacramentes. If the fleſh of Chriſt be ſo ſeuered from the perſon God, it followeth that the ſame is no quickening fleſhe: and whereas we graunt the fleſh of Chriſt to be in the ſacraments, we ſhould eate the fleſh of man, after a ſort ſanctified and excellent: but therby we could not according to the promiſe, obtaine euerlaſting life. This is the ſcope wherunto all thoſe diſputations tend. Thoſe Fathers doe not contende, neither goe they about to prooue, that in the breade lyeth hidden the fleſhe of Chriſt, but they woulde hauehave vsus to eate the ſame in a Sacrament, and that truelie: and to eate ſuch fleſhe as will giuegive vsus eternall life. Which we deny not, ſo it be vnderſtoode that the eating belong vntounto the ſoule & to faith. For we grant that in a ſacrament the fleſh of Chriſt is eaten ſpirituallie but yet truly. Neither do we at anie time faine ſuch a fleſh as is ſeuered and diuided from the diuine perſon of the word. To the Romans Councell. Of Berengarius.They obiect againſt vsus the Councell of Rome or the Vercellentian, wherein Berengarius was condemned, and compelled to recant. As concerning which councels ſéeing their Acts are not extant, we cannot anſwere much: wherefore it ſhall be profitable to weigh the recantation it ſelfe preſcribed vntounto Berengarius by Pope Nicholas in the Councell: The recantation of Berengarius.and thereby wee maie ſée of what credite this Councell was, and howe well in their wits they were which had the chiefe rule in the ſame. In the decrées De Conſecratione, the ſeconde diſtinction in the Chapter Ego Berengarius, his recantation is deſcribed wherein he was compelled to confeſſe that the body of Chriſt is ſenſiblie handled with the handes of the Prieſtes, that it is broken and rent with the téeth, which things, how well they agrée with the bodie of Chriſt alreadie glorified, and vntounto that Sacrament, let euerie wiſe man iudge. The Gloſſer vppon the decrées, The Gloſſet of the decrées.a man otherwiſe of groſſe vnderſtanding, could not chooſe but ſée ſo great an abſurditie. Wherefore he ſaith, that theſe things muſt be very aduiſedlie and rightlie vnderſtoode, if not, thou ſhalt fall (ſaith he) into a greater error than that wherewith Berengarius was infected. For he ſawe that it was not conuenient to be ſaid, that the bodie of Chriſt is ſenſiblie felt in the Sacrament, or that it is broken or rent with the téeth. And the maſter of the ſentences in the 4. The Maſter of the Sentences would defend the recātation by a figure.booke would remedie this ſore, and ſaith that theſe things muſt be attributed not to the bodie of Chriſt, but to the ſignes, which they affirme to be accidentes. And ſo in that ſpéech he appointed a figure, whereby that is attributed vntounto the thing which belongeth to the ſignes. Which figure if we vſe, and that in due time, in interpreting the ſayings of the Fathers, while they ſpeake magnificallie of this ſacrament vntounto the people, our aduerſaries exclame that we corrupt and marre and falſifie their writinges: whereas here neuertheleſſe they themſelues flie vntounto the ſelfe ſame Anchors, and they will hauehave a figure where it ought leaſt to be, namelie in the declaring of an opinion and in fraiming a recantation, the which ought of all other things to be moſt cleare and plaine. So then we paſſe not of this councell ſéeing they delt there ſo blockiſhlie.

59 They alſo obiect the Synode of Conſtance, wherein Wickliffe was condemned, To the Synode of Conſtance.and where Iohn Huſſe, and Ierome of Prage were burned for ſundrie articles, but eſpecially for that they held againſt Tranſubſtantiation, which there by a full decrée was ordained. Doubtleſſe this councell wee cannot chooſe but cal trecherous, The Councell of Conſtance trecherous and cruell.ſéeing it found the meanes to ſlay thoſe two men, which came thither vnderunder ſafe conduct. And this alſo the Emperour tooke gréeuouſly, for he among others had giuen his word, otherwiſe the Bohemians would neuer hauehave ſuffred thoſe men to goe vntounto that Councell. Tranſubſtantiation a news opinion.And for ſo much as they there decréede touching Tranſubſtantiation, it is an Argument that the ſame is a new opinion. Neither is it of force which many doe ſay that it was there confirmed by a decrée, but not firſt inuented, becauſe vnderunder Nicholas the Romane Biſhop in the Vercellentian and Romane Synode, it was manifeſtly enough declared. We grant indeede that this opinion brake out after a ſort and was obtruded before the Councell of Conſtance: but becauſe it was not fullie receiued, and had euerywhere many contradictions, therefore they iudged it neceſſarie to eſtabliſh the ſame againe, and that tyrannically, to wit, by fire and cruell threatnings. But againſt this Councell we obiect the generall and vniuerſall Councell of Florence, The general Councel of Florenceheld vnderunder Eugenius, Biſhop of Rome the 4. p. 184of that name who was there preſent. And there was alſo preſent there the Emperour of Gréece with the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, and manie Biſhops of the Eaſt part. In which Councell the Gréeke Church was ioyned with the Latine, & they agréed together as touching the diſſenſion that was about the holie Ghoſt. And we maie ſée in the Actes of that Councell, that after agréement was made betwéene them of the Eaſt, and of the Weſt about certaine Articles, the Pope would hauehave procéeded further, and hauehave driuen them to intreate of Tranſubſtantiation, and to hauehave receiued it according to the opinion of the Weſt Church. There the Greekes reſiſted, and would not deale in that matter, neither coulde they by anie reaſons be driuen to giuegive their conſent therevnto. And when writings of vnion were to be drawne and publiſhed, they in anie wiſe prouided, that no mention ſhoulde bée made of that matter. Which alſo was obſerued as appeareth in a Bull of Eugenius, which beginneth: Let the heauens reioyce, and let the earth be glad. Wherein he reioyceth with Chriſtendome, for this good hap that the Gréeke and the Latine Churches were once againe ioyned together. Wherefore if this Tranſubſtantiation had bin of ſo great importaunce, the Romane Church would neuer hauehave bin ioyned with the Gréek which did not receiue the ſame. For at this day, they ſay, that it is a peſtilent hereſie not to admit the ſame. But it is not credible that the Latine Church would then ioyne it ſelfe with Hereticks, & be partakers with them. And hereby alſo is the Argument diſſolued, which they brought as touching the vniuerſall conſent of the Church. For it is not true which they aſſume, that all Churches agréed together in this; for that auncient Church which was in the time of the Fathers, as we hauehave ſhewed, neuer dreamed of any ſuch thing. Againe, the Caſt and Gréek Churches were of the ſame iudgement that we are.

To the arguments of the diuine power.60 Moreouer vntounto their Arguments they adde excéeding great prayſes of the power of God, that they may bring in men to beléeue ſo great a miracle. But it is a moſt féeble kinde of reaſoning. That which they ought to hauehave ſhewed, in trueth they hauehave neuer prooued, namelie that Gods will is to doe this, and that this the holy ſcriptures promiſe vsus. For that which they alledge, This is my bodie, is in controuerſie, and may hauehave an other ſenſe. Wherefore the Argument is made weake & by a certaine example we will ſhew the féebleneſſe thereof. The Lord ſaid to Nichodemus, That none can enter into the kingdome of heauen, Marke the ſimilitude of Nichodemus Iohn. 3. 3. Looke the dialogue of both natures in Chriſt.John 3:3vnleſſe he be borne a new: He began to demaund, How can a man of ripe age, or elſe an olde man enter the ſecōd time into the wombe of his mother? It might hauehave bin ſaid vntounto him: Chriſt hath now affirmed that it ſhall ſo be, why doubteſt thou of the power of God whereby all things be created? By it, thou maieſt vndoubtedlie be borne againe out of thy mothers wombe. Howbeit Chriſt ſaid not ſo, but he declared, that all this ſhould be doone by ſpirituall regeneration. For albeit he made mention of water, which ſhould belong vntounto baptiſme, yet he moſt plainely taught that we ſhould be borne againe by the ſpirit. So we ſée it come to paſſe in this place. Chriſt commaunded that we ſhould eate his fleſh. And in receauing of bread he ſaid: This is my bodie. The tranſubſtantiators ſay: It can not be brought to paſſe that the bodie of the Lord ſhould be together with bread: wherefore it behooueth that y^e nature thereof ſhould be tranſubſtantiated into the bodie of Chriſt: and this will they perſwade to be doone by the power of God. But in the meane time they obiect, We alone ſay not ſo: For Chryſoſtom, Ambroſe and Cyrill, when they diſpute of this change, ſend vsus to the power of God, and doe extoll the ſame with woonderfull prayſes. But we aunſwere, Why the Fathers in ſpeaking of the Sacraments extol the power of God.that the fathers ſpeake well: For in déed it belongeth to the power of God to change bread & wine, that the Sacraments ſhould be ſuch as they were not before. Neither is it a woork of nature that they ſhould ſo mightilie and effectuallie ſignifie, offer and exhibite the bodie and bloud of the Lord, which muſt be apprehended with our mindes and fayth. Wherefore the holy Ghoſt is the chiefeſt in this buſineſſe, and the inſtitution of the Lorde is of great force, and the wordes being vttered by diuine inſpiration, and now repeated do profit verie much. Adde herewithall, that whyle we communicate there is a chaunge or conuerſion of vsus into Chriſt, which doth far exceede the power of nature. But now ſéeing the ſupernaturall power of God may bee rerequired to all theſe thinges, they apply the ſame vntounto tranſubſtantiation. And it is euen as if wée ſhoulde argue from the more vniuerſall to the more particular affirmatiuelie, which is not lawfull. Moreouer in baptiſme is required the ſelfeſame power, ſéeing it is not the woorke of nature, that water ſhould become the fountaine of regeneration. But here ſome take it not in good part, that Baptiſme ſhould in ſuch wiſe be compared with the Euchariſt. For albeit they cannot deny that Chriſt alſo is preſent p. 185in Baptiſme, and giuen vntounto vsus (for it is written: Gal. 3. 27.Gal 3:27So many of you as are baptiſed hauehave put on Chriſt) yet ſay they: Chriſt is better & after a more excellent manner in the Euchariſt, than he is in Baptiſme: therefore the bread is tranſubſtantiated, and it is not neceſſarie that the water ſhould be changed. VntoUnto whom we anſwere, that we néede not ſtriue much in which of the Sacramentes Chriſt is more excellent, ſo it be graunted that he is in the one and the other. And euen as he may be in the one, the ſubſtance of the elementes preſerued, ſo may he be in the other. Whether ſacrament is more woorthier, Baptiſme or the Euchariſt.But if thou wilt in any wiſe contend about the woorthineſſe of them, the excellencie of baptiſme may be ſhewed by effectuall reaſons. Inſomuch as it is more to be begotten, than to be nouriſhed. Furthermore, Baptiſme was made famous by manie miracles. The heauens were opened, the voyce of the father was heard, & the holy Ghoſt was ſéene in the likeneſſe of a dooue: the which happened not in the inſtitution of the Euchariſt. And theſe thinges we ſpeake not to the abaſing of this Sacrament. For it is moſt woorthie, and ſhould be excéedinglie honored, but they be therefore vttered, that we may aunſwere to the obiection made as touching the power of God. And we hauehave alreadie ſhewed before out of Auguſtine De Trinitate, the 3. booke and 10 Chapter, that ſo excéeding great miracles as theſe men bring muſt not be allowed. Which alſo appeareth, if thou rehearſe the verſes of Gregorie Nazianzene, wherein he comprehended all the miracles of Chriſt: The fathers made no mention of the myracle of Tranſubſtantiation.neither did he make any mention of theſe miracles, which neuertheleſſe, if we beléeue them they be ſingular and without compariſon. Auguſtine alſo, while he compriſeth the maruels of the holy ſcripture, in a certaine booke of his entituled the booke of miracles, he maketh mention of Tranſubſtantiation. Wherefore it appeareth that we muſt not for this opinion bring in an Argument drawen from the power of God, which we deny not: yea rather we affirme that in this Sacrament there is néede of it.

61 Next of all, they obiected, that their opinion was confirmed by many woonders and miracles, For howe many cauſes myracles might be doone about the Euchariſt. Look in the Treatiſe againſt Gardiner. 1. Co. 11. 301 Cor 11:30the which be read in Cyprian, in the life of Gregorie, and among many other writers. We aunſwere hereunto, that about the Euchariſt miracles might be doone for thrée cauſes: either to kéepe back wicked and vnwoorthie men from ſo woorthie a Sacrament: and this kinde of miracles we allowe. For the Apoſtle writeth that among the Corinthians many were féeble & weake, & that manie were aſléepe becauſe they communicated vnwoorthilie. And vntounto this order I thinke thoſe men muſt be brought whereof Cyprian writeth. Another kinde of miracles is ſometime brought in to ſet foorth the excellencie of this Sacrament, that the dignitie and greatneſſe thereof might thereby be expreſſed. Which miracles alſo we reiect not. For we knowe alſo that baptiſme was oftentimes adorned with manie miracles. A third kinde there may be for the confirming of this opinion or rather error concerning Tranſubſtantiation. And after this manner the aduerſaries alledge theſe things againſt vsus. But miracles of this ſort muſt be vtterly reiected. And hereof are we admoniſhed by the lawe, Deut. 13. 1.Deut 13:1that ſo often as a Prophet goeth about to drawe men to idolatrie and ſuperſtitions, although he get credite thereunto by working of miracles, we muſt not beléeue him, yea rather y^e Lord would hauehave him to be ſtoned. We knowe moreouer that Antichriſt ſhall come, 1. Theſ. 2.….1 Thess 2& that he ſhalbe famous in ſignes and woonders. And we are not ignorant that in the time of Moſes y^e ſorcerers ſtood before Pharao which did woonders againſt the word of God. Gen. 7. 11.Gen 7:11And we read in Irenaeus the 1 booke of one Marke a deceauer & heretick, who in this ſacramēt of the Euchariſt did woonderfully beguile the ſimple ſort. For he chaunged the colour of y^e wine, that it might altogether appeare bloud: & by his inchauntment he ſo increaſed a litle wine, as the whole cup was filled & runne ouer. And when againe there was a cup longer and of more recept, that alſo was filled vp to the top without addition of more liquor. Who would ſaie that through theſe miracles, his hereſie ſhould be approued? If we ſhall make mention of Ethnicks: we reade that there flowed in the earth riuers of bloud, that out of the thumbe of Iubiter ſprang bloud. T. Liuius.Titus Liuius ſaith that at Rome it rained fleſh. Quintus Curtius ſaith, Quintus Curtius.that at Tyre, when it was beſieged by Alexander the Great, bread did openlie ſweate foorth bloud. And it is ſaid that Apollonius Thyanaeus, when he was in the Councell before Domitianus the Emperour ſuddenlie vaniſhed away, ſo that he was no more found. And infinite be the thinges that the Ethnickes can bring for to confirme their ſeruice of Idols. Wherefore we wholy reiect theſe miracles, which theſe men ſay doe ſerue for eſtabliſhing the ſuperſtition of tranſubſtantiation. Neither are we to make great account of that which they bring in here as touching a miracle wrought by Gregory byſhop of Rome. For it is written in p. 186his lyfe, The life Gregorie Byſhop of Rome.that the bread of the Lord, or if thou wilt call it the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, was turned into a finger of fleſh. Which if it were doone for the two cauſes which we our ſelues allow, we are not much to ſtand vppon it. Albeit that lyfe of Gregory is not of any great credit. For if we ſhall beléeue Vincentius, it was deſcribed a hundreth yeares after his death by Iohn a Deacon of Rome, and ſent to a certaine Emperour of Germanie. But admit it were ſo: ſo long as our aduerſaries would thereof conclude, that through the token of a fleſhie finger, the fleſh of Chriſt dooth corporallie ly hidden vnderunder accidentes, any man might by this kinde of miracles conclude that vnderunder Sacramentall formes, are contained aſhes and coles, becauſe the holy bread was once conuerted into theſe in the time of Cyprian, as himſelfe writeth. I thinke alſo that the liegerdemaine of naughtie fellowes which they hauehave often times vſed to the faining of miracles is not vnknowen.

An argument from the glorified bodie.62 In an other Argument they very much obtruded the dignitie of the glorified body of Chriſt which after the reſurrection is is called ſpiritual. This we denie dot: yet doe we giuegive warning of that which Auguſtine hath in an epiſtle to Conſentius, that ſuch a body is not ſo ſpirituall, as it paſſeth into the nature of a ſpirit. 2. Co. 15. 44For Paul alſo calleth the body a certaine naturall body: which muſt not ſo be vnderſtode as though the body paſſeth into the nature of the ſoule. And againe the ſame father in his 13. Booke De Ciuitate Dei, the 20. Chapter, writeth: The ſoule ſometime while it obeyeth the fleſh, is called carnall, not that it paſſeth into the nature of fleſh: ſo likewiſe the bodie is called ſpiritual, not becauſe it gathereth the nature of a ſpirit, but becauſe it will bee wholly ſubiect to fulfill the will thereof. And Ierom in an Epiſtle vntounto Pamachius, which was an Apologie againſt Iohn Byſhop of Ieruſalem (who attributed vntounto the ſoules of them that riſe againe an elementarie or ayrie bodie that ſhould not be ſubiect either to feeling or feeding) contended by all meanes that Chriſt after his reſurrection had a moſt true body, and that doubtleſſe viſible. And he preuenteth an obiection: if in ſuch ſort it were viſible and one ſelfe ſame body, why was it not knowen when he ſhewed himſelfe like a ſtranger? He aunſwereth: becauſe their eies were holden that they might not know him: as if he ſhould ſay: y^t which belongeth vntounto the nature of a body both was viſible, and might be knowen, but there was an impedimēt in their eies which were holden that they could not diſcerne. Seeing therefore Chriſt after his reſurrection had a true body bound to meaſure and place, there is no cauſe why we ſhould depriue it of theſe properties, and caſt it into the narrowe corners of a ſmall péece of bread, as though it were wholy contained therein how great ſo euer it be. But if it be graunted, that this alſo may be doone by the power of GOD, can it ſtraightway be concluded that it is doone? The Argument as we ſhewed before is weake. They alſo argued from the Gréeke Article, ſeeing Chriſt ſaide, The efficacie of the gréek articleforeign, This is my bodie: as though the Article can hauehave ſtrength to drawe the propoſition vntounto the proper ſenſe, and permitteth not a figuratiue meaning. Theſe men are deceaued. For the Gréeke article hath not alwayes that ſtrength. And that appeareth plainelie in the 8. Chapter of the Goſpell of Luke, Luk. 8. 11.Luke 8:11where Chriſt expounded that parable which he had vttered of y^e ſower of the ſéede. And he ſaith, foreign: that is, The ſeede is the worde of God: where thou ſéeſt that vntounto the worde of God is added the Gréeke article. Yet did not this ſpeach woorke that the word of God is bound, as though it ſhould properlie, reallie, and corporallie be in that ſéede which is throwen into the earth, whereof the parable was propoſed at the beginning. But it is ſaid to be contained therein by the power and propertie of the ſignification: after which manner we alſo vnderſtand it in the wordes of the Lord: when he ſaith: This is my bodie. For we ſay, that it is not pronounced of the bread of the Lordes bodie, vnleſſe it be by ſignification. Moreouer there was an Argument taken of the promiſe of Chriſt, wherin he ſaid: Mat. 28. 30.Matt 28:30I will be with you vntill the end of the world. The which is no hinderance to our opinion. After what manner Chriſt is preſēt with vsus till the end of the world.For we confeſſe that Chriſt is preſent with vsus by his diuine nature, by grace alſo and by many giftes, which his ſpirit bringeth vntounto vsus. Furthermore, if we deſire his bloud and fleſh, we may alſo comprehend them in this Sacrament by faith, and may ſpirituallie eate them, wherevnto there afterward followeth a moſt true, yet a ſecrete and vnſpeakeable coniunction of vsus with Chriſt when we be changed into him.

63 Then afterward it was propoſed, that if the matter be on this wiſe, it will follow, that our Sacramentes hauehave no more than had the Sacramentes of the olde Lawe, ſéeing in them alſo Chriſt was ſignified: yea & perhappes, if we reſpect y^e nature of ſignes, the thing was more fullie ſhadowed there p. 187than it is in our Sacramentes, the which be altogether vnbloudie. But in the ſacrifices of the olde fathers, the ſlaughter was plainlie ſéene, and the bloud there ſhed did more plainelie faſhion out the Lordes death and place it before our eyes, than our bread and wine doe. The difference betweene our ſacraments and theirs in old time.We aunſwere that as touching y^e ſubſtance, our ſacramentes are the ſelfeſame that the olde fathers Sacramentes were, the ſelfeſame thing is giuen in the one and the other, although the ſignes be diuers. And this did Paul teſtifie in the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians. 1. Cor. 10. 11 Cor 10:1Yet neuertheleſſe our Sacramentes hauehave many prerogatiues aboue the Sacramentes of the olde lawe. For they be firme and are no more to be changed vntill the ende of the world: and they ſhew not the thing that is to be doone, but the thing that is doone alreadie. They be plainer, and belong to a more ample and greater number of people. And ſéeing they be plainer, they ſtirre vp a greater faith, and thereby followeth a greater meaſure of the ſpirit. In what reſpect our ſacraments be plaine… than theirs in old time.In that they be more playne, it procéedeth not as the aduerſaries faine vntounto them ſelues of a more manifeſt outward prefiguration, but of the nature of the wordes which be there vttered. For our redemption performed, is with more excellent and plaine wordes declared, than the common people in the olde Lawe vnderſtoode it. But and if that the thing be more plainelie expreſſed by wordes, an outward repreſentation is not to be looked for. Beſides this they woondred how it can be that the Church was ſo long in an error, Whether the Church were long time caſt in an error by God.and that no ſmall error, if it be ſo as we ſay. Which neuertheleſſe they would not maruell at, if they conſidered what Chriſt ſaid of his laſt comming: Luke. 18. 8.Luke 18:8Thinkeſt thou that when the ſonne of man commeth, Matt. 24. verſe. 24.Matt 24:24he ſhall finde faith vppon the earth? And it is ſhewed, that ſo great the error ſhall be, that if it were poſſible the very elect ſhould be ſeduced. I beſéech you let theſe men tell vsus what manner of Church Chriſt did finde at his firſt comming? Had not now the Scribes and Phariſies and alſo the Byſhops corrupted and infected all thinges with their traditions? Yet are we not to thinke that the Church was vtterlie left in error. For there were alwayes ſome good men who were diſpleaſed at theſe things, and which repugned againſt them. And as in the firſt comming, there were Simeon, Anna the widow, Ioſeph and Mary the virgin, Elizabeth, and Iohn Baptiſt, which were godly and of very good vnderſtanding: and that the Church would not be ſayd to be vtterlie forſaken, ſo lykewiſe is it come to paſſe in theſe latter times. For the vniuerſall Church is not infected with theſe traditions of men. They ſay alſo that as touching the ſignification, this very thing may be doone by bread & wine in banquets, and that therefore there is no cauſe that we ſhould ſo greatlie honor the Euchariſt. But the Argument is moſt weake, ſéeing that in common meates, there is no inſtitution of the Lord, no Sacrament, the wordes of the Lord not heard, neither is any promiſe there. Wherfore theſe thinges muſt not be compared together.

64 Laſtly there was brought in an argument taken from the force & efficacie of the worde of God, (which being ſpoken of Ambroſe, Algerius cyteth in the firſt Booke the ſeuenth Chapter.) It is called a working word, as when by the bread and wine which remaine the ſelfe ſame, are changed into another thing. As concerning the words of Ambroſe, we willingly accept them. For we alſo affirme, that bread and wine remaine the ſelfeſame not in déede (as the tranſubſtantiatours ſay) as touching accidents or formes, ſo as there ſhould be a change: (the ſubſtance being caſt away) but we affirme, that they are preſerued as touching their owne proper natures, yet that the change is made onlie by a ſacramentall grace. We muſt attribute to the words of the Lord, but not attribute to them as to ſome enchantment.And we derogate nothing from the ſtrength of the Lordes wordes. Yet doe wee not thinke it méete to attribute vntounto them as to ſome inchauntment, that after what manner ſoeuer, and in what place ſoeuer, they are by the prieſt pronounced ouer bread and wine with a minde to conſecrate, they ſhal ſtraightwaie obtaine effect. For all wholy dependeth vponupon the inſtitution of the Lord and the working of the holie ſpirit. We néede not much to care for Algerius, Algerius the Monk… a man of no great iudgement.for he was after the time of Berengarius, and of whoſe recantation he maketh mention in his writing. Further of what iudgement he was, it appeareth by a certain argument of his. For in the xxi. Chapter of the firſt booke, minding to prooue, that aſwell the godly as the wicked doe receiue the bodie of Chriſt in the ſacrament, (which in déede followeth vponupon Tranſubſtantiation) Hearken to a ſimilitude (ſayeth he) of the outward word, that is to ſay, of the ſpéeche that is doone by the founde. VntoUnto whom ſoeuer ſuch a ſpéeche commeth, it containeth and hath with it his owne proper ſenſe. But if it come to men of vnderſtanding, they heare with profite, for they perceiue thoſe things which he ſpoken: and if doubtleſſe it ſhall come to the vnlearned and ignoraunt, it no leſſe carieth the proper ſenſe with it, but yet without profite to the hearer, becauſe he vnderſtandeth p. 188it not. This man preſumeth in his argument, that words carie a ſenſe with them, yet doeth he not conſider, that the ſenſe is not included or foulded (as they ſay) really in the ſound or forme of ſpéech of the letters, but by a ſignification onlie. The ſame if it be ſaid vntounto him, as concerning bread and wine in the Sacraments, becauſe they offer the bodie of Chriſt by ſignification, he ſhall bee confuted by his owne ſimilitude. Whereby alſo it is prooued, that the wicked doe not receiue the bodie of the Lorde, like as the rude and ignoraunt, who, when they heare the Gréeke and Latine wordes, vnderſtande not the meaning thereof. Wherefore no man could hauehave ſaide more for vsus. The ſame Author affirmeth in the firſt Chapter of the ſecond Booke, that the accidents in the Sacrament doe not in verie déede admit corruption or horineſſe, but that it onelie ſéemeth ſo vntounto vsus: which the Schoolemen themſelues would not hauehave ſaid. For what elſe is this, than to appoint a perpetuall illuſion of the ſenſe? So wee are not to paſſe much vppon him, although he indeuour by all meanes to fortifie his Tranſubſtantiation.

Thus farre of the firſt opinion, & why it hath béene ſomewhat largely entreated of.65 Now hauehave we made tryall of the firſt opinion and that largelie: for that being remooued, verie many ſuperſtitions are taken away. Of the other two we wil not ſo largelie diſpute, becauſe whether of the two is appointed, we doe not greatlie paſſe, ſo it bée ſoundlie vnderſtoode. Now wée will onelie ſpeake of them, to the end we may ſee what we ſhall iudge in both to bée auoyded and what to be receiued. Wherefore ſome there hauehave béene, which retaining the ſubſtance of bread and wine, and alſo the bodie and bloud of the Lorde, hauehave together with theſe ſignes yet remaining in their owne nature, ioyned by a moſt firme knot, the bodie and bloud of the Lorde, yet not ſo, as I thinke, that of them being ioyned together, ſhould be made one ſubſtance: neuertheleſſe they hauehave ſaide, that the bodie and bloud of Chriſt is in the bread and wine, really, (as they ſpeake) corporally, & naturally: but others hauehave ioyned them together by ſignification onelyonly. The firſt opinion is attrybuted vntounto Luther, Of the contention betwéene Luther and Zuinglius.the other vntounto Zuinglius. Howbeit I hauehave heard men of credite ſay, that Luther iudged not ſo groſſely of this matter: and that Zuinglius alſo beléeued not ſo ſlenderlie of the ſacraments. And they ſay that Luther inclined vntounto hyperbolicall ſpéeches, ſuch as after a ſort excéede the trueth, becauſe hée thought that Zuinglius and others woulde make the ſacraments to be bare and vaine ſignes: whereas Zuinglius meant no ſuch matter. But hée alſo feared, leaſt Luther ſhoulde affirme thoſe thinges which both ſhould derogate from the truth of the humane nature, and alſo include the bodie of Chriſt in bread, whereupon a greater ſuperſtition ſhould yet be nouriſhed, and therfore hee thought méete to report ſomewhat ſlenderlie of this Sacrament: and thus there was ſtirred vp a contention more than was méete, and was a cauſe of great miſchéefe. That their contention was rather of words, than of the thing.Whereas yet in very déede the contention was rather about wordes than about the matter. Wherefore we will remooue the handling of theſe two opinions frō the perſons: for we affirme not, that either Zuinglius or Luther were of that minde, but onelie we will examine the opinions, ſuch as are caried about.

66 That thoſe men which ſo groſſely ioyne the bodie of Chriſt with the ſignes, may the better declare themſelues, they are woont to bring two ſimilitudes. Two ſimilitudes.The firſt is, if thou hauehave a pot full of wine, and ſhalt pronounce, This is wine, thou lyeſt not at all, ſéeing thou ſheweſt the wine it ſelfe contained in the Cup. In like maner ſhall it be if thou take a hotte burning Iron, and ſhewing the fire, ſaieſt, This is fire, therein thou ſpeakeſt neither falſelie nor abſurdly: ſo (ſay they) muſt be vnderſtoode that ſaying of the Lord, This is my bodie: and they manifeſtly admit the figure Synecdoche. For ſéeing they ſhew a ſubiect compounded, it is no true propoſition vnleſſe it be as touching the one part of the thing ſhewed. Yet muſt it bée knowen that theſe ſimilitudes are not taken by them, as though they thought that eueryevery maner of waie they agrée with the matter propoſed: becauſe they contend that the bodie of Chriſt is preſent not locally, To be preſent locally and definitiuely, what it is.but onelie diffinitiuely, which then they vnderſtand to bee when any thing is not circumſcribed with the meaſure of place, but yet is ſaid to be there, becauſe his nature or eſſence is then appointed to that place, or worketh therein. But this agréeth not with wine being in a cup: for that hath his place there wherein it is limited. Further theſe men would not ſay that the bodie of Chriſt is ſo in bread as it ſhall take name of the qualities or accidents therof. For it cannot truelie be named white, round, baked or ſodden: which neuertheleſſe we perceiue to happen vntounto fire mixed with burning Iron. For it ſo followeth the faſhion of the Iron, the length, the bredth, and the depth thereof, as it maie be named by the ſhapes and formes of the ſame. Whereby it plainely appeareth, that this ſimilitude in this opinion, is not p. 189vnderſtoode by theſe men, as touching all the partes, but onelie that a true and reall coniunction of the ſacrament and the thing may be ſhewed, which being graunted, it followeth, that aſwell the wicked as the godly, doe receiue the bodie of Chriſt. Firſt (forſooth) that this coniunction is reall, they thinke it is ſufficiently prooued by the wordes of the Lord. As theſe men wil, the wicked receiue the bodie of Chriſt.But the other, namely that the bodie of Chriſt is giuen euen vntounto the wicked, they ſée it doeth neceſſarily follow. But we hauehave alreadie ſhewed the contrarie, to wit, that theſe wordes of Chriſt driue vsus not neceſſarilie vntounto this ſenſe, and by effectuall reaſons it hath bin prooued that the wicked receiue onelyonly the outward elements.

67 Theſe men alſo are woont to argue, that if the wordes of the ſcripture be vnderſtoode figuratiuelie, it maie then eaſilie bée that manie precepts ſhould be ouerthrowen. For Abraham might hauehave ſaide of circumciſion when it was commaunded: Gen. 17. 10 Whether figuratiue ſpéeches bée a hurt to y^e cōmaundements of God. Leuit. 11. 2.Gen 17:10Lev 11:2It is a figuratiue ſpéeche, and I ſhall fulfill this commaundement, if I circumciſe my heart, and cut off the luſtes and infections of the fleſh. Alſo when the choyſe of meates was commanded, the Iſraelites might hauehave ſaid, that the execution of that commandement might conſiſt in the morall obſeruation, if they did not commit thoſe ſinnes which were ſignified by thoſe vncleane beaſtes: and by that meanes neither circumciſion nor choyſe of meates ſhould hauehave taken place. Howbeit it may plainely be prooued that this is a weake argument, becauſe it is perceiued by the letter it ſelfe and by the text that the ſame is no figuratiue ſpéeche. As touching Circumciſion, it is appointed to be the viii. day after the childes birth, and it is added, y^t the couenant of the Lord was to be borne in the fleſhe it ſelfe. By which wordes it appeareth, that true Circumciſion was commaunded. And in the choyſe of meates the conditions of the liuing creatures cleane and vncleane are ſo expreſſedly deſcribed and a purifying appointed as touching the offenders, that no place of doubting is left. We hauehave alſo a rule of Auguſtine De Doctrina Chriſtiana, A precept of Auguſtine.wherein he ſheweth, that vnleſſe an ill act be commaunded, or ſome good worke prohibited, the ſpeech is to bée taken without a figure: the which rule if it be applyed to the choyſe of meates and vntounto circumciſion, he ſheweth, that the wordes of God muſt be abſolutelie vnderſtoode. They ſay moreouer, that in the Prophets and hiſtories, figures are eaſily admitted, becauſe in theſe the holy ghoſt dealeth after the manner of men, & applyeth himſelfe to their familiar ſpéeches, that hée may the more and the more earneſtlie expreſſe thoſe things which are to bée ſpoken, but in doctrine and precepts wée muſt not ſo iudge: All things, (ſaie they) muſt be taken ſimply, Whether in the doctrine & precepts of God there be figures. Mat. 16. 16Matt 16:16which opinion of theirs is not firme or vniuerſall. For as touching precepts, the Lord ſaith: Beware of the Leuen of the Phareſies, where he manifeſtlie vſeth a figure, & that ſuch a figure, as the Apoſtles in that place vnderſtoode him amiſſe. Moreouer in the 7. Matt. 7. 11.Matt 7:11of Matthew he commaunded that they ſhould beware of falſe Prophets, for they will come vntounto you (ſaith he) in ſheepes clothing, but inwardly they be rauening woolues. In which commaundement who perceiueth not a figuratiue ſpéeche? And in teaching of doctrine there is no doubt, but figures & tropes are vſed. Paul ſaith in the new Teſtament: 1. Cor. 10. 4 Ib. ver. 18. Heb. 12. 291 Cor 10:4Heb 12:29The rocke was Chriſt: We be one bread. And of God it is writtē, that he is a cōſuming fire.

68 Afterward they affirme that the bodie of Chriſt may be euerie where, Whether the bodie of Chriſt be euerywhere. Look in the dialogue ſeuerally ſet out by P. Martyr, concerning this maner Iohn. 3. 13.John 3:13and that by the wordes of Chriſt to Nichodemus in the 3. Chapter of Iohn where it is ſaide: No man aſcendeth into heauē, but he that came down from heauen, euen the ſonne of man which is in heauen. Beholde ſay they the ſonne of man, that is Chriſt, ſpake vntounto them as touching his humane nature, and was alſo in heauen, becauſe the humane nature cannot be plucked away from the diuine: Therefore what he affirmeth of one, muſt alſo be ſpoken of the other. But it is aunſwered that wée will not diuide theſe two natures one from an other: yet it followeth not therefore that that which appertaineth to the one ſhould be giuen vntounto the other. Indéede wée graunt that the diuinitie of Chriſt is eueryevery where, but we will not attribute the ſame vntounto his bodie and humanitie. And this did Auguſtine vntounto Dardanus moſt manifeſtly teache. And that which is brought out of the third Chapter of Iohn, the ſame Auguſtine enterpreteth, that it muſt be vnderſtoode, that the ſonne of man was in heauen as touching his diuine nature. Neither did Chryſoſtome otherwiſe iudge, when he expoundeth this place. For he affirmeth, that to be in heauen was not attributed vntounto the ſonne of man but in reſpect of his diuine nature. But how féeble an argument this is: Theſe two natures are ioyned together, therefore that which is graunted to the one, muſt be attributed alſo to the other. This may bée ſhewed by the like: The body of the ſonne and the light thereof, hauehave betwéene them a naturall and excellent coniunction: yet the light extendeth not it ſelfe to eueryevery place, whereunto the bodie doeth reallie attaine. In like manner p. 190the bodie, A ſimilitude.our eyes and ſight, are verie much ioyned one with an other, and yet doth our ſight attaine to manie things vntounto which the eye of the bodie extendeth not. Afterward they argue that vntounto the bodie of Chriſt, manie things muſt be granted beſides the common courſe and conditions of other bodies: and that for two cauſes: partly becauſe it is glorified, and partlie becauſe it hath the word ioyned with it. We confeſſe that many things are to be giuen, but, to bée euerie where, this cannot be fit for it, the nature of mans bodie preſerued. And if wée ſhoulde graunt this vntounto it, it were not to bring renowne but ruine thereunto, for then it ſhould be extruded from his owne nature. Moreouer it doeth not much further this matter, becauſe although we ſhould graunt that the bodie of Chriſt hath this in it, that it can be in manie places, yet would it not therof follow that God would deale ſo in this ſacrament.

A ſimilitude.69 Moreouer they indeuour to prooue this corporall preſence, by the ſimilitude of a teacher. Who ſéeing he can extend his wordes vntounto many hearers, in them he communicateth vntounto the hearers the concept of his mind, ſo as all they vnderſtand him fullie alike: So ſaith he doth God deale in the words which bée vttered at the Sacrament. Hée fouldeth his bodie in them, that by them he may be ſhewed in all theſe ſignes, and may be communicated vntounto all that be receiuers. Wherefore that which is graunted vntounto a maiſter, and that an earthly maiſter, why ſhall it not bée graunted vntounto Chriſt? But the compariſon is farre wide, and as wée ſaide before, words doe not diſcouer things or the concept of the minde, vnleſſe it bée by way of ſignification. And that is to no purpoſe which afterwarde they goe about to prooue that the body of Chriſt is eueryevery where, out of the firſt chapter of the Epiſtle to the Epheſians (where it is ſaide: Ephe. 5. 22.Eph 5:22Chriſt is giuen to be the head of the bodie of the Church: which (as it is written in the gréeke) is the fulneſſe of him that filleth all in all things) For the Apoſtle meaneth not that the bodie of Chriſt filleth al things and is eueryevery where as theſe men inferre. An expoſition of a place to the Epheſians.But becauſe the ſignification of that verbe or participle foreign fulfilling, is doubtfull, (for it may bée taken both actiuely and paſſiuelie, ſéeing it is a verbe of the meane voyce) if thou vnderſtand it paſſiuely according to the gréeke expoſitions, the ſenſe ſhalbe this: That Chriſt the head of the Church is filled as touching all things in all his members, not that he is accompliſhed in himſelfe. For he is both ſufficientlie perfect & happie. Howbeit, that muſt be vnderſtoode in reſpect of the bodie & members. For as to be the head is giuen vntounto him, ſo likewiſe the Church is vnderſtoode to be the fulnes of Chriſt: namely for that it filleth and maketh perfect his myſticall body. But if the ſignification therof be actiue, then ſhal it be ſaid that Chriſt is the head, becauſe he himſelf perfecteth al the gifts and vertues in all his members. Chriſt as he is man, is not eueryevery where.Neither is the ſenſe that he, as he is man, is eueryevery where. And it is thought that this maie bée prooued by the Scriptures. Ioh. 11. ver. 14. & 15.John 11:14John 11:15For Chriſt openlie confeſſeth that Lazarus was dead when hée was not there. But if he wil cōtend, that he had not a glorified body, it maketh not much to y^e matter, becauſe he had neuertheleſſe the godhead ioyned with it. But to take away the doubt, the Angell now after the reſurrection ſaide vntounto the women: He is riſen, he is not heere. Matt. 28. ver. 6. & 7.Matt 28:6Matt 28:7And againe: He ſhall goe before you into Galile. And againe, Acts. 1. 9.Acts 1:9He was taken away from their eyes as he aſcended into heauen. Wherfore hée filleth not all things nor is euerie where.

70 They are woont alſo to cite a place in the 4. Chapter to the Epheſians: Verſe. 10.He that deſcended is the verie ſame that aſcended euen aboue all heauens, An other place to the Epheſians expounded.that hee might fill all thinges. Which place notwithſtanding prooueth nothing, and is expounded two manner of wayes. Firſt that to fill all things is referred vntounto that which is propheſied and written of Chriſt. Wherefore a little before he cited the ſcripture: Verſe. 8.He aſcended on high, he led captiuitie captiue and gaue gifts vntounto men. And if thou wilt referre it vntounto places, thou muſt vnderſtand this of the kindes of places, not of each one place particularlie, according to that ſentence, 1. Tim. 2. 4.1 Tim 2:4The Lord would hauehave all men to be ſaued. So ſhall we ſay that Chriſt ſometime occupied the middle places, ſometime the higher places, and otherwhile the lower places, as in the ſepulchre. The Tranſubſtantiators ſay, that this belonged not vntounto them, becauſe they ſay not that the bodie of Chriſt is eueryevery where, but onelie where the Sacrament is: yea rather it is againſt them. For if (as they iudge) it be not repugnant to the bodie of Chriſt, If the bodie of Chriſt may be together in many places, it may alſo be euerie where, which thing alſo Scotus ſawe.to be at one time and together in xx. or fiftie places, it will not be repugnant to be in an hundreth or in a thowſand, and finallie in all places: and ſo will they make the bodie of Chriſt to be infinite, neither is there any cauſe why thou ſhouldſt accuſe the forme of the Argument. For the ſelfeſame did Ierom vſe againſt Iohn Byſhop of Ieruſalem, where he would prooue that p. 191our bodies after reſurrection, can remaine without meate. For Elias (ſaith he) and Moſes by the power of God could remaine without meate for the ſpace of 40 dayes, therefore might man for moe dayes alſo be ſuſtained by the power of God. And if for longer time, it followeth that for euermore if it be the will of God. But to returne to thoſe men, they, becauſe they ſée, that vppon ſo néere a coniunction it followeth, that the Sacrament may be adored (for if the Lord be corporally and really contained therein, who will not woorſhip him? The aduerſaries teach it to be frée to adore or not to adore the Sacrament.) they teach that it is frée for thée to doe it or not doe it. For they ſay: although he be there, yet is he not there to the end he ſhould be woorſhipped. If thou receaue him and eate him, it is enough: if alſo thou woorſhip him, thou erreſt not. But we rather iudge, that in woorſhipping we ſhould not conuert our minde vntounto the ſignes. But if any man while the rite of the Sacrament is exerciſed, being well inſtructed in the myſterie ſhall turne his minde to the woorſhipping of Chriſt reigning in heauen, he dooth rightlie, and his bounden duetie to woorſhip Chriſt, which declareth himſelfe vntounto him: neither is idolatrie committed therein. And this Paul taught in the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians, 1. Co. 14. 231 Cor 14:23when he ſaith: If a man enter into your congregation, if he be vnlearned and a plaine man, and heare you all ſpeake together in tongues, doubtleſſe he wil ſay: They be mad, neither ſhall he be edified: but if he ſhall heare you propheſie, and ſhall perceiue that the ſecretes of his heart be opened, then will he fall downe vppon his face and woorſhip God. He will not woorſhip men in ſuch wiſe propheſying, but ſéeing the Lord is there reuealed vntounto him, he will turne himſelfe to the woorſhipping of God.

Reaſons againſt the ſecond opinion.71 The reaſons in bréefe, for the which their groſſe iudgemēt ſéemeth not to be true, are theſe, to wit, 1that this reall and corporal preſence bringeth therewith no vtilitie, which we receiue not aſwell by the ſpirituall preſence. Verſe. 51.For in the 6. of Iohn, the Lord promiſed to them that eate him, eternall life: further that he would dwel in them and they in him: ouer and beſides theſe thinges what is required? 2Moreouer it might not be graū ted that we and the fathers of the olde lawe had the ſelfeſame Sacramentes: 1. Cor. 10. ver. 2. 3. &c1 Cor 10:21 Cor 10:3becauſe it was not poſſible that the olde fathers could hauehave obtained this reall preſence, for that the ſonne of God had not as yet taken vponupon him humane fleſh. 3Further it would follow, that both the godlie and the wicked doe eate the bodie of Chriſt. 4Againe, beſides that ſpirituall eating which we hauehave in the 6. of Iohn, they bring in an other carnall and corporall eating, which cannot be allowed, ſéeing this eating and that be all one, ſauing that in the latter are added ſignes, for the more confirmation of the thing. 5Finally it followeth, that when they attribute ſo much vntounto wordes, they are in the ſame difficultie wherein the Tranſubſtantiators be when they ſay, This is my bodie. For they cannot expreſſe their meaning, that they may ſpeake plainelie without contradiction, what they would declare, and how the wordes while they be vttered may be true, if they admit not a figure. They ſpread abroad the bodie of Chriſt, that it may be together in manie places, and eueryevery where. 6Neither is it of force if they ſay, Not locallie, becauſe although he be there, as Angels are ſaid to be in a place, that is not fit for the creature as it is prooued before by Didimus, Baſill, Auguſtine vntounto Dardanus, and by Cyrill: which places, thou ſhalt finde at the end of the firſt diſputation againſt Treſham: The wordes of the ſcripture driue vsus not to ſo groſſe and corporall a preſence: and faith is of the word of God, wherefore faith ought not to imbrace the ſame.

772 Beſides this, the fathers teache otherwiſe, for what maner of bodie is in the Euchariſt, Cyprian in his Sermon of the Lordes ſupper ſheweth, when he ſaith: Who vntounto this day createth, ſanctifieth & bleſſeth his moſt true and holie bodie, and diuideth it vntounto the godlie receauers. The proper bodie of Chriſt is not created or ſanctified of men, neither yet is it diuided. Chryſoſtome vponupon Matthew the 5. Chapter in the 11. homilie in the vnfiniſhed worke: If therefore it bée ſo dangerous to tranſferre vntounto priuate vſes theſe veſſels ſanctified wherein is not contained the true bodie of Chriſt, but a myſterie of his bodie, &c. And how we muſt aſcend into heauē when we communicate, if we would inioy the bodie of Chriſt, the ſame father declareth vppon the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinthians the 10. Chapter, Homilie 24. He commaundeth vsus that with great concord and charitie we come vntounto him, and being made Eagles in this lyfe, we ſhould fly vntounto the very heauen or rather aboue heauen. For where (ſaith he) the dead carkas is, Mat. 24. 28.Matt 24:28there alſo the Eagles be. The carkas is the bodie of the Lord by reaſon of his death. For vnleſſe y^t he had fallen, we had not riſen againe. And he calleth vsus Eagles, to ſhew that he which commeth vntounto this bodie muſt mount on high, & muſt hauehave no communitie with the earth, and muſt not lay holde vppon, or be drawen vntounto inferiour thinges, but alwaies p. 192fly aloft and looke into the ſonne of righteouſneſſe, and hauehave a moſt readie eye of the minde: for this is a table of Eagles and not of Iayes. Againe the ſame father vppon Matthew the 26. Chapter, Homilie 83. They were about to iourney frō Egypt into Paleſtina, and therefore they did weare the habit of a traueler: thou from the earth muſt aſcend into heauen. And in the 3. booke De Sacerdotio: Dooſt thou thinke to dwell among mortal men, and to ſtay and be in the earth? And dooſt thou not rather thinke that thou ſhalt foorthwith be tranſlated into heauen? And in caſting away all cogitation of y^e fleſh, doeſt thou not with a ſingle heart and pure minde conſider thoſe things that be in heauē?

73 Auguſtine vntounto Boniface hath all theſe things after the ſame order and ſenſe. The time of Eaſter being at hand, hee ſaith: As this or the next day ſaue one Chriſt dyed, and on the Sonday: This day Chriſt roſe againe. Baptiſme is faith: and the Sacrament of the bodie of Chriſt is the bodie of Chriſt. And wee ſée that in all the ſayings which we hauehave reckoned, The thing abſent, is really ſpoken of the thing preſent. Acts. 9. 4.Acts 9:4that which is abſent, is really pronounced of that which is preſent. The ſame Father vponupon the 54. Pſalme: The head was in heauen: and he ſaide, Why doeſt thou perſecute mée? Wee are with him in heauen by hope, he is with vsus in the earth by louelove. And in the 119. Epiſtle to Ianuarius: Wherefore to that perſecutor whom with his voyce he ſlue, and tranſlating him into his bodie after a ſort hath eaten, he ſounded frō heauen: Saul, Saul, why perſecuteſt thou mee? VponUpon Iohn the 30. Treatiſe, and we hauehave it in the Title de Conſecratione diſtinction the 2. yet the firſt in déede, The Lord is aboue, but here alſo is the truth of the Lord: For the Lords body wherin he roſe againe, ought to be in one place: his trueth is euerywhere ſpread. Alſo vponupon Iohn the 50. Treatiſe: For according to his Maieſtie, according to his prouidence, according to this vnſpeakeable & inuiſible grace is fulfilled that which was ſpokē by him: Behold I wilbee with you vntill the ende of the world. Mat. 28. 20Matt 28:20But according to the fleſh which the word tooke vponupon it, according to that which was borne of the Virgin, according to that which was taken holde of by the Iewes, which was faſtened to the trée, which was taken downe from the croſſe, which was wrapped in cloathes, which was buried in the ſepulchre, which was made manifeſt in the reſurrection, Ye ſhall not alwaies hauehave mee with you. Mat. 26. 11.Matt 26:11Wherefore after he had béene conuerſant as touching his bodilie preſence fourtie daies with his Diſciples, they leading him foorth, while they ſaw him, but not followed him, he aſcended into heauen, and is not here: for there he ſitteth at the right hand of his Father, and is héere: for he departed not with the preſence of his Maieſtie: we hauehave Chriſt alwaies. As touching the preſence of the fleſh, it was rightlie ſaide vntounto the Diſciples: Mat. 26. 11Matt 26:11Me ye ſhal not hauehave alwaies. For the Church had him but a fewe daies as touching the preſence of the fleſh. Nowe it houldeth him by faith, it ſéeth him not with the eyes. And y^e ſame Father vponupon the Epiſtle of Iohn at the end: Wherefore our Lord Ieſus Chriſt did for this cauſe aſcend into heauen on the fortie daie, hee in this reſpect commended his bodie, becauſe it was to be left on the earth in his members, for that he ſawe that many would honor him for that he aſcended into heauen, and perceaued that their honoring is vnprofitable, if they tread downe his members vppon the earth. And that none might be deceaued, nor when he ſhould woorſhip the head in heauen, ſhould oppreſſe the ſéete vppon the earth, he tould them, where his members ſhould be. For when he was about to aſcend, he ſpake the laſt wordes, after theſe wordes he ſpake no more vppon the earth. The head being about to aſcend into heauen, commended his members vppon the earth, and ſo departed. Thou ſhalt not now finde Chriſt to ſpeake vppon the earth. Thou findeſt him to ſpeake, howbeit in heauen, and out of heauen it ſelfe. Wherefore? becauſe the members were ouertrodden vppon the earth. For vntounto Paul the perſecuter he ſaid, Saul, Saul, why perſecuteſt thou me? Acts. 9. 4.Acts 9:4I aſcended into heauen, but I lie ſtill vponupon the earth. Here I ſit at the right hand of the father, there I ſtill hunger, thyrſt, and am a ſtraunger. After what ſort then commended he his bodie vpō the earth being about to aſcend? Acts. 1. 6.Acts 1:6When his diſciples had demaunded of him: Lord, if thou wilt at this time be preſented, when wilt thou reſtore the kingdome of Iſrael? He aunſwered vponupon his departure, It is not for you to know the time, which the father hath layd vp in his owne power: but ye ſhal receaue the power of the holy ſpirit comming vppon you, ye ſhall be witneſſes vntounto me in Ieruſalem. Behold in what reſpect he ſpreadeth out his bodie: behold, when he wil not be trodden vppon, ye ſhal be my witneſſes in Ieruſalem, and ouer all Iury and Samaria, and vntounto the endes of the earth. Behold I lie which doe aſcend: For I aſcend becauſe I am the head: my bodie yet ſtill lyeth. In what ſort dooth it lie? Ouer the whole earth.

74 VntoUnto Auguſtine, Cyrillus dooth conſent, p. 193who ſaith vppon Iohn the 6. booke and 14. Chapter: Here muſt we note, that although he tooke from hence the preſence of his bodie, euen as he promiſed that he would be away from his diſciples, yet in the maieſtie of his Godhead he is alwayes preſent. Behold I am with you alwayes euen vntill the end of the world. And the ſame father in the 9. booke vppon Iohn the 21. Chapter: And Chriſt ſaid that he would be with his diſciples a little while, not becauſe he would vtterly depart from them, for he is with vsus alwayes euen vntill the end of the world, but becauſe he would not liue together with thē as he did before. For the time was now at hand, that he ſhould goe euen into heauen vntounto the father: And the faithfull ought to beléeue, that although he be abſent from vsus, in bodie, yet that we and all thinges are gouerned by his power, and that he is alwaies preſent with all men which louelove him. Therfore he ſaid: Mat. 18. 20Matt 18:20Verilie verilie I ſay vntounto you, that whereſoeuer two or three be gathered in my name, there am I in the middeſt of them. For euen as when he was conuerſant vppon the earth as man, he then alſo filled the heauens, and left not the fellowſhip of the Angels: after the ſame manner now he being in the heauens filleth not the earth with his fleſh, and yet is with them that louelove him. And it muſt be obſerued that although hee ſhould be abſent onelyonly according to the fleſh (for he is alwayes preſent by the power of the Godhead, as we hauehave ſaid) yet he ſaid he would be a little while with his diſciples, manifeſtlie naming him ſelfe, that none ſhould be ſo hardie as diuide Chriſt into two ſonnes. Among theſe comes Vigilius, Vigilius.which in y^e 1. booke againſt Eutiches writeth: The ſonne of God as concerning his humanitie departed from vsus: as concerning his Godhead he ſaith vntounto vsus: Behold I am with you vntounto the end of the world. And ſtraightway after: Becauſe whome he left & from whom he departed with his humanitie, he neither left nor forſooke them with his diuinitie. For according to the forme of a ſeruant, which he tooke frō vsus into heauen, he is abſent from vsus: according to the forme of God wherewith he departeth not from vsus, he is preſent with vsus vppon the earth: yet both preſent and abſent he is one and the ſelfe ſame to vsus. Alſo in the 4. booke: If of the word and the fleſh the nature be all one, how is it, that ſéeing y^e word is eueryevery where, the fleſh alſo is not found eueryevery where? For when hée was in the earth, hée was not alſo in heauen, and now becauſe hée is in heauen, verilie he is not vppon the earth. And it importeth not much, that we ſhould expect Chriſt to come out of heauen as touching the fleſh it ſelfe, whom we beléeue to be with vsus vppon the earth as concerning the word. Therefore as you will hauehave it, either the word is contained in a place with his fleſh, or the fleſh with the word is euerywhere: becauſe one nature dooth not receaue a thing contrarie or diuers in it ſelfe: But it is a thing diuers and farre vnlyke, To be limited in a place, and to be eueryevery where. Foraſmuch then as the word is euerywhere, but the fleſh thereof is not eueryevery where, it appeareth that one and the ſelfeſame Chriſt is of both natures: That both he is euerywhere according to his diuine nature, and that according to the nature of his humanitie he is contained in a place: that he is created, and that he hath no beginning: that he is ſubiect vntounto death, and that he cannot dye. And ſtraightway he addeth: This is the Catholick faith and confeſſion, which the Apoſtles hauehave taught, the Martyrs hauehave confirmed, and the faithfull doe to this day kéepe.

75 Moreouer Fulgentius vntounto Traſimundus the King, y^e 2. booke: One & the ſelfeſame man, locall of a man, Fulgentiuswhich is God immenſible of the father, one and the ſelfeſame, according to humane ſubſtance, abſent out of heauen when he was in earth, and forſaking the earth when he aſcended into heauen: but as touching the diuine and immenſible ſubſtance, neither leauing heauen when he deſcended out of heauen, neither forſaking the earth when he aſcended into heauen. And this appeareth certainlie by the aſſured word of the Lord himſelfe: who to ſhew that his humanitie was locall, ſaid vntounto his diſciples, Iohn. 2. 17.John 2:17I aſcend vntounto your father and my father, vntounto my God and to your God. Of Lazarus alſo, when he had ſaid: Lazarus is dead, Ioh. 11. 14.John 11:14he added ſaying, I am glad becauſe of you that ye may beleeue becauſe I was not there. He ſhewed vndoubtedlie the infinite greatneſſe of his diuinitie vntounto his Apoſtles, ſaying: Beholde I am with you euen to the end of the world. How aſcendeth he into heauen, but for that he is in a place as very man? Or how is he preſent with his faithfull, ſauing becauſe he is one immenſible and very God? The ſame father in the 3. booke: The very ſame and inſeparable Chriſt, as touching his fleſh onelie, roſe out of the ſepulchre. The very ſame and inſeparable Chriſt, according to the whole man which he receaued, forſaking the earth locallie, aſcended into heauen, and ſitteth at the right hand of God. According to the ſelfeſame man, he ſhall come to iudge the quicke and the dead, and to crowne the faithful and godlie. Laſtlie Bernard vppon the Canticles the 33. p. 194Bernard.Sermon: I alſo hauehave the word, but in the fleſh, and before me is ſet the trueth, howbeit in a Sacrament. The Angell is fatned, but yet with the fatneſſe of Corne, and is now filled with graine. In the meane time it behooueth me to be content, with the barke of the Sacrament, with the branne of the fleſh, with the chaffe of the letter, with the couering of faith. And theſe thinges be ſuch as being taſted bring death, if they hauehave not receaued ſome ſeaſoning of the firſt fruites of the ſpirit. Death is altogether to me in the potte, vnleſſe it ſhould be ſwéetened by the little meale of the Prophet. 1. Kings.But certainelie in how great aboundāce ſoeuer theſe things doe waxe fatte, the booke of the Sacrament and the fatte of the wheate, faith and hope, memorie and preſence, eternitie and time, the viſage and a glaſſe, the Image of GOD and the forme of a ſeruant, are not receaued with like pleaſantneſſe. Verilie in all theſe thinges, faith vntounto me is rich and the vnderſtanding poore. And is the ſauour of faith and vnderſtanding all one, when as this tendeth vntounto merit, and that vntounto reward? Thou ſéeſt that there is aſmuch difference betwéene the meats, as betwéene the places. And euen as the heauens are exalted from the earth, ſo are the inhabitantes therein. Here thou plainelie ſéeſt that Bernard maketh an Antitheſis or contrarie compariſon betwéene the remembrance and preſence of a thing, and ſpeaketh of many other thinges which ſerue much to that we hauehave in hand. But let vsus returne vntounto y^e aduerſaries: they hauehave fathers to oppoſe againſt vsus. They hauehave Irenaeus who ſaith that the Euchariſt conſiſteth of two thinges: the one earthlie, and the other heauenlie, the which alſo Gelaſius ſuppoſeth. Howbeit theſe thinges conclude not vnleſſe thou ſhalt vnderſtand the whole Sacrament, After what maner the ſacrament may be ſaid to conſiſt of two things.ſo that thou make it one thing conſiſting of the ſigne and the thing ſignified, then we graunt that it ſtandeth of two partes. But if afterward thou wouldeſt appoint ſo great a coniunction betwéene the bread & the bodie of Chriſt as is betwéene the diuine and humane natures in Chriſt, that ſhould in no wiſe be graunted, becauſe it were neceſſarie that of bread and of the bodie of Chriſt, ſhould be made one ſubſtance, that is one ſubiect, ſo as they might neuer be ſundred one from an other, the which is moſt abſurd. Out of the other fathers they obiect in a manner the very ſame which the Tranſubſtantiatours cited before.

The third opinion de…red.76 Now let vsus ſée, what they which imbraſe the third opinion ſaie againſt theſe men. Firſt they admit not that ſame ſcattering of y^e body of Chriſt, ſo as it can be eueryevery where, becauſe it is againſt the propertie of mans nature. And Auguſtine vntounto Dardanus doth moſt plainly write otherwiſe. Furthermore they contend that the eating ſet foorth in the 6. of Iohn and this laſt eating is altogether one, ſauing that in this are added ſignes. And that they prooue by this Argument, that Iohn when he made mention of his eating at the ende of the Goſpell, ſpake not of the inſtitution of the Sacrament as doe the other Euangeliſtes: For that he had ſufficiently taught before. And the Summe of doctrine which they omitted, Iohn in the 6. Chapter fulfilled. And there is not therefore any cauſe (ſay they) why any man ſhould ſay, that the communion is therefore ſuperfluous, becauſe in often communicating we celebrate the memorie of the Lorde: and thankes giuing, and the minde is ſtirred vp with a likeneſſe of thoſe things which be repreſented. Neither are they dumbe, but ſpeaking ſignes which be there. The co… modities comming by the Cō …Further a certaine priuie token is there, wherby the Chriſtians doe make themſelues to be ioyned one with an other, and with Chriſt. Moreouer they profeſſe their faith as touching the bodie of Chriſt nailed vponupon the Croſſe, and his blood ſhed for our ſaluation. For it is not ynough to beléeue with the heart, but confeſſion alſo muſt be with the mouth: and not onelie with the mouth, but with outward actions. Neither doe they admit it (as theſe men ſaie) that the wicked alſo doe receiue the bodie of Chriſt. That the wicked receiue not the bodie of Chriſt.For ſenſe and reaſon attaine not vntounto it. Wherefore it remaineth that he be receaued by faith, wherof they being deſtitute, can hauehave nothing but the ſignes. And Paule writeth: He that ſhall eate the bread vnworthilie, and ſaith not: He that eateth the bodie vnworthilie.

77 Furthermore they woonder at them which follow the contrarie opinion, Remiſſion of ſinnes is had by faith not for the woorke wrought of him that eateth. Beſides is the eating faith is ſtirred vp not by the power of the works but by the working of the holie Ghoſt. 1. Cor. 11. ver. 24. 25. & 26.1 Cor 11:241 Cor 11:251 Cor 11:26that vntounto that corporall eating of Chriſt they attribute remiſſion of ſinnes: for ſo much as this is to admit Opus operatum, that is merite, in reſpect of the verie act of working. Neither is remiſſion of ſinnes had otherwiſe than by faith. Afterward they ſticke vntounto the ſaying of Paule, when the Lorde commaundeth this to be doone in the remembrance of him, and that his death ſhoulde bée ſhewed: which wordes ſéeme vntounto them to declare the abſence of the body of Chriſt. But I hauehave elſewhere ſhewed, that this argument is not verie firme, vnleſſe they meane as touching the bodie of Chriſt reallie and corporally and naturallie to be preſent. Otherwiſe when it is receaued by faith, it is not vnderſtoode to be p. 195altogether abſent, although he remaine in heauen as touching his nature and ſubſtance. For he is ſpirituallie eaten, and is trulie ioyned with vsus. Moreouer they cite the fathers, which doe plainelie pronounce, that the type, the ſigne and the figure héere is the bodie of Chriſt. And they bring in two ſimilitudes. Two ſimilitudes.One is of a friend, whoſe friend being abſent bodilie, is ſaide to be preſent when he thinketh of him. The other they appoint to be of lookingglaſſes which be about one, and the ſelfeſame man, whoſe face and countenance is multiplyed throughout all the glaſſes, although he be not moued out of his place. Symilitudes I graunt theſe be, but yet ouer could to agrée with this myſterie. For a friend being comprehended in the cogitation, and conuerſant in the minde, changeth not him that thinketh vponupon him: he nouriſheth not his minde, neither yet doth he reſtore his fleſh whereby it might be capable of the reſurrection. And this ſimilitude of the glaſſes, is a verie ſlender ſhadow, neither muſt it be compared to that coniunction which we hauehave with Chriſt. For the preſence that wée confeſſe of the ſpirite of Chriſt hath the power of the holie ghoſt ioyned therewith, which moſt néerelie coupleth vsus vntounto him. But yet the foreſaide ſimilitudes are not vtterly to be refuſed ſéeing they maie after a ſort leade vsus to the trueth of the matter, ſo that they make not the things equall. For they ſhewe how this receauing maie be with faith and with the mind. But they hauehave made mention of two coniunctions with Chriſt: One is, that by faith wée apprehend his bodie was nailed to the croſſe, and his bloud ſhed for our ſaluation. An other is, that the ſonne of God himſelfe tooke our verie nature vponupon him. And ſo is there a naturall coniunction betwéene vsus and Chriſt, whereof there is mention in the 2. Chapter to the Hebrues. Verſe. 14.But there is a certaine third coniunction, which we enter into with Chriſt in eating of him ſpirituallie, whereof they doe not manie times ſpeake, although they paſſe it not ouer altogether in ſilence. But as touching that, we will intreat a little after. Now if theſe men be demaunded, whether Chriſt be preſent at the ſupper of the Lord, they anſwere that he is preſent. Howbeit this they ſpeake by the figure Synecdoche, Chriſt by his godhead is trulie preſent in y^e ſupper.becauſe the one part of Chriſt that is his Godhead, is trulie preſent. Otherwiſe in expounding the ſentence of the Lord: This is my bodie, they vſe the figure Metonymia, to wit, the name of the ſigne for the thing ſignified. And they graunt that Chriſt himſelfe after that ſort is preſent: as the Sonne which kéepeth it ſelfe within his owne circle, A ſimilitude.and yet neuertheleſſe is ſaid to be preſent with the world, and to gouerne the ſame with his motion and light. How preſent faith maketh a thing.But howe throughly faith maie make a thing to be preſent, Gal. 3. 1.Gal 3:1they thinke that they declared out of the Epiſtle to the Galathians, where Paule ſaide that Chriſt was deſcribed before their eyes and crucified among them.

78 Now remaineth that we ſhewe our iudgemēt among theſe opinions, What in thoſe opinions is to be receiued or refuſed.what muſt bee auoyded, and what muſt be receaued. Not that I am minded to reprooue either Luther or Zuinglius being ſingular and verie excellent men. For as touching Zuinglius, I certainlie know, that in his bookes he affirmeth the ſignes in this ſacrament, not to bée vaine or fruſtrate ſignes, as we before declared. And it hath alſo béene reported vntounto me, That betwéene the bodie of Chriſt and the ſignes, Luther put no other but a ſacramentall coniunctionby all them which hauehave had conference with Luther, that he in verie déede, betwéene the bodie of Chriſt and the ſignes, put no other but a ſacramental coniunction. But how the contention is growen & ſet on fire betwéene thē, it is no time now to rehearſe. Now then ſetting theſe men aſide, which are neuer ſufficientlie praiſed, we will intreate of the opinions, as they are ſet downe and vrged on both partes. Wherefore in the firſt opinion, What in the firſt opinion muſt not be allowed.I allowe not that groſſe knitting together of the bodie of Chriſt with bread, ſo as it ſhould be naturallie, corporallie, and reallie comprehended therein. For the holy Scripture dryueth vsus not thus to affirme. And to multiply & increaſe ſo many myracles without the teſtimonie therof, is not to deale like a diuine. And further ſuch a preſence is not neceſſarie, and is of no moment to our ſaluation. Againe that the wicked receiue the body of Chriſt I allow not. That the wicked eate not the fleſh of Chriſt.For whatſoeuer the Lord inſtituted, that did he that it might be for our health. But a fleſhlie and corporall eating helpeth not the ſaluation of the wicked. Therfore Chriſt appointed no ſuch eating. And whatſoeuer the wicked do eate corporallie, it ought not to be ſaid, that they eate the body of Chriſt, vnleſſe vntounto the ſigne and ſeale thou wilt attribute the name of the thing. Further we will not graunt that the bodie of Chriſt is euerie where, or that it is ſpread ouer all or manie places, becauſe this is againſt the humane nature. Neyther muſt we in like maner iudge that there is a difference betwéene the ſpirituall eating which is in the 6. Chapter of Iohn, and that which the Lord inſtituted in the laſt ſupper, ſauing vntounto that doctrine & promiſe which he had firſt taught, he added a Seale. That alſo which they ſpeake doubtfullie of adoration, p. 196muſt not be admitted. For we taught before and that plainly and manifeſtly what we muſt iudge of that matter. And thus much as concerning this opinion. From the which I thinke good, that thoſe things be taken away which I hauehave now recited.

What is not to be allowed in the other opinion.79 And in the other it liketh me not, that they ſeldome make mention of a ſacramentall chaunging of the breade and wine, which neuertheleſſe is no light matter. And the Fathers, whereſoeuer they ſéeme to fauour tranſubſtantiation, hauehave a reſpect vntounto the ſame. And the holy Scriptures contemned it not. For Paul euen in the very handling of the Sacrament, nameth not ſimply, The Cup: 1. Co. 11. 271 Cor 11:27but The Cup of the Lord. Further we ſée in the olde Teſtament that thinges which were offered, The ſacramentall change is not of ſmal importance but is affirmed by the ſcriptures.are not onelie called holy, but holy of holy, that is in the Hebrewe phraſe, moſt holy. Wherefore there is no cauſe why they ſhoulde ſay that this change is of light importaunce, ſéeing it is of great moment. But if they pretend that they doe this, becauſe we ſhould not cleaue ouer much to ſignes: we anſwere, that a remedie may eaſily be had for this euill through the doctrine whereby men are taught, Chriſt in the Euchariſt is ioyned vntounto vsus by thrée degrées.that Chriſt while we communicate, is ioyned vntounto vsus with an excellent coniunction, as he that dwelleth in vsus and we in him: who alſo in the next degrée is ioyned with wordes, and that by ſignification: Thirdly alſo he is coupled by ſignes & alſo by ſignification: which coniunction notwithſtanding is leſſe than that which belongeth vntounto wordes. Yea and of the former, to wit, the coniunction by the wordes, the ſignes doe take their ſacramentall ſignification. If theſe things be rightly taught, there will be no daunger. I graunt that the writers of this opinion hauehave ſometimes intreated of this ſacramentall changing, yet but ſeldome.

Of the efficacie of the ſacrament.80 Furthermore they hauehave not alwayes applied thereunto that efficacie which is due vntounto it: for theſe are not made common ſignes, but ſuch as may mightily and effectually ſtirre vp the minde. They will ſay, that this will bee to attribute ouermuch to the elements of this world. We anſwer that theſe things are not attributed vntounto thoſe elements for themſelues ſake, but becauſe of the inſtitution of the Lord, the power of the holy Ghoſt and plainneſſe of the wordes. If they ſhall demaunde: The action of the holie Ghoſt commeth while the Communion is in hand.howe may I knowe that the holy Ghoſt worketh here? It may be eaſily anſwered, becauſe it is alreadie ordained that this is a ſpirituall eating. But howe ſhall we eate ſpiritually without the holy Ghoſt? As touching the inſtitution of the Lord, there is no doubt: and of the efficacie of the word, the ſcriptures ſpeake eueryevery where. Paul ſayeth, Rom. 1. 16.Rom 1:16That the Goſpell is the power of God vntounto ſaluation: namely that God will declare his power by this inſtrument: and what elſe is the Euchariſt, than the Goſpell or viſible word? Alſo Paul ſaieth, That faith is by hearing, Ro. 10. 17.Rom 10:17and hearing by the word of God: not that the word maketh vsus to beléeue, for it is the ſpirit by whom we beléeue: but he vſeth the inſtrument of words and alſo of ſacraments which be the ſenſible words of God. For who knoweth not that the creatures are ſanctified by the worde of God as it is in the Epiſtle to Timothie? 1. Tim. 4. 7.1 Tim 4:7Which alſo muſt be rightly vnderſtoode. For it is the holy Ghoſt which in very déede doth ſanctifie. Howbeit he doeth this by the inſtrument both of the word and ſacraments. Wherefore this changing muſt not be taken from breade and wine, whereby they are made effectuall ſignes of the bodie and bloud of Chriſt: that is, by the which the ſpirit of the Lord worketh mightily and not meanely in vsus, ſo that we be indued with faith and godlineſſe. For we ſpeake not here of an efficacie which may binde our ſaluation to the things of this worlde. Neither let any man here crie out that ſéeing this receiuing is had by faith, what ſhal the communicants gaine; becauſe if they be faithfull, they hauehave Chriſt alreadie ioyned vntounto them? It may be eaſily anſwered: In déede he is ioyned vntounto them, but he is euerie day more néerely ioyned vntounto vsus, & while we communicate he is more and more vnited vntounto vsus. Moreouer this commeth to paſſe, that we ſhould ſatiſfie the commandement of the Lord, who commanded that we ſhould eate and drinke this Sacrament. Otherwiſe thou wilt ſay the verie ſelfeſame of Baptiſme. For when as a man beléeueth he is ſtraightwaie iuſtified, and hath remiſſion of ſinnes, and yet is he not in vaine baptized. But if ſo be thou wilt demaund whether this efficacie of the Euchariſt is towards all men alike, I anſwer, No: Whether the office of the Euchariſt be towards all alike.but according to the ſtate and meaſure of the faith of the communicants. Euen as Origen ſaide vppon the 15. Chapter of Matthew: namely, that the matter of this Sacrament profiteth not but by the worde and by obſecration, it may helpe our mindes, according to the quantitie and proportion of faith.

81 Another thing there is beſides that I woulde often put theſe men in remembrance of, that we, By the Communion we are incorporated vntounto Chriſtby the Communion are incorporated vntounto Chriſt. Which worde is not newe, but is in Paule to the Epheſians, who ſaieth that the Gentiles are made p. 197Coheires and of the ſame bodie, which in Gréeke is called foreign. For although wée affirme that the apprehenſion or holding faſt of the bodie of Chriſt is doone by faith, yet vpō this faſt holding followeth an effect, euen a true coniunction with Chriſt, not a fained or imagined: the which firſt belongeth vntounto the ſoule, ſecondly it redoundeth to the bodie. And the ſame in the holie ſcriptures is commended to vsus by Paul vnderunder a metaphor of the head and bodie, when he calleth vsus members of one and the ſelfeſame bodie vnderunder Chriſt the head; & vnderunder the ſtate of Mariage, wherein two are made one fleſh. The which, that Cyrill might expreſſe, he brought in a ſimilitude of molten waxe, which is mingled with other waxe, and ſo of two is made one: Thus woulde he hauehave vsus to bée ioined with Chriſt. And to this purpoſe ſpecially, Ephe. 3. 6.Eph 3:6make the wordes vntounto the Epheſians, wherein we are ſaide to be fleſh of his fleſh, and bone of his bones: which words if thou looke vponupon at the firſt viewe wil appeare that it ought otherwiſe to be ſaide: Whether Chriſt be of our fleſh, or we of his.to wit that the ſonne of God is of our fleſh, and of our bones, becauſe he aſſumed fleſh of mankind. Howbeit Paul vnderſtoode not, meere fleſh, but fleſh cleane from ſinne, capable of reſurrection and immortalitie. The which ſéeing the faithfull hauehave not of themſelues, neither drew it frō Adam, they claime it vntounto them by Chriſt, becauſe they be incorporated vntounto him by the ſacraments and by faith. Wherefore there happeneth a certaine enterance of Chriſt, A falling in of Chriſt into vsus.into vsus, and a ſpiritual touching: the which Paul weighed, when he ſaid vntounto the Galathians, Gal. 2. 20.Gal 2:20But now it is not I that liue, but Chriſt liueth in mee. Neither is there any néede in theſe reſpectes to drawe Chriſt out of heauen or to diſperſe his body into infinite places, forſomuch as all this that we teach is ſpirituall: and yet notwithſtanding no fained thing: for imagined ſightes, Idols, or fained things doe not nouriſh the minde, as here we be certaine that it is doone. For we hauehave ſaide, and we confirme it, that theſe ſignes doe both ſignifie, and offer, and moſt truely exhibite the bodie of Chriſt, although ſpiritually, that is, to bee eaten with the minde, How the forefathers had y^e ſame thing in their Sacraments that we hauehave in ours.not with the mouth of the bodie. But if thou ſhalt demand, after what manner the Fathers of the olde Lawe in their Sacramentes could hauehave the ſame that wee hauehave: it is eaſie to bee aunſwered, ſéeing wée hauehave affirmed that in this Sacrament the thing is vſed ſpiritually, not corporally. And in the Apocalyps we reade, That the Lambe was ſlaine from the beginning of the world. They waited for things to come, wee celebrate the memorie of them alreadie doone. Laſtly we hauehave ſhewed that great héede muſt be taken leaſt that which we ſpeake of ſpirituall eating be vnderſtoode as though it deſtroyed the truth of his preſence. For Auguſtine ſaide vponupon the 54. Pſalme, that the bodie of the Lorde, is in a certaine place in heauen, but that the trueth of the Lordes bodie is euerie where. For whereſoeuer the faithfull be, they apprehend that Chriſt had a true bodie giuen for vsus, and ſo they doe eate him by faith.

82 Wherefore I hauehave nowe ſpoken in this ſacramentall matter that which in my iudgement ought to be affirmed, being according to the Scriptures, which I woulde the godly reader woulde well conſider and take in good part. And God of his goodneſſe graunt that at the length the Church of Chriſt may obtaine both trueth and quietneſſe as touching this ſacrament. Which two things I therefore wiſh becauſe hitherto I ſée that the Euchariſt whereof we intreate hath bin ſo ouerwhelmed, buried and defaced with lies, craftie deuiſes and ſuperſtitions, as it might rather be iudged any other thing than that which the Lord inſtituted in the ſupper. The which leaſt it ſhould eaſilie be cleanſed, the Diuell which is the moſt gréeuous enimie of al peace and truth, hath ſowne ſo manie opinions, contentions, diſagréements, hereſies, and controuerſies, (ſauing that they bée without bloud) that ſcarcelie any conſent woorthie of Chriſtians can in mans reaſon be hoped for. But theſe things (alas) we ſuffer not without cauſe, who hauehave doone double iniurie vntounto this Sacrament, partlie for that in ſtead of a notable and ſingular gift of Chriſt, we hauehave erected an execrable Idol, and partly becauſe we hauehave without ſinceritie of faith, with a conſcience defiled with grieuous ſinnes, & without ſufficient triall of our ſelues abuſed theſe moſt holy myſteries. I beſéech y^e Lord to take pitie of ſo great a calamitie, and vouchſafe at length to reſtore vntounto his Church a reformed Euchariſt, and the right vſe of the ſame: through our Lord Ieſus Chriſt. Amen.

Looke the Exhortation to the Supper of the Lorde. Alſo looke his Confeſſion and opinion touching this whole matter. Item the diſputations with Tresſham, &c At the end of theſe Common places.

The end of the Treatiſe of the Euchariſt.