The supper of our Lord set foorth according to the truth of the Gospell and Catholike faith. By Nicolas Saunder, Doctor of Diuinitie. With a confutation of such false doctrine as the Apologie of the Churche of England, M. Nowels chalenge, or M. Iuels Replie haue vttered, touching the reall presence of Christe in the Sacrament

The preface of the fourth booke.

VUe haue shewed what proufes may be brought out of Christes promise at Capharnaum, for his reall and corpo∣ral presence in the Eucharist: it remaineth we nowe de∣clare the same truth, by that whiche he performed in his last sup∣per. And because the chefe controuersie is, whether the words of Christ do meane as they sound, or els must be taken otherwise: I wil first make it plaine, that they ought to be taken properly & as they sound to men of common vnderstanding, vntill an euident reason be brought why they must be meant vnproperly. & there∣withal I shew, that no reason is now to be heard for the vnpro∣per interpretation of them, because the tyme of all such allegatiōs is expired more then fiften hundred yeres past, for so much as the whole Church is in possession of the proper meaning.

Afterward I wil proue the proper & literall meaning of those words by the circumstances of the supper: by the conference of holy scriptures taken out of the old and newe testament, and last of all by the commandement whiche was geuen the Apostles to continue the Sacrament of Christes supper vntill he come to iudge the worlde. If in conferring the promise with the perfor∣mance, or by any other occasion I chance to say somwhat, whiche was before touched: I must aske pardon thereof, as who ende∣uore partly to make al things playne, partly to confirme the pre∣sent matter, whereof I speake by such conuenient allegations as for the tyme come to my remembrance. Once I am sure, it is not a thing affected of me to say the same thing oft: albeit either the affinitie of the argument, or the desyre to haue the thing wel remembred, or my forgetfulnes may cause me to fall in to that default.

The Chapiters of the fourth Booke.

• 1. That no reasō ought to be heard, why the words of Christes supper should now be expoūded vnproperly or figuratiuely. & that the Sa∣cramentaries can neuer be sure thereof.
• 2. That as al other, so the words of Christes supper ought to be taken properly, vntill the cōtra∣rie doth euidently appere.
• 3. The proper fignification of these words (this is my body) and (this is my blood) is, that the substance of Christes body & blood is con∣teined vnder the visible formes of bread & wine.
• 4. That the pronoune (this) in Christes vvords cā point neither to bread nor to vvine.
• 5. That the pronoune (this) can not pointe to any certein acte, vvhiche is a doing about the bread and vvine.
• 6. That the sayd pronoune pointeth finally to the body and blood of Christ, and in the meane tyme it signifieth particularly one certaine kind of food.
• 7. The naming of the chalice proueth not the rest of the vvords to be figuratiue, but helpeth much the reall presence.
• ...

• 8. That the vvordes of Christes supper be proper, though many other (vnlike to them) be figu∣ratiue.
• 9. The reall presence is declared by xxvij. circun∣stances vvhich belong to Christes supper.
• 10. The same is proued by conference of holy scrip∣tures in the nevv Testament.
• 11. Why the Sacrament is called bread after con∣secration.
• 12. The real presence is proued by c•…•…nference of ho∣ly scriptures of the old Testament.
• 13. Item by the vvords (hoc facite) vvhich do signi∣fie, make this thing.
• 14. Item by the vvords: for the remembrance of me.
• 15. The grosse error, & impudent chalenge of M. Novvell is corrected, and fully satisfied con∣cerning the cōference betwene these vvords: this is my body, and, I am the true vine.

¶ That no reason ought to be heard, why y^e words of* 1.1 Christes supper should now be expound•…•…d vnpro∣perly or figuratuely. and that the Sacramentaries can neuer be sure thereof.

CHrist in his last supper was b•…•…th like a testatour, who disposeth before his death what shalbe com•…•… of his goods afterward, and like a maker of lawes, who prescribeth an* 1.2 order to be kept in his commō weale. The legacie bequeath ed, or rather the gift made by his life tyme in consyderation of death cer•…•…einly approching, was y^e deliuery of those inestimable t•…•…wels, which he called his own body and blood, willing his heyrs and fruids to take & to care h•…•…s bod•…•…, which should be geuen for thē: and to drink his blood of the new Testament, which should be shed for the remission of synn•…•…s.

The law which he made, was, that the Apostles and their suc∣cessones* 1.3 (in the like degree of Priesthood) should make that Sa∣crament, which he had then instituted, for the remembrance of his death, vntill he came again to iudge the world.

His Testament and the gift made therein was confirmed by y^t famouse death, which he siffered the next day vpon the Crosse. His law was receaued and practised from the coming doune of the holy Ghost euen to this day through al the catholike Church.

A few yeres after Christes death his Testamēt and law which* 1.4 he made by mouth, was by witnesses of sufficient credit, put in writing, published, and acknowleged of al faithful men. If there∣fore any question arise cōcerning such words, as were either in y^• last wil or in y^e law, or the narration of them who wrote the Gos∣pell: We ought to weigh, whether that question be moued of a thing not already determined, or els vpō that which many yeres before was accustomed and receaued. For as reason would a new* 1.5 doubt to be newly dissolued: so no reason, no law, no conscience

can suffer, that a matter once fully decided and perfitly ended, should be again called into iudgement.

The question is, whether the words of Christ be figuratiue, or proper. I say, that question was decided aboue fiftene hundred yeres past. For when y^t wil & law of Christ was first published,* 1.6 al men toke those words, This is my body, and this is my blood, to be proper: And so we receaued of our forefathers from hand to hand, in so much y^t the Church neuer heard before these daies any other doctrine preached by publike auctoritie. it neuer saw other practise, then to adore with Godly honoure those things ouer which the Priest, as Christes mynister, had sayd the words before rehearsed.

The vniuersal preaching and vsage of Christes Church is a sufficient witnesse, that it hath always taken those words to be proper & not figuratiue. Whiche thing sith it is so, minimè sunt* 1.7 mutanda (sayth the lawier) quae interpretationem certam semper habuerunt. Those things are least of all to be changed, whiche haue always had a knowen vnderstanding. And yet if we should come to geue accompt of these vniuersall customs, how reasona∣bly might it be applied to our purpose, which y^• same lawier saith. Si de interpretatione legis quaeratur, inprimis inspiciendum est, quo iure ciuitas retro in huiusmodi casibus vsa fuisset. Optima e∣nim est legū interpres 〈◊〉〈◊〉. If a question be moued cōcer∣ning the interpretation of a law, it is principally to be attended, what order and law the common weale hath vsed before in those* 1.8 cases, for custome is the best interpreter of lawes.

We are sure that before the birth of •…•…uther, yea also of Beren∣garius,* 1.9 al the Church vsed to worship the body & blood of Christ vnder the forms ofbread and wine: and yet it could not haue done so, if it had taken the word, body, for material bread only signi∣fying y^e body, & y^t name of, blood, for wine which was appointed

only to signifie Christes blood. For the Church of God wold ne∣uer haue worshipped with Godly honour bakers bread & wine of the grape, though they were tokens of neuer so goodly things.

But if the Sacramentaries answer, that once the Church did other wise, and y^t the auncient fathers neither adored the body & blood of Christ vnder y^t formes of bread and wine, nor preached the words of Christes supper to be proper, besyde that such an∣swer of theyrs is stark false, as by y^t plain words of S. Ambrose,* 1.10 of S. 〈◊〉〈◊〉, of S. Augustine and of Theodoretus it shal here∣after euidērly appere: yet surely though so much could not be pre∣sently declared, yet it were a great folly vpon the allegation of a thing so far beyond memorie of mā (as the primitiue Church is) to leaue the manifest vse and custom of the present Church, the which Christ no lesse redemed, no lesse gouerneth and loueth, thē he did the faithfull of the first six hundred yeres.

Furthermore if all that is presently beleued shalbe vndone, as oft as it is pretend•…•…d that the primatiue Church thought other∣wise, what quietnes can there be in the Church after this order? what end shall we haue of controuersies? When shall we hope to see that agreement of minds, that consent of wils, that vnifor∣mitie of life and belefe, which our grandfathers and great grand∣fathers had?

The Trinitaries of Polonia vnder their Capitain 〈◊〉〈◊〉* 1.11 (who is a false preacher in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 y^t chief citie of y^• Kingdom) said that the name of the blessed Trinitie is a monsterouse thing, not because they openly deny the father, y^• sonne, & y^• holy ghost, or the equality of them, nor because they defend any more then one God: But they affirm, y^• albeit there are three vnius naturae, of one nature & of one Godhead, yet there are not three, say they, y^• are vna natura, vel Deitas, one nature or Godhead. And for proufe hereof they appeale to the new Testament and old, and to the

Churche which they call priuatiue, which was of y^e first two hun∣dred yeres, or thereabout, bidding vs, looke whether we find, Trinum & vnum deū, or Trinitatem in vnitate, or vnum deum in tribus personis, in any scripture, or in any Father of that age.

As for S. Athanasius, S. Hilarie, S. Basil, S. Augustin & so forth, they esteme no more, then our new brethren esteme S. Bede, or S. Thomas of Aquine. The booke intituled of the Tri∣nitie, which is in S. Iustinus works, they affirm not to be his, vsing presently the same shamles shifts against the blessed name and nature of y^t Trinitie, which the Sacramentaries vse against the nature & name of the Masse.

Not long after these Trinitaries, an other cumpany began to* 1.12 think circumcision so necessarie, that in Lituania many 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them selues, who to defend that heresy must nedes deny S. Pan les epistles, as Luther hath denied S. Iames his epistle, for that it is against his iustification of only faith.

And what forbiddeth an other sect to doe the like in an other* 1.13 matter? Thus alwaies are we seeking (as Tertullian sayth) but we neuer find any thing, if once we goe from that which we all beleued.

If then a stay be to be made at any tyme in questions of belefe, if we may be sure of any article of all our faith, it behoueth we vndoe not that, which our forfathers haue so long before conclu∣ded to be true. No reason of inducīg a new faith can be so weigh∣ty, as the peace and preseruation of vnitie in Christes Churche ought to be singularly weighed of euery man.

There was but one vniuersall chang to be loked for in religiō* 1.14 from the beginning of Christes Church to the last end thereof. And that was at y^e coming of Christ into the world. The which chang that it might not be sodein, it was prophecied of before in all ages both by y^• dedes and words of Patriarchs, of Prophets,

and of Priests. And when the fulnesse of tyme was come, it was proued to become by miracles of so great vertue and name, that the very stones, that is to say, the infidels were turned by them: so great a matter it was with God, to haue the order of his reli∣giō altered. And now shal we after Christes faith preached & be∣leued fiften hūdred yeres together, shall we now take a new faith of Luther, of Zumglius, and of Caluin? If they be Christ, I grāt we must admit theyr doctrine: but if they be not so, it is not possible they should come of God, though they came with neuer so many miracles, but they must be the forerunners of 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

To come again nere 〈◊〉〈◊〉 own matter, if we shall geue any eare to them who affirm the words of Christes supper to be figura∣tiue,* 1.15 that must be with some dout of our former faith. and in dou∣ting thereof we are become men that lacke faith. which if it be not sure, it is not good, for so much as it hath not the foundation of* 1.16 the things, which the Apostle sayd were to be hoped for.

Or tell me, he that first gaue eare to Berēgarius or Zuinglius against the bessed Sacrament of y^• altar, may the same man geue care now to another that should wickedly say, the Apostles had* 1.17 no authoritie geuen them to write holy scriptures? If he may, thē he may dout of the sayd •…•…utoritie. and yet surely it were very hard to proue to a wrangler, that such autoritie of writing Gos∣pels or epistles could be iustified out of the expresse words of the holy Bible.

But if it be vnlawfull to heare any such seditiouse man, how could it be lawful when eare was first geuen to Berengarius or* 1.18 Zuinglius? for then it was no lesse generally receaued through all Christendom, and much more expresly to be proued by the ho∣ly scripture, that the things set foorth and consecrated vpon the holy table and altar were the reall body and blood of Christ, then it is sayd, that whatsoeuer the Apostles did write, should be con∣firmed

and established, as the words of the holy goo•…•….

Where yet I will enter farther into the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the cause▪ And before we heare what reasōs he can bring, who wil reproue the faith of the church in the blessed Eucharist, I say, he is not* 1.19 to be heard, because it is not possible that his reason can haue any sufficient ground, why we should geue ouer our old faith: and that whether we respect the writen word of God, or y^• faith of all Christians, or the glorie of God, or the loue of Christ toward vs, or the profite of his churche.

For •…•…either can he shew, where it is writen, or when it was* 1.20 beleued, This is not my body: nor can proue that it is more ho∣norable to God, or more agreable to Christes coming, or more profitable to vs, that we should lack his body present vnder the forme of bread, rather then haue it. For if the death of Christ did procede from excessiue charitie of him toward vs, and of God and our profite, that his Sonne should take flesh and dye for vs: I can not deuise how the most honorable remembrance of the* 1.21 same death should not be most according to th'intent of Christ, and to our soules health. And doubtles it is a more honorable and a more louing remembrāce, where the true substāce of Christ is made really present for the keping of his death in memorie, & we take more benefite by such a commemoration of his bloody* 1.22 sacrifice: then if in stede of Christes reall body, a peece of bread and wine be left vnto vs with neuer so great a feding by faith. For imagine ye the faith to be neuer so great, I am sure it will not be the lesse because Christ is taken into our hands, mouthes, and brests. The touching of his garment neuer hindred any* 1.23 good hart, much lesse can the taking of his whole body hurt our faith or deuotion. And yet if corporal touching did not also help, the faithfull womā troubled so long with a bloody fluxe, had not* 1.24 bene so miraculously cured by touching the hemme of Christes

garment. Her faith touched his Godhead, and her soule was healed. Her body also touched his manhod, and her body was likewise cured.

Seing then it is writen: This is my body, and all men beleued it once as well as the other articles of our faith: Seing that be∣•…•…eif is so honorable vnto God, so mete for Christes coming and loue toward vs, and so profitable vnto vs, that the contrarie as∣sertion shall lack the like holy Scriptures, and the like belefe of the Church, the like honour of God, the like loue of Christ, and the like profite of our soules: There can be no reason alleged hereafter, why we should o•…•…ce geue audiēce to him, that preten∣deth to proue the body of Christ not to be really present vnder the formes of bread and wine. For what thing possibly can ex∣cede these causes before alleged?

Moreouer, all •…•…igures were inuented partly for lack of proper* 1.25 words, partly for the pleasantnes of speaking. Christ surely lac∣ked not words to shew, y^t he gaue bread for a signe of his body, if in dede he had done so. For sith Zuinglius and Caluin had words to signifie their opinion in this matter, it could not be but that Christ was able to haue spoken that which they speake. If then he spake not figuratiuely for necessity, our new brethern must proue, that he spake figuratiuely for his only pleasure. but how can they know that?* 1.26

S. Augustine biddeth vs nolesse beware, that we take not a propre speache for a figuratiue, then that we take not a figura∣tiue speache for a proper. The rule to know y^e one from the other is this: Vt quicquid in sermone diuino &c. that what soeuer in the woord of God can be properly referred neither to the ho∣nestie of manners, nor to y^• truthe of faith, thou maist know to be figuratiue. Yf nowe these wordes of Christ, this is my body and this is my blood, may be referred to the truthe of faith (in

so muche as all men haue beleued the body of Christ to be geuen* 1.27 in the Sacrament of the altar, not diminishing thereby their faith in any other article) by S. Augustins iugdement these wordes be not siguratiue. For certeinlie they be not only nothing against the honestie of maners (as good men vnderstand Christes pre∣sence vnder the form of bread) but rather the strong belefe of them maketh al men more honest in life, whiles they come with great feare to so dreadfull mysteries. therefore it followeth y^• they be not of necessitie figuratiue: of necessitie, I say, because there is no repugnance in saith or good maners, why they may not be proper. whiche notwithstanding a man for his pleasure might vse his wordes in a figuratiue sorte, when he neded not▪ but who so affirmeth so muche, beside that he breaketh S. Augustins rule, he casteth himselfe in greate daunger of prouing y^• whiche hangeth of an other mans pleasure.

What argument haue our new brethern to proue, that it plea∣sed* 1.28 Christ at this tyme to speake vnproperlie? what ground in the word of God can their opinion haue? how can they be sure, that they erre not in their indgement? when we reade that God is angry or sory, or that Iohn Baptist is Elias, or that the rocke is Christ, we say they are siguratiue speaches, because they can not be proper. Anger falleth not in God, nor sorrow. the rocke for that reason is not Christ in person and nature, because it is a rocke. for by nature they are seueral thinges, and suche as do not stand together. the like might haue bene thought in this Sacrament, if Christ had sayd: this bread is my body, and this wine is my blood. but he foresaw greate cause, why he wold not say so. For he wold by his worde so make his body and blood of bread and wine, that when the substance of his body and blood should be present, the substances of bread and wine should not remain, of this we are sure, because besyde the faith

of the whole Churche, the proper signification of the words in∣forceth so much, as now it shalbe declared.

¶ That as all other, so the words of Christes supper* 1.29 ought to be taken properly, vutill the contrarie doth euidently appeare.

WHat meaning words ought to haue, we iudge most directly by the proper signification and common vse of them. For if the contrary do not appeare, al words* 1.30 must be taken in y^t meaning a•…•…d sense, which the vsual custom of speaking and writing hath geuen them. Otherwise all things are confounded, and the profite, which cometh of words, is lost. Neither any man shall know what an other meaneth, neither how to make his own bargaine, or last will and Testament.

Certè peruersissimum est (sayth Tertullian) vt carnem nomi∣nantes,* 1.31 animam intelligamus, & animam significantes, carnem in∣terpretemur. Omnia periclitabuntur aliter accipi quàmsunt, & amittere quod sunt, dum aliter accipiuntur, si aliter quàm sunt, cognoninantur. Fides nominum, salus est proprietatum. Truly it is a most ouerthwart thing, that naming the •…•…esh we should vnderstand the soule, and signifying the soule, we should* 1.32 expound it the flesh. all things shall be in danger to be otherwise taken then they are, and whiles they are otherwise takē, to loose that they are, if they be named otherwise then they are. The faithfull naming of things preserueth their proprieties.

By these words of this auncient Doctour we may iudge, how foule a thing it is, that hearing the body of Christ named, we should without any reasonable cause expound it the figure of his body: And hearing the blood of Christ named, we should ex∣pound it the signe of his blood. As well when he is named the

Sonne of God, we may expound it, the image of the Sonne of God. And so we open a gate to all heresie, we take away all cer∣teintie of speache, and make the holy Scriptures subiect to euery mans filthy lust & pleasure. We must therefore kepe euery word in his own nature and in his knowen signification, except it be manifest vnto vs that the speaker meante otherwise. Doth not naturall reason teach vs so much?

Sayth not Marcellus the same, being taught only by cōmon* 1.33 wisedom and iudgement? Non aliter a significatione verborum recedi oportet, quàm cum manifestū est aliud sensisse testatorem. We must not otherwise depart from y^e significatiō of the words, but when it is manifest y^• the testatour thought an other thing. In which rule if we rest, all the world well knoweth that when* 1.34 Christ said (This is my body) and (This is my blood) the words both by theire propre signisication, and by the present vse of all speakers and writers, do importe the reall presence of Christes true body and blood.

For neither the pronoun (This) pointeth to a thing absent,* 1.35 neither the verb (is) can be said of that, which presently hath no true being, neither the noun (body) vseth to be verisied of a sha∣dow, figure or token of a body, neither when Christ sayeth: This is my body, any faithfull man doubteth, but that both Christ had* 1.36 a true naturall body which he might geue, and is able to make his word true, & vseth to vtter no falshood. And whereas Christ sayd after bread taken, This is my body, it is geuen vs to vnder∣stand, that by his word he maketh that particular substaunce of bread, which was taken into his hands, to be his own body. what cause can now be brought why we should forsake these knowen significations, and seeke out other more strange? The law of nature wold vs to rest in the names which we find. Ira∣dition also maketh for the same interpretation. And surely these

are y^t chief rules to know y^t meanig which any words may haue.

Epiphanius in this matter hath a notable rule, saying: Om∣nia* 1.37 diuina verba non habent opus allegoria, sed prout se habent, accipienda sunt. Speculatione autem indigent & sensu, ad cogno∣scendam vniuscuiusque argumēti vim & facultatem. Oportet au∣tem & traditione vti, non enim omnia a diuina Scriptura accipi possunt. All the words of God nede not an allegorie (or a figu∣ratiue* 1.38 meaning) but they are to be taken as they be. They re∣quire in dede a diligent obseruation and vnderstanding, that the strength and power of euery matter proponed may be knowen. (wherein it behooueth to vse tradition.) For all things cā not be gathered out of the diuine writing. Here is the first place ge∣uen by Epiphanius to the naturall takīg of words, for al things be not figuratiue, though many be.

To know which is figuratiue, and which is not, diligent con∣syderation, and auncient tradition helpeth much. Well, of other helpes hereafter. Now let this be graunted, that the first rule of all maketh for the Catholikes. Which is, that euery word and speache, as long as the contrary is not manifestly proued, is to be taken, as it commonly doth signifie. According to the which rule these words of Christ (This is my body) and (This is my blood) affirme the reall presence of Christes body and blood, as now it shalbe shewed.

¶ The proper signification of these words This is my body, and This is my blood, is, that the substance* 1.39 of Christes body and blood is couteyned vnder the visible formes of bread and wine.

WHen the Paschall Lamb was eaten, and the Disciples* 1.40 feete washed, Christ by taking bread into his hands declared him self to be disposed, to vse it for some one purpose or other: by blessing, and thanksgeuing ouer it, we are

informed he wold make some diuine mysterie of that bread. And when he began to make the mysterie, saying (this is) and ended it, adding thereto (my body) we lern by the two first words (this* 1.41 is) that his mysterie consisteth not of bread and of his body, but of one substance only, which was declared to be so really inten∣ded as well in his mind, as at his tongs end, that hauing once named what it was, to wit (my body) no mā aliue might doubt, but either he both in word and dede made a false signification, (which is with all true Catholikes a thing without al possibili∣tie) or els that it was in dede so, as his words of blessing, and of saying, This is my body, witnessed.

And for asmuch as his word affirmed this to be his body, and his dede of taking bread, and of blessing shewed his words to be* 1.42 directed vnto y^• which was in his hand, or lay before him (which was bread before) it must nedes be, that the pronoun (this) so shewed to his Apostles y^e thing already subiect vnto their eyes, that much more it serued to teache their vnderstanding verily, this, which appeared to them bread, to be in substance, at the en∣ding of the words, his own body.

Therefore we teache the pronoun (this) to serue both to the* 1.43 eyes and to the vnderstanding of the Apostles. to their eyes, in pointing to the foorm of bread which they saw: to their vnder∣standing, in teaching that substance which was present vnder that they saw, to be his own body streight when it was so na∣med. And in so much as the same forme of bread tarieth after cō∣secration which was there before, the pronoun (this) doth all∣wayes direct their eyes to one and the same forme of wheaten bread, which was there when Christ tooke it first. and also it in∣sinuateth to their vnderstanding, that they must looke (by the nonn that foloweth the verb) to know what proprietie or sub∣stance that visible thing hath. And seing the noun which cometh

after, is not the name of a q•…•…alitie or proprietie, but the name of a substance, and of such a substance as before was not present: Without all question, these words (This is my body) haue accor∣ding* 1.44 to the proper custom of speache, this meaning: The sub∣stance which is conteyned vnder this forme of bread, and vnder the accidents the which I shew you, is the substance of my body. Whereof it foloweth, that the same thing is no longer the sub∣stance of bread, and consequently therevnto, that the substance of the bread is, by the word of Christ, changed into the substance* 1.45 of his body. And likewise when Christ sayd: This is my blood, the sense is: The substance which is conteined vnter the forme of wine (which you sensibly perceaue to be in this cuppe) is my blood, or is the substance of my blood.

Which interpretation is so true, that Christ hath forced vs to* 1.46 seeke it out, in causing S. Luke, and S. Paule to write: This chalice is the new Testament in my blood. For of necessitie we must interpret these words, This chalice, that is to say, the thing conteined inthis chalice, is my blood. As therefore (This) in na ming the chalice doth serue to shew the place & compasse, with∣in which I must looke for that substance, which afterward is de∣fined to be the blood of Christ: euen so (this) being spoken of the bread which was taken into Christes hands, doth first point vnto the eye, within what circuit or quantitie the mind shal seke for that substance or proprietie, which afterward the mouth of Christ wil declare. and when the name is once heard, it sheweth it to be y^t substance of Christes body. Out of which discourse we may gather two conclusions: The one, that (this) beginneth most naturally with the sense of man: The other, that it with the rest of y^t speache informeth y^e vnderstanding of more then the eye saw. To y^e sense it sheweth y^• outward formes, to y^e vnderstā∣dīg it sheweth pr•…•…cipally y^e inward substāce vnder those formes.

Now looke by how many degrees the inward substance doth* 1.47 passe the outward formes, and the end of the talk doth passe the beginning thereof: by so many the pronoun (this) rather ap∣perteyneth to the substantiue (body) wherein it endeth, then to the formes, within the which it goeth about to shew an invisible substance. Which being so, Hoc, (this) is in Latin of the neuter gender, because the noune substantiue (corpus) body, wherevn∣to it hasteneth) is of the neuter gender. And in the consecration of the blood Hic, (this) of certeintie is the masculine gender, be∣cause sanguis blood, whereto it belongeth, is of the masculine gender.

Thus the literall sense of Christes words is declared, which ought to be taken for true, vntill the contrarie be proued. But this propriety of words standing (as it ought to stand) marke that whensoeuer any Catholike sayth, The substance of Christes body and blood to be vnder the formes of bread and wine, he speaketh not any other thing, then the natural and proper signi∣fication of Christes words doth geue. For as he that pointing to that kind of beast (which an other cometh to learne) sayeth: This is an Oelephant, in effect sayth: The substance of an Oele∣phant is contemed vnder this visible forme: So Christ hauing taken bread, and saying, This is my body, sayeth in effect: the substance of my body is conteined vnder the forme of this bread.

Only this oddes is betwene Christes naming and ours, that* 1.48 we either must name the thing by his former substance or pro∣prietie, or els we make a lye: But Christ by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 one thing y^e name of an other, geueth it also the substance thereof whensoe∣uer* 1.49 he speaketh, not in parables, but in the way of doing some good turn. for he being God, as easily calleth things which are not, as those which are. and by his calling he maketh them to be as he nameth them, and not as them selues were.

¶ That the pronoun (this) in Christes wordes can* 1.50 point neither to bread nor to wine.

SEing Christ in his last supper assigneth none other substāce to (this, and this) besyde the substance of body and blood, and yet the Sacramentaries will not graunt so muche: I ask them (for as muche as although it were so, that his words did mean an accidentall token of his body and blood, that token must be grounded in some substance or other) I ask them what substance is pointed vnto (as wherein the figure of Christes body and blood may by their iudgement consist) when Christ saith, this is my body and this is my blood? is any substance in∣cluded in those words, or none at all? yf none, (this) may not be sayd to be any particular nature at all. for yf it be any certain thing consisting by it self, it is a substance: if it be in any other thing, it may be an accident and qualitie. but Christ saith not, this is in my body, but this is my body.

Admit now that he meant, this doth signifie my body. yet this that doth so signifie, must be sumwhat or other. I aske what this* 1.51 thing is, which you say doth signifie or shadow Christes body? you must nedes say, it is bread and wine, and therefore you must expound it, this bread signifieth my body, & this wine signifieth my blood. This interpretation of yours can not be true.

For (this) wil not agree with bread or wine neither in greeke, nor in latin. For hoc in latin and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in greek is of the neuter gender, but panis in latin and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in greeke is of the masculine gender. therefore hoc, (this) doth neither in greeke nor in latin agree with bread. likewise (hic) in latin is of the masculine gen∣der, vinum, wine is of the newter. and contrarie wise in greke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is of the newter gender, and, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 wine, is of the mascu∣line gender, therefore (this) nother in greeke nor in latine can be referred to wine.

Now to say, hoc, this thing, (vnderstanding, which is bread) is to correct the words of Christ, as though he had sayd: hoc quod est panis, est corpus meum, this which is bread is my body. & yet if it had bene so sayd, the sense must haue bene thus: the substance of bread doth signifie the body of Christ. for that thing which is bread, is to say, the substance of bread. which if it* 1.52 were so, euery substance of bread should be the signe of Christes body, because that which the substance of one loafe is, y^e substance of an other loaf is also in the same kind. & consequently when∣soeuer any man eateth any substāce of bread without examining* 1.53 himself, he is giltie of the body of Christ.

Again when it were sayd, hic est sanguis meus: hic, being of the masculine gender, could not be expounded by, hoc quod est vinū, (this thing which is wine) for it standeth not neutrally to signi∣fie this thing, but only agreeth with the noune blood, which fo∣loweth after, when it is sayd: this is my blood.

The pronoun is put in the same case, gender, and number whereof the substance is, wherevnto it pointeth. as when Christ* 1.54 sayd: hic est haeres, this is the heire, hic, this, is of the masculine gender, aswell as the noune substātiue, h•…•…res, an heire. h•…•…c est ho∣ra* 1.55 vestra, this is your hower. As hower is of the femine gender, so is the pronoun haec, this. hoc est opus Dei, this is the worke of* 1.56 God. as opus worke is of the neuter gender, so is the pronoune, hoc, that. But when Christ tooke bread & blessed, he pointed not* 1.57 to bread by the pronoune (this) as to the substance which should remaine at the end of his whole talke. for bread is of the mascu∣line gender, both in greke and latine.

Again let vs consyder, that it is all one to say, hoc est corpus* 1.58 meum, and haec est caro mea. in so much that S. Cyprian re∣hearseth the words of Christes supper by these words, haec est caro mea, where haec being the feminine gender doth only agree

with caro flesh, and not with, panis bread, which is neither of the neuter gender, that hoc may agree with, nor of the feminine tha•…•… haec may be referred to it, but only of y^• masculine gender. There∣fore if Christ had pointed finally to bread, he must hane sayd, neither hoc est corpus, nor haec est caro, but hic est corpus meum, vnderstanding to hic, the substantiue (panis) and in Greke it* 1.59 should haue bene 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In English (this) is of all gēders, and therefore it can not be exemplified in our barbarous tong, which thereby appereth not so mete to haue the word of God handled literally in it, as the lerned tongs are, although it is able enoughe to receaue an interpretation of Gods word. But it is much like as if one pointing to a man, called Lau∣rence, should say, she is Laurence, or her is Laurence, which is as good english among the Brytons, as hoc panis, and hic vinū, is good latine among the Sacramentaries. Thus make they the wisedome of God to speake at this time, who say that the pro noune (this) determineth and pointeth to bread, as to a thing that still remaineth in his old substance, whereas bread is of the masculine gender, and the pronowne hoc, (this) of the newter gender. and God prouided of purpose y^t the article (this) should neither agree with bread nor with wine, but only with body and blood, or with the chalice wherein the blood is conteined.

¶ That the pronoun (this) can not point to any certain acte, which is a doing about the bread and wine.* 1.60

LEast any man should thinke that in these wordes (this is* 1.61 my body) the prononu•…•… (this) doth stand to signifie neither bread nor body, but only this thing which is a doing, where∣by a certaine taking, and breaking, and eating of bread in the remembrance of Christ should be meante: he must vnderstand that euery thing which is so distinctly shewed, is a particular

thing, and it is but one thing. otherwise it should haue bene sayd in the plurall number, these things are the tokens of my body & of my blood.

But now sith it is sayd in the singular number (this) it must nedes be only one singular thing which is spoken of. Therefore if you will haue (hoc) this thing, to appointe to a doing, name which doing it is. For Christ did many thinges in his supper. He took bread, he blessed, he brake, he gaue. To which doth (hoc, this thing) pointe? To all it can not, sor they all be not only this* 1.62 one thing in the singular number, but many thinges. If any one be named, I aske which of them? If breaking (which is one of the most like of all owtward actions to signifie the death of Christ) I aske how you are able to proue, that breaking is poin∣ted vnto? surely S. Paule saith, the bread which we break is the* 1.63 communicating of our lords body. which could not be so, if the words of Christ, which make it the signe of his body, had not bene first spoken ouer the bread.

For (as Iustinus Martyr, Gregorius Nyssenus, S. Am∣brose,* 1.64 S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine, and briefly all the Fathers teache) the bread is consecrated by these words of Christ, This is my body. And surely before it be consecrated there vnto, bread can not signifie Christes body, nor it can not be to vs the com∣municating of Christes body. Therefore seing the bread which we breake is the communicating of our Lords body (as S. Paule sayeth) the words which were spoken ouer y^• bread be∣fore the breaking of it, can not presently point to that which is not yet done. And consequently (this) doth not point vnto the acte of breaking, nor vnto the act either of geuing or of eating, which folowed after the breaking.

If any man say, that Christ whiles he spake these wordes, dyd breake the bread, or eate it him felf, or make his Apostles eate it:

the vuiuersall custome of the Churche in all ages doth shewe the contrarie. Whiche all, euen from the Apo•…•…les tyme haue vsed to consecrate aud to say these wordes: this is my body, aud this is my blood: ouer bread and wine at the holy altar and table, a good tyme before the breaking or eating and drinking of them,* 1.65 as the auncient Liturgies manifestly declare.

Besydes, if the act of breaking, whiles it is adding, dyd only betoken to vs his body: when that act were past, the signe of his body were ended. and so we should not eate the signe of Christes body. Moreouer, seing neither the chalice nor the wine is broken, therein should be no signe of Christes blood at all.

On the other syde, if eating or drinking only were the signe* 1.66 pointed vnto, it should be no signe before the eating, and there∣vpon it would follow, that the bread which we breake is not the cōmunicating of Christes body, sith no signe at all is made there∣in, if the whole signe depend vpō the eating alone. For if the signe depended of both together, it could not be said, this, i•…•… the sin∣gular number as I sayd before, but it must haue bene sayd: these actes and these doings about these creatures do signifie the bo∣dy of Christ.

But seing it is sayd, this is my body, whiche (this) can point but to one thing, and seing that one thing can be neither breade (wherewith it agreeth not in gender) nor any one acte or doing (which alone doth not signify the body of Christ) doubtlesse (this)* 1.67 can by no meanes be referred to any other word or deede, then to the true substance of Christes body vnder the forme of bread, and vnto the true substance of his blood vnder the forme of wine.

The whiche thing once graunted, after that Christ hath taken bread and blessed, and sayd, this is my body, whatsoeuer is done either in breaking or in eating, or in geuing, and taking, doth si∣guifie the body of Christe, because it is done to that thing and

about it, which is the true substance of his body. the breaking* 1.68 of the forme of bread, vnder whiche the body is, doth signifie the body of Christe once to haue ben broken with scourging* 1.69 and nailing to the Crosse, and now also to be impassible. The ta∣king and touching signifieth the visible and palpable body, which walked vpon the earth preaching visibly to his disciples. The eating signifieth it to be the true bread of life, whiche who so ea∣teth* 1.70 worthely, he shall liue for euer, and shal eate it in heauen af∣ter a new maner. The geuing of it doth signifie, how Christ gaue it •…•…or vs to death. To be short whatsoeuer is done about y^• which is the body o•…•… Christ, doth signify somwhat either past or to come in that same body, & it doth signifie it so muche the more, because the presence of Christes glorious substance is such, that nothing done to it can hurt it, or bring any detriment thereunto. For the breaking, taking, geuing, and eating is done in a figure and my∣sterie, the which figure is grounded in the reall presence of Chri∣stes body. which if it were not vnder the formes of bread & wine, the things sayd & done about the Sacramēt should not be so my∣sticall and miraculouse, as they are.

¶That the pronoune (this) pointeth finally to the bo∣dy* 1.71 and blood, and particularly sig•…•…fieth in Christes supper one certein kinde of fo•…•…e.

SEing it is declared, that y^• pronoun (this) pointeth neither to bread & wine, nor to any act done about them, it remaineth y^• it pointeth only to the body and blood of Christ, and so long as the words of Christ are a speaking (which in so few words is not long) the pronoune s•…•…pendeth his last determination. And* 1.72 when al the words are ended, his pointing is also ended. There∣sore 〈◊〉〈◊〉 expounding what hoc, this, doth finally meane, writeth •…•…us: Dicens hoc est corpus meum, ostendit quod ipsum

corpus domini est panis qui sanctificatur in altario, & non respon∣dens figura. Christ saying, this is my body, sheweth that the bread which is consecrated on the altar, is the self body of Christ, & not a figure which answereth thereunto. And again in an other place he saith: hoc est corpus meum, hoc inquam, quod sumitur. This is* 1.73 my body, this I say, whiche you take. So that by his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (this) pointeth not finally to that wheaten bread whiche Christe tooke, neither to any doing of his, but to y^• body of Christ whiche he made by his words at the holy altar and table, and which the Apostles tooke afterward at the handes of Christ.

Howbeit if any man be so hastie, that he wil not tary the spea∣king of fower words, to know what particular & finall substance the pronoun, hoc (this) doth point vnto, but will nedes knowe what it meaneth as sone as it came out of Christes mouth, vntill the last word be pronounced: I answere, that by the circūstances which are about and concerne the dedes and words of Christ, it may be wel sayd, that the pronoun (this) beside his generall sig∣nisication* 1.74 (whiche is declared before) doth here also particularly betoken, euen from the beginning of Christes words to the end, this thing which is to be eaten or drunken, and so doth it declare as well the beginning of the words (which belong to wheaten bread whose cheefe vse is to be eaten) as the progresse which ten∣deth to a supper, the substance whereof is eating, & the end, which is the bod•…•… of Christ made present to be eatē. So (this) doth tru∣ly always signifie this food or eateable substance, of which parti∣cular pointing and signification I shall haue occasion to speake more at large hereafter, when I come to confer y^• holy scriptures together which belong to the supper of Christ.

¶The naming of the chalice proueth not the rest of* 1.75 Christes words to be figuratiue.

HEreof the Sacramentaries make no small boast, that Christ sayd: this chalice is the new Testament in my blood.* 1.76 It can not be denyed (say they) but the name of chalice is figuratiuely put for that, whiche is in the chalice. Why may not* 1.77 therefore other words in the supper be also figuratiuely taken?

Masters, it foloweth not, because one word is euidently sigu∣ratiue,* 1.78 that therefore another word must be also figuratiue, except one reason be in both words. Which in our case is cleane contra∣ry, and that for diuerse causes. for all men, that is to say, as well Catholiks as Protestants and Sacramentaries confesse the word* 1.79 (chalice) to be figuratiue, and thei are compelled so to doe, because if we take the name of (chalice) properly, we must confesse, sith Christ sayth this chalice is the new Testament in my blood, that a material cup of wood, glasse, or siluer is the new Testament, or y^• cause of our synnes to be forgeuen, which no reasonable man will so much as dream of. Seing then we are constrained by force* 1.80 of reason to say the (chalice) to stand for that, which is in the cha∣lice, and no like reason presseth vs to think the like of the verbe (est, is) or of the noun (corpus, body) or of y^e noun (sanguis, blood) the example which moueth vs to graunt a figure in y^e one word, kepeth vs from suspecting any figure in the other words, which are nothing like.

Secondly, whereas S. Luke and S. Paul named the chalice,* 1.81 S. Mathew and S. Marke speake not of it, geuing vs to vnder∣stand, that the meaning of Christ was only to make and shew the blood of the new Testament, which was in the chalice. As there∣fore the holy Ghost prouided for a sufficient declaration of tha•…•… word which was in dede figuratiue: so leauing the verbe (est, is) and the nounes (body and blood) still in they proper significatiō, without mention of signe or figure, it hath sufficiently witnessed that they were to be takē as they did naturally sound to the com∣mon

•…•…ares of men.

Thirdly although the word (calix) a cup or chalice were at the* 1.82 beginning appointed to signifie chefely that vessel, which holdeth liquour me•…•…e to be drunk: yet by common vse of speaking (which* 1.83 is farre the chefe gouernour in the vnderstanding of wordes) we being at the table meane by the cup that, which is in the cup. in so much y^• if a mā sitting at the table, bid y^• cup be geuen to another, no seruāt is lightly so rude, as to geue a stranger the cup without drink in it. now when words are as commonly vsed in theyr si∣guratiue sense as in theyr natural, then eche way the sense is pro∣per enough, in so much as the vse of speaking is equal to the first propriety of the word.

Fourthly, seing Christ sitting at the table, & in the sight of his* 1.84 Apostles, taking the cup of wine mingled with water, blessed, &* 1.85 gaue thāks, saying not only the chalice or a chalice, but this cha∣lice or this cup is the new Testament in my blood, it could not be that any dout could rise to his Apostles through naming that chalice which the Apostles them selues knew to contein a certen liquour, but that notwithstanding maruelouse great dout wold haue risen to them and to al Christians, if he should haue vsed (est for significat) and body & blood, for the signe of body & blood, for so much as they could not coniecture any other meaning of these words, then they did outwardly sound. For it is no common vse of speaking, but only both seldom vsed and not vnderstāded, but by great doctors and interpreters, who know and discern tokēs of things to be called sometyme by the names of the things them selues.

Fifthly, when with a figuratiue worde an other is immediat∣ly* 1.86 ioyned, which doth expound the figure, the whole speach is ra ther to be accompted proper, then figuratiue: for so much as the weaker part yeldeth always to the stronger, euen as in 〈◊〉〈◊〉

when one noune adiectiue serueth two substantiues of diuerse genders, we make it agree with the masculin as with the more worthy gender. When Christ sayd to S. Peter, I will geue thee* 1.87 the keies, he spake figuratiuely (cōcerning the name of keies) but if we marke that he ioyned thereunto, the keies of the kingdom of heauen, and yet again, what soeuer thou bindest or loosest in earth, and so foorth: by these words the former speache is made plain, as if it were not figuratiue at all: right so when he sayth,* 1.88 this chalice is the new testament in my blood, y^• nāing of the blood is so plain a declaration how the name of chalice is taken, that al is one as if it had bene said, this is my blood of y^• new testament, which is in the chalice.

See then for Gods sake, how farre the figuratiue naming of y^•* 1.89 chalice is frō any figuratiue naming of the body or blood. As to y^• chalice such words were ioyned which did shew the name to b•…•… figuratiue: so to the body and blood such were ioyned, as forbid vs to think the like of them, not only because Christe sayd: This is my body & my blood (which surely were enough to proue that I say, because the body and blood of Christe wa•…•… not figu∣ratiue but true and naturall) but also because to the naming of Christes body it is ioined in S. Luke: The which is geuē for you,* 1.90 And to the name of the cup, the which is shed for you.

Last of all the naming of the cup or chalice was prouided of* 1.91 God for a maruelouse declaration and setting foorth of the reall blood of Christ made within it. For whereas the new preachers bid vs list our mindes to heauen to receaue y^• blood of Christ by faith, spirit, and vnderstanding (as though it were not present at Christes own table) the holy Ghost knowing that afterward such false reachers should arise, prouided that the words of Christ should not only be reported (This is my blood of the new testamēt* 1.92 as S. Mathew & S. Mark write) but also (as S. Luke & S. Paul* 1.93

haue penned thē) this chalice is the new testament in my blood, this cahlice, that is to say the thing c•…•…nteyned in this chalice, to* 1.94 the intent we should be sure, that the said blood was euen within the compasse of this chalice, and not only apprehended by saith and spirit. so that euen the word (chalice) although by exact ac∣compt of grammer it stand figuratiuely, yet by common vse it signifieth the liquour in it, and that liquour is expresly named the blood of Christ, and that blood is declared to be present in the very chalice.

¶ That the words of Christes supper be proper,* 1.95 though many other be figuratiue and vnproper.

VUhy these wordes of Christ (this is my body and this is my blood) can not be like the other, where Christ is sayd to be* 1.96 the dore, the way, the true viue, and Iohn Baptist to be Elias, or the rocke to be Christ, it shalbe more particularly decla∣red in the last chapiter of the booke. Nowe it shall suffise to say, that they were neuer taken to meane as they seme to stand, there∣fore the general consent of al Christians taking them for figura∣tiue, is an euident cause why they must be confessed to be figura∣tiue.* 1.97 And that vninersail consent is of more importance, then the proper signification of the words. But on the other syde y^• words of Christ in his last supper haue not only no such vniuersal iudge∣ment and consent against them, but rather they always haue bene taken to be meant of the presence of his own body & blood, accordingly as they doe sound.

Again none of all those propositions doth so much as seeme to sound like y^• which Christ sayd in his supper: This is my body. For partly they do name two seueral natures, as Th•…•… Baptist & Elias, wheras these words (this is my body) name but one: part∣ly they speake not of any certeine thing (as Christes body) or if they doe so, yet they point not to it as to a thing present. A dore

and the doore, is not (this dore) this doth expresse a great deale* 1.98 more thē a, or the. A dore is meant generally of any dore, the dore of a certein dore spoken of before, but this dore pointeth presētly to y^• dore whereof he speaketh. Christes wordes were directed to one thing only, which is made & shewed together, when y^• God∣head maketh y^• which by his māhod he pointeth to, saying (this is my body) so that in dede in al scripture there is no like speach to that, which Christ vsed in his last supper, much lesse any like is figuratiue, and least of all that it selfe can be proued figuratiue, while it is compared with other speaches.

Let all the Sacramentaries, shew where that proposition is figuratiue, whiche first instituteth and maketh any thing and presently pointeth to the same, saying, this is this, or this is that, as it is sayd: this is my body, and this is my blood. For whereas it is sayd in Ezechiel: this Hierusalem, it is nothing like, because* 1.99 it was sayd rather by the occasion of expounding a parable, then at the doing or making of any thing by him that said, this is Hie∣rusalem. But Christ when he made his supper and instituted his chefe Sacrament, said of that whiche was in his hands, this is my body. What ignorance then is it, to say these words be vnpro∣per, because other words (from which they differ) be vnproper?

¶ It is shewed by the circumstāces of Christes supper, that he made his reall flesh and blood present vnder the formes of bread and wine, and consequently that his words are proper.

NExt vnto the proper signification and common sense of* 1.100 speaking, the circumstances of the talke are to be conside∣red, of which kinde of handling matters belonging to di∣uinitie, S. Augustine geueth vs a lerned rule, writing thus: So∣let circumstantia illuminare sententiā, cum ea quae circa scriptu∣ram

sunt praesentem quaestionem contingētia, diligenti discussio∣ne tractantur. The circumstance of y^• scripture is wonte to geue light to the meaning thereof, when those thinges which are about the scripture (to wit, which goe before and folowe after) concerning that which is presentlie in question, are diligentlie examined. by this rule we haue nowe to consyder about the sup∣per of Christ, and about the meaninge of dedes & wordes there in, who spake, or did, when, where, to whome, vppon what oc∣casion, how and in what maner, what were the words, for what cause, & to what effecte or purpose he spake or did, with suche like respectes.

For I wil at this tyme so examine the last supper, to proue* 1.101 thereby the reall prensence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine, that I will shew euery part thereof, whether it consiste in dede or in worde, to helpe much rather, then to hinder any thinge, the catholike belefe of the sayd reall pre∣sence, and consequentlie that no reason at all should either suffi∣cientlie or meanly moue any man, to thinke the wordes of Christ to be figuratiue, or vnproper. and truly whether the wordes be proper, the body and blood, which they signifie as present, must nedes be present, or els whether the body and blood be proued present, y^• wordes which signifie so much, must nedes be proper.

¶ The first circumstance of Christes last supper is to consyder who made it.

THe maker of the supper is almightie, as being the natu∣rall* 1.102 sonne of God. so that no man may discredit his wor∣des for lacke of power to bring them to passe.

The same Sonne of God was sent of his Father to take mans flesh, to th'end he might in that flesh bring vs the euerlasting meate of the diuine substance.

Neither came he in flesh to bring vs the meate of his God∣head* 1.103 in faith and spirit only. for so the Godhed was eaten •…•…y Abraham, Moyses, Dauid and other 〈◊〉〈◊〉 men (〈◊〉〈◊〉 not so plen∣tifully before the incarnation of Christ) but Christ •…•…me not only to make vs beleue the better in God, but also to make our weake bodies and imprisoned sonles partakers of his Godhed by a bet∣ter and higher meane, then by our faith alone. •…•…or our faith is re∣ceaued* 1.104 in measure, but the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Godhed dwellech corpo∣rally in Christes flesh. & so his flesh r•…•…ally eaten of vs, with due faith & charitie, is a maruelouse instrument to geue vs the euer∣lasting meate, and to ioyne vs most 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the spirit of God.

Marke well, that concerninge the eating God by saith and minde, we approue it as a speciall good thinge, but we say far∣ther, that God came in flesh, to be eaten in flesh of them, that con∣sist of flesh. And therefore hauing sayd: my Father geueth you the true bread from heauen, and I am the bread of life (which hitherto is meant to be eaten by faith) he also goeth forward* 1.105 promising an eating to come herafter, that is to say, in his last supper, and thereof saith: the bread which I will geue is my flesh, and he that eateth me tarieth in me.

The same Christ commeth in his owne person to performe y^•* 1.106 former promise, not saying only, beleue ye in God and in me as I teache you, but saying and doing, that is to wit, taking, bles∣sing, geuing, and saying: take, eate, this is my body which is ge∣uen for you.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 this only pointe were depelie pondered, it semeth to me* 1.107 that the almightie speaker so sent, so promising, and so doing ought to be of suche aucthoritie, that nothing should staye vs to beleue that externall thing to be his body, whereof he sayd: this is my body.

Let vs now adde hereunto the wisedome, the prouidence, the

truthe, and the goodues of y^• speaker, who wold not of purpose blind his owne spouse with siguratiue wordes both of promise and of performance: and yet the one ioyned with the other, and the person (who both speaketh and doth) well considered, make to men of reason suche persuasion of a proper speache, that no sufficient cause is lefte, why to presume those wordes to be figu∣ratiue. Of this first circumstance Eusebius Emissenus writeth:* 1.108 Ad cognoscendum & percipiendum sacrificium veri corporis, ipsa te roboret potentia consecrantis. Let the very power of him that consecrateth it strengthen thee, to know & to perceaue the sacri∣fice of the true body. Again: recedat omne 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ambiguum. qui auctor est muneris, ipse etiam testis est veritatis. Let al dout∣fulnes of insidelity depart, he that is the authour of the gift, is him self also the witnes of the truthe.

¶ The second circumstance may be, to consyder the tyme when the supper was made.

THe tyme of speaking was the nyght before Christ depar∣ted* 1.109 out of this world, at what tyme men are wonte to speake most plainly. And S. Paule himself noted that circumstance, saying: our lord in the night that he was betrayed toke bread &c. For when the howre of death draweth nere, men vse manifestly to shew their last wil without al figures & tropes, as nighe as the matter will suffer. And how much more wold the wisedom of God vse wordes warily in this case? specially seing S. Augustin witnesseth, that he gaue this Sacrament after sup∣per,* 1.110 when his passion was at hand, to thintent the highnes of the mysterie might the better sticke in the hartes and memorie of the disciples. whereas otherwise the Churche is taught by the holy ghost, to receaue this Sacrament fasting, for the honour (saith

S. Augustine) of so great a Sacrament.

Let vs now a litle weigh with our selues, whether any good* 1.111 and discrete man, knowing his parting hower out of this world to be at hand, will speake of purpose such words of ordeining matters to be done after his death, the which words he foreseeth wil cause his heyres either to synne greuously, if they obserue thē plainly as they should, or els to haue an inward dissensiō, if some affirme them to be plaine, others denying and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them •…•…o be figuratiue. for if Christes words be in dedt figura∣tiue, the Catholiks synne, both in teaching the contrarie, and in adoring Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and 〈◊〉〈◊〉, which thing they are constrained to doe by the force of the words. and then they are giltie of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, who possiblie can find no cause, why they should not beleue their master so speakig and doing as he spake and did. and thus lieth the •…•…ander vpon Christ himself. but if the words be in dede plain, then Christ is purged, and the only sault is in them, who will not beleue. I think it far the better to beleue the wonderfull discretiō of Christ, •…•… so 〈◊〉〈◊〉 him, to mistrust the infidelite of wicked men.

¶ The third circumstance concerning the persons, who were at the last supper.

THe hearers were his twelue Apostles, who should in∣structe y^• whole world of that, which they lerned of Christ,* 1.112 in this very busines whereof we talke. and so they did, ne∣uer leauing in any peece of all their writinges or preachinges, that Christ leste a figure of his body without the very truthe thereof conteined in the Sacrament of the altar.

To the same Apostles it was geuen to know and vnderstand the mysteries of the kingdom of heauen. where•…•…ore it is very* 1.113 iueredible, that the greatest mysterie of the whole Church was

either hidden from them by Christ, or by them hidden from vs.* 1.114 Yet it can not be denied but it is in some part hidden, if y^t words which report it, be figuratiue and parabolicall. for parables are spoken (as Christ himself witnesseth out of Esaias the Prophet) so, that men hearing doe not vnderstād in hart the things which are spoken.

Thyrdly, the Apostles were those who taried with Christ at Capharnaum, where he promised his flesh and blood. therefore if* 1.115 Christ had then spoken figuratiuely to the people, yet now at the least he should and wold haue declared the matter more plainly. and so he did in dede, not verilie adding any word, which might shew his former talke to haue beue figuratiue (conceruing the substance of flesh to be eaten, & the substance of wine to be drun∣ken) but only teaching the maner of geuing them his flesh and blood, vnder the formes of bread and wine, to be figuratiue and mystical, because they are not geuen to fill the bellie, but to fede the soule, & not so much for the fleshes sake, which we 〈◊〉〈◊〉, as for y^• spirit & Godhead which replenisheth that flesh of Christ.

¶ The fourth circumstance concerning the ending of the old passouer, and the making of a new.

THe occasion mouing Christ at his last supper, rather then at any other tyme to say ouer bread (This is my body) and ouer wine (This is my blood) was the setting and placing* 1.116 of the new Paschal Lamb in stede of y^• old. For least his Churche should be without a mysticall sacrifice (called according to the law of Moyses a passouer, that is to say, a sacrifice betokening* 1.117 our passing ouer the sea of synne, and our 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the Land of grace and life which we looke for) as sone as the old Lamb* 1.118 was eatē, and the tyme come that shadowes and figures should be fultilled by the death of Christ the true passouer, and the true

Lamb of God: Straight way he began to make this new Sa∣crament in stede of the old Paschall Lamb, that the Churche of* 1.119 Christ might haue a new oblation, which should conteine really the true Lamb of God that taketh away the synnes of the world. For as Leo the great sayeth: Vetus Testamentum consummabat, & nouum Pascha condebat, he ended the old Testament, and made a new passouer. As therefore the old Paschall Lamb was really present and really eaten: so much more the true passouer Iesus Christ, in y^• banket which him self instituted, is really pre∣sent to be really eatē, except we shal say, y^• his •…•…ew banket is lesse true and really, then the old was, or that the old being an vn∣doubted figure of the new, did not by the eating thereof declare, that the new Paschall Lamb Iesus Christ should be also eaten, not only by saith (which kind of eating Christ, both Moyses and Phinees had) but euen externally vnder the forme of bread, the which kind of eating Christes flesh, the old Fathers had not,* 1.120 because the law brought nothing to perfection. but we haue it, because the truth is made by Iesus Christ, who deliuered vs his own flesh to be eaten really, and in dede.

¶ The fyfth circumstance concerning the preface which Christ made before his supper.

AS the ending of the old ceremonie moued Christ to insti∣tute a new, so the ioye which he tooke of that change was* 1.121 so great, y^• he could not forbeare, but sayd to his Apostles: Desy derio desyderaui hoc Pascha manducare vobiscum, antéquā patiar, I haue desired with desire to eate this passouer with you, before I suffer. And as S. Chrysostom witnesseth, he did really* 1.122 receaue the mysteries at his supper, to incourage his Disciples to receaue them without all scruple or feare.

Neither doth it skill to my purpose, whether the words be first

referred to the old Paschall Lamb, or to the n•…•…w. If they be re∣ferred to the new alone, Christ desireth only to eate his own body with his Apostles. But Christ could not eate it by faith &* 1.123 deuotion, sith he had it present in a better maner then so. there∣fore by shewing him self desirouse of eating it, and by his owne eating it, we learn that it is his own reall substance, & not only an effectuall sig•…•…e thereof. And it is not to be wondered, that he will gladly eate his own flesh (namely in such an vnspeakable mysterie, as him self hath prepared) because thereby (as S. Chry* 1.124 sostom writeth) he encouraged his Apostles, not to be afeard ther•…•…of.

And why should not Christ doe that thing for our great pro∣fite, seing that other men haue often tymes eaten their own flesh euen in a grosse man•…•…r either for hunger, or for anger, or phansie, without doing so great good to them selues or to any other, as Christ in this fact hath done to all his Churche? Or is it more straunge to eate his own flesh in so miraculouse a maner (as it is present in) then voluntarily to geue the same flesh to shamful death for our sakes? Marke, that I say, Christ did eate his own flesh, not as butchers and cookes dresse it, but in so pure a sort as Angels feede on it, by hauing it really present with them, and yet in so true a sort, as men receaue meat into their bodies. For* 1.125 herein man eateth Angels foode, in that he eateth the same spirit of God in Christes flesh, the which feedeth the Angels really in heauen. Now for Christ to eate his own body in truth of sub∣stance after that Angelicall maner, it is no absurditie at all. But for him to eate it by faith, it were a thing cleane impossible. And to eate it in abare figure without saith, it were to lack the chief point that is requisite to the worthy receauing of the Sacra∣ment.

If the words be first referred to the old Paschall Lamb, the

〈◊〉〈◊〉 yet is all one, because it is certein he desired not to eate the* 1.126 old Lamb, for the Lambs sake, but only for that it was the last eating of the Lamb, as the which was out of hand to be taken away, and to haue the flesh of the true Lamb of God geuen to the faithfull in stede thereof. In either of •…•…oth ways, the desire and ioye of Christ was not finally for eating the Paschall Lamb (wherein according to the Prophets words he had no delight)* 1.127 but for the eating of his own passouer, which can be none other thing besyde his own flesh. Therefore Tertullian expounding this matter, noteth well, Indignum esse, vt quid alienum concu∣pisceret* 1.128 Deus: How it were vnsemely, that God should desier any thing, which were other then his own. With whom S. Chrysostom agreing, writeth: Non solummodo Pascha, sed hoe,* 1.129 in quo cum praeterijsset figura, peracta erat veritas. Christ desired not simply a passouer, but this passoner, wherein (the figure being passed ouer) the truth was celebrated. And as he sayeth in* 1.130 an other place, Wherein he wold deliu•…•…r the mysteries and new things vnto vs. Lo that which Christ desired was the truth it self, to wit, his own substance, because it being vnited to y^• God∣head was the only meat wherein God taketh pleasure, and that substance is the meate of Christes supper, and not only the ea∣ting thereof by faith.

¶ The sixth circumstance concerning the loue which moued Christ to institute this Sacrament.

WHereas Christ through all his life had loued his* 1.131 Church, he both continued that his loue euen to the last end of his life, and spent his own life for the same loue, and most euidently shewed that his loue the night before his passion: first, by wasshing most humbly his Apostles seete, and then by geuing his own body and blood vnto them, in so

much, that the said Sacrament is thereof called, Signum vnitatis, & vinculum charitatis: The signe of vnitie, and the bond of chari∣tie,* 1.132 Whereof S. Chrystom writeth thus: Christ hath mingled him self together with vs, & hath tempered his body into vs, to thend we may be made one •…•…rtein thing, as it were a body ioyned to the head: Ardēter enim amantium hoc est. For that is a point of them who loue feruently. the like he saith also vpon S. Paul.

Seing now loue was one of the causes which moued Christ to institute this holie Sacrament, let vs coniecture by that circum∣stance, whether it be more like y^• he leaft a peece of wheaten bread for a signe of his loue, or els left the best & greatest iewel he had,* 1.133 to wit, his own substance vnder the form of bread, to witnesse y^• same excessiue loue towards vs. I thinke it more then probable, that sithens he was able to geue the substāce of his own body to vs, by turning bread into it, and hauing taking bread, said after thanks geuē: this is my body, I think it more then probable, that his great loue dyd rather geue his reall body vnder that blessed signe of bread, then that he would say he gaue vs his body, & yet in dede gaue vs wheaten bread, whiche were lesse then his body. Howsoeuer shamefast men are wont to speake modestly to them whom they loue best, surely they wil not blush to do most bo•…•…ti∣fully for them: much lesse may we thinke that Christ, louing vs so well, spake more then he dyd performe.

¶ The vij. circumstance of washing the Apostles feete.

THe Paschal lambe being eaten, Christ sate down at the ta∣ble* 1.134 with his disciples, He arose again, laid his garments down, girded himself with a towel, poured water into the basin, and began to washe his Apostles fete, and to wipe them, shewing thereby, both his own humilitie, & also of what a great

mystery they should be made partakers. For the worthy coming whereunto, not only their mind should be tried and purified, but also their bodies, yea euen the the vttermost parts of their affec∣tions should be purged and cleansed.

For which cause euer sins the Apostles 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (as it may appere* 1.135 by the practise of the Churche, and by S. •…•…ionysius the Areopa∣gite) the Catholike Bishops and Priestes haue vsed (before they come to cōsecrate y^• dreadfull mysteries) to wash the very toppes of their handes. What to doe I pray you? w•…•…ether because they should come to handle bread and wine? then might Christe haue washed his disciples hands, as he dyd their fete, before they had eaten the Paschal lambe: for it was not eaten without bread, nei∣ther without a cup of wine also, if we shal beleue S. Hierom, S.* 1.136 Bede, and Theophilact, who thinke suche a cuppe of wine, as the Iewes dranke of after the Paschall lambe, to be mentioned in S. Luke.

And why is not the bread & wine, which was ioyned with the fleshe of the Paschall lambe, it being set also to signifie the same Christ, for which the bread and wine of the new testament is ap∣pointed (as the Protestants teach) why is not, I say, that bread & wine as good as this whiche we haue? one God made both, and both be assigned to sh•…•…ow one Christ: both oblations, both Sa∣cramēts, both be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the same men in the same night and place. And yet so much 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is betwene the bread and wine of the old 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and that of the new, that it was sufficient for the one to be eaten with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not vncleane, but the other 〈◊〉〈◊〉 haue 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the bodies purified for the more worthy receauig* 1.137 thereof. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not because it is bread and wine still, but because it is made the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of life, the food of Aungels, the body and blood of 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Hence cometh al this preparation, hence cometh the difference betwene the old & new 〈◊〉〈◊〉. For although

they meete inone signification, yet in substance the one was earthly, the other in substance is heauenly: the one published by Moyses, the other of Christes own ins•…•…utiō: and for that cause y^• one a bare shadow of the truth, the other a truth of y^• shadow, and also couering the •…•…me truth in a mysterie.

¶ The 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Circumstance, concerning the place of the last supper.

THe place where Christ kept his supper, was chos•…•…n & ap∣pointed, not without a miracle, by geuing his disciples a* 1.138 strange signe howe to go to an vnknowen house, by fo∣lowing him that should cary a pot of water into it.

That house Nicephorus and Damascene write to haue bene about the mount Siou, whiche standeth in holy scripture (euē by* 1.139 the inrerpretation of S. Paule) to signify the City and Churche o•…•… God: all which things doe portend that some great and vnac∣customed matter shalbe done in suche a place so assigned. In the house a faier parler was decked, and adorned, and therem a table at the which Christ sitting downe made thereupon his maundy.

Of which table (for the meats sake whiche should be geuen at it) the holy Ghost had before prophecied, by king Dauid, saying: thou hast prepared a table in my sight. And by Salomon, wisedom hath set forth his table. Likewise y^• table whereuppon the twelue* 1.140 loaues of y^e shew bread stoode in the tabernacle of the law before the face of God, shadowed this table of Christes supper, whereat the twelue Apostles sate before the face of Christ our Lord, he being the bread of life, and geuing to euery of them a loaf vnder the forme whereof his owne substance was conteyned.

Christ then making his supper vppon this table, and thence distributing his meate vnto the Apostles, doth vs to vnderstand, that whatsoeuer he feedeth vs withall either in spirit or in body

at his supper, is reall•…•… present vppon the very boord, where∣vppon* 1.141 he did eate. For Christ at this tyme is not talking in pa∣rables, not disputing in the synagoge, not preaching in the tēple▪ he is in a house, in a parler, at a boord, shewing thereby where his banket is exhibibed, where it is serued, and whence it is re∣ceaued.

We are not now occupied in spirituall praicr alone, but also in corporal eating and drinking. If the euerlasting meate of Chri∣stes supper be only spiritual, and only receaued in mind by faith, let the howse be thought only to be spirituall, the parler to be spiritual, and the boord to be spiritual. Let vs deny that any of* 1.142 these things were natural and real. but if all the rest be confessed real, seing al they are prouided for the meates sake which shalbe eaten from the table, what an impudent folly is it to say, the body and blood of Christ (whiche only is the euerlasting meate of this banket) are taken neither in hand, nor in mouth, nor be not at all vppon the material boord, whence Christ visibly deliuered them to his Apostles own handes, bidding them take and eate.

¶ The nyntenth circumstance of the taking bread and wine.

OUr sauiour sitting doun at the table toke bread, and the cup of wine. and he tooke it, who neuer touched the thig* 1.143 which he did not sanctifie, because vertue went forth of him, euen by touching his garments.

Moreouer it is to be thought he toke such bread, as the pres•…•…* 1.144 feast of Caster (which was begūne) might suffer: Unleauened I meane, and such as presently was vpon the table at the eating of y^• Paschal Lamb. The which surely was already figuratiue bread, it was already a token of Christ, and already was partakē of the

disciples. Shall we think then that Christ goeth about to do that which was already done? No, no, this 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of his goeth to an other end, as we shall perceaue anon.

Thirdly, by taking bread and wine into his hands Christ* 1.145 meaneth vs to looke for the mystery (that shalbe made) within the forms of those cratures, which he toucheth. He now pointeth not to his Apostles, as though he would only consecrate some∣what in theyr breasts (as Caluin dreameth). he taketh bread and wine. there we must seeke the first work of his supper.

Last of al, by this kind of taking bread & wine he putteth vs in mind of that great Priest Melchisedech, who brought forth bread and wine, and blessed Abraham. As therefore Melchisedech toke* 1.146 bread and wine to offer them first vnto God, next to communi∣cate Abrahā with them: so doth our true king of rightuousues in∣tend to offer to God and his Father the present bread and wine which he taketh.

And because the thing sacrificed is to be changed (one way or other) euen in substance from the former nature which it had, as* 1.147 being sometymes killed, sometymes burnt, and sometymes ea∣ten, when Christ as the high Priest of God, for so it appeareth in the end, toke bread & wine, he toke them to offer, & cōsequently to thange them in the most perfit maner that euer could be deuised, as who is the most perfit Priest. And into what substance shall* 1.148 he chāge them, but into the sede of Abraham, his own body, who came to fulfil the law, and gather all things into him selfe, and so to bring them again vnto his Father? For which cause S, Cypriā* 1.149 sheweth, that as Melchisedech first brought foorth bread & wine, that so the blessing might duely be celebrated about Abraham: so Christ fulfilling the truth of the prefigured image offered bread & wine, suum scilicet corpus & sanguinem, that is to say, offered his own body & blood, This great mystery could not be throughly

hādled in a whole booke, much lesse I am able to cōclude it with∣in the cumpasse of a circumstance. it is now s•…•…icient to touch the chefe points of so long a matter.

¶ The tenth circumstance of blessing.

OUr chefe Bisshop did not only take bread and wine, but he blessed also. Benedictio, blessing, is as it were a blessed* 1.150 saying: and because God sayth, and it is done, in him bles∣sing is doing. and in Christ who is both God man, blessing is most properly of all, a doing by the meane of saying or signi∣fiyng. for not alwayes when he blesseth, he nedeth to speake: but* 1.151 if he blesse as man, he maketh at the least some outward token* 1.152 of the good dede, which he is about, either by lifting vp his eyes or hands to heauen, or by making the signe of the crosse, or by speaking certeine words. Howsoeuer it be, it cā not be well ima∣gined* 1.153 that blessing should be in God or in Christe without a do∣ing, otherwise it should not differ from a simple saying, yea it should be the saying of m•…•…n, rather then of God. But now it is called the blessing, as if we should say, a beneficiall saying, which in God always importeth a doing.

In this place it sheweth also, what intent and purpose Christ* 1.154 had. For whereas Christ might haue spoken in the way of exhor∣ting, or of prophecying, or of threatening, or of comforting, when it is writē, he blessed and sayd: we may learne, that he speake in y^e way of doing, of working, of bestowing some real benefit, and of geuing vertue and strength vnto his word for that effecte. which being so, we can not now with any pretense of honestie imagine. that those words are in the substantial parts of them 〈◊〉〈◊〉, at the prononcing whereof the Gospell hath rehearsed the word and vertue of blessing. For as a figuratiue saying is an imperfect

speache, and therefore lesse then a common kind of speaking: so is blessing farre more thē any speaking, and therefore a true doing. What repugnance then were it to say, that Christ blessed at such tyme, as he not only did no great miracle, but also did lesse then the ordinary nature of speaking requireth? For ordinarily men vse proper words.

Well, that blessing in this place is to be referred to the words:* 1.155 This is my body and this is my blood, it is the doctrin of the most auncient fathers. For S. Ambrose calleth this mystery benedi∣ctionem verborum coelestium, the blessing of the heauēly words. and S. Cyrillus commonly nameth the blessed Eucharist, bene∣dictionem* 1.156 Christi, or, mysticam benedictionem, the blessing of Christ, or the mysticall blessing. The like doth S. Chrysostome writing vpon S. Paule. Now for so much as blessing standeth here be•…•…wene taking of bread, and saying, this is my body, the which bread and body cā not be truely verified of the same thing at once: the blessing so declareth the working and making pre∣sent of Christes body, that it doth intimate withal, the bread to be changed into his body. For as all blessing doth geue some be∣nefit, so when a creature taketh a benefit, it is ch•…•…ged into a better state. For which cause both, S. Gregorie of Nyssa, and* 1.157 S. Ambrose at•…•…ribute the chaunging of the nature of bread and wine into Christes body and blood, to the vertue of his blessing. It would pa•…•…e y^• describing of a circumstāce and become a whole booke, if I should prosecute any of these matters so largely as the thing would beare, which at this tyme I may not doe.

¶ The eleuenth circumstance, of gening thankes.

GOd blesseth his creatures in bestowiing some benesite* 1.158 vpon them, and the creatures blesse God by praising and rendring 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vnto 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Blessing there•…•…ore in a diuerse

s•…•…se is cōmon to God and man, but thanksgeuing is the proper* 1.159 duety whiche man oweth to God. As Christ by blessing at his supper shewed his intent of changing bread and wine to a better nature, then they before had: so by geuing thanks, he declarerh his change to appertein to the honoure of God, and that after such speciall sort in this Sacrament, that the whole mysterie ta∣king* 1.160 thereof his name, is called, as Iustinus the martyr doth witnesse, Eucharistia, that is to say, the geuing of thanks.

Whereas thanks be geuen by words alone, or dedes alone, or in both together: it can not be denied, but those are best thanks,* 1.161 wherein most excellent dedes are ioyned with most true and reall words. And who can dout but it is a more worthy dede, to make present the body of Christ vnder the form of bread, y^• God may thence be glorified & thanked, then to make bread, stil taryīg bread, to be an effectuall signe of Chistes body?

Who can dout but y^e words of thanking are more true, which* 1.162 say, this is my body, and meane the same, then those which name y^• body of Christ, & meane the figure of his body? The Chatholiks beleue that Christ gaue thanks to his Father with moste true words, and with most perfit dedes: in so much that we deny any perfiter worke to be any where done vpon any creature in the whole world, then that was, wherein Christ wrought his body present vnder the form of bread, to thend it should be a sacrifice of* 1.163 thanksgeuing to God. And consequently we confesse with S. Ireneus, eum panem, in quo gratiae actae sunt, corpus esse domini. that bread, wherein thanks were geuen, to be the body of our Lord. And therefore he addeth: iam non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia. it is not now common bread, but the Eucharist, or sacrifice of thanksgeuing.

The Sacramentaries on y^• other syde make thanks to be geuē of Christ in bare wheaten bread and wine. They make also the

words of thanksgeuing figuratiue, and thereby untrue in theyr proper sense. The li•…•…e was done by theyr auncestours before, as S. Ignatius doth witnesse, whose words Theodorus allegeth* 1.164 thus: Eucharistias & oblationes non admittunt, quòd non confi∣teantur Eucharistiam esse carnem saluatoris nostri. They admit no sacrifices of thanksgeuing nor oblations, because they cōfesse not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour. But hereof I shall speake again hereafter.

¶ The xii. Circumstance, of breaking.

BY the fact of breaking the Protestants thinke them selues to haue one circumstance making for their opinion. for what can be broken (say they) at Christes supper, beside common bread? But if we take the bread to haue bene brokē before the cō∣secration thereof, they haue no more aduātage by the fact of brea∣king common bread, then they had by the fact of taking common bread. For we confesse it to be still common bread, vntill Christ hath said of it, this is my body. After whiche words if we thinke the breaking to haue bene vsed (which is farre the more probable opinion) we must nedes confesse the Euangelists not to haue re∣hearsed* 1.165 all things in such order as they were done in, & we must construe the wordes in this wise: Christ tooke bread, blessed or gaue thanks, and sayd, this is my body, and then brake, and gaue* 1.166 to his disciples. the whiche interpretation is confirmed both by S. Paule, as I haue shewed in an other place, & by the dayly pra∣ctise of the vniuersall churche. neither haue the Sacramentaries any iust occasion to triumphe hereof, that we graunt a figure in changing the order of the words. for the figure is not in Christes words (of which only we contend) but in the words of the Euan¦gelistes, who knowing that, before the tyme of their writing, the order of Christes supper was taught & practised in a great num∣ber

of Christian churches, dyd rather attend to write the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the matter (as in most other things they haue done) then cu∣riously to note the cerimonie and order of the doing & speaking.

And therefore he that will, may obserue, that they •…•…oyne toge∣ther* 1.167 all the dedes of Christes supper, belonging to eche kind, and afterward place the words apperteyning to the same, not because none of the wordes came not betwene some of the dedes, but to make short, and by diuision, made into dedes & words, to set like to his like. That is to wit, to ioyne only dedes with dedes, and only words with words: the dedes were, taking bread, blessing, thanksgening, breaking, deliuering, which stand together. the words are, take, eate, this is my body, doe and make this thing for the remembrance of me. and those be placed altogether. Let it then goe for a truthe (howsoeuer our aduersaries are now plea∣sed withall) that Christ did breake and gene after the words of consecration. yet shal it euen so make more for the reall presence of his body vnder the form of bread, thē against it, because y^t very breaking doth shew the substance of flesh (whereof Christ sayd this is my body) to be so really and miraculoush present, that it was conteined whole vnder euery peece and fragment of that which stil appered bread. otherwise euery Apostle could not haue •…•…aued one and the same whole substance (without more and lesse) which an other did •…•…aue. but the contrarie was figured in manna, of the which some gathered more and some lesse, but* 1.168 neither he that gathered more had more, nor he that gathered lesse found lesse, when it came to the trial of measure. the which thing S. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sheweth to be verified of y^t Sacramēt of Chri∣stes* 1.169 supper. and yet it were not so neither externallie nor spiri∣tually, if it were the substance of wheaten bread which the Apo∣stles 〈◊〉〈◊〉 after y^• breaking. for then one should haue the greater peece of bread, an other the lesse, neither could any balance or

measure da•…•…y make them througly equal.

Again if (it being bread which was broken and taken) Christ be only eaten by faith and spirit, surely seing the faith and deuo∣tion which euery man hath, is in a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 measure from that which an other hath (according as Christ or the holy Ghost di∣uideth* 1.170 his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to one after one sort, to an other otherwise, as he listeth to euery man) neither by that meaues one should haue as much as the other. And that especially, because some receaue life euerlasting by eating that, which was broken to them, and other eate their own damnation. And how is it (I pray you) all* 1.171 one measure to them? Or is it one, to be saued & to be damned:

S. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hauing spoken of the equall measure of Manna, sayeth: Et nos Christi corpus •…•…qualiter accipimus vna est in my∣sterijs* 1.172 sanctificatio, Domini & serui, & 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Quanquàm pro acci∣pientium meritis diuersum fiat, quod vnum est. And we also take the body of Christ equally. there is one sanctification in the my∣steries as well of the seruant as of the master. Albeit according to y^t merits of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that is made diuerse, which is one. The meaning of which words must of necessitie be, that one sub∣stance of Christes body is receaued in the mysteries, to wit, vn∣der the foorm of bread, as well by the poore as by the riche: al∣though the deuotion be diuerse, wherewith it is receaued. To one it is more meritoriouse in effect, and to an other lesse meri∣toriouse: but in substance it is one sanctification to all men. So that the breaking and the peeces, which are made, certifie vs of suche a mysticall presence, that (as Eusebius 〈◊〉〈◊〉 witnesseth) Corpus hoc sacerdote dispensante tantum est in exi∣guo,* 1.173 quantum esse constat in toto. And again: De hoc verò pane cum assumitur, nihilo minus habent singuli quam vniuersi: totum vnus, totum duo, totum plures sine diminutione percipiunt. This body (when the Priest 〈◊〉〈◊〉) is as great in the small

peece, as it is great in the whole (loaf). of this bread when it is taken, euery man hath no lesse, then alltogether haue. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hath all, twaine all, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 haue all without diminishing.

These words I say can be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 neither of materiall bread outwardly broken, and deliuered, the peeces whereof are vnequall: nor of inward grace and faith, the measure whereof is diuerse▪ but only of the substance of Christes body, which is con∣•…•… wholy vnder euery fragment of that which is broken, ha∣uing with it none other substance, which may cause any man to haue more or lesse then his fellow. Of this kind of breaking S.* 1.174 Ignatius sayeth: Vnus panis omnibus confractus est. One bread is broken to all, one bread of life he meaneth. As for materiall loanes they wer•…•… diuerse (euen in the same Church) and not al∣ways one. But the bread of Christes supper, to wit, the subs•…•… of his own body is one to all. But the eating by faith is not one* 1.175 to all. It is the body which is one. Therefore 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Archebisshop of Constantinople writeth: Post eleuationem sta∣tim partitio diuini corporis fit. Verum enim vero tametsi in par∣tes diuiditur, indiuiduus & insectus in singulis partibus sectorum totus agnoscitur & inuenitur. Aster the eleuation (which among the Breakes was done immediatly before the communion) by & by a partition of the diuine body is made. But truly although he be diuided into parts, yet he is acknowledged and found vn∣diuided, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and whole in euery part of the things, which are cut. what is this to say, but that the forme of bread is only broken, and the substance of Christes body 〈◊〉〈◊〉 whole vnder euery peece of the sayd 〈◊〉〈◊〉?

But what speake I of the Fathers? S. Paule sayeth: The* 1.176 bread which we breake is it not the communicating of our Lords body? Because we being many, are one bread, one body. For so much as we all partake of the one bread. If the bread be broken,

how partake we all of one bread? That which is broken, is not according to the course of nature one in number. And surely the Corinthians had more then one loaf, which was broken among them. And yet S. Paule hauing shewed that we breake a kind of bread, sayeth: Be we neuer so many we partake all of the one* 1.177 bread. How is that? but because the bread which we breake, is no materiall bread, but how many loaues so euer there were be∣fore, after it is once sayd 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them, This is my body, euery one of them is turned into that one bread, which is Iesus Christ. And that bread is distributed vnder the formes of commō bread, and so is the scripture instified, which sayeth: The bread which we breake is the communicating of Christes body. And there∣fore that body being one bread it self, maketh all vs one bread, which partake of that one bread.

¶ The xiij. circumstance, of geuing.

It is not to be thought that Christ deliuered first the fragmēts of bread vnto his Apostles, and then sayd the words of conse∣cration. for then he had not deliuered them a Sacrament, but only had geuen them the matter and element whereof the Sa∣crament should be made. but seing S. Paule saith, y^• bread which* 1.178 we breake is the communicating of Christes body, we must ra∣ther iudge, that he had consecrated his body, before he brake: as who intended by breaking to distribute the Sacrament, which was already made. And consequentlie as the Sacrament was made being yet in Christes own handes, or lying vppon the ta∣ble before him: so it was deliuered with his own hands and by* 1.179 none other way (that euer I can reade of) vnto his Apostles. but Christ had willed them before, not to work the perishing, but the euerlasting meate, which the sonne of man should geue them, &* 1.180 which he shewed afterward to be his flesh, and now fulfil∣ling

his promise, he geueth the same euerlasting meate with his own hands: which could not be so, except the sayd euerlasting meate were vnder the form of bread or in the chalice, which only the Apostles doe see in Christes hands, therefore it is inuincibly proued by the word of God, that Christes body, which is the euerlasting meate, was and is geuen to them, that communicate vnder the formes of bread and wine.

What soeuer is sayd of spirituall meate comming down from* 1.181 heauen (as to be a part of Christes supper) it is vtterly voyd and without all ground of Christes institution, wherein, y^t Apostles are bound to rest vppon that onlye which Christ doth corporally geue, and when he is readen to geue (the which was done with his hands) for vs at the same tyme to looke beyond him, as if an other way more might be had then at his own hands, it is a hor∣rible blasphemie and a reprouing of his gift, as insufficient. He sayd, I will geue you the euerlasting meate: the Ghospell saith, he gaue at his supper saying, this is my body: the Catholikes beleue, that he thē gaue the same euerlasting meate, which he had promised, to wit, his own flesh and blood: the Sacramentaries say, he gaue it not with his own hands. I say there is none other way of geuing mentioned in the supper, and yet there only was the flesh of Christ to be geuen, as the Sacrament it self declareth, being called the body and blood of Christ.

I allege S. Mathew, S. Mark, S. Luke, S. Paule, where* 1.182 it is writen, that Christ brake and gaue. I think our 〈◊〉〈◊〉 will not deuie, that gift of his to haue bene made with Christes corporal handes▪ therein I beleue his promisse to haue bene ful∣filled,* 1.183 therein the spirituall and euerlasting meate to haue bene deliuered. S. Iohn witnesseth, that Christ said: dabo, I wil geue. the which is not meant only of a geuing by faith (for so Christ had alreadie geuen his flesh to diuerse men) but it was meant of

geuing by hands, after which sort he had not yet geuen, now the other fower 〈◊〉〈◊〉 before, witnesse that our lord in his supper dedit: gaue. I say, this later word fulfilled the former promise.

I aske our Sacramentaries, what other Ghospell they can bring forth, wherein Christ fulfilled at any tyme his promise of* 1.184 geuing the bread which was his flesh, and the meate which ta∣rieth to life euerlasting? pardon me, good reader, if in so weightie a matter zeale force to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 out vpō these false preachers of Gods word. You cruell murderers of Christian soules, where is that euerlasting meate geuen (by your false glosing) which Christ pro∣mised, and called it his flesh? is it not geuen at his own supper? where then? is it geuen at Christes table? by which word shew you that gift, if not by the word, dedit, he gaue? if that word shew it, that word signifieth a gift of that which was broken mystical∣ly, & deliuered with Christes hands, appearing still bread: there∣fore vnder the forme of that bread Christes flesh was geuen, which is the meate that tari•…•…th to life euerlasting. I speake so earnestly, to th'end I might prouoke you to come to the trial of these effectual points in Gods word.

¶ The xiiii. Circumstance of saying.

WOrds be somtyme applied to the decking and gar∣nishing* 1.185 of á matter, the which without thē might doe right wel, albeit it doth the better through their help. But when the thing standeth so, that either nothing at al can be vnderstanded without words, or the cheife part of the businesse wilbe hindered for lack of thē: in that case they are by al meanes* 1.186 as most necessarie, so most diligently to be obserued, as for ex∣ample: we could know nothing that belongeth to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 matters, if God reueled it not vnto vs by his only sōne, by An∣gels, Apostles, prophets, or other his seruants. For this reason

those words are moste carefully to be weighed, which come from* 1.187 God, and belong to causes of religion.

And yet in them as euery thing is most obscure: so are words more necessarie for the opening of it. All mysteries by their very name pretend a secret and an obscure knowlege. Among all the* 1.188 mysteries which were lest vnto the Church by Christ, none hath obteined that name so peculiarly, as the Sacrament of Christes supper. whereupon it foloweth, that words are most necessarie of all for the declaration of that Sacrament. therefore noman* 1.189 ought to wonder, that with so many dedes of sitting down at y^• table, of eating the paschal Lamb, of washing the Apostles fete, of raking bread and wine, of blessing, thanksgeuing, breaking & geuing, words at the length be ioyned, which may shew plainly the meaning, wherevnto all those dedes tend. Let vs not there∣fore follow the Sacramentaries in this behalf, who looke only to this, that Christ toke bread, and will not consyder his pro∣mise* 1.190 (going before his present performance in geuing that, which he promised) his blessing, and his words, Wherein he plainly sayth: This is my body. But because bread was taken and still bread is tasted and seen (do•…•… and say Christ what him list) they will trust their eyes, and not his word. But S. Mathew, S. Marke, S. Paule 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that Christ did these things, & sayd.* 1.191 S. Luke writeth he did them, saying. All meane that saying is a principall part of the supper. And that not without a cause.

For whereas dedes may haue many and diuerse interpreta∣tions* 1.192 (as it appeareth by the figures of the law) except words be ioyned withall to make them certein and plaine, we shall not know how to vnderstand the dedes, and therefore we can not tell how to beleue them. For this cause S. Chrysostom sayd,* 1.193 that whereas Christes words ought in al things to be more cre∣dited then our senses, yet he addeth: Quod praecipue in myste∣rijs

faciamus, the which thing let vs do specially in the myste∣ries.

Ponder then, I pray you, whether Christ did expound one pa∣rable* 1.194 by an other. For the dedes of his last supper 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to me vndoubted parables. Who could tell what the taking of bread meant after supper, or to what end the blessing and geuing of thankes wolde goe, except Christes own words had interpreted his mysticall doings? For whereas all Christes doings are our instruction, it can not be denied, but when he toke bread, blessed, gaue thanks, brake and gaue, those dedes were a certein aduer∣tissement or dark lesson to his Disciples. Of the which some vn∣derstode more, some lesse, according as they had grace and wit. Now the words of Christ come to these dedes, as it were a plain* 1.195 exposition added to an obscure parable. And yet shall we think, that the words also are para•…•…? Shal we say, the thing that is spoken to geue more light, bringeth more darknesse? Or did the comment of Christ nede again an other comment?

He did certain things, and to shew what he did, He sayd: this* 1.196 is my body. If these words be 〈◊〉〈◊〉, it had bene better he had sayd nothing, but only, do•…•… this for the remembrance of me. For by that meanes we might haue done as he did, and so haue referred obediētly the meaning of the dede to his wisedom. But he in words expounded the secrete meaning of the dedes, & sayd: This is my body. What reason can now excuse vs, why we should not rest in the authoritie of the speaker, sith he spake as an expo∣sitour or interpreter of his own doings? This reason alone ought to persuade any man. But now I will bring a greater.

Not only the interpretatiō of Christes dedes dependeth vpon* 1.197 his words, but also the whole substance of them. For he being the word of God hath ordeined, that no Sacrament shalbe made without words. Yea, that words shalbe the chief part of euery

Sacram•…•…t. This appereth in baptisme where the washing with* 1.198 water is the lesse part, and the pronouncing of the words is the chefe part. Hereof I haue spoken before, and haue declared out of S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, & S. Augustine, that y^• Sacraments* 1.199 haue their verie chese being through words. As therefore water, breade, wine and oile, whiche are the inferiour elements, and the baser part of the Sacraments, be most commonly knowen and most easily gotten: so the words (which are the higher part of the same Sacraments) must be such, as be most common & easy.* 1.200 For euery Sacrament is a signe, & euery signe is to geue know∣ledge of a thing whiche otherwise had bene secrete. Now if the token it self be secrete, what knowledge can rise thereof? Seing therefore Chri•…•… making a Sacrament, said, this is my body, we must think either no signe at all to haue bene made, or els we must beleue the wordes as they sound outwardly.

¶ The fiftenth circumstance, of taking.

SEing Christ willed all the twelue Apostles (among whom Iudas also was (to take that one thing which he gaue: we must vnderstand such a taking, as may agree to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 no∣lesse, then to the other Apostles. Againe whatsoeuer taking be vnderstanded, it must appertein to corporal apprehēsion whereof only Christ sayd: take. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 thing therefore which was taken either was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 bread being a bare figure of Christ, or the body of Christ vnder the form of bread. For in bothe these ways Iu∣das might take that, which all the other toke. As for any effectual signe (whereof Caluin vseth to brag) no man corporally toke, sith it is clere that Iudas toke none such, & yet it was sayd to him no lesse then to the other, take. N•…•…w if the Apostles toke only a bare 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Christes body, Christ gaue no more with his hands but a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 signe, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they •…•…oke that which he gaue. but Christ was

not sent to geue bare signes (which thing was th•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the old lawe) therefore it being false that he gaue a bare signe, it must nedes be true, that the Apostles toke at his hāds his own* 1.201 body vnder the form of bread. Neither will it serue here, if a •…•…∣cramentarie say y^• Christ gaue spiritually more •…•…hē bare signes, and likewise that y^• good Apostles toke more spiritually: for if* 1.202 we speake of spirituall gifts, they wanted •…•…ot in y^• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and of the old law.

Abraham beleued God, and it was 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 to in∣stice. Elizeus receaued the d•…•…bble spirit of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, & 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 beseching God to restore him y^• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of his 〈◊〉〈◊〉, & to strength∣then* 1.203 him with his chefe spirit, doth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that both he had once the holy Ghost, and loked again for greater comfort of him. Seig then the good men always receaued •…•…pirituall 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 betwene Christ and the old law doth not stand only in •…•…∣all gifts receaued in the soule, but in this, that Christ in his mā∣hod which he toke for that purpose, left vs such co•…•…poral meanes and instruments of grace, as might work also vpon our soules. And therefore Christ denyed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to be the true bread, not be∣cause it was not a signe of true bread, neither because who so de∣uoutly receaued it, should not be deliuered frō euerlasting death, of God: but because it selfe had not in it any thing, which being cor•…•…ally taken •…•…ight saue a man (otherwise good) from euer∣lasting d•…•…ath: whereas the true bread which the Apostles toke into theyr hands (through Christes gift) was that very •…•…esh, which by the power of the Godhead whereunto it is annexed, kepeth our soules that they dye not by synne, and r•…•…eth out bodies to liue for euer. S. Augustine sayth: Dominus sinit Iudam* 1.204 accipere inter innocentes disipulos, quod fideles nouerunt, preciū nostrum. Our Lord suffereth Iudas to take among the innocent disciples our price, which the faithful know. See what kind of

taking S. Augustine speaketh of. surely of that which was com∣mon to Iudas, and which was made with hands. See what Iudas toke, precium nostrum, our price. Is bread and wine our price? We are then derely bought in dede. But if the reall substāce of Christes body and blood be only our price, when Christ sayth take, he meaneth, take y^• real substance of my flesh into your hāds, that thence it may come afterward vnder your har•…•…s.

¶ The sixtenth circumstance, of eating.

CHrist sayd: eate ye, once only, and he sayd it of that one thing only, which he deliuered to his Apostles corporally, and they so toke it. but Christ meant they should eate it as wel in soule, as in body, as wel by faith, as by mouth. For he had sayd before, worke ye the euerlasting meat which the sonne of mā wil geue you, and he declared the worke of God to be this, that they should beleue in Christ, who is the bread of life, and who said his flesh to be meat in dede▪ therefore when Christ sayd, eate, this is my body, he meant eate bodily that I geue you, and eate it also spiritually, because it is a heauēly kind of bread, and a meate which neuer perisheth.

Neither doth the verbe, eate, by this meane stand vnproperly,* 1.205 because •…•…ating belongeth naturally both to the soule and to the body. but yet, concerning the cause of eating, principally to the soule, as the which alone geueth power to the body to eate, and concerning the meane of eating, principally to the body, as the which only hath conuenient instruments to receaue corporall meat. For neither a dead body can eate at al, neither a soule which lacketh a body can eate properly. Now when the soule and body may both not only eate, but also be nourished by the eating, that is the truest eating which can be deuised.

Christ then in saying eate, meaneth, eate ye as ye are men, who

consist of soules and of bodies, eate in both, and feede them both together. For this is my body, which hath in it the Godhead corporally dwelling. Eating this, you eate a food both spirituall and corporall. This feedeth the whole man, this is it which* 1.206 Tertulliā saith, Caro &c. The flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ, that the soule may also be made fat of God. Note the per∣fit eating. the flesh is fed, and y^• soule is made fat. The Catho∣liks vpon this ground beleue, the flesh which must be eaten spi∣ritually, to be vnder the form of bread, which is eaten really, and that Christ saying to a reasoable man: eate, this is my body, saith by the reason of that kind of meat which he nameth, eate in body and soule my body,

The Sacramētaries teache a dubble substance to be eaten in a dubble maner; of which y^• one is present corporally: y^• other ab∣sent, they teach bread & wine to be eaten & drunken corporally, as things present, but the flesh of Christ only to be eaten spiritually, as a thing absent in his own substance. they diuide the work of our bodies from the worke of our soules. But the word eate ye, can not be so meant, sith it only pointeth to y^• which the disciples had taken into theyr hands. none other literal meaning can be of this word, eate. eating by faith, hath no part in Christes supper, neither is at al commanded, if the thing eaten be not in the hāds of the Apostles.

¶ The 〈◊〉〈◊〉. circumstance, of these words, this is my body.

I Wil speake of these wordes, not al that may be sayd, but rather no more then the nature of one circumstance (among so many as Christ vsed in his supper) will conueniently beare. who ta∣king bread after blessing and thāks geuing, sayd: this is my body. If y^• meaning be, this bread is y^• signe of my body, he gaue thāks

for the institution of a bare signe: for so I must needs call it, seing* 1.207 bread remaining still in his owne nature, can neuer be any more then a bare signe, so long as it is not the body it self, which it doth signifie. For euery figure, image & token whiche differeth in sub∣stance from his originall, is always bare and naked in respect of that truth, which it 〈◊〉〈◊〉, & hath not the same in it selfe. So was Christ a bare māto y^e Ebionits, because they denied y^• substāce* 1.208 of God to be in him, howsoeuer they extolled him otherwise.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christ come thē to leaue naked & bare signes to his Church: and is he so glad of that promotion, that he thanketh his father for it? was this the ioy he had of eating the new passouer, where∣in he would geue vs only bread and wine mixed with water, in •…•…ede of bread, wine, herbs, and flesh, which were geuen vnder the law of M•…•…yses? is not his outward gift at the least desaced by this doctrine?

Uerily seing with thanks geuing Christ ioyned, this is my bo∣dy, presenting in effectuall words that, whiche his hart intended before to consecrate vnto God: we must no more say, that he in∣stituted a bare figure of his body in these wordes, then that he presented a bare signe in his hart when he gauc thanks. For who can think that Christ, who had said by God and by his Pro∣phet D•…•…uid, Sacrifice and offring thou wouldest not, but thou hast* 1.209 framed me a body, meanig that none other sacrifice pleased God beside his vnspotted fleshe: who can thinke that he now expresly naming that his body, yet presenteth to his father bread & wine only, as figures & signes of his body and blood, and that he gaue thanks for them▪

Melchisedech ended the mysterie of his bread and wine in the blessing of Abraham him self: and doth Christ after bread & wine taken end his blessing only in a figure of the sede of Abrahā: that, whereof Moyses said, this is the bread which our Lord hath geuē

you to eate, was in dede a more excellēt bread then he could name, and •…•…oth Christ name more then is really present? Surely the signe of Christes supper is so bare, if that which he pointeth vn∣to, be not in dede his body, y^• in words he geueth greater 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to God his Father, then in his dedes. For his word 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this (whereunto he pointeth) to be in substance his o•…•…n body, but his dedes perform only a signe of his own body, as the Sacra∣mentaries teach.

May I not now say to the Sacramentaries the like to that, which Malachie the Prophet sayd to those 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 among the Iewes, who offered in the temple of God •…•…ind, lame, and feint, or sicke oxen and shepe? Offer illud 〈◊〉〈◊〉, si placue∣ret* 1.210 ei, aut si susceperit faciem tuam. Offer such halting presents to thy Lord or capitain, & tel me whether it wil please him, or whe∣ther thou shalt be welcome to him, or no.

If one should come to a greate personage, and with solemne thāks make him a presēt in words of a fat oxe, or of a couragiouse horse, and when the noble man were come forth to accept the present, he should geue him a pe•…•…ce of paper wherein it were writen, this is a fat oxe, or a couragiouse horse, wold the noble man take it well?

Now come these new preachers, and whereas they confesse y^• Christ gaue thanks to his Father, and sayd in words: This is my body, yet they feare not to teache, that he offered more to him in words, then he performed in dedes.

Yea they doubt not to teache, that the words wherewith he maketh his present, are vtterly vnproper and figuratiue, not withstanding that S. Ambrose speaking of the Sacrament of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 supper, sayth: In cōsecratione diuina verba ipsa domini Saluatoris operantur. In the diuine consecration the selfe words of our Lord and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 doe worke▪ The words doe worke how

thē are thei 〈◊〉〈◊〉? A figuratiue word, is like a paited image,* 1.211 which may be somewhat, if the thing meant thereby be real and true, but otherwise it is an idole and nothing at all. But as an image of neuer so liuely a truth, absent in substance frō it, can not it selfe worke or doe any thing (because it is dead) no more can words grammatically figuratiue worke of them selues, for that they are dead, as not hauing theyr meaning (which is theyr life) present with them.* 1.212

S. Chrysostom likewise writeth: hoc est, ait, corpus meū: hoc verbo proposita consecrantur. This (saith he) is my body: with this word the things set foorth are consecrated. And yet can this word, whiche doth so wonderfull an act, can it be in the meane t•…•…me so weake, so feble, so dead, that it hath not in it self so much as the naturall proprietie of common wordes? Commonly wordes do meane as they sound, and those whiche do not so, be, concerning the vse and seruice of words (which is to vtter a mās minde) of baser condition, then other wordes are. But Christes words be so liuely, that they haue power to work and make that which they sound, in so much that he called them in S. Iohn, life* 1.213 and spirit. therefore it is vnreasonably said, that they are figu∣ratiue.

Hoc est corpus meum, are but foure words, of which foure they leaue neuer a one in his own significatiō, and some of them they pluck from his gender, other they pluck from their case, which they were put in. hoc, this, is the neuter gender with his noune* 1.214 substantiue, corpus: body. they draw it to the masculine gender, that it may agree with panis, bread. Est, is a verbe substantiue, si∣gnifiyng the substance of that noune substantiue, with whom it is ioyned. They draw it from y^t signification to signifie an acci∣dent in bread, which in these words is not named. They put cor∣pus meum (which is by Christes setting the nominatiue case) into

somtime the accusatiue, somtime the genitiue case. for they •…•…ay this doth signifie my body. & then is it in y^• accusatiue case: or this is the figure of my body, and then it is the genitiue case. what miserable taking is this of so heauēly words? but hereof I think to say more vpon those words, this is my blood, least I now ex∣cede the measure of a circumstance.

Yet this one thing I can not but warn y^• •…•…eader of, although* 1.215 it may seme to some man of no great weight. But I thinke with S. Chrysostom, no syllable or prick in the word of God to be su∣perfluously placed. S. Paule reciting the words of Christes sup∣per placeth them thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. hoc mei est corpus, this of me is the body. For where as the other Euangelist had writen the pronoun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the last place, as we likewise in latin put meū last, the holy Ghost foreseing the heresy y^• now should rise, caused S. Paul to ioyne that pro•…•…oun belonging to Chri∣stes* 1.216 person, vnto y^• other pronoun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hoc, this. For although 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be ruled of the noun body, and in sense must nedes follow after it, yet it pleased God to place the same pronoun, with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 this: shewing thereby that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must finally be referred vnto the noun corpus, body, as wel as the other pronoun meum mine. as if it were in latin, hoc mei est corpus, this of me is the body.

That ioyning I say, of this, and of me together, doth geue such coniecture (as in the order of words may be had) that as of me is the genitiue case coming after y^• noun body, so this like∣wise apperteyneth to the noun substantiue body, and only resteth and endeth his signification in that word. Whereas on the other syde if this were only referred vnto bread, no reason could be brought, why S. Paule should ioyne the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of me vnto it. This bread of me is the signe of body, iudge what a hard speache it were.

Let noman wonder if I so narrowly scan euery syllable. For

you shall see before all is done, that God hath caused the word•…•… of his last supper by so many circumstances of writing and spea∣king to be opened vnto vs, that when the rest is all heard, it wil seme probable enough, not so much as the setting of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to haue bene superfluouse.

¶ The. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. circumstance, of these words: Which is geuen for you.

ALthough S. Mathew, and S. Mark thought it sufficient to report that Christ sayd: This is my body, as the which words both were plaine enough, & able to make the my∣sterie of Christes supper: yet the holy Ghost stirred vp S. Luke, to adde the other words which Christ had also vsed, to th•…•…ntene the literall meaning of Christes words might be most c•…•…tainly confirmed, and therefore he writeth that Christ sayd: This is my* 1.217 body which is geuen for you. In all the which words there is none other noune substantiue named, besides the only substance of Christes body. With it agreeth Hoc, This, with it, quod, the which. It cometh after the verb est, is, and goeth before the verb, datur, is geuen.

If now we interpret the noun corpus body, by figura corporis the •…•…igure of the body: Looke what place corpus did occupy, the same figura corporis must nedes occupy. And therevppon it fo∣loweth, that the pronoun hoc must be ruled by the noun figura,* 1.218 likewise the relatiue quod: and it must follow the verb est, and goe before the verb datur. And so the sense is, Haec est figura cor∣poris mei quae pro vobis datur. This is the figure of my body, the which (figure) is geuen for you. Thus the Sacramētaries haue brought vs not only •…•…o a figuratiue presence of Christes body, but also to a figuratiue death and sacrifice thereof.* 1.219

I know they will say, that albeit by the noun corpus body,

they vndcrstand figura corporis, the figure of the body, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they wold not the relatiue quod, which, to be ruled by the noun figu∣ra, but by the genitiue case corpus, body. As if it were sayd, this is the figure of my body, the which my body is geuen for you.

This shift will not serue, because after that sort the noun sub∣stantiue* 1.220 corpus, body, is takē two ways, that is to say, first vn∣properly, and then again properly. Unproperly, when it standeth for the figure of Christes body: properly, when it is sayd to be geuen for vs. Now seing that noun substantiue is but once na∣med in all, how so euer it is taken at one tyme, it must be taken likewise at the other tyme, for so much as it is not twise repeted, but once only mentioned.

This (sayeth Christ) is my body, which is geuen for you. I* 1.221 ask, how ye take the word (body) which is but once named in the whole sentence? If ye take it to stand for the signe of Christes body, mark well that you take it vnproperly. And remember that you euer continew in taking it vnproperly after the same sort. therefore if it be Christes body vnproperly, it is geuen for vs vnproperly. If it stand for the signe and figure of Christes body, when it is ioyned with the verb est, is, how can it but stand for the same signe and figure, when it is ioyned with the verb datur, it is geuen?* 1.222

Can the relatiue, quod, take half of that signification, which was in his noun substantiue, and lay asyde the other half? You say, corpus doth signifie two things, to wit, the figure of Chri∣stes body. beit so. Then the one peece of the signification is in the noun figure, the other in the noun body. To which word, so consisting of two parts, when a relation is made, that relation can not respect the o•…•…e half of the word, and neglect the other half. But howsoeuer the word is taken, so must the pronoun re∣latiue, quod, repete him again.

In, this is my body (say you) the body standeth for the signe of Christes body: therefore (say I) in these words, which is geuen for you, it must nedes be vnderstanded, the which signe of my bo∣dy* 1.223 is geuen for you. And seing they say y^• this pointeth to bread, it followeth that bread is geuen for vs. This later sense is so blasphemous, that the very Lutherans, Zuinglians, Caluinists, and Anabaptists abhorre from it, therefore they ought likewise to abhorre from the former sense, where they take the noun body for a figure of Christes body. For doubtlesse as they take y^• word in the one place, they must nedes take it in the other, sith it is one simple proposition, hauing but once in it the word, body.

This thing is yet more plainly sene in the Gr•…•…ke text, where S. Luke writeth thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Which is to say word for word, as •…•…igh as our tonge may attein to the phrase: This is the body of me geuen for you. Or ra∣ther, presently geuen for you. And yet more expresly, this is my body, the same body, I say, which is presently geuē for you. Two of the which Greek words can hardly be expressed in the Latin tong. The one is the participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Which being of the* 1.224 present tense, hath no like in Latin answering to it. But we are constrained to put for it, these two words, quod datur, which is geuen. The other is the article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which repeteth again y^• noun* 1.225 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, body: Geuing an vndoubted witnes, that the thing geuen for vs is the same body, which is pointed vnto and affirmed to be present.

This is my body. This is the same body, I say, which is euen* 1.226 presently deliuered to be sacrificed for you. But in Greek all this sense is without any other verb, sauing the verb substantiue, est is. As if it were sayd in Latin, Hoc est corpus meum datum pro vobis, this is my body geuen for you. In which proposition cor∣pus is the noun substantiue to the participle datum. And there∣fore

one and the same body is both pointed vnto vnder y^• forme of bread, and presently geuen, that is to say, offered to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sacrifi∣ced on the Crosse, and to be pearced and crucified the next day for vs.

I require and humbly beseche him y^• thinketh me to be decea∣ued* 1.227 in this point, ▪as he loueth God and his neighbour, to shew me wherein I misconstrue these words, or by what meanes the argument, which I now make for the reall presence of Christes body, may be possibly auoided. For it semeth to me that noman of good conscience, who will not wilfully be damned, is able to auoide, but that Christ affirmeth, this (which he pointeth to) really to be the same substance of his body, which was betrayed and offered vpon the crosse for vs. He that sayth, this is a figure of Christes body, sayeth a figure of his body to haue bene geuen for vs. I can deuise no maner of escape besyde wilfull malice.

It may be, some ignorant man will say, that the noun corpus* 1.228 body standeth not for the signe of Christes body, but that the verb est is, rather standeth for the verb, significat, doth signifie. and so the sense to be, this doth signifie my body. and so the noun body standeth still properly. who so maketh any such obiection, vnderstandeth not that it is all one to say, this doth signifie my* 1.229 body, and this is the signe of my body. therefore either of both being confuted, both are confuted. for the cause why the verb est should be resolued into the verb significat, must nedes come from the word corpus body: sithens, this, doth therefore signifie the body, because it is made the signe of Christes body. But if it be not the signe thereof, surely it doth not signifie it, in so muh that* 1.230 this proposition, hoc significat corpus meum being resolued into this hoc est significans corpus meum (as the rules of good reason and of the arte of logik require) the word, which apperteined to the signe shalbe found à parte praedicati, rather then à parte copu∣lae,

that is to say, it shalbe found that the reason of signifieng con sisteth in the noun body, rather then in the verb est is. for which cause Oecolampadi•…•…s admitted aswell the one as the other, ma∣king no difference whether est is stand for significat, to signifie, or corpus body, for signum corporis, the signe and figure of y^• body, so that the reall presence might be taken away.

But (as I haue now proued out of the word of God) seing y^• body is pointed vnto which died, & the true substance it self died for vs, the true substāce is pointed vnto vnder the form of bread, and so pointed vnto, that none other cōstruction of those words can be made. for if corpus body doth not stand properly, when it is ioyned with the verb est is, it is not possible that it standeth properly, as it is the noun substātiue to the participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, datum, geuen: or as it is antecedent to the relatiue quod, which. In dede if Christ had sayd expres•…•…ie, this is the figure of my body, it might wel haue folowed, the which body is truly geuen for you. for of the two antecedents the relatiue might haue bene re∣ferred to the next. But now there is but one antecedent in all, and it is taken vnproperlie (as the Sacramentaries say) there∣fore in that vnproper signification it must be antecedent to the relatiue folowing. all the grammarians in Christendom can find none other construction of these words. If the Sacramentaries can excuse the matter, let them bring it to light.

¶ The xix. Circumstance, of the verb facere, to doe, or make, or to offer sacrifice.

ALthough the verb facere doth signifie most generally all making and doing, yet because the most excellent dede that can be made, is to offer a true internal and external sacri∣fice vnto God: therefore it is come to passe, that facere in his most principall signification is vsed somtimes to signifie the offering

of a sacrifice, neither doth it skill, whether it stand alone, or be* 1.231 ioyned with an other word in the accusatiue, or in the ablatiue case. for it is the circumstance of dedes and words, which princi∣pallie make it so to signifie.

That facere in this place doth betoken the offering of a sacri∣fice, it appereth by al the circumstances of the supper. first, in that* 1.232 Christ hath now in the fourtenth day of the first moue at euening tyde begonthe blessed sacrifice of his passion: next, he hath offered the old •…•…aschal Lamb the cheef sacrifice of the law: thirdly, he hath taken bread and wine the materiall parte of the sacrifice of Melchisedech. fourthly, he blesseth, & geueth thāks externally to God in a fact, wherein he consecrateth his own body the only* 1.233 sacrifice of mankind. yea farther he so consecrateth it, y^• he douted not to say, ouer y^• bread: this is my body which is geuen for you. straight vpon which words, he addeth hoc facite, doe ye, or, mak•…•… ye this thing.

Wh•…•…t other sense now can this verb haue, but doe that I haue done, who now haue exercised my priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech?

So did S. Cyprian take this verb facere, when he said of this* 1.234 verie matter: Iesus Christus Dominus et Deus noster, Ipse est sum mus sacerdos Dei patris, & sacrificium Deo patri ipse primus ob∣tulit, & hoc fieri in sui commemorationem praecepit. Iesus Christ our Lord and our God, him self is the highhest preist of God y^• Father, and first hath offered sacrifice vnto God the Father, and hath commāded the same to be done for the remembrance of him. If Christ offered sacri•…•…ice, and commāded the same to be done, he* 1.235 commanded sacrifice to be offered of his Apostles. and therefore it foloweth in S. Cyprian co•…•…cerning a priest of the new Testa∣ment: & sacrificium verum & plenum tunc o•…•…ert in ecclesia Deo patri, si sic incipiat offerre, secundum quod ipsum Christum vi∣deat

obtulisse. & he then offereth a true and full sacrifice to God the Father in the Church, if he so begin to offer, according as he may see Christ him self to haue offered.

If now Christ hath willed his Apostles to offer that which he hath offered, it is most certain y^t Christ offered none other thing in the whole earth, besyde his own body, the which he toke to* 1.236 offer to God in stede of al other oblations, as Dauid & S. Paule say. therefore that body of his he both offered himself, and willed his Apostles to offer it. but what soeuer he offered in his last sup∣per he had it in his hands or vpon the table before him, and gaue* 1.237 it vnder the forme of bread and wine to his Apostles: therefore the reall substance of Christes body and blood was vnder the sayd formes, that it might so be offered vnto God, according as Melchisedech had before signified. This argument were able to recea•…•…e a great deale of matter, but it wold be aboue the cum∣passe of a circumstance.

¶ The xx. Circumstance of the pronoun hoc, this thing.

CHrist sayd not only facite, doe ye or make ye, but, hoc facite doe ye & make ye this thing. The which words as they cō∣maund bread to be takē, blessing, breaking, geuing, taking and eating to be vsed, and the words of Christ to be duely pro∣nounced: so beyond all these things they commaund one speciall thing to be made, which is the body of Christ. for none other thing in all the supper can particularly discharge and fulfill those words besyde the body of Christ.

As for bread & wine they be not commaunded to be made, •…•…ith they were made before the supper began. taking, blessing, brea∣king, & eating partly are not this one thing, but manie things: partly they be not such as may be in all degrees repeted & done

so, as the precept of doing or making this thing requireth. For* 1.238 the taking and breaking of other bread, is y^• doing of a like thing to this, whiche Christ hath done, & not the doing or making this thing. But Christ said not, sic facite, doe so as I haue done, but hoc facite, do or make this thing.

If we shal kepe the propriety of Christes words, the meaning must nedes be, make this body of mine. For he sayd: this is my body, which is geuen for you, make this thing. which this thing, but that only thing whiche was named? for none other special thing or substance was named besyde the body of Christ. Hoc, is the neuter gender, and either it must be referred to the noune cor pus, body, as to his substantiue which went before (and the sense* 1.239 is, facite corpus meum, make my body) and so doth Haimo con∣strue it: or els it must stand substantiuely, and so it meaneth, this thing, that is to say, the thing which is the body of Christ.

I doe not without great cause stand so long about euery litle word. I know the tergiuersation of them that missexpound the word of God, who alt•…•…ough they will so•…•…er be confounded, then amended, yet the more particular my reasoning is, the more it ought to moue them earnestly to looke to the worde of God, and not to contente them selues with the bare shewes thereof. For my exposition, beside the very order and conference of Chri∣stes* 1.240 supper, hath for it as auncient a witnesse, as Iust•…•…s Mar∣tyr is, a man within the first two hundred, not only within the 600. yeres: whose works Robert Steuēs printed in greke at Pa∣rise, An. Dom. 1551. Thus he writeth: The Apostles in their com mētaries, which are called gospels, haue deliuered, that Iesus gaue them thus in commaundement, who when he had taken bread & geuen thanks, said: do and make this thing for the remembrance of me. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, id est, corpus meum. That is to say, my body.

Thus I reade the words, & thus they are vnderstanded, make this thing. That is to say, make my body. They that haue trans∣lated Iustinus, haue turned 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Hoc est, whiche words may* 1.241 be Englished, as if the cause had bene, This is. But they also may signify, hoc est, that is to say. For so the compound 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is ta∣ken in greke, in the way of interpretation or of exposition, when the wordes that went before are expounded by the wordes that follow. The same phrase is vsed in S. Matthew, where after the* 1.242 Hebrew wordes were writen, which Christ said vpon the Crosse Fli, Eli, Lamalabachtami, it followeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. That is to say: my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? There∣fore albeit the Latins can not distinct betwene, hoc est, whiche* 1.243 signifieth, this is, and hoc est, whiche signifieth, that is to say, yet the grecians write the first 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (which thing Iustinus also hath obserned in the wordes belonging to the blood putting in euery letter) The last they write leauing out y^• last letter of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by an Apostrophe, in pronountiation making one word of both.

And this sense is proued true by the processe of Iustinus, who after that he had said: we are taught, the meat whiche is consecra∣ted by the praier of the word (whiche we toke of Christ) to be his body and blood, He would proue it to be still so, because the Apo∣stles dyd witnesse, Iesum sic sibi mandasse, Christ to haue geuē thē such a precept. Hoc facite, make this thing: what thing? my bo∣dy. Now if this thing, were not meant to be y^• body of Christ, Iu∣stinus had proued no commandement thereof, and consequently no fleshe of Christ present, whiche yet he affirmeth most plainly. Therefore straight after he had rehearsed the commaundement: Hoc facite, make this thing, he sheweth what thing it is, •…•…aiyng: that is to say, my body. whereunto we must nedes vnderstand (to make vp the full sense) make my body, or make this thing, which is my body. Therefore as well by the force of the letter of

the Gospell, as by the authoritie of S. Iustinus, these words can be verified of no signe or figure, nor by any other way, theu by that we make the selfbody of Christ, which always is, this thing, because it always tarieth one and the same in number & person: whereas the taking of bread and breaking or eating it, is alwais such anotherthing, but neuer this thing.

¶ the xxi. Circumstance, of the words, in meam com∣memorationem, for the remembrance of me.

THe finall cause of instituting this new passouer was to* 1.244 make the remembrance of Christes death, which so effec∣tually and profitably for vs could be made in nothing els, as in the same flesh, that died for vs: and being made therein, it forceth vs by al meanes through the presence thereof to remēber him whose flesh it is. If now he that hath a busines to doe will those the beast meanes he can to bring it to passe, if Christ came into the world to redeme vs by his death, and if in beleuing and folowing that death our life consist: seing no meane possibly can be deuised so effectuall to make vs remember and partake his death, as if the thing which died be it self made present with vs, and it self deliuered to vs: a wise man may easibly iudge, whe∣ther Christe hath not rather leaft his own body to vs, for an vn∣doubted token of his death (seing his words doe sound so) theu that he hath leaft a peece of bread and a litle wine, which neither be spoken of in the deliuery of the mysticall tokens, nor be apt•…•… enough to worke the matter, for which they are sayd to be least.

Therefore S. Chrysostom shewing the difference betwene* 1.245 other figura•…•…iue remembrances and this truthe, sayth: Tibi quo∣tidie, ipse ne obliuiscaris proponitur. Christ is euery day him self put before thee, least thou shouldest forget him. Note, that Christ him self in this Sacrament is a remembrance of him selfe dying for vs, euen as Manna was kept in the taber•…•…le of God to be

a remembrance of it self. Kepe it, sayth God: Vt nouerint filii Is∣raël* 1.246 panem quo alui vos in solitudine. That the children of Israel may know the bread wherewith I fed ye in y^• desert. So likewise the self body of Christ is kept as it were, and preserued in the ta∣bernacle of this blessed Sacrament, that we may know (by that knowlege which is meete for faithfull men) that our Lord hath died for vs.

¶ The xxij circumstance, of these words: Drink ye all of this.

AFter the cup was taken and thanks geuen, Christ gaue to* 1.247 his disciples and sayd, bibite ex hoc omnes, drink ye all of this. In S. Luke it is sayd, take and diuide among you. By these words Christ meaneth literally, that all the twelue should drink of that one cup, and S. Marke witnesseth this pre∣cept* 1.248 to haue bene f•…•…illed, saying, Et biberunt ex illo omnes, and all drank thereof. This interpretation S. Dionysi•…•…s y^e Areopa∣gite* 1.249 confirmeth, saying, that one chalice was diuided among them all. And as S. Lyrillus witnesseth, Circumtulit calicem, dicens, bibite ex hoc omnes. He caried about the chalice, saying, drink ye all of this. By carying about, he meaneth all the twelue to haue receaued the drink out of that one cup in order.

Christ then would, that his twelue Apostles should al drink of the same cup. The reason, why he wold haue it so, foloweth. For (sayth he) this is my blood, as if he sayd, I haue conserated this* 1.250 cup only, and none other, therefore drink y•…•… all of this. For if two or three of the twelue should haue drunk vp all that was in that cup, either Christ must haue consecrated the cup again, or the rest must haue receaued a drink not consecrated. But it is not the wil of Christ, that one Priest should cōsecrate in one Masse any more then once eche kind of the Sacrament, because Christ died but

once, and then he onght to consecrate both kinds together, be∣cause Christes blood and soule must be signified a part from his flesh and his bdoy.

It is not therefore according to the mind of the Gospell, that (as now they doe in England) when one cup is drunken vp, an other should be filled out of a prophaue pot that staudeth by, as* 1.251 though al were one, so that wine be drunken with a remēbrance of Christes death and resurrection. it is not so. All must drink of one chalice, that is to say, of y^• one blood of Christ which is con∣secrated at one tyme, though the chalices which hold it were di∣uerse, as sometymes they haue bene, when a great multitude of people did receaue at once.

This circumstance doth shew, that it is more then wine which is drunke. This doth shewe that these words, This is my blood, work somewhat in that one chalice, whereof all must drink. And consequently that Christ speaketh to bread and wine at his sup∣per, and not only preacheth to the audience, as Caluin most igno∣rantly aud impudently affirmeth. This is the cup whereof S.* 1.252 Ignatius writeth: Vnū poculum vniuersis distributum est, one cup is distributed to the whole e•…•…mpanie. and he meaneth not so much one cup in nūber, as that the drink is al one in euery cup, to wit, the blood of Christ.

This cup was so throughly communicated to all the twelue,* 1.253 that Iudas one of the twelue drank thereof, and that to his own damnation, because he made no difference betwen the blood of Christ and other drinkes. And now the Sacramentaries be in the same case, concerning that they teache the substance in Christes chalice, to bethe substance of common wine, and not the blood of Christe.

As our Sacramentaries in England by geuing the faithfull people drink (they care not whence, so it be wine) doe by that

fac•…•…e shew them selues to beleue, that the blood of Christ is not present in the cup of the holy table: so Christ by willing his Apost∣les that all should drink of that one cup, because it was his blood, geueth vs a greate warning to beleuc that cup to haue had really his owne blood in it. For contrary doctrines haue contrary vsages.

¶The xxiii circumstance of these words: This is my blood.

I Must nedes touch in this place somewhat spokē of before, but I will doe it for a farther purpose and to an other effect. whereas the Sacramentaries teache, the wine to be made a •…•…igure of Christes blood, wine is neither named at the consecra∣tion tyme (as it is euident) nor pointed vnto, because the article hic this (which only pointeth to all that is pointed vnto) can not agree with wine, but diffe•…•…eth from it in gender, for so much as in Latine hic this, is of the masculine gender, and vinum wine is of the neuter. Again in Breeke the articicle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is of the neuter gender, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 wine, is of the maculine: so that if the pronoune hic this be not a noune substantiue it self, but do point vnto a certain substance, and yet that substance by the rules o•…•…* 1.254 grammar can not be wine, and withall it both may be blood, and of Chist is sayd to be his blood: there can be none other literall, proper, and historical sense of these words, but that, This which is shewed by pointing vnto it, is the substance of Christes blood.

I chose rather to say this much vpō these words, then vppon y^• other, This is my body. Because though in them also, y^• pronoune hoc this doth only agree with the noune body, & not with bread, yet I know that the Sacramentaries would striue therein, & say impudently that hoc standeth substantiuely, for this thing, and so would resolue it into this thing which is bread. But in the con∣secration

of Christes blood they can not pretend so much. for it is not sayd, hoc est sanguis meus in the neute•…•… gender, but, hic est sanguis meus in y^• masculine gender, where the pronoune hic may only agree with sanguis, blood. By the which words we are certified also, that in hoc est corpus meum, the pronoune hoc this, may only agree with the noune corpus body, and neither with bread, nor with any other acte, which at the supper ty•…•… is a do∣ing.

It can not now be sayd that (est) doth stād for significat, seing there is no nominatiue case at al to go before the verbe significat.* 1.255 for hic this can not stand neutrally, but is of the same case, gēder, and number, that his substantiue sanguis blood is of. It can not therefore be sayd, Hic significat sanguinem meum, this doth signi∣fie my blood, because in that speache (this) doth lack a noune substantiue, to whome it may be referred, and consequently the verb significat lacketh a noune substantiue to be the nominatiue* 1.256 case vnto it. By which meanes the Sacramentaries leaue no congruitie of speach at all. And so (as S. Hierom wel noteth, of their forefathers) they build a roofe without walls or foūdation. For what sense can they make without congrue words? or what congruitie of words, is, in hoc panis and hic vinum? what pro∣position will they haue without a nominatiue case? or what no∣minati•…•…e case without a noune substantiue, or without an other thing, which may stand substantiuely? Or how can hic this in the masculine gender stand substantiuely?

The words of S. Hi•…•…rome are: Debemus scripturam sanctam* 1.257 primûm secundum literam intelligere, facientes in ethica quae∣cun{que} praecepta sunt. Secundô iuxta allegoriam, id est intelligen∣tiam spiritualem. Tertiô secundum futurornm beatitudinem. Vos autem primam, inquit, & secundam contemnentes diem, spi∣ritualia vobis quaedam figmenta componitis, sine fundamento &

parietibus, tectum desuper imponentes. We ought first to vnder∣stand* 1.258 the holy scripture according to the letter, doing whatsoeuer things are commaunded concerning morall vertues. Secondly according to the allegory, that is to say, according to the spirtual vnderstanding. Thirdly according to y^• blessedues of the things to come. But you (sayth God) contemning the first and y^• second* 1.259 day, do frame you certain spirituall imaginations, putting a roof thereuppon, without a foundation and walles.

Euen so the Sacramentaries tel a goodly tale of eating and drinking by fayth, and of spirtuall feeding, but they take away the meat and drinke whereupon we should •…•…eed, they take away the literall sense of Christes words, which being once gone, all that is buylded vppon the words, is the putting vp of a roofe without walles or foūdation. These three propositiōs are found, hic est sanguis meus, haec est caro mea, hoc est corpus meum. In* 1.260 all three it is euident, that the pronoune agreeth only with the noune folowing the verbe. The Sacramentaries pull hic from sanguis, blood, & ioyne it to vinum wine. They pul haec from caro flesh, and hoc from corpus body, and ioyne haec and hoc to panis bread. Is not this to play with Gods word, to elude the scrip∣tures, and to destroy the whole writen Gospell?

¶ What the new Testament is, whereof the holy Scripture speaketh.

FOr as much as in consecrating of the blood, S. Mathew. S. Mark, S. Luke, and S. Paule make mention of the new Testament, it is necessarie for the vnderstanding of the circumstances which folow▪ to declare what the new Testamēt is. A Testament is the solemne ordeining of a thing by words,* 1.261 which is wont to be confirmed by naturall or violeut death. For

neither the last will of any man is of strength and force, vntil the* 1.262 testatour dye: Nor any truse or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is perfit, vntil it be de∣dicated with sacrifice, wherein some liuing creature is wont to be offered vnto God bloodily.

Of Testaments, one is old, an other new. For it was of old* 1.263 tyme couenanted with the Iewes, that in case they kept the law of Moyses, they should haue a temporall inheritance for keping it.

Christ made a new truse, that if we kept his law, we should haue forgeuenes of synnes, and enioye the euerlasting inheritāce* 1.264 of God. The old truse was dedicated (as S. Paule speaketh)* 1.265 by the blood of calues or oxen, which were offered for the con∣firmation thereof. The new truse is dedicated by Christes own blood, which was shed for the confirmation of his new law and promise. The blood of the old truse was put into bas•…•…s, and so* 1.266 sprinckled with hysope vpon the people. The blood of the new truse is put into a cup or chalice, and thence it is drunk by the people of God. They that kept the old truse enioyed the land of promise: and they that kepe the new truse, enioye the kingdom of heauen.

Now because there are many things requisite to a Testamēt,* 1.267 first a law, couenant, or promise, next a bloodshedding to con∣firm the promise, thirdly an application of the blood that was shed, for to be as a witnesse and a remembrance to all them, who bound them selues to kepe the conditions agreed vpon: it may so be, that either all these things, or some one of them alone may be called the new Testament.

When God sayeth by Jeremie: consummabo Testamentum* 1.268 nouum, he meaneth all together. For he will as well publish his true law, as confirm it by blood, and distribute the blood wherewith it is confirmed, to the faithfull, when Christ sayeth:

This is my blood of the new Testament, he meaneth the first part of the new Testament, which is the law and promise it self of forgeuing sy•…•…s. And therefore it foloweth, the which shalbe* 1.269 shed for many, for the remission o•…•… synnes. In which words he sheweth, how this is the blood of the new Testament. Uerily because it is the blood, which shall obtein and merite the for∣geuenesse* 1.270 of those synnes, which the new law promiseth to take away.

•…•…e called it (sayth S. Chrysostom) the blood of y^• promise of* 1.271 y^• new law. And again: Testamentum nouum hoc ipso confirma∣tur. The new Testament is confirmed with this very blood. Tertullian sayeth of Chr•…•…: Testamentum constituens sanguine* 1.272 suo obsignatum. He establisheth the Testament, that is to say, the law, sealed with his own blood.

But when S. Luke and S. Paule report Christ to haue said: This cup is the new Testament in my blood, they seme to take the word Testament for the substance of the thing, which doth con∣firm the new Testament, or witnesse it to be confirmed, and not properly for the new truse and promise thereof. For this that is in the chalice, is not the promise of remitting synnes, but it is the new Testament in Christes blood, that is to say, it is the thing that confirmeth the new law, or that witn•…•…h it to be confir∣med.* 1.273 So doth Sedulius very well expound the words of S. Paule, saying: Ideo autem calix Testamentum vocatur (for so I think the true reading to be, and not Testamenti) quia testatus est pòst paululum passionem futuram, & nunc testificatur factam. The chalice is therefore called the new Testament, because it did* 1.274 beare witnesse (at Christes supper) that the passion should be a litle after, and now it doth beare witnesse, that y^• passion is made or done.

Thus we see, that whereas a Testament hath a law, a confir∣mation,

and a witnesse of the confirmation: the blood of Christ is not the law it self, but it is both the thing which confirmed the law, and the thing which doth witnesse it to be confirmed. The which if it be well remembred, I trust the circumstances of grea∣test importance, whereof I shall speake hereafter, wilbe the bet∣ter vnderstanded.

¶ The. xxiiij. circumstance, of the blood of the new Testament.

THis is my blood of the new Testament, sayth Christ, that is to say, the blood, wherewith the new Testament is con firmed and sealed, as S. Chrysostom, Tertullian, Theo∣philact,* 1.275 and the other auncient Fathers declare. But the blood of Christes new Testament was reall and true: Therefore this which Christ doth point vnto, is the true & reall blood of Christ, and not the substance of wine, which the Sacramentaries ima∣gine to be a figure of this blood: And so cons•…•… the words, this is the sigue of my blood of the new Testament.

But their interpretation is proued false by conferring the old Testament with the new. For as the old Testament had none other thing to signifie the blood thereof besyde y^• self same blood of the calues, which was shed to confirm the old couenant: so* 1.276 much more the new Testament must haue no•…•…e other thing to signifie the blood thereof, besyde the self same blood of Christ, which was shed to confirm the new law. For if it be a perfection not only to haue the tru•…•…e and law confirmed by blood, but also to haue the confirmation thereof witnessed by sprinkling y^• blood which was shed vpon the people: it is not possible that the old law should in that point passe the new. For as S. Chrysostom* 1.277 sayth, the figure neither is cleane different from the truth, & yet if it kepe the condition of a shadow, minor erat veritate, it was

lesse then the truth. And yet the basin of calues blood were more then the truth, if the substance of common wine were set to shew, that the new truse is confirmed.

Again S. Paule and S. Luke so euidently expound these ve∣ry words, by reciting them otherwise, that no reasonable man cō•…•…ing the words together will say, that in these words, blood may stand for a figure of blood. They write thus: Hic calix no∣uum Testamentum est in meo sanguine. This cup is y^e new Te∣stament in my blood. but the new Testamēt is not in the figure of Christes blood, but in his true blood. Therefore the name of blood, which Christ vsed in consecrating the liquor in the chalice, is not vsed figuratiuely.

For y^e same blood, whereof S. Matthew, & S. Mark do speak,* 1.278 is also meant of S. Luke. and of S. Paule. but as S. Paule and S. Luke take the noun blood, it can not possibly be taken figu∣ratiuely▪ except any man wilbe so desperate, as to say, that the •…•…w promise and Law of Christ is established in a figure of blood, or in the substance of common wine.

Which if it were so, we are in worse case then the Patriar•…•…hes and Iewes, who at the least had true blood to cōfirm their tem∣porall truses, Testaments, and promises (as it may be se•…•…e both* 1.279 in Genesis & Exodus) although it were the blood of beastes. & it must nedes be, that the heaueuly things them selues be clean∣sed with better sacrifices, saith S. Paule. If then the name of blood being put in these words, this cup is the new testament in my blood, be taken for the substance of Christes blood, which is that better sacrifice whereof S. Paule speaketh, without al que∣stion, in these wordes, this is my blood of the new testament, it stondeth likewise for the substance of Christes blood.

It is one supper, one Sacrament, one parte of the supper, and one part of the Sacrament, yea one self same thing, whereof all

foure do speake. If new do answere to new, testament to testa∣ment, this to this, is to is: how can it be, that blood should not answer to blood? But, this cup is the new testamēt in my blood, can not be meant in y^• figure of my blood (least y^• signe of blood, and not the truthe thereof, be that which establisheth the new truse) therefore in these words, this is the blood of the new te∣stament, the noune blood standeth not for a figure and signe of blood, but for the real substance thereof.

¶ The xxv. Circumstance, of these words: this cup or chalice.

AS euery Apostle or Euangelist wrote later then other, so* 1.280 he made the supper of Christ more plain, geuing vs eui∣dently to vnderstand, that the words of Christes supper are so far of from figuratiue speaches, that rather the propriety of them is by all meanes fortified. I haue shewed before how the name of cup or chalice doth not hinder any whyt, why all y^• rest of Christes words may not be proper, and literally true: but* 1.281 now I affirm also, that it increaseth much the reason of their pro prietie. Why so? Because the cup is named to shew the maner of fulfilling of the old figures.

In the old Testament the blood of the oxen was put in crate∣ras,* 1.282 into great cups or basins, and so the people were sprinkled therewithall. Now to bring the Apostles and all vs in mind thereof, Christ nameth the cup or chalice: Declaring thereby, that his own blood is now to vs, as the blood of oxen was to the people of Israel: His in the chalice, as the blood of oxen was in the basi•…•…s: His presently drunk, as that other was presently* 1.283 sprinkled. Erat autem veteris Testamenti calix, & caet. There was a cup or chalice (sayth S. Chrysostom) of the old Testament and sacrifices, and the blood of brute beasts. For after sacrifice (the blood being taken in a chalice and cup) they made after that sort

libations (or offerings of that which was liquide and renning.) Cū igitur pro sanguine brutorum sanguinem suum induxisset, ne quis his auditis perturbaretur, illius veteris sacrificij meminit. Seing therefore he had brought in his own blood in stede of the blood of brute beasts, least any man hearing of these things should be troubled, he maketh mentiō of the old sacrifice. Decumenius al∣so* 1.284 writeth thus concerning the naming of the chalice or cup: Pro sanguine irrationalium Dominus proprium dat sanguinem. Et bene in poculo, vt ostendat vetus Testamentum anteà hoc deli∣neasse. Our Lord geueth his own blood in stede of the blood of vnreasonable creatures. And he doth well to geue it in a cup, to shew that the old Testament did shadow this thing before.

Behold why the cup is mentioned. Uerily to shew Christes blood to be as really in the cup of his own supper, as euer the bru•…•…e beastes blood was in y^e cup of the old testament. yea much more also. For the blood of the oxen was really put into that old cup, to shew that Christes blood should be really present in the cup of his supper. the old blood did not shew, that wine should be in Christes cup (for that had bene lesse then the old testamēt it self, because the blood of oxen is better then wine of the grape) but that blood in y^e basin did signifie, that Christes blood should* 1.285 be in our chalice, not only as in a figure (for so it was in the basin also of the old testament) but euen in very dede vnder the forme of wine. It is not now sufficient to say, we drink Christes blood in hart or by faith: it must be drunken really out of the chalice and cup of Christes supper. thence the hart must take it at Christes supper, thence it must be receaued both in faith and truthe.

¶ The xxvi. Circumstance of the verb est, left out in S. Lukes words.

IT is the custome of writers in the Hebrew tonge, to leaue out many tymes the verb sum, es, fui, which is latin, to be: and* 1.286 that, because common sense and vse doth easily teache vs to supply that verb, as being both most necessarie of al other, and most frequent in common speache.

S. Luke writeth thus: This cu•…•… is the new testament in my blood shed for you. this sentence is imperfit for lack of a verb which may knit the parts thereof together. I ask what verb we shal vnderstand, to make it perfit. The Sacramontaries say, that Christ meaneth, this cup doth signifie the new testament in my* 1.287 blood. will ye then vnderstand the verb, significat, doth signifie? if ye do so, I wil shew that as well the noun cup, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 testamentum are both put in the nominatiue case. but if S. Luke had meant to vnderstand the verb significat, he wold haue put one of them in, the accusatiue case.

If ye supply the verb est is, to make the sentence perfit, that* 1.288 verb must nedes be takē in the same sense, wherein it is wont to be supplied: but it is cōmonly supplied as a cōmon verb whose nature is to declare the substance and not the figure of the thing, which is spoken of: therefore so it must be taken at this tyme. Otherwise, what a folly were it, whē a verb is at y^e first left out, to call it of purpose into the speache, and as sone as it is placed there, to say it stādeth not properly, but to remoue it again, & put an other verb for it? What? was the verb est, being once left out, brought in for this intent only, y^• as sone as it was in his place, it should be immediatly cast out, & chāged into y^e verb significat?

If ye say ye were compelled to cal it in, I agree with you, and* 1.289 say further, ye are to blame to cast it out. For the holy Ghost would not haue compelled you in vaine to call it in. God meant ye should cal it in, and kepe it in. For in y^t he left it out, he would shew to your hard harts, how that verbe, which when ye had it

present in other Euangelists ye disdanied, and scortiefully re∣moued, that it was not only well placed, but it was so necessary to the meaning of his words, y^• whē it was left out, ye should be forced to cal it in. And wil ye be so forgetful, as not to note these secret inforcements of God? Know ye not that one iota or one title of the law (and much lesse of the Gospel) passeth not away,* 1.290 vntill all things be fulfilled? And yet dare you take away the verbe substātiue it self from Christes own words, the same verb, I say, which he cōpelled you to take in, when it was omitted by S. Luke? See how farre Christ is from your mind. when it is but once left out, he will haue it euen then put in, and when it is expressed in the words of Christes supper seuen tymes, you will euery tyme put it out.

It is the custome of the Hebrew tonge to leaue out the verbe substātiue sum, es, fui, when it signifieth properly. But how is it left out, when (if you say true) it was neuer meant to be in? Or how was it meant to be in, when being put in, it is by you remo∣ued as not meant properly by him that spake? And yet it is so necessarily meant to be put in Christes words, that when it is left out, the Sacramentaries can not chose but supply it and put it in. therefore Christ meant to haue it stand in his proper and vsual signification. For, seing the verbe est, is vsed to be left out, because it may easily be supplied, and may be taken as expressed (though it be not expressed in deede) then the vse which maketh it to be leaft out, as a verbe easily supplied, must by the same rea∣son make it signifie that thing, which it vseth commonly to signi∣fie, sith it is supplied by the only force of the vse of speaking. and surely the vse of the verbe est, is to signifie the substance of that noune substantiue which hath a peculiar substance, and conse∣quently in the words of Christes supper it must signifie the sub∣stance of his body and of his blood really present.

¶ The xxvij. Circumstance, of these words: whiche is shed for you.

THis cup is the new Testamēt in my blood (saith S. Luke) whiche is or shalbe shed for you. The relatiue, which, in* 1.291 these words is not ruled (as some perhaps would thinke) of the noune blood, which went last before: but of the noune, cup, or chalice. Which thing is most plain in the Greke text:. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hoc poculum nouum Testamentum in sanguine meo, quod pro vobis effunditur. This cup is the new Testamēt in my blood, the whiche cup is shed for you. For seing the Greke participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifieth shedding, is in the nominatiue case with the noune cup, and not in the datiue with the noune blood, no escape can be had, but it mu•…•…t be referred to that word, where∣with in grammer it may agree: otherwise, if we shall neglect the literal sense, which ariseth of the right construction of the words, we build a roofe (as I alleged before out of S. Hier•…•…m) without* 1.292 walles or foundation.

What meaning then haue these words, the whiche cup is shed for you, or as the latine copies reade, which shalbe shed? For it was both presently shed in a mystery at the holy table of Christ, & should the next day be naturally shed vpon the crosse. The sub∣stance of blood was one in both places, the maner of shedding only differing. But, as I sayd, how is the cup sayd to be shed for vs? The word for vs importeth a sacrifice made in the shedding: and therefore S. Mathew sheweth it to be shed in redēptionem peccatorum, for the remission of synnes.

Marke, good Reader, the maner of speaking the cup is shed▪ that is to say, the thing contemed in the cup. For we all agree herein, that the name of, cup, standeth to meane the liquour in it,

as continens is vsed to be put pro contento. the thing which holdeth a liquour is vsed to be put for the liquour it selfe, which it holdeth. We say, he dranke vp a great bolle, who drank the ale, bere, or wine that was in it: and that is a figuratiue speach by exacte rules of Grammar, but a speach made as proper through vse and custome. Therefore to say, the cup is shed for vs, doth signifie, that the liquour in it is shed for vs, what liquour was that?

It is the greatest mar•…•…eyle in the world, if any man be so im∣pudent as to affirme, that material wine was shed for vs, or that wine obteined vs remission of oúr synnes: and yet it can not be denied, but the liquour conteyned in the cup of Christes supper was shed for vs, as Christ sayth. Therefore I say, the liquour conteyned in the cup of Christes supper could be no wine, but only the blood of Christ. Is this a plaine argument, or no? the liquour in the cup of Christes banket was shed for vs to obtein* 1.293 the forgeuenes of synnes: but only the reall blood of Christ was shed for the remission of our synnes: therefore the only real blood of Chist was conteined in the cup of Christes banket.

What answer can be framed to this argument, if Hell were let loose? what probable solutiō were it able to bring? The first part is in S. Luke, the second is in S. Paule: who affirmeth it to be* 1.294 the blood of Christ (who offered him self by the holy spirit vn∣sp•…•…d vnto God) which cleanseth our cōscience frō dead works to serue the liuing God. After these two partes the conclusion 〈◊〉〈◊〉 solow, that Christes real blood is in the cup of Christes sup∣per. in the cup, I say, which Christ shewed & pointed vnto saying: this cup, that is to say, the thing herein conteined is the new Testament in my blood. the which thing con•…•…eiued in the cup is* 1.295 shed for you.

Euthymius wel peceauing this to be y^• meaning of S. Lukes

wordes, writteth thus: Quod verò dicitur, quod pro vobis effunditur, ad poculum referendum est: porrô poculum est saguis eius. Whereas it is sayd, the which is shed for you, it is to be re∣ferred vnto the cup. Now the cup is Christes blood. God graūt our deceaued bretheren may once perceaue this Grammatic•…•…ll & literall sen•…•…e of Christes wordes.

¶ The last circumstance, of the Hymne sayd at Christes supper.

WHen Christ had ended his banket, he renounced to •…•…ate or drinke any more with his Apostles, vntil the ki•…•…gdom of God came, geuing thē an euident watch∣word therein: that he would presently offer him self to death, and so depart from this world, vntill he should arise the third day.

And straight he sang an hymne, and with his Apostles went forth of the parler, where they had supped. Although the hymne or song of praise, whereof S. Mathew speaketh, doe not alone* 1.296 proue the real presence of Christ•…•…s body and blood: yet it helpeth thus far toward it, as to shew and expresse a singular banket to* 1.297 haue bene made: after which so rare and solemne a praise was geuē to God, as again is no where els mentioned. For albeit no man may doubt, but Chist did always geue thanks vnto God after his meate receaued: yet we neuer reade of an hym•…•…e sayd or song after any other Feast, besyde this. And yet I doubt no∣thing* 1.298 atall, but that Christ gaue him self by faith and spirit euen at the supper tyme to some of his Disciples before this night, and namely to the blessed Mary, which at Betha•…•…y oynted his feete at supper tyme. but that geuing of him self to Sain•…•…t M•…•…ry or any other to be eaten of by faith was not this dre•…•…ful gi•…•…t of Christs supper. The hymne which was externally song or said, was •…•…ue to this externall worke of God, wherein he wit•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉

own hands gaue his own body and blood to his disciples.

To conclude at the length cōcerning all these circumstances of this heauenly supper: I besech the Reader, to accompt & weighe them all together, and not only to consyder them a part albeit many of them alone are not able to be answered. but a circum∣stance is not a perfit thing of it self, but is a part of that whole thing, about the which it hath his being and place. If all these circumstances ioyned together doe proue the real presence of Christes body and blood, vnder y^• formes of that bread and wine, which Christ toke, and sayd thereof, this is my body, and this is my blood: I haue my purpose and intent. but he dealeth vnho∣nestly who diuiding them a part, cauilleth at one or two, and wil not looke to al at once. If al these ioyned together proue not my purpose, let him who thinketh so, either shew me so many & so strong for his contrary assertion, or let him yeld to y^• Catholi•…•… faith.

¶ The real presence of Christes body and blood, and the* 1.299 proper meaning of his words, is proued by the con∣ference of holy scriptures taken ou•…•… of the new Te∣stament, and speaking of our •…•…ords supper.

EUery place in holy scripture hath not another place like, or in apparance cōtrarie to it, whereby the more light may be taken for the vnderstanding thereof: but when there are any such places, they helpe marueilously toward the vnderstan∣ding of holy scripture.

Christ one yere before his last supper said at Capharna•…•…: The bread, whiche I will geue, is my flesh: & my fl•…•…sh is meat in dede.* 1.300 At his supper he toke bread, and hauing blessed, said: Take eate, this is my body, and this cup is the new Testament in my blood: S. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 speaking of the self same mysterie, wryteth thus: The* 1.301

chalice of blessing, which we blesse, is it not the communicating of* 1.302 Christes blood? And the bread which we breake, is it not the com municating of the body of our Lord: Let vs now conferre euery word together.

That whiche was promised in S. Iohn by these wordes: The* 1.303 bread whiche I will geue, is discribed in the supper presently by* 1.304 these words: Take, eate (this) and this cup. not that I make (this) the accusatiue case to the verbe eate, but only to shew, that these three wordes agree with the first words in S. Ihon. And after∣ward in S. Paule it is called, The bread which we breake: so that* 1.305 these foure particles belong in effect to one thing: The bread, whiche I will geue: The bread, whiche we breake, and, take, eate, (this) or drinke ye this cup. By which conference we learne, how the pronoune (this) may be particularly expounded in Christes* 1.306 supper: for of his generall signification, whiche is to shew vnder a visible form an inuisible substance, I haue spoken before suffici∣ently. (This) then is as much to say, as: this meat, drink or food, which is now broken and geuē, and willed to be taken and eaten or drunken, is my body or blood. It hath bene euidently proued vppon the sixt of S. Ihon, that y^• bread which he promised, was* 1.307 not meant of wheatē bread (whereof Christ spake not in y^• place) but of the meate and foode of euerlasting life. Therefore, when Christ sayth (this) in his last supper, he meaneth none otherwise, then this eatable thing, or this which is to be drunken, this kind of meate or drinke and food, which I n•…•…w geue, is my body or blo•…•…d: otherwise, i•…•… it were not his flesh and blood, but material bread and wine, it were not the euerlasting meate, which Christ at Capha•…•…namn promised to geue, and now at his supper doth geue.

So that whereas Christ both brake and gaue, & after blessing said, take, eate (this) therewith beginning to consecrate the

Sacrament of his last supper: we haue it expounded what (this)* 1.308 doth 〈◊〉〈◊〉, by three 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ways: by the tyme to come, when it is sayd: the brea•…•… that I wil geue, •…•…hich out of question is vnder∣standed the food 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christ wil geue. For Christ him self called it before the meate which tarieth to life euerlasting. Agayne, the pronoune (this) may be wel expounded by the dede exercysed a∣bout the Sacrament after cous•…•…ration, when it is sayd of S. Paule: The bread which we breake. for the breaking is vsed af∣ter consecration in the signe and form of bread, to shew the death of Christ, wherein his flesh was in dede broken, and to distribute the m•…•…rites thereof by the holy communion.

The third way is, by conferring together the very words of the consecrating the two kinds. For as he said of the bread, this alone, so he sayd of the wine this cup. geuing vs to vnderstand, that as this cup must of necessity be resolued into y^• thing within the cup: so in the other kind we should resolue the pronoune this into that, which is within this visible form. Thereby declaring that (this) generally meaneth, the substance vnder this: and par∣ticularly meaneth, the food vnder this.

All is in effecte to say, The meate that I will geue, the eatable thing that we breake at Masse, that, whereof Christ sayd, take and eate, that which is conteyned vnder the apparant formes: that is it, which in the supper is termed by the pronoun•…•… (•…•…his)

The next word is the verbe (is) which can very hardly be ex∣pounded* 1.309 by any other word in any tonge: because it being the verbe substa•…•…, is in all tonges set alone, to signifie y^• being or substāce that euery thing hath, and no other one word is equal to it, which may expound it. Yet I may boldly say, the holy Ghost hath done so much to expound this verbe, as may suffise* 1.310 to any reasonable creature. For Christ sayd, before any signe of his body was 〈◊〉〈◊〉: The bread which I wil geue, is my flesh. Whē

Christ made that promise, there was nothing in y^• whole world, whereof the verbe (is) might be verified in the present tense, but only that substance of Christes flesh, which he had in his natural body. The outward gift of the supper was then to come, & yet Christ sayd of the substance of his gift, The bread which I will geue, is my flesh. I say not only that it shalbe my flesh, but I say it is my flesh at this tyme: because the substance that I will geue, is now present with you, although the manner of deliuerance be to come. Let vs therefore so expound the verbè (is) in the supper, that it may agree with the verbe (is) in S. Ihon: where it cannot be taken for a bare significatiue being, because then there was no signe of his body made.

Moreouer S. Paule writing after the supper was past, doth interprete the verbe (is) as plainly, as can be deuised: to signifie a substancial, and not an accidentall being. for he sayth: The bread,* 1.311 which we breake, is the communicating of Christes flesh. it is y^• communicating, as though he sayd: it is so truely Christes flesh, that no differēce is betwene it, and the being or substance of Chri∣stes flesh. All thing is common betwene it, and Christes flesh: no diuision, no separation, no distinction cōmeth betwene these two. All this the word communicating doth signifie, and more to. For the bread, which we breake, is so farre Christes body: that it maketh vs also the body of Christ. The bread which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 breake, is so 〈◊〉〈◊〉 distant from being a bare signe: that it hath Christes body made common to it by consecration, and it maketh Chri∣stes body common to vs by communion: so that for est, is, S. Paule putteth, communicatio est, it is the communicating, or the hauing, or making common Christes body and blood.* 1.312

S. Chrysostom so vehemently presseth the word cōmunicating & vnion, whereof y^e Apostle speaketh: y^• he sayth, S. Paule would not leaue so muche as a little difference betwene the men, which

doe communicate, and that, which is communicated: and yet if that, which is communicated, were materiall bread, it would so much differ from Christ our head, and the mysticall body, which we are in Christ, that it should be an other nature and substance cleane diuerse from it, not only not communicating in one and the same mēber of a mystical body, but neither in the whole kind of things, which the Logicians call speciem, or genus proximum.

Let vs adde hereunto, that if we take, est, for significat, in these words, hic significat sanguinem meum: the verb shal lac•…•… a noune substantiue to be his nominatiue case. And that S. Luke, by lea∣uing est, to be vnderstanded by common reason, doth shew it sig∣nifieth properly, as men commonly are wonte to vse that verbe.

Thus much being said for (this) and (is), the worde (body) re∣mayneth,* 1.313 to be declared by the conference of holy scripture. In S. Matthew it is called supersubstantiall breade. In S. Iohn it is called my flesh, whiche I will geue for the lite of the world. In S. Matthew and Marke my body. in S. Luke, my body whiche is geuen for you. in S. Paule, my body which is broken for you, or shalbe betraied for you, the body of our Lord this bread, & the one bread. Likewise concerning the blood, it is called the blood of the sonne of man: my blood, the blood of the new Testament, the new testament in my blood. The chalice of blessing whiche we▪ blesse, the blood of Christ, the blood of our Lord, and the chalice of our Lord. Of the body it is said take, eate: of the blood, take & diuide among you, and drinke ye all of this. Of both together it is said, to the Apostles, make, and do ye this thing. Of euill men it is said, that they eate this breade, and drinke the chalice of our Lord vnworthely, not iudging rightly our Lordes body: And last of all, he that eateth me, shall liue for me. If now we will expoūd* 1.314 body, for the signe of body, it will folow, that the signe of Chri∣stes

body was g•…•…n for vs. And when it is sayd, He that eateth me shall liue for me: it must be expounded: He that eateth the signe of me, shal liue for the signe of me.

To conclude, as (this) belongeth not to the substance either of bread or of wine, wherewith it can not agree in 〈◊〉〈◊〉: as the verb est, is, can not stand for significat to signifie, least it lack his nominatiue case: as the cup shed for vs, can not stande for wine shed in sacrifice, or els for the signe of blood shed, but only for the substance of blood shed on the crosse: so corpus body can not stand for a figure or a signe of the body, because hoc est corpu•…•… meum datum pro vobis (accordingly as the Greeke hath) can not be interpreted, this is y^• figure of my body which is geuē for you▪ except with Ualentinus, Marcion, Manicheus it shalbe sayd, y^• figure of Christes body was geuen to death for vs. Wherefore I may boldly cōclude, that stubburnly to defend, that the words of Christes supper are Grammatically or Rhetorically figu∣ratiue (cōcerning the substantial parts of the chefe propositions) is extreme ignorance in the rules of Grammar and of Logicke, palpable blindnes in the studie of diuinitie, and a malice inexcu∣sable at the day of iudgement, if the party repent not.

Now on the other syde, conferre Scriptures, whether Ihon Baptist be Elias: it is euident, that it is not so. There was be∣twene them in tyme aboue fiue hundred yeres: Ihon Baptist was killed, Elias liueth yet. The Angel sayd by Ihon Baptist,* 1.315 He shall goe before our Lord in the spirit and vertue of Elias: He sayd not, in truth and person. And Ihon Baptist being as∣ked, whether he were Elias or no, answered plainly: Non sum,* 1.316 I am not. It is plaine enough, that Ihon Baptist is not Elias in person: but only in like office and function. Thus you may see (good Reader) what oddes is betwene those places, which our aduersa•…•…s wold haue like, and wold make you beleue that

these words (This is my body) be no more properly spoken, then these (He is Elias.)

The like may be sayd of the rock, which meaneth two diuerse* 1.317 natures, •…•…se geuing water: as it is described in the bookes of Moyses, and well knowen to be neither Christ by nature, nei∣ther by cōne•…•…on of any rok into Christ. For neither Christ euer sayd of the rock (This is my body) neither did he commaund vs, to say so.

What shall I say of that vnsensible obiection, that God dwel∣leth* 1.318 not in Temples made with mans hand? For we now spea∣king of the body of Christ, speake not of the dwelling, which be∣longeth to God: but of that, which belongeth to his humane na∣ture, which it self also is not a Temple made with the hand of man, or begotten by the seede of man, but formed and concea∣ued of the holy Ghost in the wombe of the Uirgin, in the which* 1.319 manhod of Christ, the fulnesse of Godhead dwelleth corporally.

As for those places where Christ sayth: Poore men shall ye* 1.320 haue with you always, but me ye shall no•…•… haue: And, he is rysen, he is not here: And, whiles Christ blessed his Disciples, he went from them, and was caried into heauen, there sitting at the right hand of his Father vntil the end of the world, with such like: they▪ are not to be conferred with these words (This is my body) be∣cause they speake of a naturall being of Christ, and not of such a being, as is peculiar vnto the Sacrament of Christes supper. Neither is it possible, that one of those kinds of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 should impugne y^• other: sith Christ hath ord•…•…ed both, & the Church did 〈◊〉〈◊〉 always both together.

Christ ascended into heauen there sitting at the right hand of* 1.321 his Father, and leauing vs the beleefe thereof as a chief article of our faith, Christ made his own supper, saying: This is my bo∣dy, and commaunded his Apostles and their succ•…•…s to make* 1.322

the same, saying: Doe and make this thing, for the remembrance of me. Therefore neither the making of Christes body, neither the belefe thereof, can be contrary to the sitting of Christ at the right hand of his father. Agayne, sith nothing is impossible to* 1.323 God (albeit that which imploiet•…•… cōtradiction in it self, be there∣fore impossiple, because it repugneth to the truth it self which is in God) it is not possible to God, y^• y^• body of Christ should both be in heauen after one visible sorte, and in the Sacrament after a mysticall sorte. It were in dede impossible for the body of Christ both to be in heauen, and not to be in heauen. Or, to be in the Sa crament, and not to be there in the same respect: but to be in hea∣uen and in the Sacrament, or to be in many places at once, that maketh no 〈◊〉〈◊〉, but onely sheweth an allmighty and in∣finite power in him, who worketh it.

Of this minde all the Church of God hath bene hitherto, and therefore it hath beleued as well the sitting of Christ at his Fa∣thers r•…•…ht hand in heauen: as the reall presence of his flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the altar. Yea it hath beleued the one, because of the other. For in so much as Christ is so almighty, as* 1.324 to sit at the right hand of God: he is able to performe his owne word and gift in the Sacrament of the altar. And therefore in the sixte of S. Ihon when he spake of eating his flesh, and of drin∣king his blood, which he wold geue: he also declared, that he wold goe vp into heauen in his manhood, where he was before in his Godhead. And that thing he spake (as S. Cyrillus hath noted) to declare, that he was God, and therefore able to worke that, which he spake of, in so much as his words were spirit and life. For this cause Chrysostom cryeth out: ô miraculum, ô Dei* 1.325 benignitatem. Qui cum Patre sursum sedet, in illo ipso temporis articulo omnium manibus pertractatur, ac se ipse tradit volenti∣bus ipsum excipere ac complecti. O miracle, O goodnes of God.

He that sitteth aboue with the Father, in the same very momen•…•… of tyme is touched with the hands of all men, and deliuereth himself to those, that wil receaue and imbrace him. Num tibi ista contemptu ac despectu digna esse videntur? Seme these things to thee worthy to be despised & neglected? Sacra nostra non modò* 1.326 mira esse videbis, sed etiam omnem stuporem excedentia. Thou shalt perceaue, our holy things not only to be wonderfull: but also to excede all wondringe, and astonyng of the mynd.

Yf then we vnderstand, that only a great wonder is wrought in our Lords supper, and no contradiction at all to any other partes of our belefe: we may be sure, that none other article of our crede doth driue vs to miscredit the reall presence of Christes body and blood in his owne supper.

And therefore where we dispute of his last supper, we must ex∣amine y^• meaning of y^• words, which were spokē there, according to other places of y^• Scriptures, which belong vnto y^• last supper.

The places apperteyning to Christes last supper, according* 1.327 to the interpretation of ancient doctors, are these: the later part of the 6. Chapiter of S. Iohn. the supersubstantiall bread in the 6. of S. Mathew. and the supper it self in the 62. of S. Mathew, in the 14. of S. Marke, the 22. and the 24. of S. Luke. certain sentences in the 10. and 11. chapiter of the first epi•…•…le of S. Paule to the Corinthians: in the 5. to the Ephesians, in the 2. chapiter of the first epistle to Timotheus. in the 13. to the Hebrewes. in the 2. 13. and 20. chapiter of the Actes of the Apostles. In all which places & other (if there be any like) we finde much to con∣•…•…e the reall presence: but nothing to leade vs to a siguratiue meaninge. These wordes, which be in S. Iohn: the flesh profi∣teth nothing, it is the spirite which quickeneth, my wordes be spirit and life, be declared in the former booke, when we disputed of the sixt chapiter of S. Iohn.

¶ Why the Sacrament is called bread after conse∣cration.* 1.328

NO man ought to mistrust the real presence of Christ in his Sacrament, for that it semeth in many places to be called bread euen a•…•…ter consecration, and that aswell in S. Iohn as in S. Paule, and in the Actes of the Apostles: noman (I say) ought vppon this slender argument to change his belefe other∣wise grounded vpō so plaine scriptures, & the faith of y^• Church so generally receaued: but rather he ought to lern the cause, why the body of Christ is most iustly called bread in this Sacramēt.

The custome of speaking in holy scriptures came chefely from the Hebrew tonge, wherein the old Testament was writen: as also S. Mathewes Ghospel with the epistle of S. Paule to the Hebrewes were. The residue of the Apostles and Euangelistes, albeit they wrote in Greeke, they very osten kept the Hebrew phrase in their wordes. Bread in the Hebrew tonge his called Lehem, and commeth of the verbe Laham, whyche signifieth to* 1.329 •…•…ate: so that al which man may eate, is meant by the Hebrew worde Lehem, as wel bread, as flesh or fruytes, in so much that sometyme it signifieth only flesh, as the Hebrew Doctors haue* 1.330 noted out of the sixte and seuenth chapiter of Iob. Now y^• Apo∣stles and Euangelistes writing also in Greeke haue put for the Hebrew word Lehem, the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and they that translated the scriptures into latin, haue turned it into panis, and we in our vulgar tonge name it bread: by which meanes it co∣meth to passe, that the Greeke, Latine, and English worde must be takē in holy scriptures according to y^• Hebrew worde Lehem: which betokeneth all what soeuer is to be eaten of man, but espe nally bread, as being the chief fruite of the earth.

After which sorte when Christ saith in y^• Ghospel: man lyueth* 1.331 not by bread alone, but by euery worde, which procedeth from

the mowth of God, he meaneth by the name of bread, al kinde of natural nourishment, which man taketh by mo•…•…th. without all whiche he may li•…•…e either by naturall bread, as Manna was: or, if it so please God to say the worde, without any meat at all, as Moyses and Elias fasted fortie days. according to which gene∣rall* 1.332 taking of bread, we aske in our Lordes praier, our daily and supersubstantiall bread: that is to saye, all necessary sustenance for body and sowle.

It is further to be noted, that in holy scriptures, when one thinge is conuerted into an other, the later thinge is many times called by the name of the first thing: not because it is still the first, but because it was made from the first. As when it is sayd,* 1.333 that the rod of Aron deuoured the rods of the Coniurers of Pha rao: where that is called a rodde, which was in dede a serpent, and not then a rod: but it is named a rod, because from a rod it was turned into a 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Likewise Adam is called earth, be∣cause* 1.334 he was made of earthe.

Thirdly a thing is call•…•…d in holy scripture not only as it is, but also as it semeth outwardly to be. so the Angel, which the godly w•…•…men sawe at the sepulcher of Christ, is called a yonge* 1.335 man, because he appered so, although in dede he were not so. Which things being wel pond•…•…red, it is casie to satis•…•…ie them that saye, the holy communion is bread still, because after conse∣cration* 1.336 it is called bread: To whome I answere, first that it is called bread, because it was bread, and still semeth bread: but that notwithstanding, it is flesh and was made flesh from of the sub∣sta•…•…ce of bread, being conuerted into flesh by the almightie wor∣des of Christ: who taking bread, sayd in the way of blessinge, & of thanks geuing, this is my body.

Secondly I answere, that in dede after consecration it is a kinde of bread and foode (not that whiche it was before) but

ine•…•…ably bitter and of more price, and more worthy of y^t name of true bread, then it was before: that is to say, it is the true flesh of •…•…hrist which nourysheth the bodies and soules of the faithfull men to li•…•…e euerlasting. And to proue this answere true, it may please the Reades to remember, that Christ called himself the bread of life: and named the gifte of his supper the meate which* 1.337 tarieth to life euerlasting, & the liuely bread which came downe from heauen. After which meaning he saith, and the bread which I wil gene is my •…•…esh. Behold y^e kind of bread. Agayne S. Paule* 1.338 saith: The bread, which we breake is it not the communicating of our Lords body? For we being many are one bread, one body all we that partake of the one bread. all partake of the one bread, and it be the bread which we breake, surely that, which is brokē, can not be any material bread, but is only the body of Christ the bread of life.

And least any man should thinke, that in saying the name of bread in Christes supper standeth for meate & for flesh, I speake without sufficient authoritie, besyde the authoritie of y^• scriptures already alleged, which can not be otherwise taken: let him also weigh together w^t me, how cōformably y^e aunciēt Fathers taught* 1.339 the same doctrine. S. Ignatius sayth: Panem Dei volo, quod est caro Christi. I desier the bread of God, which thing is the flesh of Christ: Which thing in the nenter gender, is none other to say, then which substance.* 1.340

Iustinus the Martyr affirmeth first that the Deacons geue to euery man the bread, wine, and water which are cōsecrated with* 1.341 geuing of thankes. Where he calleth them by the •…•…ames which they had before consecration: And s•…•…raight expounding y^• names of bread, wine, and water, which they haue by consecration, he writeth thus: Hic cibus apud nos Eucharistia nominatur, This* 1.342 foode is called w^t vs y^e Eucharist, Wherefore for all three names,* 1.343

he putteth this one name of food, wherein they all meete. Nei∣ther so content, he sayth yet againe: For we take not these things as common bread and drink, but we haue learned, the meat which is consecrated by the words of prayer taken of him, to be the flesh and blood of Christ. So that first, he declareth him self by bread,* 1.344 wine, and water, to meane the matter of the Sacramēt. Second∣ly, he confesseth the consecration, to make them a more heauenly food. Thirdly, he denieth them to be now common bread and drinke. Fourthly, he affirmeth it to be that kind of foode, which is the flesh and blood of Christ.

Of the same very Sacrament S. Hilarie sayth: Nos vere ver∣bum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus: We take the word truly •…•…esh, in our Lords meate. Where he calleth the thing, which is geuen at Christes supper, cibum Dominicum, the meate which our Lord geueth, meaning it not to be any more common bread, but that kind of bread, which is also called meate or food. S. Cy∣prian* 1.345 sayth, Christ offered bread and wine, suum scilicet corpus & sanguinem: that is to say, his own body and blood. Mark the kind of bread. S. Ireneus sayth: It is not now (to wit after cō∣secration) common bread, but the Eucharist.

S. Ambrose asketh, why after cōsecration we say in o•…•…r Lords* 1.346 prayer: Geue vs this day our daily bread? And him self aunswe∣reth: He calleth it bread in dede, Sed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hoc est, supersub∣stantialem: That is to say, as S. Hierom expoundeth it, qui su∣per omnes substantias sit, such a bread which is aboue all sub∣stances. And yet farther S. Hierom sayth, Panem illum petimus,* 1.347 qui dicit: Ego sum panis viuus, we aske that bread which sayd: I am the li•…•…ely bread. But to return againe to S. Ambrose, he con∣cludeth: Non iste panis est, qui vadit in corpus: sed ille panisvitae aeternae, qui animae nostrae substantiam fulcit. It is not that bread, which goeth into the body, but that bread of euerlasting life,

which holdeth vp the substance of our soule, Gregorius of Ny•…•…a* 1.348 speaking of the Sacrament of the altar, saith: Panis est absque se∣mine, absque aratione, absque alio humano opere nobis paratus. It is bread prouided for vs without seed, without plowing, and* 1.349 without any other work of man. S. Augustine saith: whē would flesh vnderstand this thing, that he called bread flesh?* 1.350

Isychi•…•…s nameth the bread, whiche S. Paule saith is eaten vnworthely, nutritorem substantiae nostrae intelligibilis: the nou∣risher of our intelligible or spiri•…•…all substance. Sedulius spea∣king of the bread whiche Christ gaue to Iudas, saith: Panem cui* 1.351 tradidit ipse, Qui panis tradendus erat. to whom Christe himselfe gaue bread, the whiche bread was to be betraied. See, the bread that Christ gaue, it was not euery bread, not the substance of cō∣mon bread: but euen that bread in substance, which was betraied for vs to death. For Christ is bread, & geuing himself to Iudas, he gaue the same bread that was betraied, except any other thing was betraied for vs beside Christ.

I might surely bring a maruelouse number of suche testimo∣nies, all which declare the name of bread (whiche is attributed to the body of Christ after consecration) not to signifie materiall or wheaten bread (as it was before the blessing and pronouncing of the words) but to describe that meat, that food, that true Manna: which is only the flesh of Iesus Christ eaten vnder the forme o•…•… common bread. And that kinde of bread is neuer named without an article or pronoune ioyned with it: Whereby the excellency of the bread is witnessed, & the difference of it from common bread.* 1.352 It is called in S. Mathew supersubstantiall bread, & in S. Iohn the bread which is flesh, and in S. Paul the bread, which who so eateth vnworthely, he is gilty of the body of Christ: which is as much to say, as that kind of bread is the body of Christ.

¶ The presence of the body and blood of Christ in his* 1.353 last supper is proued by the conference of holy scrip∣tures taken out of the old Testament.

FRom Adam to S. Iohn Baptist, all the faithfull people of God was both in continuall expectation of the coming of* 1.354 Iesus Christ: & partly foreshewed in dedes by holy figures and pagents: partly foretolde in words by the spirite of prophe∣cie, what should afterward be done by Christ him self, and be ob∣serued in his kingdom the church. After which sort the brasen ser∣•…•…ent* 1.355 betokened the death of Christ, and Ionas his resurrection. The figures by the way of doing, commended the same truth to y^e eyes, which y^e prophecies by the way of speaking dyd set forth to the eares. Which two senses are the chief meanes, whereby we atteine to knowledge in this life.

And because both figures and prophecies are obscure, darke, and vnpleasant, vntill they be fulfilled: I thought best, not t•…•… speake of them, before I had declared the true meaning of that gift, whiche Christ made at his last supper. Now it remaineth, y^• we briefly conferre the one, with the other, shewing that sense of Christes wordes, which the Catholiks defend, to be agreable to suche old shadowes, figures & prophecies, as apperteined to the Sacramēt of the altar. For to the Iewes (as S. Paul affirmeth)* 1.356 all things chanced in figures. And Christ saith, all things must* 1.357 nedes be fulfilled which are spoken of him in the law, Psalmes and Prophetes.* 1.358

¶ The figure of Abel.

ABell the first shepherd, Priest, Martyr, and perpetuall vir∣gin, made a sacrifice of the first begotten of his flocke, and of the fat of them: which God shewed him self to accept by sending down fier from heauen. Abel then hauing first offered

him self vnto God vnder the shape of other thinges, afterward went forth to be offered in his owne person and shape, being* 1.359 •…•…aiterously put to death by his brother Cain, w^t a deadly •…•…ripe of a wodden club or stake: whose blood the earth (opening her mouth) receaued into her bowels, and from thence it cryed to God.

The prince of shepherdes, the chief Priest, greate martyr and witensbea•…•… to al truth, the flower and garland of all virginitie* 1.360 is Iesus Christ God and man. whose flocke the faithful men are. The first bego•…•…ē and fatte of them, is the flesh and blood, which Iesus •…•…oke of the virgin Marie: which flesh and blood he first offered to God by wil and affection, when he toke into his hands* 1.361 bread and wi•…•…e, within a certaine parler vpon mounte Sio•…•…, where he did eate the Paschal lambe with his Apostles. And God shewed him sel•…•…o to accept that intent of the sonne of man, by working with the consuming fiex of his Diuinity that maruci∣louse grace: which turned the substance of bread and wine into y^• substance of Christes own flesh and blood. And from that place* 1.362 Christ went forth ouer the brook of Cedron, to be offered in his owne person and shape, betraied by Iudas, and put to death vp∣on the wood of the crosse by his own brethren the Iewes: whose blood the Church, called forth from among both Iewes and gentils, with al due honour receaueth into her mouth, & bowels: whence it geueth a better crie, then the blood of Abell did from the earth, where it lay.

Abel vnder the sig•…•…e of his Lambes did by will and affection consecrate the same truth of his body and soule to God, which at y^• tyme of his death he actually rendred and gaue vp into the handes of his maker. And surely if he had bene able to haue made the substance of his owne body an•…•… soule present in his owne handes, when he offered, he would much more 〈◊〉〈◊〉 haue offe∣red,

it, then y^• d•…•…ad flesh of lambes, which he vsed for a signe of 〈◊〉〈◊〉. For who would content him selfe with a bar•…•… signe, if he we•…•…e able to offer the truth it selfe? He was not of such power, as to change the lambes into him selfe, thereby working that in his haudes outwardly, which his hart inwardly offered. But yet he shewed his desier to haue a change made, in that he slew y^• lābes, taking from them theyr former substance, to thin•…•…t by consecra∣tion they might obtei•…•…e a more holy and sac•…•…ed being.

God also looked vpon his gifts, as wel accepting the mind of his Priest, as the maner of his doing. But that which lacked in Abel (who was faine to shew outwardly the consecration of his owne hart by a thing of an othere substance) that thing Christ fulfilled, making the same substance of his owne flesh present in* 1.363 his hands, which he dedicated to God in his hart: For taking bread and blessing he sayd, This is my body.

Abel offered his gift, before he went forth into the field, where* 1.364 he was •…•…aine: The Sacramentaries de•…•…e Christ to haue offered his giftes in his last supper, before h•…•… went forth to his passion. Abel contented not him self with the former substance, which his lambes naturally had: They teach, that Christ contented him self with the former substance of bread & wine. Fier •…•…rom heauen in∣•…•…amed the external giftes of Abel: They deny y^• fier of the word of God to swallow vp the substance of bread and wine which Christ toke. Abel consecrated his own body and blood, as farre as he was able, vnder the outward signe of his lambes: They deny Christ to haue consecrated his owne body and blood vnder the formes of the bread and wine which he toke, although they must nedes confesse, that both Christ was able really to do it, and* 1.365 by y^• way of blessing to haue sayd, this is my body: which words all the Fathers haue called the words of consecration. The reall blood of Abel was taken into y^• mouth of y^• sensible earth: They

deny the Church (which is the earth of God) to take the blood of Christ into her sensible mouth, whereas S. Augustine sayth:* 1.366 Terra quae ore accepit sanguinem, Ecclesia est. The Church is the earth, which hath taken the blood in her mouth. The blood of Abel cried from the bowels of the earth to God: They deny the blood of Christ to cric to God out of our bowels. Abel figured both the supper and passion of Christ: They deny Christ to haue fulfilled the figure concerning his supper. Abel offered him selfe two ways, once vnder a signe, and again in the visible truth of nature: They deny Christ to haue offered him self vnder any signe, but only in y^• visible truth of his nature. The deuil had the more power vppon •…•…ain, because he came to the high office of sa crificing vnworthely: They graunting that Satan entred into Iudas at the banket of Christ, yet deny Christ to haue made a sarifice there. And so cōfessing that Iudas did eate vnworthely, they will not confesse the worthines of the thing eaten. To be •…•…hort, the Sacramentaries (who teach bread and wine, which* 1.367 are fruites of the earth, to remaine in theyr owne earthly nature, not hauing the body and blood of Christ offered vnder the formes of them and accepted) make the supper of Christ to be like the earthly fruites of Cain: who neither him selfe went about to change them, neither obteined to haue y^• earthly grossenes of thē p•…•…rged with fie•…•… from heauē, neither offered his owne body and blood vnder the outward signes of them: but keping backe that, which was of most price, he offered only a few base fruites of the earth, geuing an example for his part, what a base and •…•…arthly* 1.368 communion heretikes would set vp directly against the blessed sacrifice of Abel: which in all pointes Christ fulfilled, & the Ca∣tholikes doe kepe and folowe. If I should haue handled euery member of this comparison at large, thou maiest iudge, good Reader, how great a booke it would haue made. In matters of

the old T•…•…stament I had rather be short, then tediouse. which excuse I desire thee to accept throughout euery part of all this whole chapiter.

¶ The figure of Melchisedech.

THe Sacramentaries deny, y^• Christ exercised any Priestly office after the order of Melchisedech in his last supper: As* 1.369 though •…•…elchisedech did not bring forth bread and wine, and Christ like wise did not take at his last supper bread & wine.* 1.370 Melchisedech did blesse, and Christ blessed. Melchisedech gaue thankes to God, and Christ gaue thankes. The thing blessed by Melchisedech was Abraham: And the thing made by Christes blessing was his owne body the seede of Abraham. Melchisedech gaue thankes to God for the victory of Abraham, by cōsecrating the person him self, who was the conquerour, saying: Blessed be Abraham to the high God. So did Christ make his •…•…charist, y^• is to say, he gaue his thankes to God for the victory obteined at his death, by consecrating the selfe same body, which died, and wherein he wan the field, saying: This is my body which is geue•…•…* 1.371 for you. And yet did not Christ at his supper sulfill the whole or∣der of M•…•…lchisedech?

The weakest and basest thing that Melchisedech had in all his Priesthod, was the bringing forth of bread and wine. At y^• which* 1.372 he staied not, but went forward to blesse Abraham, the end of his sacrifice. And now the Sacramentaries make Christ to staie vpō the substance of bread and wine, without going forward by bles∣sing, to make there of his blessed body, the seede of Abraham,

Melchisedech gaue his bread to Abraham, to the ende it, being* 1.373 eaten of him, might be made a better substance in his flesh, then it was in it selfe. But Christ geueth not vs the naturall substance of common bread (for cōmon bread profiteth nothing) but Christ

changeth it into a better substanc•…•…, verily into the substance of his owne flesh: to the ende we eating his flesh might be made a better and more holy substance, whiles we abide in Christ whom we eate, and to whom we are vnited.

The Sacramentaries, who confesse Melchisedech to haue had Abraham really present, as it were, in his handes at the tune of blessing and consecrating him to God, denie Christ to haue had his owne body and blood present in his handes at the time of his blessing and consecrating, which he made in his last supper:* 1.374 As though Melchisedech were the figure of Christ, because Christ, who is the truth, should haue lesse, then he had. Melchi∣sedech in the shew of bread and wine, shewed an image of the* 1.375 supper of Christ. But vnder his image he had not present the reall truthe: because an image of a liuely thing made in a dead kind of stuff or matter, differeth from the chief paterne in sub∣stance. But Christ acknowleging his owne image in the sacri∣fice of Melchisedech, kept the formes of bread and wine (because* 1.376 they were images and formes of the priesthod, which he excersi∣ced in his supper) but he changed the inward substance of them: for so much as the substance of bread and wine were not the sub∣stance of his priesthod. And in dede an artificiall image of a liucly thing made by man, neuer can haue the truth it selfe vnder it, whose image it beareth: but when Christ had put the substance of his owne flesh vnder the formes of bread and wine, then was the image and shadow of Melchisedech fulfilled with the truthe, which it signified. And so is the whole Tatholike faith perfitly shadowed, by conferring the figure of Melchisedech with the supper of Christ.

¶ The figure of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Lambe.

THe paschall Lambe was taken vp y^t tenth daie of y^• first* 1.377 moone, & y^t fourtenth daie at night it was, after y^• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 thereof, wholy offered and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 bread, the blood being sprinkled ouer and vpon both postes of the dore. Christ is the Lambe of God, who in his owne person came to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the tenth daie of y^• first moneth, being receiued with great triumph, in somuch y^t daie tooke thereof the name of Palme sondaie. The fourtenth daie at night (which was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Thursdaie) he offered him selfe to God by consecrating his owne body and blood, turning the substance of common bread & wine by the fier of his diuine word, into the pure substance of his hea∣uenly flesh, which him selfe tooke of his mother: and he gaue the same selfe body of his to be eaten vnder the forme of vnleauened* 1.378 bread, sprinkeling with it as well the post of our mouth, as of our harte, in token that we receiue the same selfe blood into our mouth, which our harte beleueth.

In which supper Christ must be vnderstanded to be as truly offered, rosted, eaten, and his blood as really sprinkled (after a mysticall sorte) as all this was visibly done about the Lambe. The mysterie, we speake of, taketh not away any truth from the* 1.379 thing: but sheweth the maner of the doing to be spirituall. For the offering is made without slaughter, the rosting without ope∣ration of sensible fier, the eating without cōsuming of the meat, the sprinkling without diuision or losse of the blood.

But as the incarnation being wrought without the seede of man, did not cause the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Christ to be the lesse true: euen so the inuisible changing of the substance of bread and wine into his body and blood, the vnbloody offering, the Sacramental ea∣ting and drinking, doth rather shew to all faithfull people the

worker of so high a mysterie to be true God, then any why•…•… hinder the reall presen•…•… of his flesh and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine.

¶ The Prophecie and figure of Manna.

GOd sayd to Moyses: Behold, I wil raine bread to thee frō* 1.380 heauen. Christ sayd, worke the meate abyding to life euer∣lasting which the Sonne of man will geue you. This is the bread, which came downe from heauen: And the bread which I will geue is my flesh for the life of the world. The Israelits said, Manhu, What is this? For they knew not, what is was. The Ca∣pharnaits striued, saying, How can this man geue vs his flesh to eate? Moyses pointing to Manna, sayth, This is the bread, which* 1.381 our Lord hath geuen you to eate. Christ pointing to that true Manna coming down from heauen which him self made, sayeth: Take, and eate, this is my body, which is geuen for you. Moyses sayd, this: and Christ, this. Moyses sayd, is: & Christ, is. Moy∣ses, the bread. Christ, my body. Moyses, which our Lord hath geuen: Christ, our Lord, sayth, which is geuen. Moyses, to you: Christ, for you. Moyses, to eate: Christ sayd, take and eate. The* 1.382 bread, which Moyses shewed, was not the substance of wheaten bread, but heauenly. Neither the bread, which Christ geueth, is the substance of wheaten bread: but the true bread, which by the mysterie of the incarnation came from heauen. The bread, which* 1.383 Moyses shewed, was made by Angels of such earthly stuffe and vapours, as they found in the •…•…ppermost part of the ayer: And the bread of Christ was made by the Angell of great Councel, of* 1.384 such earthly stuffe, as he found vppon the table of the Paschall Lambe, which was bread and wine, willing also his Priestes (who are his Angels in earth) to doe and make the same. The

bread, which Moyses shewed, was truly eaten of the Israelites* 1.385 within the cumpasse of that white and cleare dew which they ga∣thered: And how much more is the body of Christ eaten of the Apostles and of other Christians within the cumpasse of y^• forme of bread, which they receaue from the altar of God? The bread, whereof Moyses (him self bearing but a figure of the truth) at this tyme spake, was a signe, & not the truth. The bread which Christ (being the truth it self) geueth, is both a signe & the truth. The bread which Moyses shewed was perfect in his own na∣ture, before the Israelites did eate it: Euen so the meate which Christ geueth is perfect in the Sacrament it self vnder the forme of bread, before we do 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it. whether more or lesse were ga∣thered of Manna, oue measure was always found in the ende: to signifie that, sith whole Christ is vnder euery part of y^• forme of bread, whether you take a greater peece of the forme or a lesse, euer the same substance of Christes body is wholy receaued of euery Communicant. Neither is it sufficient to fulfil this figure if we say, that euery man hath the vertue and grace of Christes body geuen him by faith and spirit. for the measure of that grace is, as S. Paule teacheth, diuers in diuers men, according to the measure that Christ geueth it in. Some haue greater giftes, and some lesse, and no one member is the whole body. But Manna was in one measure to all men. Euen so the substāce of Christes body vnder the forme of bread is geuen to all, that receaue the sayd forme, in one measure and equally concerning the body it self: For euery man receaueth the whole. As wel the good men, as the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 did eate Manna: But the euill did eate with 〈◊〉〈◊〉, but to the good it gaue the taste of all swetenes. Right so y^• body and blood of Christ, which is vnder the forme of bread and wine, is as really taken of the euill, as of the iust: But they take it to their damnation, these to their saluation. He that marketh these

comparisons shall easily perceaue, that the holy Ghost both by the figure and by the truth, condemneth their false doctrine: who teache the reall body of Christ not to be geuen vnder the forme of bread and wine, after consecration is once made.

¶ The figure of the old Testament.

MOyses hauing offered oxen to God, powred one halfe of* 1.386 the blood vpon the altar, the other halfe he powred into basins. And after he had readen the booke of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 betwene God and the Israelites, and the people had promised to kepe the conditions thereof: he sprinkled them with y^e blood saying: This is the blood of the Testament, which our Lord vpon all this talke hath made with you. Christ intending to offer him self vnto his Father, and certaine yeres before publishing to his people the conditions of his new Testament, at the last, in his supper he geueth his own blood, the very same blood which con firmeth the new agreemēt made with vs: And in stede of •…•…∣ling vs with it, he toke the chalice and gaue thanks, and gaue to* 1.387 his Disciples saying: Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the new Testament: Which shalbe shed for many for the remis∣sion of synnes. The figure and the truth answer maruelously, as they may finde, who will conferre the partes. It is sufficient at this tyme to note, that as the blood of the old Testament was in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 or cup really, whence it was sprinkled: so the blood of Christ, which is the blood of the new Testament, is really in the chalice, whence it is receaued. As the noune blood in the old Testament, which is but a figure of the new, yet was not taken figuratiuely but properly for true naturall blood: so much more the noune blood in Christes words, which appertein to the new Testament it self, may not be taken tropically, but euen as the

word most literally doth sound. As the substance of blood which Moyses spake of, was shewed vnder the accidents of the natu∣rall blood of calues: so the substance of the blood, whereof Christ spake, was shewed vnder the accidents of wine. For (as Iacob had Prophecied) Christ wasshed his garments and cote in* 1.388 wine, because he tooke the •…•…orme of wine to couer his owne hu∣mane nature: which was his garment, in respect of his God∣head, as S. Paule sayeth, Habitu inuētus vt homo. Found in his* 1.389 apparell as man.

¶ The prophecit and figure of Iob.

THe men of the tabernacle of Iob sayd: Who might geue* 1.390 vs of his flesh, to the intent we may be filled? The taber∣nacle or houshold of Iob (whome some of his seruants ha∣ted, some loued) was the figure of the Church, wherein are good and bad. The bad wish for one that might geue them Christes flesh, to fill their hatred vpon it: as the proude Pharises bought Christ of Iudas, and now a daies the Iewes wil geue any mony for the blessed body of Christ in the forme of breade: that there∣vpon they may shew their malice against Christ, whom the He∣retikes of our age folow in y^t point. Therefore these souldiours of darknes, when they can finde Christ visible or inuisible, shewe all the spite they can against him.

But on thother side good men that be in the tabernacle of Iob,* 1.391 with loue and reuerence wish for his flesh, and desyre to be filled with it, to their inestunable comfort. Christ gaue his visible body to the handes of the Pharisees and Iewes: Wherein hauing their desires satisfied, they nailed it to the crosse. And how much more is Christ to be thought, to haue fulfilled really the desyre of good men, who long for the inuisible substance of his owne bo∣dy?* 1.392 especially seing his owne desire was so vehement to eate

this passouer of his owne body with his Apostles, at which tyme* 1.393 he sayd to them: Take and eate this is my body, which is geuen for you If we had not as really y^• flesh of Christ geuē to our handes and mouthes, as the Pharisees had the same deliuered to their cruell handes: it might seeme, that the worse parte of the taber∣nacle of Iob had obtined more truth, and more fulfilling of their desire, then the better. which is a thought vnworthy of Chri∣sten men.

The iust men of the tabernacle of Iob loued him so well, that they desired to be filled with his flesh, euen for the loue they bare to him: which loue the greater it is, the greater vnion it wisheth* 1.394 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Christ fulfilled to his people that, which the ser∣nantes of Iob figured in their vehenient affection, which they had to be filled with their maisters flesh. They of the tabernacle of Iob wished not only to see him, or heare him speake, nor they wished not at all to f•…•…ede vpon him in spirite and vnderstanding (for they knew well he was not God) but they would fill their flesh with his flesh, and their so•…•…le with his soule, and so make a perfite vnion: for so much as them selues consisted as well of body, as of soule.

This vnion Christ hath truly graunted vs, making vs one* 1.395 with his very flesh, saying his flesh to be meate in dede: which who so eateth worthily, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Christ, and Christ in him for euer. That is the vnion of reall flesh, which was prophecied of in Iob, and which is made betw•…•…e Christ and vs, when we re∣ceiue* 1.396 worthelie his naturall fleshe vnder forme of bread, into our naturall bodies and soules, and are made one with it re ipsa, in dede it self: as meate is made one substance with him, that ea∣teth and digesteth it well.

¶ The prophecies of Dauid and Salomon.

THou hast prepared a table (sayeth Dauid to God) in my* 1.397 sight, against them, who afflicte me: And my chalice, which maketh me drunke, how excellent is it? Wisedome hath offered his sacrifices, set foorth his table, and sayeth to the inno∣cent and simple: Come, eate my bread and drink my wine, which I haue mingled vnto you. They falsyfie the holy Scriptures, who teache the substance of common bread and wine to be by Christe prepared at his last supper: But his preparing was to conuert the substance of them into his flesh and blood. And those were the sacrifices, which wisedome made. That was his bread & his wine: which if it were only receaued by faith and spirite, how sayeth the Prophet, that the table was prepared in his sight? No man is able to see that, which is only spirituall: But, according to the word of God, the Catholikes beleue that their meate is* 1.398 prepared, set, and layed vpon the table, before they receaue it: and it is set foorth in their sight in that visible forme of bread, which is consecrated.

Againe the table is but one, come good, come bad: They eate* 1.399 the same meate, and surely none other at the supper of Christ, be∣sydes y^•, which is vpon his table. Iudas did eate the same meate that Peter and Ihon did, although diuers effectes came of it: because them selues were not like affected. But the Sacramen∣taries make Christ to haue two tables: one, where the good men receaue Christ him self with bread and wine (as they •…•…each) an* 1.400 other, where only common bread and wine is geuen to the wic∣ked men. And yet Dauid, Salomon, and S. Paule speake but of one table, and it is prepared and set foorth not by faith and spi∣rite, but in our sight. It is not only drunk of, by mind and vnderstanding▪ but the very chalice of it is of strength, to

make vs drunk, because it conteyneth the blood of life and saluation.* 1.401

¶ An other Prophecie of Dauid.

ALl that be fatte vppon earth haue eaten and adored, which thing the Prophete spake, thereby to shew, as it may ap∣peare in the same place, that all the nations of the world were by faith subdued to Christ. And he bringeth a most vndou∣•…•…ed token thereof, in so much that they adore that, which they eate, which thing is peculiar to Christians, because none other people doth •…•…ate the reall flesh of God, which only may and must be adored. This propertie and token of the true faith they take away, who say, we eate in our Lords supper the substance of cō∣mon bread: forbidding vs to adore the blessed Sacramēt of the altar, the footestole, wherein the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Godhead corporally dwelleth.

¶Many figures and prophecies ioyned together for breuities sake.

WHat shall Isay, that Noë being made drunke with y^•* 1.402 wine of his owne planting, lieth naked & is lawghed to scorne of his own childe, to shew that Christ hauing drunke in his supper of the same blood, which he planted for him selfe in the virgyns womb, hangeth afterward naked vppon the crosse, and is lawghed to scorne, not only of the Iewes for his nakednesse: but also of the Sacramētaries, for so grosse a dede, as they repute it to be, that he drank his own blood vnder the form of wine.

What shall I reherse, that Abraham did set cakes made of •…•…ine wheaten meale befo•…•… the Angels, & they allowed his dede: not* 1.403 for the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, which they n•…•…ded not, but for t•…•…e excellenty of the

mysticall cake, which was come in Christes supper? That Isaac* 1.404 hauing stablished his sonne Iacob with corne and wine, sayth to Esau demanding his blessing: what more can I doe now to thee? as who should say, al goodnesse is already figured in that, which I haue assigned to thy yonger brother: which betokeneth y^• faith∣full people of the Gentils, whose greatest mysteries be made of corne and wine? That Iacob prophecied of the fat bread of Aser∣which* 1.405 should geue spirituall delicats to the faithfull kings of Christes Church: and yet how cā any bread be fat, except it be the bread of life, which is the flesh of Christ, which is made fat with the presence of his Godhead?

Who seeth not, that God promiseth, as the highest reward in* 1.406 earth, for keping his cōmamdements, to blesse the loaues of his people, and to geue abundance of bread and wine? That wheatē* 1.407 meale is appointed for fit matter, to make a sacrifice of? that the shew bread must stand continually in the temple before the face of God? That Priests shall offer the loaues of theyr God, & there∣fore shalbe holy? Or what is the loaf of God besyde the flesh of Christ?

And who would not wonder to consyder, that euen the chief* 1.408 Priests of the Iewes (whose lips kept once the law of God) af∣ter the comming of the faithfull Priest Iesus Christ (to whome God hath built a new Church, which shal neuer be vnfaithful to him) are constrained to aske a morsell of mysticall breade at the hāds of those Priests, which God hath appointed ouer the faith∣ful Gentils, if they wil haue any part of the euerlasting heritage in the house of God? so that all the sacrifices of the law must be supplied, fulfilled, and made perfit by the Priests of the new tes∣tament in that cake or peece of the liuely bread, which is the body* 1.409 of Iesus Christ geuen for vs.

Dauid flying from Saul king of the Iewes, to king Achis a

Gentile, changeth his countenaunce, appearing like a foole or mad man to the vnfaithfull courtiers, driueling on his beard, stumbling, and being caried in his own hands: to shew y^• Christ should appere vnder an other form to the conuerted Gentils, thē he had commonly appered in among the Iewes. For now he semeth contemptibly vnder the f•…•…rme of bread add wine, who appereth daily of great authority to the Iewes in the natural* 1.410 forme of his true manhod: but at his last supper he driueled like a child to theyr seming, that be wise in the world: he offended euen his own Disciples at Capharnan•…•… with the promise of geuing his flesh to cate: he changed his countenaunce, & caried him self after a sort in his own hands: when holding and geuing to be eaten that which semed bread, he by his almighty Godhead,* 1.411 dowted not to say, as the thing was, This is my body which is geuen for you.

The same kingly Prophet had great ioy in his harte conside∣ring the increase, that came by the fruit of corne & wine: he pray∣sed* 1.412 the bread that strengtheneth, and the wine that maketh mery the faithfull hart of a spirituall man: The goodly chalice that ma∣keth true Christians drunke: The remembrance which God hath* 1.413 made of his maruelous workes, geuing meate to them, that feare him.

How can it be thought a smal mysterie, that Elias is fed from the ayr with bread and fleshe? that he walketh forty daies in the* 1.414 inward strēgth of a peece of bread, very weake & feble to see vn∣to? that Esaias saieth: the wheat corn of the Church of God shall* 1.415 no more be geuen to her ennemies: and that the vine, wherein she hath laboured, shall not be the drinke of strange children? That •…•…ieremie calleth the flesh of Christ, the bread, wherein the wood (of the Crosse) is fastened? That Zacharie asked, what good thing* 1.416 there is besides the corne of the elect, and the wine which engen∣dreth

virgins? That Malachie complaining how the Iewes had polluted Gods •…•…ble with vncleane bread, promiseth a pure and* 1.417 cleane oblation made to his name among the Gentils▪ That God him selfe would be called the bread of Aungels? That Christ ha∣uing* 1.418 taken •…•…eshe, would be called through his diuine nature, the* 1.419 tr•…•…e bread which came down from heauen? and through his hu∣mane nature, wherein the Godhead dwelleth, mea•…•…e in dede and drinke in dede? And last of all, that the holy Ghost would cause the preacher to say, and very ofte to repete, none other thing to be* 1.420 good vnder the sonne, besides eating and drinking with gladnes and mirth.

Which saying who so vnderstandeth of the eating common bread or meat, and drinking common wine: he doth not wel to think that the holy Ghoost commendeth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 liuing. Neither doth the Prophet meane such a kinde of eating & drin∣king,* 1.421 〈◊〉〈◊〉 y^• same booke he saith: It is better to goe to the house of moorning, then to the house of feasting: for there a man is war∣ned of the ende, that all liuing thinges shal haue, and in his life time thinketh what thinges are to come.

On th'other side, he that so vnderstandeth it onely of spirite, faith, & vertuouse meditatiō, that he leaue no possible meanes to eate and drinke bodily such a kinde of bread and wine, in com∣parison* 1.422 whereof nothing may be iudged good vnder y^• sonne: he semeth without iust cause to deny that Sacramentall eating and drinking there to be mea•…•…, whereof the prophete may be right wel thought co speake. For as the holy scriptures by the vsuall manner of attributing to God the passions, qualities and natu∣res* 1.423 partly of other creatures, but especially of man, did thereby geue vs warning, that one time or other God should become trew man himselfe, after that sorte fulfilling those propheticall phrases of speach: euen so the ci•…•…toine of commending so much

•…•…orn, wheat, meale, bread and wine, and of eating and drinking,* 1.424 doth declare, that such a thing should at the last be eaten and drun ken vnder the formes of bread and wine, as might be called not only good: but euen the best thing absolutely vnder the sonne, except any thing can be better then Christ, or any action more ac∣ceptable to God, then the receiuing of that flesh and blood wor∣thely which both maketh al iust men to be one body among them selues: and to be one with Christ through eating his flesh, who is one with his Father in diuine nature and substance. Whereby three persons in the holy Trinitie and one God, two natures in Christ and one person, many persons in the Church and one nature, al be made one in a maru•…•…lous mysterie.

The Sacrament of which vnitie because our Lords supper is, both in shewing manie graines to be actually molded into one loaf, and in making many persons really to be members of y^• one flesh, which euery of them vnder the forme of bread wor∣thely receiueth, and is changed into it: therefore in comparison of this eating and drinking none other thing is good vnder the sunne. And he well saith, vnder the sonne, for aboue the Sonne* 1.425 there is (I will not say more goodnes) yet more fruition of the same goodnes: when the forme and couer of bread & wine being taken away, we shal see face to face, eating and drinking vpon the* 1.426 table of God in his kingdo•…•….

¶ These words of Christes supper hoc facite, do not* 1.427 only signifie doe this: but much rather make this thing, whereof it foloweth, that y^• body of Christ is commaunded to be made.

FAcere, doth more properly stand to make, then to doe, spe∣cially* 1.428 when it hath an accusatiue case ioyned with it, where∣vppon somewhat is to be wrought: as, facere librum, na∣uem,

domum, is to make a booke, a ship, a howse. But when it* 1.429 hath a generall word ioyned with it, as hoc, this thing, is, then it may stand either to make, or to doe, according as the matter spoken of doth require. For if I doe a thing first, and afterward say to an other, hoc fac, doe this thing: if my dede were also the making of a thing (as the making of a chayer, or of a sword) then my word importeth, that he must by doing make this thing. But if my dede were only doing, & not making, as if I did only play vppon a harp: in that case, hoc fac, doth not import make this, but only doe as I haue done.

Christ in his supper both did, and made. His doing was to* 1.430 take bread, to breake, to geue: His making was to say (with the intent of blessing and of thanksgeuing) This is my body: For y^• word so spoken made his body. Therefore when he sayeth after∣ward to his Apostles, hoc facite, he meaneth, doe and make this thing: Or by doing the like to that, which I haue done, make this thing, which I haue made. That is to say, by taking bread, and by blessing, and saying: This is my body, make my body. Thus doth facere stand most properly and truly.

For making doth first signifie such a work as presupposeth a matter to worke vppon: Which is the difference betwene creare* 1.431 and facere, in that creare is to make a thing of nothing: Facere, is to make one thing of an other, according to which sense Christ* 1.432 made bread his body, as Tertullian sayth. And when one thing is made of an other, that, whereof it was made, may either kepe his old substance (as it chaunceth in artificiall things which are made, and it is called facere quippiam ex aliquo, to make one* 1.433 thing of an other, as a chayer is made of wood) or els the sub∣stance may be changed, and it is more properly called facere ali∣quid de aliquo, to make one thing from an other thing, that is to* 1.434 wit, so to make it, that the thing, whence it was made remai∣neth

not in his former nature. And so S. Ambrose sayth, De pa∣ne fit caro Christi, from of bread the flesh of Christ is made.

Moreouer facere (which is in Greke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) doth differ as S.* 1.435 Basile noteth from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, speculari, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, agere. Specu∣lari is an action of the mind, exercised by thinking or studying, without any outward working at all: Agere, is to worke with the body, not leauing any work behind, as he that daunceth can not shew what part of his dauncing remayneth, after that it is* 1.436 past. But facere, doth signifie the doing of a work, which remay∣neth to be seen or vnderstanded after the working of it. As God made heauen and earth, not only to tari•…•… for the tyme of wor∣king them, but also to remaine still as a witnesse of his handy work. The Greke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (whereof S. Basile writeth) is* 1.437 the same, which S. Luke and S. Paule haue vsed to expresse the commaundement geuen in Christes supper by these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hoc facite.

If the body of Christ were not meant to be made by this com∣maundement: what thing is it, that Christ will haue made? Wil he haue bread and wine to be taken, eaten, and drunken, for his remembrance? No surely. For he had sayd before, Take, and eate, and drink ye all of this, which notwithstanding, he sayd hoc faci∣te, clerely certifying vs, that he now cōmaundeth an other thing besyde eating and drinking. And that is verily y^e making of his own body and blood from of bread and wine, by blessing & spea∣king the words of consecration.

Let vs now consider also the persons, to whome this com∣maundement* 1.438 was geuen. They were those twelue Apostles, whome Christ at his last supper taught the new oblation of the new Testament, as S. Ireneus writeth, geuing them authori∣tie* 1.439 by this precept, to consecrate, to make present, and to offer to God his body and blood. As for bringing of bread and wine to

the table, it is a kind of doing, which may be performed by other as well, as by the Apostles. eating and drinking belongeth not necessarily to them alone, but to all that cōmunicate with them. But when it is sayd namely to them, Make this thing, such a thig is commaunded, which none other man may doe besyde them, and their successors. And that is not only to eate and to drink, but to make the body of Christ.

That body is the only thing, which is so precisely appointed* 1.440 vnto in Christes supper. For whatsoeuer els is done at the sup∣per, which may consist in any action, whether it be taking, bles∣sing, breaking, eating or drinking: it is rather the doing of a like thing to that, which Christ did, then the making of this thing.

When Christ had washed his Apostles feete, he sayd not, hoe facite, make this thing: But I haue geuen you an example, that as I haue done, Ita & vos faciatis, euen so you also may doe. In which place the word facere doth signifie to doe, & not to make. And therefore Christ doth not say, doe you that thing, which I haue done: but ita faciatis, doe ye so, as I haue done. But straight after that he had sayd: This is my body, he then sayd not, ita fa∣cite, doe so as I haue done: But hoc facite, make this thing, to wit, my body.

Moreouer as it is here sayd, Hoc facite in meam commeratio∣nem:* 1.441 so in an other place Dauid in the spirit of prophecie did say, concerning this very facte of Christ, Memoriam fecit mirabilium suorum misericors & miserator dominns, escam dedit timentibus se. Our mercifull Lord and taker of pity hath made a memory of his marueilouse workes: he hath geuen meate to them, that feare him. Behold, as it is sayd in the Gospell, Make this thing for the remembrance of me: so it is said in y^• Psalme, He hath made a me∣mory of his miracles. And euen as he hath made a memory: so

hath he willed this thing to be made for his memory. Making then can not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 excluded from these words, hoc facite: which hi∣therto being proued by the proper nature of the word facere, by y^• circumstance of the words, this is my body, & make this thing, ioyned together, by the word hoc this thing, which is ioyned with facere, by the conference of a like place in holy scripture, and by the condition of the persons to whom it was spoken: I will now proue the same truth more plainly out of y^• old Fathers.

S. •…•…ames (of whose Masse mention is made in y^• sixth Gene∣rall councell) when he was effectually working and fulfilling the* 1.442 commandement of Christ, when he was doin•…•…, yea rather ma∣king* 1.443 that, which Christ bad him make, thus he praieth vnto God: Spiritum tuum & caet. Send doune (o Lord) thy most holy spirit now also vppon vs, and vppon these holy giftes put before vs: that he comming thereuppon, with his holy and good and glo∣riouse presence sanctificet & efficiat, may sanctfie and make this bread y^• holy body of thy 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Behold what is to be made. The bread is made the body of Christ. Can you say, that the holy Ghost doth this bread the body of Christ? No verily, that were* 1.444 no English. The trewe English is, that the holy Ghost doth make this bread the body of Christ. Therefore facere in this place is not taken for to doe, but for to make. The like may be noted in S. •…•…lemēt, S. Basile, & S. Thrysostom: who all haue writen Masses and liturgies, wherein the like praier is vsed.

Which thing is co•…•…firmed yet more strongly by the auctority* 1.445 of S. Cyrillus Archebisshop of Jerusalem, who expounding the order and mysterios of the Breeke Masse, hath these wordes: Deum benignissimum oramus, vt S. Spiritum super proposita emittat, we beseche God, to send his holy Ghost vppon the thin∣ges, which are set before vs, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. vt panem quidem saciat corpus Chri

sti, vinum verò sanguinem Christi. that he may make the bread (to be) the body of Christ, & the wine (to be) the blood of Christ. Lo, the holy Ghost is desired of the priest to make bread Christes body, & he is desired so to doe of the priest: who were not other∣wise able to make so high a mysterie, if Christ had not comman∣ded him to make this thing.

S. Dionysius •…•…reopagita sheweth, that the Priest purgeth* 1.446 and excuseth him self of this great office, saying: Tu dixisti, hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Thou hast sayd, make this thing for the remembraunce of me: after which excuse made, th•…•… Priest (sayeth Dionysius) desireth that he may be made worthy of this holy sacrificing, or of making these holy things. For so much the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doth signifie. It is worth the labor to marke, how S. Dionysius hauing declared, that the Priest ma∣keth his excuse cōcerning the making of that thing which Christ bad him make, consequētly sheweth, what the Priest doth make,* 1.447 saying: The Priest 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Diuina perficit, diuinissima consecrat, seu sacra operatur. He ma∣keth the diuine things, and worketh holy or cōsecrateth the most diuine things. He saith not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, id est agit: sed perficit, opera tur, consecrat. He saith not, that the Priest, doth holy things: he saith, he maketh them, he worketh them, he consecrateth them. Manifestly witnessing, that facere in these words (hoc facite) is to make, to worke, to consecrate, and not only to doe.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 Martyr is of the same mind, who rehersing Chri∣stes* 1.448 words, make this thing, consequently addeth, that is to say, my body. As if he sayd, make my body. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 I spake before.* 1.449

S. Ireneus hath these words, Quando mixtus calix & fra∣ctus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit Eucharistia corporis & sangui nis Christi. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the chalice mixed with water, and the bread being broken taketh the word of God, then the Eucharist of thē

body & blood of Christ is made. Thē it is made, saith 〈◊〉〈◊〉, it cā not there be Englished, y^• Eucharist is done, but only is made.

Likewise 〈◊〉〈◊〉 saith: Acceptum panem & distributū di∣scipulis,* 1.450 corpus suum illum fecit the bread taken and distributed to his disciples, he made it his own body. fecit panē corpus suū, he made the breade his body. It were 〈◊〉〈◊〉 English to say, he dyd bread his body.

S. Ambrose hath these words, Sacramentum istud, quod acci∣pis, Christi sermone conficitur. And again, Hoc, quod 〈◊〉〈◊〉 corpus, ex virgine est. This Sacrament, whiche thou receauest is made by the worde of Christ, and this body which we make, is of the virgin. The Sacrament 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is made, and we make the bo∣dy of Christ. By what other 〈◊〉〈◊〉, then by the worde of Christ, who sayd: make this thing▪ For if these words, hoc facite,* 1.451 do not conteine facite corpus meum, make my body: S. Ambrose in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 saith conficimus corpus Christi: we make the body of Christ. But so wise a man saith not so 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vaine, because he well knoweth, that hoc facite, doth signifie thus 〈◊〉〈◊〉, make this* 1.452 thing, to wit, make the body of Christ. See now what is facere, and see whatis hoc: Facere is to make, hoc is this thing, whiche is the body of Christ.

According to the whiche meaning S. Hierom said: Absit, vt de* 1.453 ijs quicquàm sinistrum loquar, qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi corpus sacro ore consiciunt. God forbid y^• I should speake any thing amisse of them, who comming in place of the Apostles degree, make the body of Christ with their holy mouth. If they make it with their mouthes: surely it is because Christ after y^• he had made it with his owne mouth, said vnto them: hoc facite, make this thing.

S, Chrysostom writeth thus: Sacra ipsa oblatio, siue illā Petrus, sine illam Paulus, siue cuiusuis m•…•…riti Sacerdos offerat, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, est,

quá de•…•…it Christus ipse discipulis, quam{que} Sacerdotes modo quo{que}* 1.454 conficiunt. That self holy oblation, it is the same, which Christ him self gaue to his Disciples and which the Priests now also doe make. Again in an ocher place: Operantibus Sacerdotibus, Sa∣cramenta* 1.455 haec quae dico initiantur perficiūtur{que}▪ when the Priests work, the holy things, which I speake of, are begun & ended or made persit. And shewing that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Priest doth not this in his* 1.456 owne, but in Christes person, he saith: Non homo est, qui corpus Christi facit & sanguinem, sed ille qui crucifixus est pro nobis Christus. Sacerdotis ore verba proferuntur, & Dei virtute pro∣posita consecrantur & gratia. Hoc est enim, ait, corpus meū. 〈◊〉〈◊〉* 1.457 verbo proposita consecrantur. it is not a man which maketh the body and blood of Christ, but Christ who hath bene crucified for vs. the words are spokē by the Priests mouth, & the things which are set before vs are cōsecarted by the power & grace of God. for this, sayth he, is my body. with this saying the thīgs put before vs, are consecrated. Thus much Chrysostom. S. Angustin affyrmith* 1.458 that our bread and chalice certa cosecratione mysticus fit nobis, non nascitur: is made mysticall vnto vs by a certein cōsecration, & not born: is made, I say. Therfore hoc facite signifieth, make this thing. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sayth, Inefficabili operatione 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, trāsformatur, etiam si nobis videatur panis. although it seme bread to vs it is made an other thing, or transformed by an vnspeake∣able working.

〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 after this sorte. If the word of God be liuely and of efficacy, and all things, what soeuer it wold, it hath made: if it sayd, Let light be made, & it was made, let the firma∣ment be made, and it was made: If the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be establyshed by the word of God, and all the vertue of them by the spirit of his mouth: if heauen and earth, water, fier, aier, and all the decking of thē, and man himself a lyuing creature spred and made com∣mon

euery where, were made perfecte with the word of God: If* 1.459 God the word him self of his owne wil was made man, and hath vpholden and staied in his own person flesh without seed of mā, out of the most pure and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 blood of the holy virgine: is he not able to make bread his own body, and wine and water his* 1.460 blood? He said in the beginning, let the earth bring forth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 spring, & to this day (reyne being made) it bringeth forth springs holpen and strengthned with the commandement of God. God hath sayd: This is my body and this is my blood, and make this thing for the remembrance of me, Et omnipotenti eius praecepto, donec veniat, efficitur, and by his 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 it is made, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he come.* 1.461

Marke whether Damascene doth not ground all his autho∣rities vppon making, and the authoritie of Christes supper vpon these words, make this thīg. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 expoūding these words, Hoc facite, sayth: Hoc, inquit, nouum mysterium, & non illud ve∣tus make this new mysterie (sayth he) and not that old. Haymo* 1.462 sayth: Hoc facite, id est, hoc corpus sanctificate, sanctifie this bo∣dy: that is to say, make holy and consecrate this body.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 Archbysshop of Cantorbury, although he sheweth* 1.463 first that by this word (Hoc facite) eating and drinking for the remembrance of Christes death is commamded to al Christians: yet declaring also a farther sense of y^• same words, he sayth: Aut corde vos, qui Sacerdotes estis, hoc facite quod ego 〈◊〉〈◊〉 feci, id est, calicem vini consecrate, vt 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sanguismeus, hoc facite in meā commemorationem, vt in hoc facto sitis memores mei & eorum* 1.464 quae pro vobis passus sum. Or els, ye that are Priests make that which I haue now made: that is to say, consecrate the chalice of wine, that it may be made my blood, make this thing for the re∣membrance of me, and of those things which I haue suffred for you. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Archebisshop of Constantinople sayth, that

the holy Ghoste maketh the mysteries by the hande of Priestes* 1.465 and to•…•…g. Nicolaus Methonensis sayth, the body and blood of Christ to be those thinges, quae hoc ritu perficiuntur, which are made pe•…•…fit with this ryte.

If sanctificare & efficere panem corpus Christi, panem facere corpus Christi & vinum sanguinem: if consecrare & operari diui∣nissima, fieri eucharistiam, facere panem corpus Christi, conficere corpus Christi, ore conficere, oblationem Christi conficere, panē & calicem mysticum fieri, panem sui ipsius corpus facere, nouum mysterium sacere, corpus effici, corpus hoc sanctificare, cōsecrare calicem vini, vt fiat sanguis Christi: If al these phrases and kindes of speache can not be •…•…nglished by doing, but only by making, and yet the aucthority and commandement, that any Priest hath to make the body and blood of Christ commeth only from these words Hoc facite: it must nedes be confessed, that these words do* 1.466 signifie much more make this thing, then doe this. Otherwise, we should not make the body of Christ at al: whereas S. Iames Dionysius Areopagita, S. Iustinus, S. Ireneus, Tert•…•…llian, S. Hierom, S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine, Theophilaet, Eu∣thymius, Haimo, Damascene, Germanus, Methonensis, yea al the whole Church doth say with one accorde: that Priestes doe make, and are commanded to make the body of Christ.

Is it now possible, that the body of Christ, which is thus made frō of wheaten bread by y^• cōmandement of God him self, should not be for al y^• present with vs vnder the form of the same bread? If when the word was made flesh in the virgins wombe, it was present with vs not only by saith and spirit, but dwelt really in* 1.467 the world, being conuersant among men, and was sene in earth: likewise when the body of Christ is made from of the creature of* 1.468 bread, by the Priests mouth in the vertue of Christes word, it is present with vs, not only by faith and spirit, but in deede and

tr•…•…th it self, & it dwel•…•…eth not only among vs, but euen within vs, as meate dwelleth in him who receaueth it weth a sound sto∣make, and digesteth it well.

For seing Christ hauing taken bread and blessed, sayd, this is my body, and •…•…ad his Apostles make this thing: bread is in such sorte made his body, y^• when y^• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the words is past, the body of Christe remaineth still (according to the distinction* 1.469 of S. Basill, as the work which was wrought by y^• sayd words) and it is receaued of the faithfull people vnder the form of bread, to nourish theyr soules and bodies to euerlasting life.* 1.470

¶What these words doe signifie, For the remembrance of me: & that they much help, to proue Christes reall presence v•…•…der the formes of bread and wine.

IT may be (some man will say) I deale not honestly▪ for Christ* 1.471 sayd not only, make this thing which I haue most pressed vpō, but he added other words thereunto: which declare, that a fi∣gure should be made, and not his true body. For he sayd, do this in the remembrance of me. If it be a remembrance of Christ, how is it Christ him self? The remembrance of a man differeth from the man him self.

Thus much if any man say against me, I feare nothing, but* 1.472 I shall satisfie him concerning my doing: if now I shewe, that the words of remēbrance (whereof he taketh holde) doth much more help my saying, theu his. Which that I may the better per∣form,* 1.473 I besech him to remember, that Chist said not, hoc agite in cōmemoratione mei, doe this in my remembrance, or in remē∣brance of me, but hoc facite in meam commemorationem: which signifieth as wel to make, as to do this thing, not only in, but ra∣ther for the remembrāce o•…•… me: and yet so haue these words bene commonly Englyshed and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, as

though he had said only, hoc agite, doe this, & not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hoc facite, which is, both doe this, and make this thing. Again as though he had said in mea commemoratione, in the ablatiue case, in the remembrance of me: and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in meam commemorationem, in the accusatiue case, the true English whereof must be, for the remembrance of me.

Christ sayd, make this thing for the remembrance of me, that* 1.474 is, make my body, which is geuen for you: to thend my geuiug of it for you vpon y^• crosse may through that your fact and doing be remembred. This is the true meaning of Christes words. For so doth S. Paule expoimd them to the Corinthians: where after he had declared the history of Christes supper, of purpose teachig vs what is meant by the remembrance of him, thus he writeth: As ofte as ye shall eate this bread and drinke the chalice, ye shall* 1.475 shew our Lordes death, vntill he come. Lo, the shewing of our Lordes death is the kind of remembrance, for which Christ wil∣leth his body to be made & eaten, his blood to be made and •…•…run∣ken. Wherefore saying, make or doe this for the remembrance of me, he sayth this much: Take bread, blesse saying, this is my body breake, geue, eate, and all to this ende, that my death may be remembred vntill my second coming.

Here we learne, that the remembrance, whereof Christ spea∣keth,* 1.476 is the shewing of his death, and that not by word only, but by dede and facte, and by making and doing. For the making of Christes body, by chaunging the substance of the bread into the substance of his flesh, is a mar•…•…ilouse shewing of his death. For as his death was the dissolution of the soule from the body: so his soule, which (as S. Ambrose noteth) is vnderstanded by the* 1.477 blood, is shewed vnder the form of wine, & his body is shewed a part from it vnder an other form of bread. I doe not say, that either the body is without soule and blood, or the blood without

flesh and soule: but I say, the shewing of the body vnder form of* 1.478 bread, and of the blood vnder y^• forme of wine (in •…•…che of which whole Christ is conteyned) is the shewing of his death, and also of his resurrection. For at the death in dede the soule and body were a sonder, and at the resurrection they came againe together: Euen as now in figure and shew they are a sonder, not withstā∣ding that in truth they are together.

But if the bread and wine remayned in their old nature still, taking only the name and signe of Christes body & blood: Then should nothing be made for the remembrance, or to shew our* 1.479 Lords death, whereas he sayd: Make this thing for the remem∣brance of me: That is (sayeth S. Paule) for the shewing of my death, the which death is yet f•…•…rther shewed, when the same bo∣dy in a signe is broken and geuen to be eaten, & the blood drun∣ken. For then as Christes flesh was in dede broken vppon the Crosse, so it is in shew & signe broken, first in the Priests hands vnder forme of bread, and next in his or their mouths who com∣municate with him, by eating and chewing of it. And likewise y^• blood is powred or shedde into his or their mouthes vnder the forme of wine, as it was in dede shed vppon the Crosse, and as in dede Christ there deliuered his ghost into his Fathers hands.

But if the breade and wine were not changed into the body & blood of Christ: then that body, which at all were not so much as in signe and shew broken (because it were not present) and that blood, whiche were not so muche as in apparence apart from the fleshe, or shed into the mouthes of the receauers, could not shew our Lords death at all, whereas Christ would his own death to be shewed by the making of his own body and blood, with the signes of breaking, shedding, parting and dissoluing. Thou see•…•… now, good Reader, how the kind of remembrance, which Christ required to he had of him, is not only nothing at all against the

reall presence of his body and blood: yea rather it is so singular∣ly set forth thereby, that without the presence of the body & bloo•…•… it shalbe somewhat hard to deuise, what memorie at all here can be of Christes death. Most sure it is, that though mans wit may deuyse much, yet can it neuer inuent so perfect a meane, to make the death of Christ be remembred, as if his own self be present to warne vs thereof.

If it hath chaunted to any man, whiles by manly fighting he hath delyuered his frind from perill of death, to take some great wound in his owne face: tell me on thy conscience, is there any* 1.480 way more effectual for that wounded man, to put his frind in re∣membraunce of that fighting, then if him self come with the skar in his face to his frin•…•…s presence and sight? Is it not more, then if he sent an hundred letters, an hundred tokens and messengers to warne his frinde thereof? Euen so fareth it with Christ at this tyme, who fighting for vs vppon the Crosse, whiles he delyue∣red mankind from the bonde of death, toke a wound which made him geue vp his ghost.

Can therefore a more vehement remembrance be stirred vp in our harts, then if the same Christ offer him self present to vs with •…•…he skar vpon his face? Thou wilt, I think, graunt that nothing would moue vs, or make vs more vehemently remembre the death which he tooke for vs. But thou wilt say, that Christ now* 1.481 cōmeth not before vs, & that we see him not. Well Sir. First you graunt that the remembrance of Christes death is nothing at all hiudered by the presence of his body: why then sayd you before, if the Sacrament of the altar be a remembrance of Christ, it is not Christ him self? Why sayd you, that the remembrance of a thing must uedes differ from the thing it self? And now you see and confesse, that Christ present with the resemblance of his woundes, should make you best remember his death.

Beware hereafter of this kind of reasoning. Christ made a re∣semblance of his death at his supper, therefore it is not his own* 1.482 body. That argument is not good, yea rather this is good: Christ made a perfecte remembrance of his death, therefore his own body is geuen, to put vs in mind, that he died for vs. Now let vs returne to that you said, Christ was not seene of vs.

If he were seene, your faith should be of small merite, besyde that you could not receaue him into your body after that visible quantitie, wherein he walked vppon the earth. He therefore that died for you, hath now geuen you the substance of his naturall flesh and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine: Where he is as verily present, as if you saw him or touched him. For (I* 1.483 trow) you vnderstand that eye sight is not necessary, to make a thing present: Otherwise, blinde men were in euill case, and to them nothing should be present: Which seing it is not so, the bo∣dy of Christ is not therefore the lesse present, because you see it not.

But if it may please you to beleue Christ, that sayd: This is my body, and, this is my blood, the remembrance of Christes death shall no lesse worke in your mind by reason of your faith,* 1.484 thē if you sawe with your bodily eyes y^• self same body of Christ, which is vnder the forme of bread. For faith is that to Christiās, which eye sight is to infidels. You must consyder, that Christ ge∣ueth this Sacrament only to them, that being already Christe∣ned, professe to beleue him in all things. He now telleth y^• this is his body, and this is his blood: If you beleue him not, you haue denyed your faith, and are become an infidell: But yet ye may repent & recouer your old faith againe. If then you beleue him, now tell me, what his bodily presence doth hurte the remem∣brance of his death: or contrarywise, what hinderance cometh to the memory of his death by the bodily presence? Doth not one

helpe the other, and so helpe, that no lyke helpe can be deuised by all the world? Doth not his blessed body, as it were, crye vnto thy hart: Behold, here it is that suffred al the scorues, scourges, nayles, thornes, speare and death for thee?

And yet come our new preachers and crye: O good people,* 1.485 Christ called bread his body by a figuratiue speache: and that ap∣pereth, because he sayd, doe this in my remembrance, In my re∣membrance, I say. It is therefore no body, but a remembrance of his body. Is not this gaye diuinitie? Is not this trew dealing 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Gods people? Are not these preachers worthy of Bishopriks, and the contrary teachers worthy of chaynes? Haue they not found a fresh remembrance, to put the fruyt of Christes death out of all remembrance?

Whiles the faithfull people beleued, the body of Christ to be* 1.486 present: they came with that preparation, with that circumspe∣ction, with that humble and contrite hart vnto this blessed Sa∣crament, that in all their lyfe after, they were the better. They died vnto sinne, and mortyfied them selues, to comme worthely to this high banket: and by those meanes they so wel remembred Christes death, that they practised it in their owne flesh, and printed it in their hartes. And this was a great cause, why Christ himself wold put the nature and substance of his body vnder the forme of bread: to the intent he might so be remembred of vs, that for feare of comming to this dreadfull Sacrament vnwor∣thely, we might conforme our selues to his death by contrition, confession, and satisfaction.

For besides the pauges of bodily death, none other thing in the world maketh vs so fruitfully mindefull of Christes death: as the Sacrament of the altar. And this to be one peece of the* 1.487 remembrance, which Christ wold haue to be made in our hartes, S. Basile doth witnesse: Oportet igitur accedentem ad corpus &

sanguinem Christi, in commemorationem ipsius &c. He that co∣meth to the body and blood of Christ, must not onely be cleane from all filthy spot of flesh and sowle (that he eate and drinke not to his damnation) but also he must euidently shew the remem∣brance of him (who died for vs and rose again) in mortifying himself to synne, and to the world, and to himself, so that he may liue to God in Christ Iesu our Lord.

This great lerned and vertuouse man putteth our mortifica∣tion for a peece of the remembrance, which is made of Christes death and resurrection. And in dede the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament, & the belefe thereof in vs, causeth vs to mor∣tifie* 1.488 our selues, lest we come vnworthely to such high mysteries. But now Christ is so well remembred in bread and wyne: that neither synnes be confessed, neither amendment mynded, neither faith exercised, neither charitie vsed. Is this the remembrance, which Christ wold haue of his death?

Men of woorship and honor, when they see death at hand, prouide to haue a goodly tumbe built: Whereby their memories may be preserued, as long as it is possible. And the Egyptians wisely considering how the life is very short, and the tyme of being in the graue ex•…•…eding long, did bestowe much more cost* 1.489 vppon their tumbs, then vppon their houses: Thinking it best, there to buyld most surely, where they should dwell longest.

Christ for his part refused not an honorable burying, and a gloriouse sepulcher: Which to this day standeth at Dierusalem. But yet sith he tooke his body for mens sake only, he chose his* 1.490 longer memorie and perpetuall sepulcher to be rather in the bo∣dy & hart of man, then in the bowels of the earth. Rising there∣fore the third day from death, he left no more his body in the earthly sepulcher: But the night before he died, he had institu∣ted such a memorie of his death, as became the sonne of God.

For such a one in dede no man were able to make.

His memorie is, to haue bread turned into the substāce of his body, and wine turned into the substance of his blood, and the* 1.491 same to be receaued of vs: To th'intent we might be turned in∣to Christ, dwelling in him for euer. Hereby his death is shewed vntill he come to iudgement at the end of the world.

As the noble Actes, which other men haue done, be writē vpō their sepulchers: so in this memorie of Christ, his acts are daily shewed and rehersed. Then his incarnation is betokened most* 1.492 mystically, when bread is made flesh: as the worde was before made flesh, and that incarnatiō is represented in outward shew also, by singing of the Angels Hymne, Glory be to God in the highest. Then the going before of Iho•…•… Baptist is expressed, by reading of the Epistle. Then Christes preaching is represented, by singing of the Gospell. Then the faith of his Apostles and Disciples is betokened, in pronouncing the Cr•…•…de or articles of the faith. Then the supper of Christ is made with no lesse autho∣ritie, then himself instituted it. Then his Crosse is shewed, by making the signe thereof vppon the holy mysteries. Then his death is inuisiblie wrought vnder the formes of bread & wine, by turning their substances into him self, and shewing them, as if the body were diuided from the blood. Then the fruit thereof is sowen in the hartes of the faithfull people, by geuing them the grace to feare him, to loue him, to come penitentlie vnto him, and to be made one with him. Then y^e resurrection is outward∣lie shewed, because the seuerall formes of bread and wine eche of them conteine whole Christ vnder them. Then the body is ado∣red, which suffred for vs. Then Christ is glorified for the redem∣ption of all mankinde. Then thankes be geuen to God, blessing to the people, and prayer is made for all the world.

This is the memorie of Christ, whereby his name is greate* 1.493

among the Gentils, as Malachias did prophecie: And this is the gloriouse sepulchre, which Esay spake of: this is the memory, whereof Dauid saith, Our Lord hath made a memory of his mar∣uailons doings. Now is it likely, that al this cost is bestowed vppon a peece of bread and wine?

Two kindes of sepulchers we reade to haue bene alwaies, &* 1.494 this day to be in vse: the one is, where the body lieth present, and that is properly the place of buriall: the other, when the body is absent, and only a token of it is erected, and this later kinde is* 1.495 called Caenotaphium, a voyd monument without hauing the bo∣dy in it.

Iudge, good Reader, whether it be more semelie, sith Christ* 1.496 wold this Sacrament to be made for his remembrance, that it be a void monument, without hauing the body in it: or els a sepul∣cher truly conteining his body within it, whose name it beareth. specially seing himself sayd of this tumb and sepulcher: This is my body, and this is my blood.

The body is named of the Greekes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.497 that is to say, of y^• buriall or sepulcher, as though the soule were buried therein, as the carkase is put in the sepulcher. And yet it is much more apt, to call the body of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar, the sepulcher of his passion: because in it is buried y^• whole vertue of that gloriouse sacrifice, and thence it is applied and di∣spensed to the faithfull.

S. Chrysostom also called the body of Christ in the Sacramēt* 1.498 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a carkase: because it is present after the same rate, as it was dead in the sepulcher. not in dede without soule and life, but yet without sensible mouinge, as Epiphanius also hath noted.* 1.499

The holy Martyrs (whose death was of great price in y^• sight of God) haue leaft their bodies behinde them to our comfort: neither haue they yet recea•…•…d the second robe of their flesh, Deo

pro nobis melius aliquid prouidente, vt non sine nobis consum∣marentur,* 1.500 God prouiding some •…•…etter thinge for vs, to the intent they should not be made throughly perfect without vs. euen as* 1.501 the Fathers of y^• old Testament (of whome S. Paule speaketh) had not the reward of their faith, vntill some of the new Testa∣ment were ioyned to them.

S. John the E•…•…angelist, although his carkase appered not, yet he was not vnremembred, because manna flowed out of his monument abundantly, as Abdias hath witnessed. And now shall Christ leaue a void memorie without his body, or without Manna in it? Are the reliques of the blessed Martyrs profitable vnto vs, and is not the flesh of Christ, who is Lord of all Martyrs, more then necessary for vs? It was mete y^t Christ should arise with body and soule, because he is the first fruites of* 1.502 all them that arise from death. But he now sitting at the right hand of his Father, had before instituted a memorie, wherein bread and wine should be conuerted into the substance of his bo∣dy and blood: that thereby we might both haue his body, & him selfe not lack it. For so it becommed all iustice to be perfectly ful∣filled* 1.503 in his person.

I trust, by this tyme it appeareth, that the remembrance of Christes death is maruelously set foorth by the reall presence of* 1.504 his body and blood. Seing then the sayd remembrance is y^• end, why the Sacrament is made: it is a better kind of reasoning to affirme that so profitable a meane, as the body & blood of Christ is for the remembrance of his death, was not omitted by Christ: then to teache, that because it is a remembrance, therefore it is* 1.505 not the body of Christ. Specially sith Christ sayd, This is my body.

For when the thing, which is intended, is the more furthered by taking the words properly, then figuratinely: as wel the pro∣per

nature of the words, as the scope of the whole matter com∣pelleth* 1.506 vs, to take them as they naturally and vsually sounde, without any •…•…arther circuition or seking of figures. Si res•…•… icias (sayth Origenes) ad illam commemorationem, de qua dicit Do∣minus,* 1.507 Hoc facite in meā commemoratio nem: Inuenies, quod ista est commemoratio sola, quae propitium faciat hominibus Deum. If thou looke to that remembrance, whereof our Lord sayd: Doe and make this thing, for the remembrance of me: Thou shalt find, that this is the only remembrance, which may make God mercifull to men. Mark this propitiatorie kind of remembrance.* 1.508 S. Augustine also declareth by conferring the Sacrament of the altar with the facrifices of the law: how it is the remembrance of Christ, saying: In isto sacrificio gratiarum actio at{que} commemo∣ratio est carnis Christi, quam pro nobis obtulit, In this sacrifice a thanksgeuing and a remembrance is of the flesh of Christ, which he offered for vs, and of the blood which the same God did shed* 1.509 for vs. Therefore in those (olde) sacrifices, it was figuratiuely signi fied, what should be geuen vs: But in this sacrifice it is euidently shewed, what hath now bene geuen vs. In those sacrifices it was before hand shewed, that the sonne of God should be afterward kylled for wicked men: But in this he is shewed to haue bene all∣ready kylled for wicked men.

By this writer (whether it were S. Augustine, or as others think, Fulgentius) the whole nature of the remembrance, which we kepe of Christes death, is shewed: wherein the death is in* 1.510 dede past and absent, but the body of him, that died, is present. But in the old sacrifices, neither the death neither the body was pre•…•…ent, but only a shadow of both. Therefore those sacrifices are a figuratiue signification, as Fulgentius sayeth: But the Sacra∣ment of the altar is an euident shewing. Marke the wordes of

Fulgentius, and you shall see two words of the old law, answer vnto other two of the new law. By the old sacrifices, he sayeth, siguratè significabatur, it was figuratiuely signified: By the new sacrifice, euidenter ostenditur, it is euidētly shewed. Looke how much difference is betwene shewing & signifiyng, betwene eui∣dence and figures: so much is betwene the old sacrifices, and the new.

Yet if vnder forme of bread the body were not, and the blood vnder the forme of wine: surely the olde did better shew Chri∣stes death, then this. for there was flesh to shew flesh, and blood* 1.511 to shew blood. The blood was both in dede and in shew also shed, and in dede separated from the flesh, and poured vpon the altar: and the flesh in dede eaten by them, that made the offering. Therefore our sacrifice doth not passe that in shewing outward∣ly the maner of Christes death, but in euidēt shewing that which died. In euident shewing, I say, vnder the forme of bread and wine, which shewing is called euident, not for the seing, but for the certeyntie of the place and circiut: within the which we know by Gods word y^• flesh and blood of Christ to be vnder the same forme, because Christ him self shewing to vs the foorm of bread, sayd, This is my body.

What nede I to bring the Fathers one by one, sith the whole* 1.512 second Councell of Nice doubted not to say: Nemo sanctorum Apostolorum, qui tuba sunt Spiritus sancti, aut gloriosorum Pa∣trum nostrorum incruentum nostrum sacrificium in memoriam passionis Christi Domini Dei nostri, & totius suae dispensationis factum, imaginem corporis illius dixerit: None of the holy Apo∣stles (who are the trumpet of the holy Ghost) either of our glo∣rious* 1.513 Fathers, hath sayd our vnbloody sacrifice, which is made in the remembrance of Christ our Lord and God his passion, and of his whole conuersation, to be a•…•… ymage of that body.

No Apostle, no Father hath called this remembrance an image of the body so, as it should be denied to be y^• body it self. An unage of the death it might haue bene called, but an image of Christes body no Doctor euer called it. because it is y^• truth it self. It is the body of Christ made for the remembrance of his death, according∣ly* 1.514 as Christ said: This is my body, which is geuen for you, make this for the remēbrance of me, Shewing my death vntyll I come.

¶ Answere is made to the chalenge of M. Nowell concer•…•…ng the difference betwene, I am the true vine, and, This is my body.

MAster Nowell (iu his reproufe of M. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 proufe)* 1.515 hauing occasion ministred to speake of these words, This is my body, (about the whiche M. Dorman had sayd, that Luther and Caluin did not agree) he answereth first: they agree both in this, that the Papists ex•…•…ound them •…•…alsely: Next he affirmeth, that M. Dorman, nor all Papists with him, shall* 1.516 neuer be able to shew cause, why these words, Ego sum vitis vera I am the true vine, doe not proue as wel a transubstantiaton, as hoc est corpus meum, this is my body.

I am, M. Nowell, one of those Catholiks, whom you cal Pa∣pists,* 1.517 who by Gods grace will shewe sufficient cause, why these words, I am the true vine, doe not proue as well a transubstatia∣tion, as, This is my body,

In these words, I am the true vine, I say not only, that there is no transubstantiation: but I affirine also, that in them there can be no transubstantion at all. Whereas in the words, This is my body, a transubstantiation both may be, and is. To make the* 1.518 proufe where of plaine, it is to be knowen, that by the word, tran∣substantiatiō the change or passing of one substance into an other is meant.

To haue one substance goe and passe into an other, it requireth that two seu•…•…rall substances be first or last really found: of which* 1.519 two, y^• one must be extant, before it be changed: the other must at the least be extant when the change is made, though it were not extant before. As for example. The bread, which at his supper Christ toke into his hands, was one certaine substance: the other was his owne body, which he had taken of the virgin Mary. Now when Christ sayd ouer the bread, which he had ta∣ken, This is my body: we beleue, that he changed the bread into his body, and we call the passing of the substance of bread, into y^• substance of Christes body, transubstantiation.

This 〈◊〉〈◊〉 we build vppon the deedes and words of Christ.* 1.520 Uppon his dedes, that he toke bread, and blessed or gaue thanks: Uppon his words, in that he sayd, This is my body. we beleue his words to be proper, because (beside that he spake them in the way of blessing, of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a Sacrament, and of commanding his Apostles to make this th•…•…g) he also expo•…•…ded them him self, as not being only contented to say, This is my body, but adding thereunto, which is geuen for you.

Uppon these vnfallible grounds, we say that the thing poin∣ted vnto, is Christes owne substance really present at y^• speaking of the wordes. And seing we know the same to haue bene bread before, and that it can not be at once both materiall bread, and withal Christes body (for that the substance of bread is not vnited* 1.521 to the person of Christ) we are constrained to beleue, that the bread was changed or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 into Christes body.

Such a change is not only possible, became bread is a creat•…•… able to be changed into Christes owne body: but it is also most* 1.522 conuenie•…•…t, as well to make the external sacrifice of the new tes∣tament (for no externall sacrifice is made without a change) as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to make it according to the order of Melchisedch: whose ob∣lation

began in bread and wine, but was ended in blessing Abra∣ham,* 1.523 and in pronouncing him blessed to the high God•…•… the which propheticall figure the true Melchisedech Iesus Christ fulfilling, toke bread and wine, to begiune his new sacrifice withall: but by blessing & pronoūcing this is my body, he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his •…•…nblody sacrifice, in that blessed sede of Abrahams owu body and blood.

Thus we 〈◊〉〈◊〉 touching these words, this is my body, both a sufficient cause, why transubstantiation may be in them beleued: and an vndoubted possibility of the same. But concerning the other words, I am the true wine, alleged by M. Nowel: the very first ground of al transubstantiation lacketh in them.

For whereas in euery transubstantiation two particular and seueral substances are to be graunted, one which may be chāged, an other into which the change may be made: in these wordes, I am the true vine, here is but one particular substance, which is Christ him selfe. As for the true vine, •…•…ither it is Christ him selfe,* 1.524 (and so it is no seueral substance from him, whereunto he may be changed) or els it is no particular substance at all: but only a ge∣neral •…•…ame of a kind of substance, which hath in it self no doter∣mined and proper being. For as, before Christ spake, there was no such vine extant, which might be pointed vnto: so 〈◊〉〈◊〉 speaking he made no such true vine any where, he brought foorth no such materiall thing, nay, he ment not of any vine or of any other creature vnder the sonne: but only ment him self to be that in his* 1.525 own person towards vs his members, which the natural vine is towards his branches. And therein him selfe to be so much the •…•…uer kind of vine, thē y^• natural vine is: because the iuyce, which vniteth his members to him the head of his mysticall body, is more true and more nigh to the spirit of God (which is the truth •…•…t self) then any material vine can be nigh to his own braunches.

Seing then transubstantiation can not be made otherwise,

then by turning o•…•…e materiall substance into an other: where one material substance only was found, there possibly could no tran∣substantiation be made. Christ in dede is one substance, but the vine, he spake of, was no one particular substance at all.

It was therefore a great ouersyght to compare these wordes, I am the true vine, to these, This is my body: which words were so spoken, that by the circumstance of the supper they are vnder∣standed to pertein after a sort to two substances, to the one, as takē before the begnining of Christes wordes, which was bread: to the other, as made present at the end of them, which is y^• body of Christ. For this which is bread, when Christ taketh it into his hands, afterward when he sayth of it, This is my body (by chā∣ging of the former substance) is made from bread the substance of Christes own body. Here are two paticular substāces, of y^• which o•…•…e both may be right well changed into the other, & so muche is signified by Christes dede & word: but in these words, I am y^t true vine, sithens two particular substāces are not, but only onē: the like change could neither be ment, nor be made by any meanes.

Again in euery trāsubstātiatiō as two substāces are presuppo∣sed first or last really extant: so when the change is made, one of y^• twayne must ceasse to be: for so much as it is chāged into y^• other substance. as, when water was made wine, the water was no* 1.526 more extant: but the wine only was extant, into whiche the wa∣ter was changed. If in these words, I am y^• true vine, any change* 1.527 at all might be, Christ were the thing that should be changed. for he is personally affirmed to be the true vine, in whose person two natures are beleued. Seing therefore in the proposition he occupieth the inferiour place (whiche thing is cl•…•…rely signified in that he is constrned before the verbe, and (as it were) is made to serue & to be subiect vnto the true vine) either nothing is meant •…•…o be changed, or els Christ himself is the thing.

Now it is clerely impossible, y^• Christes person should change* 1.528 his owne substance, because he is God. Who saith of him self by the Prophete, Ego Dominus, & non mutor. I am the Lorde, and am not changed. Therefore Christe can be changed into no sub∣stance at all, muche lesse he may be changed into the true vine: whiche it selfe is no determined or peculiar substance 〈◊〉〈◊〉 from Christes person.

But when after bread taken it is said: This is my body, the breade may be right well changed, because it is a mere creature* 1.529 subiect by nature to mutatiō. So that looke how much ods there is betwene God, who is immutable, and his creatures, whiche are alwaies changed: so much soner may the bread be made Chri∣stes body, then Christ can be made the true vine. Whereupon it insueth that M. Nowell auouched that, which was vtterly false: & he said it maruelouse •…•…gnorātly, when he affirmed these words,* 1.530 I am the true vine, to proue a transubstantiation as wel, as, this is my body.

What M. Nowel? take you vpon you, to chalenge all the Pa∣pists in so weake a matter: wherein a yong Logician would not only be able to aunswere you, but also to driue you out of the scholes? You bring foorth a proposition, whiche importeth two substances: the one signified by the pronoune, ego, I, the other by the noune vitis, a vine. in whiche proposition eche word doth so* 1.531 violently withstand al maner of substantiall change: that the one can not suffer it through the excellency thereof (which is the sub∣stance of Christ) the other can not beare it, for lack of the existēce thereof, because the true vine, whereof Christ spake, is no pecu∣liar nature at all distincted from Christ: but only sheweth the si∣militude of a truth, whiche truth is found no where els besyde in Christ him selfe. in so much that if Christ should be changed into the true vine, he should be changed into a property of his owne:

howbeit that could be no change from one substance to another, sith it is only one substance in all.

But is it like in y^t supper of Christ, where he sayth, This is my* 1.532 body? Is the bread, ouer which these words were spoken, a sub∣stance, which can not be changed? Is it any more then a creature without reason and se•…•…se? On the other side, is not the body of Christ a reall substance, into which a change may be really made? Is it not a substance different from the substance of bread both in number and in the kind of nature?

Perhaps M. Nowell wil say, that albeit so great a difference be found betwene I am the tr•…•… vine, and, This is my body, cōcer∣ning* 1.533 the two extreme and vttermost parts, which are Christ, and the vine: bread, & Christes body: yet at the least the verbe, which doth couple them together, is like in both propositions. For as in the first person Christe sayth, I am the 〈◊〉〈◊〉: so it is sayd in the third, This is my body. Now M. Nowell ment by like, that the verbe est, is, doth signifie no otherwise in this is my body: thē the verb sum I am, doth meane in these words, I am the true vine. As though the matter, & things them selues, which are signified* 1.534 by the two vttermost parts of a proposition, were not of more importance: then the verbe alone, which serueth to couple them, and to shew the agrement of y^• one toward the other. But what if the verbe also be otherwise put in, this is my body: then it is in, I am the true vine? Then surely, these two propositions, which M. Nowell compareth together as in all points like (touching transubstantiation) shalbe found in euery point diuerse, touching the same 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

The words, sum, es, fui, doth serue to signifie y^• kind of being▪* 1.535 which euery thing hath, according to y^• matter & case wherein it is vsed. Sometime it signifieth th•…•… general, or special, or personal & proper nature of a thing▪ sometyme y^t differēce thereof, sometyme

the proper or the common accidents belonging to it. Yea some∣tyme it only meaneth such a being, as is in the mind or vnder∣standing, without any reall existence at all, as when we say, synne is nothing: or, synne is euill: y^• verbe, is, doth s•…•…rue to shew* 1.536 after what ma•…•…ner the reasonable mind conceaneth synne: the which concey•…•…th it as being inde•…•…de nothing, because it is no creature made by God: but y•…•…t the mind speaketh of it and con∣sydereth i•…•…, as somewhat. Uexily as the lack of a perfectiō, which should haue bene really, where synne is now said to be.

Among al these 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of being, the verbe 〈◊〉〈◊〉, fur, doth most* 1.537 prop•…•…ly serue to •…•…ignifie God him self: who (as he said to Moy∣ses) is he, that is by nature, & therefore he named him self, Ego sum qui sum, I am who 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Next vnto God it signifieth euery sub∣stance most principally, as euery one partaketh of God a most excellent and p•…•…fit being.

And as among all substances they are most principally such* 1.538 which are most r•…•…ally de•…•…rmined, and limited by nature, as this man, that bread, this body, and such like peculiar substances, which are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 named thē 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and chefe substances, and can not be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 into a•…•…y creatures more particular, then them solues are: euen so they are most specially meant by the verbe sum, es, •…•…ui, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they may be so 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

They nede haue no reason brought sor proufe, that th•…•…y are really ment to be that, which they are called, whē they are named together with the 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 if there be not eui∣dent 〈◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊〉 the•…•… proper mea•…•…ing, naturally they are* 1.539 included. Thus when it is said: The word was G•…•…d, the word was made flesh, there was much grasse in that place, the •…•…onne of man shalbe three days in the ha•…•…t of the earth, John was in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈2 lines〉〈2 lines〉

those particular substances really, to be that which they are na∣med: but if it chaunce otherwise, we aske, why it doth not sig∣nifie▪ as it should chiefly doe.

Which being so, we must seeke the reason why these words, I am the true vine, doe not signifie Christ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 self to be y^• substance of the true vine whiche, thinge the 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 someth to import. But, as the truthe is, when Christ sayth, I am the* 1.540 true vine, he can not meane, I am the substance of a vine: for if he were so, he were not Christ. Because the substance of Christ, who is God and man, differeth wholy 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the substance of a vine. But Christ pr•…•…eth of him self, I am this, or that: •…•…∣fore we are compelled so to expound his words, that his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 may stil be saued. He sayth not, I am changed into a vine: or I am made a vine, the which words 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉▪ of being with the losse of the former Being: but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sayth, I am the true 〈◊〉〈◊〉, wherein somwhat is rather attributed or geuen to his for∣mer substance▪ then any thing taken from it, and much lesse the former substance it self is wholy taken away.

If then it repugne to the nature of Christ•…•… wordes, that he* 1.541 should in thē •…•…e thought to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 spoiled of his 〈◊〉〈◊〉, by which words his substance 〈◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉: we 〈◊〉〈◊〉 nedes find o•…•…t some other way of expounding those words, then •…•…o a•…•…e that▪ Christ is the substance of any materiall vine. Seig then these two subst•…•…es (for so in word they seme to 〈◊〉〈◊〉, although in de•…•… they can not so be ment) seing (I say) these two 〈◊〉〈◊〉 substances▪ Christ & a vine can not either be wholy one, whiles they be diuer•…•…, or be whol•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉, whil•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be said to 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 a wise man auoiding (as nigh as may be) all absurdity, seeketh out such a meaning: that both natures may remayne still 〈◊〉〈◊〉 concerning their differēt substances, and that they may co•…•…∣municat and agree in some▪ •…•…uality, which is common to •…•…th.

The which consyderation made al the lerned Fathers in these phrases of speache, I am the dore, I am the way, I am the true* 1.542 vine, the rock is Christ, •…•…on Baptist is Elias, and in such like, to shew what cōdition qualitie or propertie was common betwene these natures, without any surmise at all that any transubstan∣tiation could be meant in those words: in all which propositions the verb sum, es, fui, doth stand to signifie an accidental, and not a substantiall agreement betwene diuerse natures & substances.

But it is far otherwise, when Christ hauing taken bread, saith* 1.543 after blessing, This is my body: for in those words two seuerall natures are not ioyned together, and thereby aff•…•…ed still to be the substances they were before. It is not sayd, This bread is my body. No Enangelist, no Apostle, no Disciple reporteth Chri∣stes words in that sorte: such additions comme from Luther, from zwinglius, from Decolampadius, from Caluin: but not from S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke or S. Paule. The true Apostles of God by the in•…•…inct of the holy Ghoost were so far* 1.544 from the minde of saying this bread, or this wine: that they did put the pronoune this, in such a gender: as neither could agree to bread nor to wine, whereof I haue spoken sufficiently before.

The proposition then being such, as nameth one substance only, and that moste particular: there is no cause, why the verb, est, is, ought not to stand in his moste proper and vsuall signifi∣cation, verily to signifie this one thing, which was knowen to haue bene bread, by Christes word to be the substance of Christes* 1.545 owne body. which if it be once graunted, it will necessarily fo∣low: that this, which is the substance of Christes body, is not also common bread, because those natures were not at any time appointed to be together in any one proprietie of person.

If it be not common bread, and yet it doth seme so: it will in∣sew, that the substance of y^• bread is changed into Christes owne

substance, which is really present vnder the forme of common bread. Thus I haue shewed cause, why the verb est, is, doth si∣gnifie otherwise in, this is my body, then in these words, I am the true vine: by reason of which proper vnderstanding of the verb substantiue, transubstantiation is of necessitie inferred.

For as when I heare it reported for certeine, that Peter, who was in the morning at Douer, was seene the same night at Ca∣lis, I doe thereby vnderstand, that Peter passed ouer the sea, not because so much was spoken, but because it foloweth vpon that, which was done: Euen so, when I reade, that Christ in his sup∣per* 1.546 toke bread, and sayd after blessing: Take, eate, this is my bo∣dy: I vnderstand the bread, which by nature is not Christes body, by blessing and speaking to be made his body, and conse∣quently to be changed from his own substance into the substance of Christes body. None of all which things can be reasonably applied to the other words, I am the true vine.

For which reason I conclude, that whereas in euery propo∣sition three parts are either expressed, or imployed: the one which goeth before the verb, the other which foloweth after, and y^• verb it self: euery one helpeth to proue transubstantiation in these* 1.547 words, This is my body: and euery one hindereth the proufe of the same transubstantiation in the other words, I am the true vine. So discrete a chalenge M. Nowel made in comparing these two sayings together. But who can looke for better stuffe at his hands, sith he hath forsaken the notable wisedom of the Church of God, and taketh Caluins dreame to be Gods word?

Hitherto, M. Nowell, I haue shewed the true meaning of euery word of the two propositions by you alleged. But now I haue such confidence in the cause of those Catholikes, whom you 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Papists: that I will graunt you for farther disputations •…•…ake, euery thing to be otherwise, then it is in dede. Let vs ima∣gine,

that Christ were not God, and therefore might be changed* 1.548 in substance: that the true vine were a certeyne particular vine •…•…eueral from Christ, into the which a real change might be made: that the verb sum, I am, did stand to signifie a being in substāce, and not in qualitie alone: yet these words, I am the true vine,* 1.549 wold not proue as well a transubstantiation, as, This is my bo∣dy: for that transubstantiation wold be better proued in all dou∣tes moued therevppon, which were the more semely for Christ to worke. But it is a great deale more semely for him, to turne bread into his body: then to turne him self into a vine. Because it is to be thought, he being the wisedom of God changeth all∣ways for the best. Which were not so, if in stede of him self he should leaue vs a materiall vine: and yet in turning bread into his body, the change is made for the better by infinite degrees. Therefore these words, I am the true vine (though al other thigs were equall) could neuer proue that vnwise change so well: as, This is my body wil proue a most wise & happy change of com∣mon bread into the bread of life.

Morcouer, these words, the vine, albeit they were ment of a certeyne vine: yet there is no necessitie, that they should shew it* 1.550 present. Sith those words may be verified of a vine, which being a hundred mile thence, were knowen to Christ alone: as like∣wise, whē S. Paule sayd, The rock was Christ, the rock whereof he spake was not present 〈◊〉〈◊〉 him: but in his mind he noted a cer∣teyne* 1.551 rock, which yet in truth it self was not very certeyne (tou∣ching any one materiall rock) because two diuerse rocks were* 1.552 stryken, out of which water flowed at diuerse tymes. But (as I was about to say) the true vine, being only described by those termes, might be vncerteine to the Apostles and to the hearers of Christ, either because they neuer knew it, or because they haue forgotten it. So that these words, I am the true vine, will not as

well proue a transubstantiation, as the other words, This is my body. For both the bread, which was changed, was first present, and the body, wherevnto the change is made, is presently she∣wed, taken, and eaten vnder the forme of the same bread.

It is doubtlesse a great help in prouing transubstantiation, to know both the vttermost partes, and to be able to bring that foorth, into the which the other is changed. For the nature of proof among men consisteth in making a thing plaine to reason,* 1.553 by the meane of senses: and among faithfull men, it consisteth in making it plain to faith, by the meane of the same senses. If one should aske where the vine is, whereof Christ sayd, I am the true vine, and ye could not bring it foorth: and on the other syde, if I could bring foorth the body of Christ, into which y^• bread were changed: although you might as wel beleue the transubstantia∣tion of Christ into the vine through the word of Christ, as I do beleue the transubstantiation of bread into his body: yet you could not so wel proue it, because you could not shew it so well.

The vine, is lesse then, this vine, and the proof that (this) ma∣keth,* 1.554 doth far excede the proof that (the) can make. If an inqui∣sition were made, who had done a certeyne murder, and you said the man hath done it, but I could say, this man hath done it: I suppose, all the Iudges in the world wold say, that I proued the murder done better, then you. When it is sayd, the man hath done such a murder, albeit the Iudge beleue the saying: yet his vnderstanding is not quieted, but he asketh farther, which man is that? But when you come so nigh to the point, as to say, this man hath done it: nothing cā be asked more plaine. Which being so, albeit I graunted a transubstantiation in eche saying: yet M. Nowell had not sayd truly in affirming, that these words, I am the true vine, do proue as well a transubstantiation, as, This is my body. By how much (this) in making proof doth passe (the)

by so much the later words wold better proue a transubstantia∣tion, then the first.

Besydes this, when two transubstantiations are affirmed, of the which one hath bene in some like sorte practised before, but the other hath not bene likewise practised: those words which affirme such a transubstantiation, the like whereof hath bene be∣fore done, do proue the sayd transubstantiation better: then those that speake of a thing, that neuer was done.

Bread was vsually turned into Christes body, whiles he li∣ned* 1.555 in earth: for his body was nourished with bread, the which bread was turned into his flesh. Quamobrem rectè nunc etiam Dei verbo sanctificatum panem in Dei verbi corpus credimus im mutari. Wherefore now also we beleue well (sayeth Nyssenus brother to S. Basile) the bread, which is sanctified with y^• word of God, to be changed into the body of God the word.

This argument also Damascene, Theophylact, and Euthy∣mius* 1.556 do make. So that it is no newes for bread to become Chri stes body: but for Christ to become a vine, that, as it is through∣ly impossible, because Christ is God and vnable to be changed: so albeit we did graunt it possible, yet it were y^• harder to proue it, because it had not ben•…•… done before.

Last of all, there was neuer any auncient Father, or Generall Councell, nay there was neuer no learned man, were he Catho∣like or otherwise, there was neuer none of the lay people, no woman, no childe, no naturall foole: which tooke or thought any vine or rock in the whole world to be the naturall substance* 1.557 of Christ: Notwithstanding that Christ had sayd, I am the true vine, and S. Paule, that the rock was Christ. But if we come to these words, This is my body, and consider them so pronounced, as they were: we shal finde, not only thousand millions of faith∣ful people to haue beleued the bread, ouer which those words are

spoken, to be changed into Christes body: but also whole Gene∣rall Councels, wherein many hundred of Bisshops and of great clerks haue bene gathered together, to haue taught and decreed* 1.558 directly or by manifest sequele y^• doctrine of transubstantiation: as the Councels of Lateran, of Basile, of Constance, of Florēce, of Trent. Which all are knowen to haue agreed in this behalf.

Besides many auncient Fathers haue moste constantlie wri∣ten* 1.559 the same: as S. Iustinus the Martyr, Ireneus, Tertullian, S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostom, with all the rest. The prosecuting of which argumēt were at this present to far distant from my principall intent: but in case I may vnderstand, that these few reasons doe not satisfie M. Nowell, or any other man to whome my labour may doe good, I will proue moste fully the doctrine of transubstātiation both out of the holy scriptures, and out of the holy Fathers.

Now for M. Nowell, not withstanding al these s•…•…uē differen∣ces, to affirme y^t no Papist shal euer be able to shew cause, why I am the true vine: doth not proue as well a transubstantiation, as these words, This is my body: it was an ignorance in a prea∣cher not pardonable. For if I should only staye vppon the last* 1.560 argument, wherein all Christendom is shewed to haue beleued transubstantiation through these words, This is my body, and that as well before in dede, as by confession of our aduersaries, euer sence the great Councell of Lateran (which was kept aboue three hundred yeres past) seing M. Nowell for his parte could not bring foorth one reasonable creature, that euer surmised any transubstantiation in these words, I am the true vine: were not cause shewed, why these words, I am the true vine: did not as well proue a transubstātiation, as these words, This is my body?

S. Paul thought it a sufficient prouf of resurrection, to say: If there be no resurrection, our faith and our preaching is in vaine.

But that can not be so (as S. Paule concludeth) therefore like∣wise* 1.561 the faith of all Christendom these three hundred yeres toge∣ther was a cause, why a transubstantiation should be proued by the one words much rather, then by the other.

M. Nowell.* 1.562 ¶Is not this as plainlie spoken and as pithily, I am a true, or a very vine: as, this is my body?

IT were small pleasure to me, M. Nowell, to impugne your words, against whose person I haue no quarell: were it not, y^t* 1.563 you are & wold be accōpted a teacher in y^• realme of England, which kinde of men as it is moste necessarie, when by lawfull commission it preacheth the Ghospell, which it hath taken of the Apostles and their successors: so is the same moste perniciouse, whē it preacheth a Ghospell of his owne framing, otherwise vn∣derstanded, then they tooke it of their Prelates, vnder whome* 1.564 they liued, before they departed frō y^• fold of Christ: who appoin∣ted S. Peter to be y^• generall sheperd of his whole flock in earth, in whose chaire the Bishops of Rome sit by lawfull succession.

Is it then so plainly and so pithily spoken, M. Nowell, I am a true, or a very vine: as, this is my body? If the words, I am a* 1.565 true vine, or a very vine, be as pithy, as those of Christes sup∣per: without controuersie they must as well institute a Sacra∣ment of a true and of a very vine, as Christ at his supper did in∣stitute a Sacrament of his owne body and blood. For words a like pithy, must work an effect of like pith: otherwise, if y^• words of the supper do work that, which the words of a true and very vine do not work: you haue spoken falslie, in affirming that it is as pithily sayd, I am the true vine, as, this is my body.

Before Christ came in to the world, he made diuerse figures of his last supper: as that of Melchisedech, of the Paschall lāb, of* 1.566

manna, of shew br•…•…d, of wheatē meale, & of such like. was there likewise so many figures made, to prefigure that he wold be a ve∣rie vine?

When he was come into the world, he promised at Capharnaū that, the bread which he wold geue was his flesh. Made he the like* 1.567 of geuing any vine to vs? or of making himself a very vine?* 1.568

When the houre of sacrificing the Passouer was come, he sent* 1.569 S. Peter before, to prepare the passoner, which was but the sha∣dow of his supper. Did he likwise make a certeyne banket, or any like matter be prepared for him: which might be the shadow of himself in any such respect, as he is the true 〈◊〉〈◊〉? 〈◊〉〈◊〉 did eate the* 1.570 passouer with all the twelue, a mysticall number, as it may well* 1.571 appere in the holy 〈◊〉〈◊〉: one of y^• which was departed •…•…rom him, before that he sayd: I am the true vine.

He protested his desier to eate this passouer, but not so to eate,* 1.572 or to be made any vine.* 1.573

He washed his Apostles feete immediatly▪ before his supper: wherein he said, This is my body: but not immediatly before that* 1.574 he said, I am the true vine.* 1.575

He sate at the table, when he said, This is my body, which was* 1.576 the place, whereupon he wrought his mysterie: but he rose and* 1.577 went out of the place, before he said, I am the true vine. And so* 1.578 lacked the circumstance of that table, whereof Dauid and Salo∣mon* 1.579 had prophecied. To make his supper, he toke bread: but he toke nothing at all, to make thereof a vine. Therefore there is a* 1.580 more reall ground of the one, then of the other.

He blessed at his supper: he did not so, when he said, I am the* 1.581 true vine: and yet surely y^• words, wherewith blessing is ioyned, are thereby the playner.

He gaue thankes there, but not here: which is a token, that* 1.582 the myst•…•…rie of his body was the greater.

He brake there, but not here: whereby the very vine lacked a* 1.583 notable cerimony concer•…•…ing y^• represētation of Christes death.

He gaue there, but not here: because in his supper the cheif gift* 1.584 was externall, and geuen by Christes hands to theyr bodies and hartes.

He sayd there, and also he did those other things, as S. Luke* 1.585 r•…•…orteth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saying: wherein he doth vs to vnderstand, that* 1.586 Christ at his supper as well did, as sayd: for he toke, he blessed, he brake, he gaue saying, to wit, his saying and doing went to∣gether & one made the other plaine: but whē he said, I am the true* 1.587 vine, he did nothing els, whereūto his words could apperteyne, so that the dede might geue light to the word.

At his supper he bad his Apostles, take▪ not so in speaking of* 1.588 y^• true vine, because they had already the gift of being the braun∣ches of him, the true vine.

At his supper he bad them eate▪ not so in the other place. for y^•* 1.589 he prouided no externall meat vnder the forme of auy vine, as he had prepared his owne flesh vnder the form of bread.

At his supper he sayd, This is my body, where one substance* 1.590 only is named: and yet that by Christes doing and speaking is vnderstāded to be verified within the cumpasse and form of that, which once was knowen to haue bene the substance of bread: but in these words, I am the true vine, two substances are named: of the whiche one is only a proper and peculiar substance, the other is taken vnproperly, and is no reall substance distincted from Christ.

There the words passe from the worse to the better, from that* 1.591 which was bread to the body of Christ: here they passe from the better to the worse, from Christ to the name of a vine.

There is in the former part a demonstration, by pointing to* 1.592 this thing really present: here it is only described to be the true

vine, but no such creature is shewed or brought foorth

There such words are added, which restraine the name body* 1.593 to that true body of Christ, which died for vs: here such words be* 1.594 added, which declare the true vine, which is spoken of, not to be a natural vine, but a parabolical vine. for it is said afterwad: As a* 1.595 branche can not beare fruit of it self, vnlesse it tarry in the vine: so* 1.596 neither ye, except ye tarry in me. See the ods, M. Nowell, This is my body. Which body? which is deliuered for you. to say, this is mine owne substance, the very same, that is put to death for you. but concerning the true vine he saith, As the braunche can not beare fruit, vnlesse it be in the vine: so can not we beare fruit, except we tary in him. The particles as and so, be words of si∣militude, and not of substance.

Behold how he is a vine, by a similitude, and by a metaphor, by an exāple, by hauing a like propriety towards vs: as the vine hath towards his owne braunches.

These be other manner of circumstances, for the pithy and plaine setting forth of his reall body vnder the form of bread: thē you can bring any to make so much as an apparence, that Christ should be a vine. And is yet the one with you so plaine & so pithy,* 1.597 as the other? To what case would you bring the words, this is* 1.598 my body: if your power were to your will?

S. Iustinus the Martyr calleth them words of praier, because* 1.599 they were spoken with thankesgeuing.* 1.600 * 1.601

S. Chrysostom, words which consecrate the things set forth: be∣cause* 1.602 they make a Sacrament of y^• bread and wine. S. Ambrose* 1.603 calleth them words of blessing, and a speache which worketh: be∣cause they are spoken with the intent of working that they soūd.* 1.604 S. Augustine nameth them a mystical praier, of consecrating, of* 1.605 vowing, or offering, because they consecrate, vow and offer vnto God the substance of bread and wine: to the•…•…d it being accepted

of him, may be made the body of Christ our only sacrifice, wherein the oblations of the new law must end.

You making these words no more pithy, thē, I am the true vine, would haue them worke no more: then metaphorical words do work. which is to say, that they teach only a comfortable doctrine: but worke no essentiall thing in the substance of bread, whiche is set forth to be consecrated.

Christ after his body was consecrated, sayd to his Apostles,* 1.606 Make this thing for the remembrance of me: but after the wordes of the true vine were spoken, he bad no thing to be do•…•… or made for any purpose or effect.

The making of Christes body was e•…•…r accompted a greate* 1.607 sacrifice, as the greeke Liturgies and latine •…•…bookes delare:* 1.608 but there neuer was hard of auy vine, that was in that opinion* 1.609 among the faithfull.* 1.610

The words, which consecrate Christes blood, shew likewise,* 1.611 what is to be thought of, this is my body: but the true vine is not so con•…•…d by any other like consecration annexed.

The blood is pointed vnto within a cup or chalice, declaring* 1.612 the body also to haue bene pointed vnto vnder the form of bread: but the vine was not so limited within a certaine place, where it might appere to any sense of the Apostles.

It is called the blood of the new tostament, or the new testa∣ment* 1.613 in Christes blood: the like addition is not made to y^• true vine.

The very cup of Christes supper is said to be shed for vs, be∣cause* 1.614 the blood is conteined in it, which was only shed for vs: y^• like is not said of any thing, wherein y^• vine might be conteined.

The wordes of Christes supper be so playne and so pithy, that* 1.615 if we take them not as they sound: the prono•…•…nes hoc and hic shall lacke theyr noune substantiue.

The verbe est, is being once taken for significat, shall haue no* 1.616 substantiue at all, to be his nominatiue case.

The noune corpus, body, being expounded for the figure of* 1.617 Christes body, shall not agree with his participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, da∣tum, geuen: or els the relatiue quod, which, shall not agree with his antecedent corpus, body: except we defend a figure of Christ to haue bene crucified for vs. None of all these things compell vs, to take these wordes, I am the true vine, in suche sorte. There is no pronoune, no Relatiue or Participle, which may so restrain the nature of the wordes: but that we may take Christes kind of being the true vine, for hauing the qualitie of a true vine, and not being any vine in a seuerall substance.

Three Euangelists haue writen, This is my body, one after an* 1.618 other, confirming the propriety of the words: but only S. Ihon wrote, that Christe said, I am the true vine. Nowe that is not so plainly said, whereof four men write conformably, as that, which one writeth alone. For if an other had writen the parable of the vine, perhaps he would haue added other words to haue made it plainer, although it be plaine enough already.

For the honour of these wordes, This is my body, Churches* 1.619 and Altars haue bene builded: where that blessed body might be cōsecrated vnder the forme of bread. For any vine I neuer thinke the like to haue bene done.

You your selues allow at the least a square table, where this* 1.620 is my body, may be solemnly pronounced: but not so for these words, I am the true vine.* 1.621

The body whereof Christ spake, hath bene taught to be ado∣red* 1.622 vnder the forme of bread by S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine, & all the Fathers. You are the first M. Nowell, who* 1.623 would either a vine to be adored equally with Christes body: or els his body to be no more adored in the Sacrament of the altar

then a parabolicall vine. For to that end your words runne, that* 1.624 as wel Christ should be a vine: as that whereof he spake in his supper, should be his body. to say, that his body is only present in a parable at Christes supper.

S. Chrysostom calleth these words, I am the true vine, a para∣ble,* 1.625 and theresore saith: Quid vult haec parabola significare, what* 1.626 will this parable meane? And againe: Vide, quàm diligenter hanc parabolom exequitur. See, how diligently he prosecuteth this parable. But thought he, trow you, that: This is my body, was likewise a parable? No, no, it neuer was his minde. For writing* 1.627 vpō these words, Take, eate: this is my body, and hauing asked, why the disciples were not troubled hearing that thing, he aun∣swereth: Quia multa iam, & magna de hoc anteà disseruit, because Christ hath disputed of this thing, many and great things before. Where no dout at al can be, but that S. Chrysostom meaneth the the disputation kept at Capharnaum: where Christ promised the* 1.628 * 1.629 bread whiche is his flesh, affirming his fleshe to be not only true meate, but to be meat truely, therein shewing: that it is meat not* 1.630 only concerning the truth of nourishing, but also concerning the manc•…•… of ca•…•…ing it. vpon whiche place S. Chrysostome writeth, that Christe called his fleshe truely meate, either because it is the true meate which saueth the soule, or to confirme them in his for∣mer sayings: ne obscurè locutum in parabolis arbitrarentur, sed sc•…•…rent omnino necessarium esse, vt corpus comederent: least they should thinke him to haue spoken darkly in parables, but should know it to be by all mean•…•…s necessary, tha•…•… they should eate his* 1.631 body.

Behold, in promising his flesh, and in affirming it to be meate in dede Christ spake not in parables: much lesse could he do so in performing his promise, and in saying, Take, eate: this is my bo∣dy. Yet M. Nowell thinketh a parable as plaine, as that speache

which is no parable: Forgetting y^• Christ said him self to speake* 1.632 in parables to the multitude, so that the hearers did not vnder∣stand him. Yet M. Nowell wil haue, I am the true vine, whiche is a parable, to be as plaine, as, this is my body.

S. Augustine saith, Christe is called a vine by a Similitude or* 1.633 Metaphore: but he neuer taught the like, of, this is my body. For* 1.634 he saith, Noster panis & calix certa consecratione mystious fit no∣bis,* 1.635 nō nascitur: Our bread and chalice is not borne, but is made mysticall to vs by a certain consecration. That, whiche is conse∣crated, is in dede made somwhat, which it was not before, & not only shewed to be a thing by a similitude. A parable or similitude (as I am the true vine is) hath no consecration belonging to it: but our bread hath a certeine consecration, which worketh some mysterie: and what consecration is that, besyde the effectual ope∣ration of these words, this is my body?

Christ was the true vine, before he said, I am the true vine: but* 1.636 the thing pointed vnto at his supper was not his body, before it was said, This is my body. Therefore these words, which make a new thing, when they are spoken, are more pithy: then those, which only shew a thing already extant. But are metaphors vsed to be really made after acerteine mauer of consecration, Master Nowell? They be named and writē many tymes, but they be ne∣uer co•…•…secrated 〈◊〉〈◊〉 made really.

S. Cyrillus 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that he called himself a vine exempli rati∣one:* 1.637 by the way of example. But what? said he likwise, this is my* 1.638 body, as it were for examples sake? whē we bring an example, we bring it to proue some other thing, which is more principal, then the example was. Christ intēding to teach in what sort his disci∣ples depended vpon him for their spiritnal life, sheweth it by an example of the vine: but in his supper his own body consecrated, made, and eaten was not an example brought to declare an other

thing: but it was the principall thing it self, which was intended.

Therefore, this is my body, was more pithily said: then, I am the true vine. For the principal is always more pithy, then that, which is alleged for to serue an oth•…•…r purpose: in so muche that* 1.639 S. Cyrill sayth, Longè ab omni ratione remotum est, ad naturae substantiae{que} rationem illud traducere, quod per similitudinem dictum est. It is far distant from all reason, to apply that, which* 1.640 was spoken by a similitude, to a comparison of nature and sub∣stance. Which words, S. Cyrill spake of the Arrians, who deny∣ing these words to be ment of Christes humane nature, by the si∣militude went about to pro•…•…e: that as the vine, and the husband∣man be not of one nature, so God the father, who is, as it were, the husbandman, and Christ, who is the vine, were not of one nature.

And as the Arians did amisse, to applie the words spoken by a* 1.641 similitude, to the denying of Christes own diuine substāce: right so M. Nowell doth applie the same similitude euill, to disproue by the example thereof the substanciall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament.

But as S. Cyrillus doth returne the argument of the Arians vppon their heads, by shewing how Christ is the vine, and we* 1.642 the braunches according to his humanitie: so may we shew to M. Nowell, that these words of Christ, I am the true vine, serue to shew the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament of the altar.

S. Augustine sayeth, Christ was made man, to th'end the na∣ture* 1.643 of man might be the vine in him: of which humane nature we men might be the braunches. S. Cyrill affirmeth likewise,* 1.644 * 1.645 Christ to be the vine euen according to the flesh: and vs to be braunches both spiritually and corporally. He proueth it, for so* 1.646 much as the mysticall blessing maketh Christ to dwell corporal∣ly

also in vs, by the communicating of the flesh of Christ. What meaneth he by dwelling corporally? Himself sheweth saying, Non habitudine solum, quae per charitatem intelligitur: verū etiá & naturali participatione. Not only by habit, by power, by effect, or by the state and condition of charitie alone: but also by natu∣rall participation. •…•…o, he placeth naturall participation, as a farther degree beyond that dwelling of Christ in vs, which is by faith or charitie.

M. Nowell will say pe•…•…haps, that the naturall participation* 1.647 of Christes flesh is to beleue, that he is true man and true God: and so to fede vpon him by faith at the tyme of eating bread and of drinking wine. Such cursed interpretations now adaies they* 1.648 bring: as though he, that doth not beleue Christe to be in dede true man and true God, can be ioyned to Christ at all▪ by faith and charitie. But S. Cyrill speaketh of that participation, which is made not only by faith and charitie: but also by naturall par∣taking his body and blood.

We must put a certeine iust man to beleue most p•…•…y, who yet hath not receaued the mysticall blessing or communion of Chri∣stes flesh. That iust man is ioyned to God by faith and charitie, but not yet corporally. He is a branche of the Godhead (which is principally the true vine) and a braunche of the manhod in that he beleueth in Christ, who is true God and man: but he is not yet corporally a braunche of the manhood (which is also the true vine) except he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 worthily the mysticall blessing, which is the Sacrament of Christes supper: the which maketh Christ to dwell in vs corporally also. Note the word quoque, also.

For Christ dwelt in his Apostles harts before the last supper* 1.649 by right faith and charitie, and therefore he sayd they were all cleane sauing Iudas: but this mysterie maketh him dwel in them* 1.650 corporllay also. And S. Cyrill expoundeth farther, how Christ

by the Sacrament dwelleth in vs. For whereas Christ had sayd, except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his blood,* 1.651 ye shall not haue life in your selues: He interpreteth life, the flesh of life, in your selues, in your body. That is to say: except ye eate my flesh, ye shall not haue the flesh of life in your body. Vita au∣tem iure ipsa vitae caro intelligi potest. The life may well be vnderstanded the self flesh of life. In vobis ipsis dicit, id est, in cor∣pore vestro. Christ sayth, except ye eate y^• flesh and drink y^• blood of the sonne of man, ye shall not haue life in your selues: that is to say, in your body.

Is not this plaine enough? Then heare yet a plainer simili∣tude, which fully doth open his minde. S. Cyrillus expresly af∣firmeth* 1.652 Christ to be in vs, and vs to be in him, by the communica∣ting of his body and blood, euen after that sort: as if a man taking wax (which is melted by the fier) do so mingle it with other mel∣ted wax, that one maner of thing semeth to be made of both. How think you, M. Nowell? Is one wax mingled with an other by faith and spirit alone? or is it mingled by signes and tokens 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the one part, without the reall presence of both waxes.

What wicked men are ye, who will make vs beleue, y^• S. Cy∣rill did not meane the reall substance of Christes fleshe to be re∣allie and corporallie in vs, by communicating his bodie & blood? If you beleue him not, why do ye not deny his aucthoritie? If ye beleue his doctrine, why teache you not the same? These be* 1.653 the points, M. Nowell, which you must a•…•…swer vnto. For eue∣ry word, that foloweth, is in S. Cyrill euen in that place, where he disputeth of the true vine: though not in such order, as I now put them. Which thing I doe, to make his whole mind ap∣peare at once. Thus he sayth.

* 1. The mysticall blessing, or the communicating of Christes body and blood▪ * 2. maketh. * 3. Christ, or the life, or the flesh

of life. * 4. to be, or to be made, or to be ioyned, or to dwell. * 5. in vs, or with vs, and vs to haue it in our selues, or in our bo∣dies. * 6. according to the flesh, or corporally. * 7. and not on∣ly by habit, or power, or by •…•…aith, or charitie, or spiritually. * 8. but also, by naturall partaking. * 9. euen so as one melted wax is mingled to an other melted wax, and in maner made one there∣with. * 10. By this meanes we are both corporally and spiritual∣ly braunches of Christes flesh, which is also the true vine.

See now, M. Nowell, how y^• parable of the true vine right∣ly expounded, maketh altogether for our purpose. As Christ is the true vine according to his flesh, so are we the braunches ac∣cording* 1.654 to his flesh. He is the vine, by hauing his flesh really present and vnited to himself: therefore we be the braunches by* 1.655 hauing the same flesh really present in vs, and by being really vnited vnto it, as the braunche is vnited to his roote. As Christ is the true vine two ways, by his Godhead and by his manhod: so a mā may two ways liue by Christ, by partaking of his God∣head and manhod: by habit only, if he haue a good faith: and by partaking his manhod corporally also, if he receaue worthily the Sacrament of the altar.

But that Sacrament could no more make vs be braunches according to the flesh of Christ, then our faith and charitie doth make vs to be braunches thereof: except it had his flesh really present. For otherwise our faith it self is a better meane to gra•…•… vs into Christ, then bread and wine is: because it is a ioyning of vs to God in a higher degree. But the mystical blessing in S. Cyril is made the meane to ioyne vs to God in a higher degree, then faith or charitie. Therefore S. Cyrill and all the Fathers before him, (whose minde he professeth himself to folow) bele∣ued the reall presence of Christes flesh in the Sacrament of the altar: And that by the way of turning the bread into his flesh.

For the flesh of Christ could not be really present, to dwell cor∣porally with vs and in our bodies, except it were corporally re∣ceaued of vs. And other way, how to receaue it corporally, I see not: except the bread be changed into it.

Thus you see, what aduantage, I am the true vine, doth bring to the Catholike faith: but no hinderance in the world can be thence deduced against the reall presence of Christes body and blood in the Sacrament of the altar.

M. Nowell. ¶ Nay, if Christ had sayd likewise, this is my true & very body, as he sayd, I am a true or very vine what a rule had we then had?

I Marueile, if M. Nowell think more strength to be in these* 1.656 words, my true or very body: thē in these, My body which is geuen for you. as though y^• true & very body were not geuen for vs. But if the true body were geuen for vs, Christ saying, This is my body, which is geuen for you, sayd also: This is my true and very body. And therein M. Nowell shal haue a rule, to know that Christ spake not metaphorically: for the relatiue quod, which, can not agree with any other word, then with the noune substantiue corpus, body. which noune corpus, body, if it stand vnproperlie, the relatiue must nedes repete it so, as it stan∣deth: and then, if this be the sigure of Christes body, which is ge∣uen at his supper, the figure of his body is geuen for vs vpon the crosse.

I confesse M. Nowell, I could be content to goe to schole, & to •…•…rne of so aunciēt a scholemaster as you are: how a word which is but once named (as y^• noune corpus, body, in Christes supper) may be antecedent to the relatiue, quod, which, (as the Latins

reade) or noune substantiue to the participle datum, geuen, (as the Greeks reade) and yet be otherwise ment in his relatiue and participle, then it was being the antecedent or the noune sub∣stantiue. Christ sayd, This is my body geuen for you. wil you diuide the participle geuen, from his noune substantiue body? If you will not, as the body geuen for vs was the substance of Christes body: so this is the self same substāce of Christes body, which the Apostles are commanded to take, to eate, and to make. In that you turne the words vitis vera, not only a true, but also a verie vine, you are much deceaued. The word vera, is not now to be pressed, as if it were set to signifie a naturall vine (where vnto your words run) but to signifie a perfect vine, in respect of an imperfit: for so we say, he is a true man, meaning a truth in his words and dedes, but not in nature. for a lier and falsifier is also a true man in nature. Euen so Christ meaneth himself to be a moste true and perfect vine concerning the swete frute, which a vine ought to bring foorth and to communicate vnto his bran∣ches. For the Iewes being a vine well planted by God, became through synne a •…•…oure vine, and brought foorth none other but wilde grapes: but Christ is a true, a perfit, a moste excellent vine, which bringeth foorth swete grapes in his faithfull members of y^• Church. Thus doth S. Augustine expound y^• word vera, true,* 1.657 saying: that when Christ calleth him self a true vine, he maketh a difference betwene him self, and that vine, to which it is sayd:* 1.658 How art thou turned into the bitternes of a strange vine?

Euthymius declareth the Greeke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to signifie* 1.659 either an excellent, an incorruptible, a spirituall vine: or els a vine, which for his fruit bringeth foorth veritie and truth.

Now such an addition doth rather detract sum what from the naturall and very vine, whereof M. Nowell speaketh: then help it any thing. For which cause he should not haue had such a rule

with vs, as he thinketh, if it were sayd, This is my true body: sith the word true might haue ben taken for the effect or frute proce∣ding from his body, which wold not haue bene so much for our purpose, as when it is sayd, This is my body which is geuen for you. Thus euery way M. Nowell is deceaued in his constru∣ction. And no wonder, sith he buildeth not vpon the rock plan∣ted by Christ in the Catholike Church: but vpon Caluins new inuentions, which are more feble, then the sands them selues.

M. Nowell. ¶ Christ saith, Ego sum panis, I am bread: and yet no transubstantiation of his body into bread. Why should these words, Hoc est corpus meum, this is my body, more transubstantiate bread into his body?

HOw long will you continew in falsifying the holy Scri∣ptures, M. Nowell? When shall a man find you to deale vprightly? Where is it writen, I am bread? Where sayeth Christ those words? Uerily if he had sayd them, yet you may know, he meant him self to be bread only by a similitude or Me∣taphore: as it was expounded before in the words, I am the true vine. And therefore, I am bread, could import no transubstantia∣tion for seuen causes.

* 1. The bread, he speaketh of, is no certayne or limited sub∣stance.* 1.660 * 2. Christ can not be personally changed, for that he is God. * 3. The verb sum, I am, being ioyned with two natures cleane distant doth always signifie a like condition or propertie, and no identitie of substance. * 4. It were a change made for y^• worse, such as Christ vseth not to make. * 5. It wold be y^• har∣der to be proued, because the thing, whereinto the change should be made, is not pointed vnto, as present. * 6. It had bene a change, the like whereof had not bene vsed before. * 7. It was

ne•…•…r ta•…•…ght nor beleued in the Church.

But in these words, This is my body. * 1. The body is cer∣tayne.* 1.661 * 2. The bread taken is a creature made to be changed. * 3. The verb est, is, doth not stand betwene two diuerse sub∣stances: but betwene the pronoune and his only noune substan∣tiue. * 4. The change is for the better. * 5. It is better to be pro•…•…ed, because it poynteth presently to the thing made. * 6. Bread was before changed into Christes flesh, whiles he eating bread liued thereby. * 7. The Church beleued, the Fathers taught, and the Generall Councels decreed the change of the bread into Christes body.

It had not bene ha•…•…d, to haue answered thus: if Christ had sayd, I am bread. But phy vppon that impietie of yours, M.* 1.662 Nowell, who in so few words commit so many faults? You re∣porte, that Christ sayd, I am bread: and therein you falsify the word of God. It is not sayd any where, I am bread. For what call you the saying of Christ? It is writen, Odiui omnem viam iniquitatis: And again, Omnem viam iniquā odio habui. I haue* 1.663 hated euery way of iniquitie, I haue hated euery vniust way. Were it now truly reported, that God had sayd: I haue hated euery way? And thereof to conclude, that noman may either walk by the high way, or walk in the path of God: because God hath hated euery way?

After the like maner doth M. Nowell reporte the words of* 1.664 Christ: who sayd twise, I am the bread of life. And once he sayd, I am the liuing bread. Now cometh M. Nowell and leaueth out* 1.665 the genitiue case in the two first sayings, and the participle in the last, and the article in both, and affirmeth that Christ sayd, I am bread. In dede M. Nowell, these words be found, as likewise we find, I haue hated euery way: but it is no small sacrilege, to allege Gods word, leauing out any essentiall part thereof. And

specially when the word left out is so ioyned with the rest: as y^• genitiue case is ioyned to the noune, which it foloweth, or as the participle is ioyned to his noune substantiue.

It had bene bad enough, to haue sayd in our tong, which hath* 1.666 articles: I am bread of life. for euen so the article (•…•…) the, had bene left out: because it is writen, I am the bread of life, or, I am the liuing bread: And not, I am bread. But to leaue out both the article (the) and the genitiue case (of life) or the participle (li∣uing) and to argue vppon that false ground, that Christ is not transubstantiated into bread: it is so dissolutely done, that it may warne you, M. Nowell, of your ow•…•… blindnesse of hart, and of y^• blindnes of all such other fal•…•…e preachers as you are.

Who through (what other great synnes I can not tel) but cer∣teinly* 1.667 through schisme are so wonderfully forsaken of God: that you see not now, not only what his true meaning, what his worde and Ghospell▪ what the moste sy•…•…cere faith of his Church is, but you see not that, which naturall Philosophers, which men of common reason, which children in y^• Catholike Church see. You see not the dependence betwene the pronoune adiectiue, and his noune substantiue: but referre hoc to panis, and hic to* 1.668 vinum: you see not, how the nominatiue case agreeth with his verb: but in expounding Hic est sanguis meus, for hic significat sanguinem meum you leaue the verb without a noune substan∣tiue* 1.669 to goe before him: which is not so, when we say, Hic est san∣guis meus, this is my blood, taking the verb substantiue est, is, properly. For s•…•…ing here is in all but one substance named, the pronoun hic, this, is so referred finally to the blood alone, that yet we do not construe the words saying, this blood is my blood:* 1.670 but we make the last determination of the pronoune (this) to rest only in the substance folowing. And so as long as the substance is vnnamed, the noune substātine to the pronoune is vnknowē,

as in, Hic est filius meus, haec vidua erat, hoc est verbum fidei: but* 1.671 strayght vpon the naming thereof, the pro•…•…oune is ruled in case,* 1.672 gender, and number, of his noune substantiue, which co•…•…eth after the verb.

But when you haue expounded the words of Christ by hic si∣nificat* 1.673 sanguinem meum, when al the speache is fully ended: your pronoune of the masculine gender & of the nominatiue case fin∣deth no noune substantine at all, with whom he may rest, but styl is without his due construction.

You turne the nounes corpus, and sanguis, from the nomina∣tiue* 1.674 case into the accusatiue. You diuide the relatiue quod, which,* 1.675 from his antecedent corpus, body, in that you make him repete but halfe the signification of his antecedent. You diuide the par∣ticiple* 1.676 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, geuen, frō the signification of his noune 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, body. You supply in S. Luks Greeke words the verbe est, is, by common vse: & when you haue it present, you cast it out again,* 1.677 or expound it not according to y^• common vse of speaking: which forced you to supply it, but according to an vnproper meaning very sildom vsed, & not vnderstanded of any meane lerned man.

You teache by necessarie & ineuitable sequele of your doctrine,* 1.678 a figure of Christes body, that is to say, material bread to be sacri ficed for vs. You teache, the wine to be in the cup: and yet Christ saith, the cup, to wit, that which is in the cup, to be shed for vs.

You diuide the noune substautine from his genitine case: san∣guis from testamenti, vitae from panis. you cut of the article. you myssēglish many things, as I haue noted before. These be faults, into which a Grammarian should not fal: & yet you are so blind, that you see them not. For so I rather think of you: thē that you of purpose chose to be Heretiks, and to be damned persons.

What might a man doe, to bring you home? You wrote not passing twenty lines together of this blessed Sacrament in this

place: and yet s•…•… into what grosse 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you be fallen. If your whole booke were so particularly skanned, euery leafe is full of such like faults. But because it wold passe all measure of writing, if in a great volume euery line should be thus staid vpon: there∣fore al things euery where be not, nor can not be so particularly examined. but surely all be as fond, as vayne, as false.* 1.679

To returne to my chefe purpose, Christ is y^• bread of life, accor∣ding to his Godhead and manhod: and is to be eaten of by faith, as it is often times said in S. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. But he is also to be eaten i•…•… his humane fleshe, and to be drunken in the substance of his na∣turall blood not onlie by faith, but verè, trulie▪ that is to saie: he is to be taken at the mouth, and so cometh to oure hartes and mindes, which is the wa•…•… of eating him at his last supper.

The which way (by that meane of eating) fulfilleth the figure Māna. In respect whereof Christ calleth him self not dead food, as y^• was: but y^e liuing bread, not without power to quicken (as that was) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the bread of life: which can geue life to him, that* 1.680 worthily 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it. Not a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 breade, as Manna was: but the true bread▪ not geuen from the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, as Manna, but from* 1.681 heauen. and the bread sayth Christ, which I wil geue, is my flesh.

This bread of life, M. Nowel, is the euerlasting meat, which the sonne of man promised to geue: and at his supper he doth geue it, euen as he is the sonne of man, to wit, by the instrument of his manhod verily by his own handes, and by his corporall deliuery made to the twelue at his last supper.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The first Chap•…•…ter.
• * 1.2

  The gift or legacy of Christ.
• * 1.3

  The law of Christ.
• * 1.4

  The wri∣ting of both.
• * 1.5

  Ne•…•…e doubts▪
• * 1.6

  The que∣stion deci∣ded of old.
• * 1.7

  Paulus ff. de leg.
• * 1.8

  Custom.
• * 1.9

  The vse of Gods church.
• * 1.10

  The ado∣ration of Christes body.
• * 1.11

  A new heresie in Poolelād.
• * 1.12

  Circum∣•…•… of them sel•…•…s
• * 1.13

  Tertull. de prae scriptiō. aduersus haeretic.
• * 1.14

  One chāge on∣ly could be in religiō.
• * 1.15

  Iacob. 1.
• * 1.16

  Heb. 11.
• * 1.17

  A teacher of new do∣ctrine is not to be heard.
• * 1.18

  Berenga rius prea∣ched a new do∣ctrine.
• * 1.19

  The Sa∣cramen∣taries can haue no ground of their do∣ctrine.
• * 1.20

  1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
• * 1.21

  The ho∣nour of God.
• * 1.22

  The pro∣fite of the faithfull.
• * 1.23

  Lucae. 6.
• * 1.24

  Lucae 8.
• * 1.25

  Two cau ses of spea king figu∣rati•…•…ly.
• * 1.26

  Aug. de doctrina Christ. l. 3. cap, 10.
• * 1.27

  The pro∣per sense of 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 is no∣ther aga∣•…•… the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, nor good ma∣ners.
• * 1.28

  We can neuer be sure that Christ spake figu ratiuely.
• * 1.29

  The ii. Chapiter.
• * 1.30

  Wordes are to be taken as they do properly signifie.
• * 1.31

  Tertull. de carne Christi.
• * 1.32

  Things must be beleued a•…•… they are named.
• * 1.33

  Li. 67. de leg. 3.
• * 1.34

  The names v∣sed at Christes supper are to be kept.
• * 1.35

  This is body.
• * 1.36

  my.
• * 1.37

  Epiphā. lib. 2. to. 1. haer. 61.
• * 1.38

  Traditiō is to be re spected in exposiding holy scri∣ptures.
• * 1.39

  The ii•…•…. Chapiter.
• * 1.40

  Ioan. 13.
• * 1.41

  This, can be said but of one sub∣stance.
• * 1.42

  Christes words di∣rected to the bread.
• * 1.43

  The strēgth of the pro∣noun this.
• * 1.44

  The pr•…•…∣per sense of Chri∣stes wor∣des.
• * 1.45

  Transub∣stantiatiō.
• * 1.46

  1. Co. 11. Luc. 22.
• * 1.47

  hoc, this, 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 the noune (body.)
• * 1.48

  Christes naming to making.
• * 1.49

  Rom. 4.
• * 1.50

  The 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Chapiter.
• * 1.51

  The opt∣mō of the prote∣stants.
• * 1.52

  The sub∣stance of bread is not pom∣ted vnto.
• * 1.53

  1. Co. 11.
• * 1.54

  Mat. 21.
• * 1.55

  Luc. 22.
• * 1.56

  Ioan. 6.
• * 1.57

  This, and bread be not of one gender.
• * 1.58

  Cypriā. de coena Domini not farre from the beginning
• * 1.59

  This, in English is of all genders.
• * 1.60

  The v. Chapiter.
• * 1.61

  (This) doth not stand to signifie many things.
• * 1.62

  All the doings be not poin∣ted vnto.
• * 1.63

  1. Co. 10.
• * 1.64

  1. in Apo. 2. 2. in Or. cathech. 3. li. 4. de Sacram. 4. depro dit. lud. 5. contr. Faust. li. 20. ca. 13. & epi. 59. Breaking is not poin ted vnto.
• * 1.65

  Of S. Iames. Of S. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Of S. Chrysost. Of S. Chrysost.
• * 1.66

  Eating or drinkig is not alone pointed vnto. 1. Cor. 10
• * 1.67

  The body or blood is only poin∣ted vnto.
• * 1.68

  The brea king.
• * 1.69

  The ta∣king.
• * 1.70

  The ea∣ting. Luc. 22. The ge∣uing.
• * 1.71

  The vi. Chapiter.
• * 1.72

  Theop. •…•… Math. 26
• * 1.73

  In Marc. 14.
• * 1.74

  This, doth mean particular ly this ea∣table thi•…•…
• * 1.75

  The vii. Chapiter.
• * 1.76

  1. Cor. 11
• * 1.77

  The obie∣cion.
• * 1.78

  The aun∣swere.
• * 1.79

  1.
• * 1.80

  The Cha lice.
• * 1.81

  2. The cha∣lice expoū ded in ho∣ly scrip∣ture.
• * 1.82

  3.
• * 1.83

  The cha∣lice by vse of speakig signifieth the drinke in it.
• * 1.84

  4.
• * 1.85

  This cha lice where in liquor is knowē to be can not make the speach obscure.
• * 1.86

  5.
• * 1.87

  Matt. 16.
• * 1.88

  The word io•…•…ned w^t the name of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, maketh a•…•… pla•…•….
• * 1.89

  6.
• * 1.90

  Luc. 22.
• * 1.91

  7.
• * 1.92

  26.
• * 1.93

  14.
• * 1.94

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is •…•…amed.
• * 1.95

  The 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Chapiter.
• * 1.96

  Ioan. 15. 1. Cor. 10
• * 1.97

  Uniuer∣sal consent is a way to knowe figuratiue speaches.
• * 1.98

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 dore. The dore. Chi•…•…ore
• * 1.99

  Ezec. c. 5
• * 1.100

  The circū stance of y^• speache is to be con∣sidered. Aug. lib. quaest. 83 q. 69.
• * 1.101

  The int•…•…t of the au∣thor in this chapi ter.
• * 1.102

  Ioan. 1. & 14. God Ioan. 6. Sent 〈◊〉〈◊〉 flesh.
• * 1.103

  To men that were flesh.
• * 1.104

  Rom. 12. Col. 2.
• * 1.105

  Promi∣seth flesh.
• * 1.106

  Geueth flesh.
• * 1.107

  He is to be beleued
• * 1.108

  Euseb. homil. 5. in pasch.
• * 1.109

  Men speake most ware ly toward their death. 1. Co. 11.
• * 1.110

  Aug. ep. 118. ad Ia nuar.
• * 1.111

  Christ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not bethought lesse dis∣crete in his words then other men wold 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.112

  The A∣postles haue 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christes words to vs with∣out any mentiō of a figure.
• * 1.113

  Math. 13.
• * 1.114

  Parable•…•… hide the truth in part. Math. 13.
• * 1.115

  Ioan. 6.
• * 1.116

  Leo in serm. de pass. do.
• * 1.117

  Exo. 12.
• * 1.118

  1. Cor. 5. Ioan. 1.
• * 1.119

  Ireneus lib. 4. ca. 32. Leo de pass. do. serm. 7.
• * 1.120

  Heb. 7. Ioan. 1.
• * 1.121

  Lucae. 22.
• * 1.122

  Chryso. in Math. ho. 83.
• * 1.123

  Christ did not ea•…•… his own flesh by faith but in dede.
• * 1.124

  Hom. 83.
• * 1.125

  Psal. 77.
• * 1.126

  The old Lamb was not desired for his own sake.
• * 1.127

  Psal. 49. Malac. 1.
• * 1.128

  Tertul. l. 4. aduer. Marcio.
• * 1.129

  Chryso. in Ps. 37.
• * 1.130

  Chryso. in Math. hom. 82. & 83.
• * 1.131

  Ioan. 13. In fine di lexit eos
• * 1.132

  Chrys. hom. 61. ad Anti. Chrys. 1. Cor. ho∣mi. 24.
• * 1.133

  great loue cauleth y^• greatest gif•…•…s.
• * 1.134

  Ioan. 13.
• * 1.135

  Dionys. de Eccl. Hierar. cap. 3.
• * 1.136

  Hieron. in Math. 26. Luc. 22.
• * 1.137

  Why the bread of Christ is 〈◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊〉 y^• of 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.138

  Luc, 22.
• * 1.139

  Niceph. li. 1. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Eccles. cap 28. Damasc. de orth. fi. lib. 4. cap 14. Gal. 4. Hebr. 11.
• * 1.140

  Psal. 22. Prou. 9. Leuit. 24
• * 1.141

  Christos supper is vpon the table it self.
• * 1.142

  If y^• table be r•…•…ll, muche more the meate.
• * 1.143

  Luc. 6.
• * 1.144

  The bread •…•… Christ toke was already ha lowed.
• * 1.145

  The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Chri∣stes sup∣per is made in bread and wine.
• * 1.146

  Gen. 14.
• * 1.147

  Leuit. 1. 2. &c. Al things that be sa∣crificed be changed.
• * 1.148

  Matth. 5.
• * 1.149

  Cypr. ad Caecil. li. 2. epi. 3.
• * 1.150

  Blessing. Psal. 148
• * 1.151

  Ioan. 6.
• * 1.152

  Marc. 6. Luc. 24.
• * 1.153

  The bles∣sing of god is a doing
• * 1.154

  The word blessing sheweth y^• intent of Christ.
• * 1.155

  Amb. de ijs qui init. mys. cap. 9.
• * 1.156

  Cyril. li. 4. in Ioā. c. 16. 17. 19. & lib. 11. ca. 22. Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom. 24.
• * 1.157

  Nysse. in orat. ca∣thechet. Amb. de ijs qui init. ca. 9.
• * 1.158

  Blessing.
• * 1.159

  Thanks 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.160

  Iustin. in Apol. 2. Euchar.
• * 1.161

  The best kind of thanks.
• * 1.162

  True words be most thāk full.
• * 1.163

  •…•…ren. lib. 4. ca. 34,
• * 1.164

  Theod. Dial. 3.
• * 1.165

  The or∣der of doing and speaking.
• * 1.166

  1. Cor. 10
• * 1.167

  Christes supper di∣uided into 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and word•…•….
• * 1.168

  Manna. Exod. 16
• * 1.169

  Hieron. aduersus Iouinia. lib. 2.
• * 1.170

  Ephes. 4. Rom. 12. 1. Cor. 12
• * 1.171

  1. Cor. 11
• * 1.172

  Hieron. aduersus Iouinia. lib. 2.
• * 1.173

  Homil. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Pasch.
• * 1.174

  Ignatius ad Phila delphien 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.175

  In Theo 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Eccles.
• * 1.176

  1. Cor 10
• * 1.177

  The one bread to Christ, who 〈◊〉〈◊〉 breaking 〈◊〉〈◊〉 whole.
• * 1.178

  1. Cor. 10
• * 1.179

  Christ gaue with his hands
• * 1.180

  Ioan. 6.
• * 1.181

  The meat of Chri∣stes sup∣per came from his hands.
• * 1.182

  26. 14. 22 1. Cor. 11
• * 1.183

  Christes gift in S. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is meant of an exter∣nall gift.
• * 1.184

  The Sa∣cramen∣taries can not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 when Christ ful filled his promise.
• * 1.185

  1. The pro∣fite of words.
• * 1.186

  2. The ne∣cessitie of words.
• * 1.187

  3. The wor∣des of God.
• * 1.188

  4. Myste∣ries.
• * 1.189

  5. The my∣sterie of Christes supper.
• * 1.190

  6. The Sa∣cramen∣taries trust not Christes words.
• * 1.191

  26. 14. 1. Co. 11. 22.
• * 1.192

  7. Dedes be doubtfull.
• * 1.193

  Chryso. in Math. Hom. 83.
• * 1.194

  8. The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the supper were para bles.
• * 1.195

  9. The words of the supper expound y^• parable of the dedes.
• * 1.196

  10 Mere 〈◊〉〈◊〉 words ex pound no∣thing.
• * 1.197

  11. The words of y^• supper ge∣ue 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to y^• 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.198

  Ioan 3. Matt. 28.
• * 1.199

  In y^• se∣cōd booke ca. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.200

  12. It is no sing•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 che is not knowen.
• * 1.201

  The 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.202

  The aun∣swer•…•….
• * 1.203

  Ioan. 6.
• * 1.204

  In Epi. 162.
• * 1.205

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 be∣longeth to the body •…•… soule.
• * 1.206

  Tertul. de resur. carnis.
• * 1.207

  •…•… 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉.
• * 1.208

  Epipha. haer. 30.
• * 1.209

  Hebr. 10 Christ pre sented no external sacrifice besyde his own flesh Gen. 14. Exod. 16
• * 1.210

  Malac. 1.
• * 1.211

  Working words cā not be fi∣guratiue.
• * 1.212

  Chrys. homi. de prodit Iudae.
• * 1.213

  Ioan. 6.
• * 1.214

  Howe the Sacramē taries 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Chri stes wor∣des.
• * 1.215

  Chryso. in Ioan. Hom. 35.
• * 1.216

  How S. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 placed 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ words.
• * 1.217

  There is but one noun sub∣stanti•…•… in Christes 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.218

  By the Sacra∣•…•… doctr•…•…e a •…•…gure was cru∣•…•… for vs.
• * 1.219

  The ob∣•…•…ction.
• * 1.220

  The aun∣swer.
• * 1.221

  One word can not haue at once a pro per & vn∣proper meaning.
• * 1.222

  The rela tiue must repete hi•…•… whole 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.223

  By the Sacra∣mentarie doctrine bread is sacrificed for vs.
• * 1.224

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.225

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.226

  There is but one verb in the Greek text.
• * 1.227

  〈◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊〉 the 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.228

  The 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.229

  The aun∣swer. To signi∣fie and to be a signe •…•…o all one.
• * 1.230

  Signifi∣cat, 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉,
• * 1.231

  3. Reg. 18 Leuit. 15
• * 1.232

  Exod. 12
• * 1.233

  Gen. 14.
• * 1.234

  Cypria. lib 2. Epist. 3.
• * 1.235

  The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 were com 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sa∣crifice.
• * 1.236

  Psal. 39. Heb. 10.
• * 1.237

  The body o•…•…red was at Christes •…•…ble.
• * 1.238

  Thisthīg is more then such an other thing.
• * 1.239

  Haimo in 1 Cor. 11.
• * 1.240

  Iustin. i•…•… Apol. 2.
• * 1.241

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.242

  Matt. 27.
• * 1.243

  Hoc est.
• * 1.244

  1. Cor. 11
• * 1.245

  A thing is the remē∣braunce of it self.
• * 1.246

  Exo. 16.
• * 1.247

  Matt. 26. Luc. 22.
• * 1.248

  Marc. 14
• * 1.249

  De eccl. Hierar. cap. 3. In Ioan. li. 4. c. 14
• * 1.250

  why althe Apostles dranke of one cup.
• * 1.251

  Thea•…•…use 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the En∣glish mi∣nisters.
• * 1.252

  Ignat. in epist. ad. Phi.
• * 1.253

  Matt. 10. Iudas drank.
• * 1.254

  The grā∣maticall sense of Christes words.
• * 1.255

  Est 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not stand for significat.
• * 1.256

  Heretiks build with out a foun dation.
• * 1.257

  Hieron. in Amos proh. c. 4
• * 1.258

  Three 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 of ho∣•…•… scrip∣tu•…•…e.
• * 1.259

  The lite∣rall sense •…•…s the fon d•…•…tion.
• * 1.260

  Cypr. de coena do haec est caro mea.
• * 1.261

  A testa∣ment.
• * 1.262

  Hebr. 9. Gene. 31
• * 1.263

  Galat. 4.
• * 1.264

  Ierem. 31
• * 1.265

  Hebr. 9.
• * 1.266

  Exo. 24.
• * 1.267

  Three things in a solemne Testamēt
• * 1.268

  Ierem. 31 Hebr. 8.
• * 1.269

  Math. 26
• * 1.270

  Ierem. 31
• * 1.271

  Chryso. in Math. Hom. 83.
• * 1.272

  Li. 4. cōt. Marci.
• * 1.273

  Sedulius in. 1. Co. 11.
• * 1.274

  The cha∣lice bea∣reth wit∣nesse.
• * 1.275

  1. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Math. Hom. 83. 2. l. 4. cō. Marci. 3. in Lucae. 22.
• * 1.276

  The same blood which con firmeth doth also witnesse y^• 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.277

  Chryso. in Ioan. Hom. 13.
• * 1.278

  The blood is not meant the figure of blood.
• * 1.279

  Gene. 31. Exod. 24 Hebr. 9.
• * 1.280

  Lucae. 22. 1. Cor. 11
• * 1.281

  Why the cup is na∣med.
• * 1.282

  Exod. 24
• * 1.283

  Chryso. Hom. 27 in. 1. Co.
• * 1.284

  Oecum. in. 1. Co. cap. 11.
• * 1.285

  Christes blood real ly in the chalice.
• * 1.286

  The verb substātiue left out.
• * 1.287

  The verb significat can not be vnderstan ded.
• * 1.288

  The verb est must nedes be supplied.
• * 1.289

  The ne∣cessitie of the verb est in Christes words.
• * 1.290

  Math. 5.
• * 1.291

  Qui ca∣lix, The which cup
• * 1.292

  In Amos cap. 4.
• * 1.293

  A demon∣stratiō out of Gods worde.
• * 1.294

  Hebr. 9.
• * 1.295

  Euthy. in c. Luc. 22.
• * 1.296

  Matt. 26.
• * 1.297

  An hymne said only at Chri∣stes sup∣per.
• * 1.298

  Ioan. 12.
• * 1.299

  The x. Chapiter.
• * 1.300

  Ioan. 6. Math. 26
• * 1.301

  1. Cor. 10
• * 1.302

  The pla∣ces which are to be confer•…•…ed.
• * 1.303

  Ioan. 6.
• * 1.304

  Math. 26
• * 1.305

  1. Cor. 10
• * 1.306

  This.
• * 1.307

  Thebre•…•…d promised is not m•…•… teriall bread.
• * 1.308

  This is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by y^• other places.
• * 1.309

  The verb 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.310

  What 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 mean by 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.311

  The com∣municatig
• * 1.312

  Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom. 24.
• * 1.313

  Body. Matt. 6. Ioan. 6. Matt. 26. Mar. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 1. Cor. 10 1. Cor. 11 Ioan. 6. Matt. 26 Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 10 1 Cor. 11 Matt. 26. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11 Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11
• * 1.314

  Ioan. 6.
• * 1.315

  Lucae. 1.
• * 1.316

  Ioan. 1.
• * 1.317

  Exod. 17 Num. 20
• * 1.318

  Acto. 17.
• * 1.319

  Collos. 1.
• * 1.320

  Marc. 14 &. 16. Lucae. 24. Rom. 8.
• * 1.321

  Actor. 1. &. 2.
• * 1.322

  L•…•…. 22.
• * 1.323

  The pre∣sence of Christes b•…•…dy is not impos∣sible.
• * 1.324

  The sit∣ting of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in heauen 〈◊〉〈◊〉, a h•…•…p to his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 presence in the Sacra 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.325

  Chryso. de sacer. lib. 3.
• * 1.326

  Christes supper pas seth all wōdering
• * 1.327

  The pla∣ces belon∣ging to Christes supper.
• * 1.328

  The 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Chapiter.
• * 1.329

  All foode 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in He∣brew cal∣led bread.
• * 1.330

  Vide Pa∣gninum in verbo Laham.
• * 1.331

  Deut. 8. & Cath. 4.
• * 1.332

  Math. 6. Luc. 11.
• * 1.333

  Exod. 7.
• * 1.334

  Gen. 1. 3.
• * 1.335

  Marc. 16.
• * 1.336

  That 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 b•…•…ad w•…•…ch 〈◊〉〈◊〉 bread 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…et se∣m•…•…th br•…•…ad.
• * 1.337

  Ioan. 6.
• * 1.338

  1. Cor. 10
• * 1.339

  Ignatius in 2. epi. ad Rom.
• * 1.340

  Iustinus in Apol. 2.
• * 1.341

  First. Bread, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 water.
• * 1.342

  2. Conse∣cration.
• * 1.343

  3. Food.
• * 1.344

  4. Flesh and blood.
• * 1.345

  Libro. 2. Epist. 3. •…•…d Cecil. 2. Ireneus. •…•…. 4. ca. 34
• * 1.346

  Ambro∣sius de Sacram. li. 5. ca. 4.
• * 1.347

  Hieron. in Math. cap. 6.
• * 1.348

  Nyssen. in vita Moysis.
• * 1.349

  Tract. 26 in Ioan.
• * 1.350

  In Leuit. c. 22. l. 6. In oper•…•… Paschal.
• * 1.351

  Thebr•…•… geuen to Iudas was betr•…•… •…•…ed for vs.
• * 1.352

  Math. 6. Ioan. 6. 1. Cor. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.353

  The xii. Chapiter.
• * 1.354

  Euseb. Emissen. Hom. 2. de Pasch.
• * 1.355

  Num. 21. Ioan. 3. Ionae 2. Math. 12.
• * 1.356

  1. Co. 10.
• * 1.357

  Luc. 24. Gen. 4.
• * 1.358

  De mira bil. sacrae scriptur. cap. 3. Hier. in quaest. He br. in ge.
• * 1.359

  Didym. in epist. Ioan. 1.
• * 1.360

  Ezech. cap. 24.
• * 1.361

  Math. 26
• * 1.362

  Ioan. 18. Aug. ad quaest. Orosij 4. 9 Pro∣sper de promis∣sis & prae dict. De•…•… He. 11. 12 If any good man were able to offer 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to God his owne bo∣dy in his owne hāds, he wold do Abel by sleying his L•…•…bs shewed himself to haue de∣sired an other sa∣crifice.
• * 1.363

  Marc. 14
• * 1.364

  Gen. 4.
• * 1.365

  Aug de Trm. l. 3.
• * 1.366

  Aug. in Psal. 39.
• * 1.367

  The Sa∣cramenta ries make the supper of Christ like to the doings of •…•…ain.
• * 1.368

  Cain did beare a si∣gure of y^• English cōmunion
• * 1.369

  Gen. 14.
• * 1.370

  Math. 26 Gen. 14. Maro. 14 Gen. 14. Math. 26 Gen. 14. Math. 26 Galat. 3. Gen. 14.
• * 1.371

  Luc. 22.
• * 1.372

  Gen. 14.
• * 1.373

  Clemens Alexād. Strō. l. 4. Christ •…•…as seth Mel∣chisedech by turning the bread, which he brought forth, into his owne body.
• * 1.374

  Cypria. ad Caecil. li. 2. ep. 3.
• * 1.375

  Euthy. in pano∣plia.
• * 1.376

  Christ hath set his owne true sub∣stence vn∣der those formes of brend and wine, which Melchise dech vsed.
• * 1.377

  Exod. 12 Gregor. Nazian. in Pasch. orat. 4. Leo de pass. do∣min. se. 7 Theod. in 1. Co. 11. Ioan. 1. Ioan. 12. Luc. 22.
• * 1.378

  Gregor. Paschal. Hom. 22
• * 1.379

  •…•… myste∣rie contei∣neth the truth, but it contei∣neth it after a se∣cret man∣ner.
• * 1.380

  Exo. 16. Ioan. 6. Exo. 16. Ioan. 6. Exo. 16. Ioan. 6. Matt. 26. Luc. 22.
• * 1.381

  See how y^• words of Moses and of Christ agree.
• * 1.382

  Exo. 16.
• * 1.383

  Ioan. 6. Psal. 77
• * 1.384

  Mala. 2. Luc. 22.
• * 1.385

  Exo. 16. Matt. 26. The bread whiche Christ ge ueth is both a signe and a truth. Exo. 16. Luc. 22 Exo. 16. Hieron. aduersus Iouin. l. 2 The whole sub stance of Christ is vnder 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ry peece of the forme of bread. The fi∣gure of Māna is not fulfil∣led except the reall fleshe of Christ be geuen vn∣der y^• form of bread. 1. Cor. 12 Ephe. 4. All that come to y^• sacrament 〈◊〉〈◊〉 y^• body of Christ equally. Sap. 16.
• * 1.386

  The fi∣gure of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 old Testa ment. Exo. 24. The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of couenāt Heb. 9.
• * 1.387

  Matt 26. The blood of the new testament 〈◊〉〈◊〉 geuē in the chalice as the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was geuē in 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.388

  Gen. 49.
• * 1.389

  Philip. 2.
• * 1.390

  The pro∣phecie of Iob ap∣plied to Christ. Iob, 31. Hieron. in hunc locum. Greg. in Iob li. 22 cap. 11. Matt. 26.
• * 1.391

  Chrys. hom. 45. in Ioan.
• * 1.392

  Luc. 22.
• * 1.393

  Matt. 26.
• * 1.394

  Loue de∣syreth as great a ioyning & vnion as may be had.
• * 1.395

  Ioan. 6.
• * 1.396

  Chrys. hom. 83. in Matth. & 45. in Ioānem.
• * 1.397

  Psal. 22. Prophe∣cies takē out of the Psalmes, and pro∣uerbs of Salomō. Prou. 9. What sup∣per wisedō prepared. Cyp. lib. 2. epist. 3.
• * 1.398

  The sup∣per of Christ is set vpon the table.
• * 1.399

  Christ hath but one table. Aug. in Ioā. tra∣ctatu 50.
• * 1.400

  The Sa∣cramenta∣ries assi∣gne two tables to Christ. 1. Cor. 10
• * 1.401

  Psal. 21. An other prophecie taken 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Dauid. Only Christi•…•… adore that they eate, because they only eate the flesh of God. Bread not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 our Lords ta∣ble. Augu. in psal. 98. Coloss. 2
• * 1.402

  Gen. 9. Cypr. li. 3. epist. 3. ad Caeci∣lium.
• * 1.403

  Gen. 18.
• * 1.404

  Gen. 27.
• * 1.405

  Gen. 49.
• * 1.406

  Exo. 22.
• * 1.407

  Leuit. 2. Iustin. in Triph. Leui. 24. Leui. 21.
• * 1.408

  1. Reg. 2. Mala 2. Aug. de ciu•…•…. Dei li. 17. c. 5.
• * 1.409

  Luc. 22. 1. Reg. 21 secūd. 70
• * 1.410

  Aug. in Psal. 33. Ioan. 6.
• * 1.411

  Luc. 22.
• * 1.412

  Psal. 4. Psal. 103. Psal. 22.
• * 1.413

  Psal 110.
• * 1.414

  3. Reg. 17 3. Reg. 19
• * 1.415

  Esaiae. 62 Hieron. ibidem.
• * 1.416

  Iere. 11. Zach. 9.
• * 1.417

  Mala. 1.
• * 1.418

  Psal. 77.
• * 1.419

  Ioan. 6.
• * 1.420

  Eccl. c. 3. 5. 8.
• * 1.421

  Eccl. c. 7 Aug. de eiuitate Dei li. 17 c. 20.
• * 1.422

  The best thing vn∣der y^• So•…•… may be eaten and drunken.
• * 1.423

  Origin. tractatu •…•…o in c. Math. 22
• * 1.424

  The cu∣stom of scriptures in cōmen∣ding so much bread and wine she∣weth that the body & blood of Christ should be geuen vn∣der their formes. Eph. 5. Ioan. 17. Now all things are one by the Sacra∣ment of y^• altar.
• * 1.425

  Eccles. 3. 5. 8.
• * 1.426

  Luc. 22.
• * 1.427

  The xi•…•…. Chapiter.
• * 1.428

  Facere.
• * 1.429

  Hoc fa∣cere.
• * 1.430

  The sup∣per had both doing & making.
• * 1.431

  Creare. Facere.
• * 1.432

  Cont. Marc. l. 4
• * 1.433

  Facere ex aliquo
• * 1.434

  Facere de aliquo De Sac•…•…. li. 4. c. 4.
• * 1.435

  Basilius hom. 1. in hexame. specular. Agere.
• * 1.436

  Facere.
• * 1.437

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.438

  Ireneus li. 4. c. 32.
• * 1.439

  The pricst hod of the new testament.
• * 1.440

  A•…•… sauing y^• body of Christ is rather a like thing then this thing. Ioan. 13.
• * 1.441

  Psal. 110. A memo∣rie is ma∣de.
• * 1.442

  Can. 32.
• * 1.443

  •…•…acobus in litur∣gia.
• * 1.444

  Clemens li. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. con∣st•…•…ut A∣po•…•…ol.
• * 1.445

  Cyrillus in Ca•…•…a. myst. 5.
• * 1.446

  Dionys. de eccle. hierar. cap. 3.
• * 1.447

  The most 〈◊〉〈◊〉 things be made.
• * 1.448

  •…•…ustin. in Apol. 2.
• * 1.449

  Ireneus aduersus 〈◊〉〈◊〉. l. 5 The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is made.
• * 1.450

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. aduersus Marcio∣nem li. 4. To 〈◊〉〈◊〉 bread his body. Amb. de iis qui 〈◊〉〈◊〉 myst. c •…•… The body is made.
• * 1.451

  We make Christes •…•…ody be∣cause he said: make this thing.
• * 1.452

  Hoc.
• * 1.453

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. in Epist. ad Heli. The body of Christ is made 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 2. 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. lib. •…•….
• * 1.454

  The priest maketh y^• holy obla∣tion.
• * 1.455

  Chry. de sacerdo∣tio. li. 3.
• * 1.456

  Chrys. hom. de prodit. Iudae.
• * 1.457

  Man ma∣keth not Christes body by his own vertue.
• * 1.458

  Aug. cō∣tra Faust. Man. lib. 20. ca. 3. Ourbread is made vnto vs mysticall. Theoph. in Math. 26. Damasc. de Orth. fide li. 4. ca. 14. Psal. 113. & 134. Ge. ca. 1. Psal. 32.
• * 1.459

  God was made mā.
• * 1.460

  Christ ma keth bread his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 body. Gen. 1.
• * 1.461

  Euthy. in ca 26. Matt.
• * 1.462

  Make this my∣sterie.
• * 1.463

  Ansel. in epist. 1. Cor. c. 11
• * 1.464

  Make y^• whiche I haue made
• * 1.465

  Germ. in rerum Eccles. theoria in tract. ad eos qui haesi.
• * 1.466

  A•…•… autho∣rity of ma king Chri stes body •…•…ometh frō these wor∣des: make th•…•… thing.
• * 1.467

  Ioan. 1.
• * 1.468

  Bar•…•…. 3.
• * 1.469

  Basil ho. 1. in Hex.
• * 1.470

  The 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Chapiter.
• * 1.471

  An ob•…•…∣tion.
• * 1.472

  The a•…•…∣swere.
• * 1.473

  The wor∣des of Christ were not wet En∣glished by the Prote 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.474

  What the remem∣brāce is whereof Christ spa•…•…e.
• * 1.475

  1. Cor. 11
• * 1.476

  The remē brance of Christ is the she∣wing of his death by fact.
• * 1.477

  Ambros. in ca. 11. 1 ad Cor.
• * 1.478

  Christes body and blood made vn∣der diuerse kinds doth shew and make vs remember his death.
• * 1.479

  The reall body with the signes of breakig is the re∣mēbrance y^• Christ spake of.
• * 1.480

  The pre∣sence of y^• benefac∣tour is y^• best meane to make his good dede 〈◊〉〈◊〉 bred.
• * 1.481

  The pre∣sence of a man hyn∣dreth not his 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.482

  A perfect remēbrāce requireth y^• real pre∣sence of y^• thing re∣membred.
• * 1.483

  A thing may be pre sēt though it be not seen.
• * 1.484

  The faith of Christ his body is as much to vs as the sight of it.
• * 1.485

  The new preachers:
• * 1.486

  What kīd of fruitful remēbran ce the be∣lief of Christes bodily pre sence did worke.
• * 1.487

  Basil. de baptis. li. 1. cap. 3.
• * 1.488

  How Christ is remēbred in eating bread & in drinking wine.
• * 1.489

  The tūbs of the E∣gyptians.
• * 1.490

  The body of a faith∣ful man is the tum•…•… of Christ.
• * 1.491

  The mo∣nument of Christ.
• * 1.492

  What re∣mēbrance is made of Christ at the masse tyme.
• * 1.493

  Malac. 1. Esaiae 11. Psal. 100
• * 1.494

  Two 〈◊〉〈◊〉 des of se∣pulchers.
• * 1.495

  Caenota phium.
• * 1.496

  Christes remēbrāce is no void monumēt.
• * 1.497

  The body is y^• tumbe of y^• soule.
• * 1.498

  Chrys. in 1. Corin. Hom. 24
• * 1.499

  Epipha. in Anco∣rato. Psal. 115.
• * 1.500

  Heb. 11.
• * 1.501

  Abdias historiae Apostol. li. 5.
• * 1.502

  1. Co. 15.
• * 1.503

  Math. 3.
• * 1.504

  The body of Christ is the best mean to re member his death.
• * 1.505

  The intēt of Christ is furthe∣red by ta∣king the words 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.506

  Origen. Hom. 13. in Leuit.
• * 1.507

  A propi∣tiatorie re mēbrance.
• * 1.508

  Aug. de fide ad Petrum cap. 19.
• * 1.509

  Euiden∣ter osten ditur.
• * 1.510

  Mark the difference betwene a figurauue signifying & an eui∣dent she∣wing.
• * 1.511

  If we had not Chri∣stes body present, y^• old shado∣wes wold shew 〈◊〉〈◊〉, is death bet∣ter, then bread and wine.
• * 1.512

  Concil. Nicenū secūdum
• * 1.513

  In vnblo dy sacrifi∣ce in the remēbrāce of Christ.
• * 1.514

  Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11
• * 1.515

  Fol. 102.
• * 1.516

  M. No∣wels words.
• * 1.517

  The aun∣swere to M. No∣well.
• * 1.518

  What trā∣substātia∣tion, mea∣neth.
• * 1.519

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 real substāces be requi∣site to a transub∣•…•….
• * 1.520

  Two grounds of trāsub∣stantiatiō.
• * 1.521

  Breade is not •…•…ited to Christ.
• * 1.522

  Leu. 1. 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 bread is 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 Chri∣st•…•…s body. Gen. 14.
• * 1.523

  Psal. 109. Cyp ep. 3. lib. 2.
• * 1.524

  The true vine is no particular substance. distincted frō Christ
• * 1.525

  How Christ i•…•… the true vine.
• * 1.526

  Ioan. 2.
• * 1.527

  In these words ey∣ther christ is chan∣ged or no∣thing.
• * 1.528

  C•…•…rist cō 〈◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊〉. Mala. 3.
• * 1.529

  The bred is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to change.
• * 1.530

  M. No∣wels 〈◊〉〈◊〉 assertion.
• * 1.531

  Eche part of M. N. propositiō is against 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉.
• * 1.532

  Eche part in this pro position beareth a transubstā tiation.
• * 1.533

  The obie∣tion.
• * 1.534

  The aun∣swere.
• * 1.535

  The signi fication of the verbe, Sum, es, fui.
• * 1.536

  how s•…•…nne is said to be.
• * 1.537

  God is most pro∣perly. Exo. 3.
• * 1.538

  Particu∣lar •…•…∣ces haue their being next vnto God.
• * 1.539

  Ioan 1. Ioan 6. Matt. 12. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 1. Ma•…•…. 16. Matt. 21.
• * 1.540

  Why, the verbe Sum, •…•…th not •…•…gnifie Christ to b•…•… the sub∣stan•…•…e of a 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.541

  It is a∣gainst rea∣son, to take away Christes sub•…•… by words, which si∣gnifie a vertue thereof.
• * 1.542

  Ioan. 10. 14. 15. 1 Co 10. Math. 11.
• * 1.543

  Two sub stances be neither na med nor meant in This is my body
• * 1.544

  This, can not be re∣ferred to bread or wine.
• * 1.545

  The body of Christ is not com mō bread.
• * 1.546

  The con∣sequent whereby •…•…substan station is gathered.
• * 1.547

  Euery •…•…ord of y^• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…ropo •…•…tions is against 〈◊〉〈◊〉. No∣•…•….
• * 1.548

  That is grated for argumēts sake, which is not true.
• * 1.549

  The more semely trā substantia tion wold be the •…•…∣ter proued
• * 1.550

  The, both not shew a thing present.
• * 1.551

  1. Co. 10.
• * 1.552

  Exo. 17. Num. 20 The true vine might be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the •…•…∣posties.
• * 1.553

  Proufe.
• * 1.554

  He pro∣ueth best who she∣weth the thing mo∣ste really present.
• * 1.555

  Bread was tur∣ned into Christes body whi∣les he li∣ued. In orat. Catech.
• * 1.556

  Li. 4. ca. 14. in Io∣an. 6. in Math. 26
• * 1.557

  Noman euer tok•…•… any vine or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to be Christ. Transub∣stātiation 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.558

  Transub∣stātiation decreed & taught.
• * 1.559

  In Apo. 2 2. li. 4. ca. 34. 3. l. 4. cōt. Marc. 4. de caen. Dom. 5 de ijs qui init. cap. 9. 6. hom. 60. ad P. Antio.
• * 1.560

  The faith 〈◊〉〈◊〉 doctri ne of the Church is a reason of the thing taught.
• * 1.561

  1. Co. 15.
• * 1.562

  M. No∣well.
• * 1.563

  Act. 15. Galat. 1.
• * 1.564

  Ioan. 21. Chryso. ibidem.
• * 1.565

  These words be more pi∣thy, which inst•…•…uted a Sacra∣ment.
• * 1.566

  Gen. 14. Exod. 12 & 16. Leuit. 2. & 22.
• * 1.567

  3.
• * 1.568

  Ioan. 6.
• * 1.569

  4.
• * 1.570

  5.
• * 1.571

  Math. 10 26. Act. 1 Ioán. 13.
• * 1.572

  6.
• * 1.573

  Luc. 22.
• * 1.574

  7.
• * 1.575

  Ioan. 13.
• * 1.576

  8.
• * 1.577

  Ioan. 14.
• * 1.578

  Psal 22.
• * 1.579

  Prou. 9.
• * 1.580

  9.
• * 1.581

  10.
• * 1.582

  11.
• * 1.583

  12.
• * 1.584

  13.
• * 1.585

  14.
• * 1.586

  Luc. 22.
• * 1.587

  Ioan. 15.
• * 1.588

  15.
• * 1.589

  16.
• * 1.590

  17.
• * 1.591

  18.
• * 1.592

  19.
• * 1.593

  20.
• * 1.594

  Luc. 22.
• * 1.595

  Ioan. 15.
• * 1.596

  The circū stance of y^• wordes in both pla∣•…•…s.
• * 1.597

  21.
• * 1.598

  In Apol. 2.
• * 1.599

  22.
• * 1.600

  Deprod.
• * 1.601

  Iud.
• * 1.602

  23.
• * 1.603

  De ijs qui init. cap. 9.
• * 1.604

  24.
• * 1.605

  In epi. 59 & li. 3. de Trin. c. 4
• * 1.606

  25.
• * 1.607

  26.
• * 1.608

  S. Iames.
• * 1.609

  S. Basil.
• * 1.610

  S. Chry.
• * 1.611

  27.
• * 1.612

  28.
• * 1.613

  29.
• * 1.614

  30.
• * 1.615

  31.
• * 1.616

  32.
• * 1.617

  33.
• * 1.618

  34.
• * 1.619

  35.
• * 1.620

  36.
• * 1.621

  37.
• * 1.622

  1. de spir. sanct. l. 3. cap. 12. 1.
• * 1.623

  Cor. ho. 24. 3. in Psal. 98.
• * 1.624

  M. No∣•…•… scope
• * 1.625

  38.
• * 1.626

  In Ioan. hom. 75.
• * 1.627

  Chrys. in Matth. hom. 83.
• * 1.628

  Ioan. 6.
• * 1.629

  Chrys. in Ioan.
• * 1.630

  hom. 46.
• * 1.631

  There is no parable in the wor des belon∣ging to the gift of Chr•…•…stes flesh.
• * 1.632

  Matt. 13.
• * 1.633

  39.
• * 1.634

  Trac. 80 in Ioan.
• * 1.635

  Contra Faust. li. 20. ca. 13:
• * 1.636

  40.
• * 1.637

  41.
• * 1.638

  In Ioan. li. 10. c. 13 The vseof •…•…n exāple.
• * 1.639

  Ibidem.
• * 1.640

  The ar•…•…ās reason.
• * 1.641

  A simili∣tude must not be ap∣plied to disproue 〈◊〉〈◊〉 substāce.
• * 1.642

  I am the true vine, serueth to shew the reall pre∣sence of Christes body.
• * 1.643

  Aug. in Ioan.
• * 1.644

  Tract. 80
• * 1.645

  Cyr. l. 10 in Ioā. 13.
• * 1.646

  Thempst•…•… cal blessig.
• * 1.647

  An obiec∣•…•….
• * 1.648

  The a•…•…n∣swere.
• * 1.649

  〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.650

  Ioan. 13.
• * 1.651

  Life.
• * 1.652

  A •…•…∣tude made by S. Cy rill.
• * 1.653

  The points to be noted in this place o•…•… S. Cy∣rill.
• * 1.654

  The vine.
• * 1.655

  The bran ches.
• * 1.656

  The aun∣swer.
• * 1.657

  Tractat. 80. in Io ann.
• * 1.658

  Esai, 5.
• * 1.659

  In cap. Ioan. 15.
• * 1.660

  The cau∣ses, why Christ cā not be ma teriall bread.
• * 1.661

  This is my body may work •…•… change.
• * 1.662

  M. No∣well hath falsified y^• worde of God.
• * 1.663

  Psal. 118. vers. 104 & 128.
• * 1.664

  Ioan. 6.
• * 1.665

  The geni 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…afe l•…•…ft out.
• * 1.666

  The arti∣cle left out
• * 1.667

  The blin∣dnes of Schisma t•…•…ks.
• * 1.668

  Hoc pa∣nis.
• * 1.669

  Hic signi ficat.
• * 1.670

  The Ca∣tholiks fal not into the like er rour.
• * 1.671

  Math. 3.
• * 1.672

  Luc. 7. 20. 10.
• * 1.673

  Signifi∣cat neuer hath a noune to be his no∣minatiue case.
• * 1.674

  Corpus.
• * 1.675

  Quod.
• * 1.676

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.677

  Est sup∣•…•…d.
• * 1.678

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 figure offered for vs. Wine shed for vs.
• * 1.679

  How Christ is the breade of life.
• * 1.680

  Bread of life.
• * 1.681

  True bread. Bread frō heauen. The euer∣lasting in eate.