Rejoinder to Bristows Reply

CAP. I.

First he affirmeth that Christ may be received three ways, by faith and spirit only without the Sacrament, in the Sacrament of the Altar only without faith and grace, or in both together. Of the last kind of receiving, he affirmeth that Christ speaketh toward the later end of the Chap. In the beginning upon occasion of the miracle of multiplying bread and fishes, he exhorteth the Jews to work the meat that perisheth not, which the son of man will give them. This gift (saith he) is plainly meant of his last supper, and so saith Theophilact, a late writer. But because they could not come to the working of this gift, without faith upon him, therefore he teacheth, for a preparation, that he is the bread of life, &c▪ After which preparation made, he returneth (saith he) to expound his own gift, showing most expressly, that, which he will give in his last supper. And the bread which I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. But the gift of spiritual eating was not to come, when Christ spake unto his disciples, but Christ saith, his peculiar gift was to come. This only reason he useth in this Chapter. Wherein you must note, first that here of a falsifying mind, he citeth the words of Christ otherwise then Saint John did write them. For his words are these: And the bread that I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. In which words, the gift is manifestly referred unto his passion, and not unto his supper. Wherefore although spiritual eating of his flesh, was from the beginning of the world, yet that singular act, by which the flesh of Christ had virtue to feed unto eternal life, and was given for meat, was not then performed, but was soon after accomplished in his death and passion. For all benefits of Christ, have like streams flowed always, from the blood of his cross, and our redemption and reconciliation thereby. If Sander will excuse him self of falsifying the scripture, because the vulgar translation in the later ende of the sentence, leaveth out these words, which I will give, which it is certain, by the Greek text of saint John, that our savior Christ did speak, he cannot so escape: for the Latin text without his prejudicate opinion, brought unto it, although it want the words, yet may well retain the sense. But Sander willfully leaving out these words, which he knoweth both to have been used by Christ, and which give a clear and clean contrary sense, to that which he affirmeth, and that in so weighty a matter, as is the passion of Christ, wittingly incurreth the horrible curse of GOD, pronounced against all them that add or take anything from his holy word.

CAP. II.

The circumstances are 6. the conferences 17. and yet neither any one, nor altogether, prove, that Christ speaketh of his supper, otherwise then as it is a seal of the do ctrine which he teacheth in that Chapter.

The first circumstance is, y ^e time, which he supposeth to be Easter tweluemonth, before his supper instituted, to argue, that he speaketh of his supper, is a vain argument, both because the time is uncertain, and also because the time of Easter, if it were certain, hath better relation to his passion, then to his supper.

The 2. circumstance is, the miracle made in bread. A ridiculous matter, as though it were not made also in flesh. But in deed the miracle made in meat, gave occasion to that doctrine uttered in that Chapter, as S. John showeth. The 3. circumstance, the Prophetical promise, what he would do the Easter tweluemoneth after. I answer, that promise was fulfilled in his passion.

The 4. the conference of things done and said about the sea of Tiberias, & at Capernaum, with that was done and said in the last supper. This conference followeth afterward in the 17. conferences. The 5. the present eating of the fathers gift. The 6. the eating of Christ's gift to come. To these two circumstances, I answer, that Christ exhorteth the Jews to the present eating of his flesh, upon pain of damnation: Except ye eat the flesh, &c. He which eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath life everlasting. Therefore the flesh & blood of Christ, might be eaten and drunken before his supper. Wherefore none of these circumstances do prove a promise of a sacramental eating, which may be without profit, nor an eating of the natural substance of flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament, which at that time was not instituted. But now we must come to the conferences. Four of which conferences, are bread. 2. blessing. 3. thanksgiving. 4. eating in both. I answer, so there was in all the dinners, and suppers that ever he did make. Beside that, here is multiplying, and fish, which is not in the last supper. Therefore a vain conference. The fifth is that as here, he beginneth his talk of common bread, and endeth with eating and drinking his flesh and blood, so in his supper, he took common bread in his hands, and ended his banket in eating and drinking of his body and blood. But when Sander can make a consequence, of this conference, I will yield unto it, that he speaketh of Sacramental eating.

The 6 and 7. the son of man is the giver, & meat is given in both: ergo he speaketh in both of the Sacraments. I deny the argument, for the meat which the son of man giveth, may be eaten without the Sacrament, and therefore he saith, he that now eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, when as yet that sacrament was not instituted. The 8. conference. He saith, the bread which I will give, is my flesh, and not the bread which I will take. So in his supper, he took one kind of bread, and gave another. This is a noble conference, to tell us what Christ said not. According to which, I might confer this: He saith, the bread which I will give, he saith not, the drink which I will give, is my blood, therefore in the supper he giveth not his blood.

The 9. conference, the flesh is given in the one, and nothing but the body in the other, for the substance of common bread was changed. This reason in deed is of great weight, if transubstantiation were granted.

The 10. No common bread is given in either of both places, if by common bread he meant profane bread, and not dedicated to holy use. I confess the conference, but seeing by common bread, he meaneth natural bread, I deny it. For though no natural or material bread was promised to be given in the sixte of Saint John, yet was natural bread given in the Sacrament.

The 11. The flesh that died for us, is given in both. That is true, but after diverse manners: in the one it is given in a Sacrament, in the other more generally, but in both to be spiritually received, and not carnally. The 12. The gift is eaten in deed in both: I confess, but spiritually and by faith, yet with this difference, that in the one, it is eaten often without the sacrament, the other is a seal or a sacrament of that, which is eaten even without it.

The 13. The blood of Christ is drunk in both. It is so drunk, as the flesh is eaten. The 14. As in the sixth of John, there is no wine spoken of: so Christ in his supper neither spake of wine, but of drinking, nor gave any wine at all to be drunk, because it was by his words changed into his blood. I answer, If bread were spoken of, in that which was taken into his hands, wine by Metonymia was spoken of, by taking the cup. Secondly, if the fruit of the vine be the matter of wine, wine was spoken of. At Caparnaum, there was no wine spoken of, nor any occupied. Let Sander see howe he can make the conference with the supper, in which wine was occupied, although he say, it was not drunk, which is a weighty argument, when that which is in question, is brought for the proof. Last of all, if Christ at his supper, gave no wine at all to be drunk (as Sander saith) howe agreeth the Popish communion with Christ's supper? seeing the Papists do give wine to be drunk, unto the lay people.

The 15. The twelve Apostles most faithful, tarried with him at Caparnaum, so they alone were admitted in the night of his betraying, to his holy table. In y ^e faithful tarrying of the twelve Apostles, he forgetteth Judas, and that the twelve only were present at the institution of the supper, it is uncertain. For it is certain there was more then twelve present at the eating of the Passover: and it is proved before, that Judas went out before the Sacrament ordained.

The 16. Peter with the twelve protested in both places, not to forsake Christ. So they did at other times and places, where no mention was of eating Christ. The last, Judas was reproved in both places. I answer, Judas was reproved in other places, where no promise or mention of the supper is made. Finally I answer, that not any one, nor altogether of these conferences, can make any consequence, to prove that our Savior Christ in that sixth of John's Gospel, speaketh of the Sacrament, otherwise then as it is a seal, a pledge, an undoubted token of assurance, of that spiritual eating & drinking of Christ's flesh and blood, which in that Chapter is commended unto us.

CAP. III.

I have shown even now, in what sort Christ may be said to have spoken of his last supper, in that chapter; and of that sense and meaning, are the most ancient and sound fathers, whom Sander citeth to be understood. And not one which affirmeth the eating of Christ's flesh and blood, which there is spoken of, to be peculiar unto the supper, and singulerly to be understood of eating in the sacrament, and not otherwise: which is the only thing which we deny, and not that the doctrine of that Chapter, doeth not at all pertain to the supper, but that it is further to be extended, then to the supper, by which, the carnal manner of eating of Christ's flesh, is manifestly overthrown. But let us briefly, run over his authorities. First Ignatius, Clemens, Alexandrinus, and Origen he omitteth, because they speak nothing almost sounding to his purpose. But Cyprian in orat, dominica, seemeth unto him clearly, to prove, that it is meant of the supper, because he writeth, that who so is any long time kept from the sacrament, is in danger of everlasting life: alleging this text of saint John: Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, &c. For he should wholly fail of his proof (saith he) if that place did not prove the necessity of communicating sacramentally. I deny the argument: for he speaketh of them which were cut off from the body of Christ by excommunicatiō, whose admission unto the communion, was an assurance of their incorporation again. This place is answered more at large in my confutation of Heskins lib. 2, cap. 4. The second is Athanasius in syn. nou. test lib. 4. which saith, Christ reasoneth with the multitude concerning the mysteries. A sorry argument, as though the spiritual eating of Christ's flesh were not a mystery. It had been very unseasonable, to reason with them of that which as yet was not instituted, although as I have said, his doctrine may be extended also to y ^e sacrament. The 3. is Hilary lib. 8. de Trin. disputing of the natural verity of Christ, which is in us by the sacrament, allegeth these words: My flesh is meat in deed. I answer, Hilary affirmeth that the natural verity of Christ's flesh is in us, by his incarnation if we be faithful, which is testified by the mystery and sacrament of bread and wine. Therefore he saith, n •• que vere sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus: we do truly, under a mystery, take the flesh of his body: Again, naturam carnis suae ad naturam aeternitatis sub sacramento nobi • communicande carnis admis 〈…〉 it: he hath joined the' nature of his flesh unto the nature of eternity, under a sacrament of his flesh to be communicated with us. The 4. is Basil, Dei bap lib. 1. Cap. 3. comparing the words of his supper, with the words of this Chapter, which proveth not the matter in hand, otherwise then I have shown, but of Basil we must see more afterward touching this controversy. The 5. is Gregory Nyssene his brother, in vita Mosis, who saith: that the bread which came down frō heavē, which is y ^e true meat, is no vnbodily thing, for howe should a thing that lacketh a body, be made mea •• unto the body? Doubtless (saith Sander) Christ is made meat unto our bodies, nowhere but only in the Sacrament. Sanders Doubtless, is all the argument, judge of it as ye list. The 6. is Cyrillus of Jerusalem in Catech. Mistagog. 4. who entreating of y ^e Sacrament, citeth these words, except ye eat: ergo these words are to be understood only of eating in the sacrament. Here he desireth license, being compassed with such a multitude of witnesses briefly to run over the rest, as he hath not been very long in any of the other, and the like license I require, that one answer may serve them all, which are worth the answering; that although the Fathers did refer the doctrine of the sixth of S. John, unto the supper: yet they refer it not only unto the supper, which is the matter we stick upon. Neither Ambrose, nor Eusebius Emissenus, & much less Chrysostom & Augustine, which do plainly extend it further then to the supper. And last of all Jerome in the place by Sander cited, in 1. Cap. Ep. ad Eph. where he saith, the flesh and blood of Christ is understanded two ways, either that spiritual & divine, whereof he said: My flesh is meat in deed, &c. or else, that flesh which was crucified for us, & that blood which was s • ed with the spear of y ^e soldier. Where either he speaketh not of the Sacrament at all, or else he declareth manifestly, that the flesh which was crucified, is not given us in this Sacrament. And what his judgment is of that place, he showeth evidently

The next is Cyrillus, whom Sander most impudently affirmeth to interpret the whole Chapter of the Sacrament of the altar, because sometime he nameth the mysteries, and the mystical blessing, and the communicating of the holy cup. For thus he expoundeth that saying, which Sander maketh the promise of his supper. The bread, which I will give, is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world. Likewise he expoundeth these words: He that eateth my flesh & drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me & • inhim. Concerning the rest, whom he reherseth, as Sedulius, Leo, Isychiu • , Proiper, Eucherius, Cas • iodorus, Primatius, which apply any text of this Chapter to the Lord's supper, I answe •• as before, it is not sufficient to prove, that the bread is either only or principally to be understood of the Lord's supper. As for Damaseen, Haymo, Bernard, with other late writers, the last council of Trent, and the second of Nice, what errors they followed we have not to regard, and much less the practice of the Popish Church, reading that text for the Gospel of Corpus Christi day, but the first council of Ephesus, which he iumbleth up among the rest, in Epistola at Nestorium, affirmeth no such matter as he adnoucheth, but showeth, what they judged of that flesh, whereof they received the sacrament, namely, that it is the flesh of the son of God, able to give life, as more at large I have shown in answer to Heskias lib. 2. Cap. 16.

CAP. IIII.

Where it is alleged, that the fathers expound the words of that Chapter, partly of belief in Christ, partly of the unity which riseth by the Sacraments of baptism and penance (saith Sander) this shall be a sufficient answer. First so many fathers do • et expound it of any others argument, as do conformably expound it of the supper of our Lord.

To this I reply, y ^• all or in a manner all do interpret it of our spiritual conjunction, with the body and blood of Christ, whereof the supper is a Sacrament, and confirmation. Secondly he answereth, that those fathers which have expounded the words otherwise then of the supper, have also expounded them of the supper, whereby their authority is as great, for that which I say, as it is against it. I reply, that none of them expoundeth the words of the supper so, as they be singular unto the supper, and therefore none of them maketh for Sanders purpose; nor expound them otherwise then I have shown in reply to the first answer.

Thirdly he answereth, that no one of the fathers is brought forth, who denieth these words in S. John to appertain to the supper. A lewd answer, for none of us denieth those words to appertain to the supper, but to be a promise singularly to be referred to the supper. Fourthly, many of the places brought for the contrary opinion, do manifestly and as it seemeth to Sander, invincibly prove the words in S. John to be literally meant of the supper of Christ. This shall appear by the examples following. First Cyprian ad Quir • num lib. 3. Cap. 25. & 26. writeth that a man cannot come to the kingdom of heaven without baptism, because it is written: Except a man be borne again, &c. and likewise, Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, &c. Here (saith Sander) he expoundeth not the words of baptism, but meaneth according to the custom of the Church, which was to give the cummunion to infantes, not so much for necessity, as for sureties sake, of which custom we have mention in Dionysius, Ambrose, and other. The like answer (he saith) may be made to Innocentius, Augustinus, and Eusebius Emissenus, which bring these words against the Pelagians: Except'ye eat the flesh, &c. to prove that infantes cannot have life, except they be baptized. To this I reply: it cannot be denied, but such an erroneous custom contrary to y ^e word of God, was used in those ancient times, to give the communion to infantes, whereof grew afterward an opinion of necessity, which Pope Innocentius and Augustine, and all the West Church, (as Augustine saith) did hold, although Sander would excuse it, to have been practiced not for necessity, but for surety: yet hereof it followeth not, that the words of S. John in Cyprian and the rest, are literally understood of the supper, otherwise then as the supper is a Sacrament of that eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ, which Sander confesseth may to be without the Sacrament, even of such eating of the flesh of Christ, as the fathers were partakers of, unto their salvation, before Christ came in the flesh, whereof Augustine speaketh most plentisully. In John Tr. 26. and concludeth of this question:

And because, Sander saith, the maintenance of life dependeth ordinarily upon the Eucharist alone: The same Augustine saith to the contrary, Here Augustine opposeth the eating of Christ's flesh spiritually, with eating the Sacrament thereof carnally, whereby he showeth, that Christ's flesh is not eaten but spiritually and effectually, although the Sacrament thereof be eaten carnally to destruction. And by this you may see, howe well red Sander is in Augustine, which professeth, that in his works he never saw one syllable, why to think that he would the literal sense of the sixth of S. John to belong only to spiritual eating, when Augustine saith expressly, This is to eat that meat, to eat spiritually, to have Christ abiding in us, &c. But y ^t same Augustine de peccat. merit. lib 1. Cap. 20. saith: Here (saith Sander) it is plain by Augustine's judgment, y ^t Christ in that Chapiter speaketh not of baptism, and that he speaketh of his supper. I answer, Augustine writeth against the Pelagians, which denied baptism to be necessary for infantes, as for them that had no original nor actual sin, laboring to prove the necessity of baptism by those words of Christ: Except a man be borne of water, and of the holy Ghost, &c. to bring infantes under the compass of sin and to establish their salvation only by grace, & not by merit of their works. His cause in deed was good, but his argument was weak, to prove the necessity of baptism by that text, even as to prove the necessity of communion for infantes by this text, of the 6. of S. John, which is not needful, nor lawful to be given unto them at all. Yet such was his error, that he thought infantes were charged by this text to communicate in pain of damnation. That he judged they ought to be partakers of y ^e body & blood of Christ, it is true by y ^t text, but that he thought this partaking was by the Sacrament in young children, he was deceived, yet Sander saith, it was not of necessity, but of surety, whereas Augustine's error is manifest to urge it of necessity. I will make answer to Augustine not in defense of the Pelagians, but in discovering of his error. Regeneration is undoubtedly proved necessary for infants, by that place of John 3. as eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ in this 6. of John: which is enough to overthrow the Pelagians, but neither in the one place, nor in the other, the necessity of the external sacrament is required, but as it may possibly, and ought to be profitably received according to the word of God. Wherefore Augustine in this place applying the text unto the sacrament, in arguing from the sign to the thing signified, or contrariwise, must be understood according to his deliberate exposition, in John. Tr. 26. or else he should be found contrary to himself. And whereas Sander saith, This text so appertaineth to the supper, as it appertaineth not to baptism, and therefore cannot be taken of the spiritual uniting with Christ which is in baptism: I deny the argument, for although it doth not so properly pertain to the sacrament of washing, as to the sacrament of feeding and nourishing: yet doeth it also pertain to baptism, in as much as by baptism we are not only washed by Christ's blood from our sins, but wholly regenerate, & borne a new to be the children of God, which we cannot be, but by participation of flesh & blood with our brother Jesus Christ, and therefore we are also in baptism spiritually fed with his body and blood.

To that which is brought out of Basil, Ep. 141. That Christ in this text calleth his whole mystical coming, flesh and blood: Sander answereth, that saying may be verified of the Sacrament of his supper, because he that receiveth worthily, is partaker of all the mysteries of Christ. But that it cannot be singularly applied to the Sacrament, which is all the question, his own words shall declare.

Thus by Basils judgment, by faith in Christ's incarnation and doctrine, we eat his flesh and blood, whereof we are assured by the Sacrament, therefore the text is not a singular promise of Christ's natural flesh, to be after a corporal manner received in the Sacrament.

CAP. V.

The reasons are for the most parte such, as Papists have made, which think in their conscience, that this Chapter is not properly to be referred to the Sacrament: against whom Sander opposeth him self, not regarding with what conscience, but with what show of words, he may maintain his false position against all men. The arguments as he numbereth them, are five. The first is this: There is no mention of bread and wine in this Chapter: ergo, it speaketh not of the supper. This argument Sander denieth, because a man may be invited to a pastie or tarte, although it be not told him of what stuff it shall be made. Good stuff I warrant you. Again, he saith, the matter of a sacrament, is not more necessary, then the form of words. But Christ saying to Nicodemus: Except a man be borne again of water, &c. although he name the matter, showeth not the words that make the Sacrament, yet speaketh he there of baptism, ergo here of y ^e supper. I deny that he speaketh of baptism there, otherwise then of the supper here, by comprehending y ^e seal of assurance under the promise of the thing it self. But this argument Sander alloweth well: Christ speaketh not of bread nor wine, therefore he meaneth not to bind us to receive under both kinds, but to receive that thing which is his flesh and blood under what kind soever we receive it. If this be true, it were well done to take the bread from the people another while, & to serve them of the cup consecrated, for a whole communion. But behold the sincerity of this Academical disputer, alowing this argument to maintain horrible sacrilege, as though Christ doth not name drinking, almost as often as eating: although he name neither bread nor wine. And if his blood be drink in deed, then is it not received w ^t the bread, which is not drunk, but eaten.

The second argument is, Christ speaketh of eating him by faith & therefore saith: this is the work of God, that you should believe in him, whom he hath sent. He that believeth in me, shall not hunger: but there be some of you which believe not, so y ^t the eating is believing, & y ^e not eating is, not believing. To this argument grounded upon the authority of Scripture, he hath nothing to answer, but by a lewd distinction of eating of Christ, that is of his grace by faith, & eating Christ, that is his whole flesh, blood, soul & godhead into our bodies, by color of these words, Manducare ex hoc pane, & manducare hunc panem, which our savior Christ manifestly cōfoundeth, & useth for all one. But that you may see his gross folly & madness, you must remember y ^t he maketh these words to be the chief words of promise of his supper; The bread which I will give, is my flesh, &c. Now y ^e whole context is this: I am y ^t living bread which came down frō heaven, if a man eat of this bread, he shall live forever, & the bread which I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Mark now what will become of Sanders distinction. To eat of this bread, is to be partaker of grace, by faith, which he confesseth, may be w ^t out the Sacrament. But that bread whereof he shall eat, is the flesh of Christ, which he will give for the life of the world: therefore, to eat the flesh of Christ, is to receive Christ by grace, although it be without the Sacrament.

The third argument is, Christ was presently y ^e bread of life, when he spake to the Jews, saying I am y ^e bread of life, and my father giveth you the true bread from heaven, therefore Christ was the bread of life, when he was first incarnate, for even then he came down from heaven. Therefore his words cannot be applied to his last supper, which was not yet instituted. Sander confesseth, that Christ was by his godhead and manhod, the bread of life to be eaten of the Jews, presently by faith, and not corporally. But he said also: Work the meat which the son of man will give you, and the bread which I will give, is my flesh: which gift is fulfilled in his supper. For no reason can be shown (saith he) why Christ should say, his gift was to come, except it had been some other gift then to eat him by faith alone, which was lawful at that instant. To this answer of Sander, I reply: first that he groundeth upon a strange translation of his own, of working the meat, &c. Secondly, of a patching together of two texts that stand far a sunder. Thirdly, the work of meat spoken of in the former text, whereunto they are exhorted, is expounded of faith by Christ himself immediately after: This is the work of God, that you should believe in him whom he hath sent. Fourthly, the gift which Christ saith, in the Future tense he would give, proveth not that it was yet present, but promiseth it, to them that will receive it presently. For if a mā have a Ring in his hand; he may truly say to them that stand before him: I will give a Ring to them that shall first come to me. Here the word of giving is in the Future tense, promysing the Ring to him that shall come first for it; yet for all that is the Ring still in his hand. Fifthly, this reason I show, why Christ saith, he will give his flesh for the life of the world, which presently might be eaten, and was eaten, almost four thousand years before, because his passion, by which it is communicated to the faithful of all ages, at that time when he spake, was not performed in act, although in effect he was the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world.

The fourth argument, which he consesseth to be of Caietane, is that Christ's gift is not meant of his supper, because it was the gift of himself, to death upon the cross, such as shall redeem the world. Which gift was only performed upon the cross, and was partaken always of the old fathers, and may be daily and hourly partaken of us, which points do not agree with the gift of the holy Eucharist in Christ's supper. This argument (saith Sander) is wittily devised: no doubt, because it was used by Caietane a Papist, but yet it is insufficient for many causes.

The first cause is, because Christ spake of a meat that he would give, even unto our bodies, and not only unto our souls. Howe proveth he, that he spake of such a meat? because he ordained the miracle of multiplying the five loaves to be an introduction unto this talk, which loaves were eaten corporally, as also that he shown himself to be the true bread, that would fulfil and exceed Manna, the figurative bread of the Jews. Two blind causes, as though he might not take occasion of corporal eating, to speak of spiritual eating, as in the fourth of John, of corporal drinking he taketh occasion to instruct the woman of Samaria, of spiritual drinking, and in the same Chapter, his Apostles of corporal eating, he teacheth them what spiritual meat was. As for the figure of Manna, of which he speaketh, as of a corporal meat, whereof they that did eat, died: our Savior Christ was even to them that did eat it faithfully, life everlasting; & Manna was the flesh of Christ unto them. But the distinction and contradiction which Christ maketh of Manna and this bread, is that which is necessary to be between the bare sign, and the thing signified, from which to reason, as Sander doeth, Manna was eaten corporally and spiritually, therefore the flesh of Christ is to be eaten corporally and spiritually; is to ioygne together, things that are to be divided, which is a poor shift of Sophistry. Beside that, it is a ridiculous argument, to reason of the similitude of those things, wherein the auctor showeth them to be unlike. For our Savior saith, not as your fathers did eat Manna in the wilderness, of which saying, it is much more probable to reason, your fathers did eat Manna corporally, therefore you shall not eat this bread which I will give corporally. But he objecteth that Origen saith: as it is alleged in the decrees, De Cons. Dist. 2. C. De hac. No man eateth properly the flesh of Christ as it was crucified. Therefore Christ speaketh not of his death. Nay rather therefore no man eateth Christ corporally, for he was crucified corporally. But Sander will have us to mark, that Saint Jerome distincteth the flesh of Christ, whereof he speaketh in Saint John▪ from the respect which the same flesh hath, being crucified. in Ep. ad Eph. Chap. 1. Saint Jerome saith, the flesh of Christ is two ways to be considered. that spiritual and divine flesh, whereof he speaketh, when he saith, My flesh is meat in deed, &c. &, except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, &c. and that flesh which was crucified. This distinction is of the manner of receiving the one, which is only spiritually, and of the manner of handling the other, which was corporally, or it is that distinction which is between the effect and the cause. Such difference is by Jerome, between Christ crucified, and Christ's body eaten and drunken, which Sander would have to be all one in substance and differ only in eating.

The second reason, that Christ speaketh of his supper, as well as of his death, is, that the Greek text mentioneth two gifts: The bread that I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Here (saith he) is, I will give, twice: ergo two gifts, and then he defendeth the Greek text to be true, although the Latin have, I will give but once. You see the cunning of the man, that can make them both serve his purpose. But it is Popish Logike, to conclude two gifts of saying twice, I will give, as in this example: The lande which I will give you, is the manner of Dale, which I will give to you and to your heirs. Here is, I will give twice: therefore two gifts by Master Doctor Sanders Logike. O wonderful learning of Popish Doctors!

The third reason is, that Christ speaking of the meat, saith, the son of man dabit vobis, will give to you, and not only for you. But his death was given more properly for us, then to us. For it was paid to God for our debts, but was not properly given to us, for then a sacrifice should be made of Christ to us, and consequently God the father robbed of his glory. What say you Sander? Can nothing be said properly to be given us, but that which is sacrificed unto us? So God loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that everyone which believeth in him, should not perish, but have life everlasting. John. 3. And Isaiah saith, The son is given to us. The spirit of God is given to us, &c. is there no gift but by way of sacrifice? are you not ashamed of such senseless shifts? Christ in his death was given in sacrifice to his father for us, and his father being reconciled to us, by that sacrifice, giveth him to us, and Christ also giveth himself for us, because all the fruit of his death, and sacrifice is referred to our salvation. The fourth reason is, that Christ, naming bread, meat, food, Manna, &c. promiseth an eatable thing, which is his flesh in a banket, the Jews understood his flesh really, not erring in understanding, but in faith: for Christ confirmeth their understanding with an oth, saith: verily, verily, except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, &c. ergo, their sense which reterre the gift only to his death, is not sufficient, but it must be meant also of the last supper. This argument followeth not: for although the names of bread, food, flesh, &c. prove that Christ's flesh is eatable, yet it proveth not, that it is eatable only in the supper. Secondly, that the Jews erred only in faith, it is false, for they erred also in understanding, taking the eating of Christ's flesh to be performed carnally, which he meant only spiritually. His oth confirmeth not their understanding, but his own promise of giving his flesh for y ^e life of the world, which except they did eat spiritually, they could have no life in them. But whereas it is objected, y ^t Christ speaketh of that gift, which was common to the whole world, even to y ^e Patriarchs & Prophets, & therefore it is a spiritual gift, for else David & Abrahā could not have partaken it: he answereth, y ^t Christ doth not pro mise any one meat unto the whole world, but his flesh to be eaten, which is given for the whole world. I reply: y ^e words are plain, the bread which I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world, & not only for the Jews. Neither doth Christ in his supper, give a far better meat, than he gave to Moses & Elias, for he gave even to thē, his flesh & blood, to be their spiritual food unto eternal life: witness the Apostle to the 1. Cor. 10. that all our fathers did eat & drink the same spiritual meat, that we do, and that their meat & drink was Christ. Concerning y ^t daily we may eat that bread which Christ promiseth, he answereth, the Sacrament is left to be our daily & supersubstantial bread, either because we may receive it daily if we will, or because it tarrieth always with us by some spiritual effect.

To this I answer, that all men cannot receive it daily, and some men not at all, which yet must have spiritual food to feed them unto everlasting life: therefore, this bread may be eaten without the Sacrament.

The last argument that he would seem to answer, is this: Christ in S. John, speaketh of that eating, which maketh us tarie in him, & him in us, therefore not of Sacramental eating: for Christ tarrieth not in all that eat him in the Sacrament. He answereth, the fault is not in y ^e Sacrament, but in them y ^t abuse the gift of God to their own hurt. As though our Savior Christ did speak only of y ^e power of his flesh, being eaten, & not of y ^e effect. The flesh of Christ being eaten, maketh us one w ^t him, & him But Augustine is cited, contr. Crescon. gram. lib. 1. Cap. 〈◊〉 . Quid de ipso corpore, &. what say we concerning the very body and blood of our Lord, the only sacrifice for our salvation? Although our Lord himself saith: Except a man do eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him, doth not the Apostle teach, that the self same thing is made hurtful to them that use it evil? For he saith: whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, he shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But it followeth immediately in Augustine: E • ce quemadmodum obsint diuina & sanctamate vtentibus. Cur non eodem modo baptismus? See how divine and holy things do hurt them that use them amiss. Why not baptism after the same manner? These last words declare that Augustine saying that the body and blood of Christ, may be hurtful, speaketh of the Sacrament, and not of the thing or matter of the Sacrament, as in baptism. As he teacheth in exposition of the doctrine of Christ in Saint John. The Sacrament of this thing, (saith he) is received of some to life, of some to destruction, but the thing it self, or matter of the Sacrament, which is the body and blood of Christ, is of none received to destruction, but of all unto life, as many as receive it. By whose whole discourse it is manifest, that Augustine understandeth Christ speaking of spiritual eating, which may be without the Sacrament: and maketh a difference between y ^e meat there spoken of, which presently was offered to be eaten, & the Sacrament thereof which afterward was instituted. Therefore whatsoever Sander doth glory, of all authority upon earth, concurring to his position, there is no authority from heaven, to prove, that Christ in the 6. of S. John spake of his supper at all, or that his supper may be understood therein, otherwise then the Sacrament and seal of that spiritual and heavenly eating & drinking of Christ's flesh and blood, which of the fathers and of all the faithful hath been eaten and drunken, unto eternal life, not only in this Sacrament, but in other Sacraments of God's ordaining, and without all Sacraments, by faith and power of God's spirit.

CAP. VI.

Sander by conference of this verse, Operamini cibū, &c. labor for the meat, or as he translateth i • , work the meat that perisheth not, &c. with that which followeth, where he saith, the bread which I will give, &c. proveth that Christ speaketh of his flesh and blood to be eaten and drunken. But that the same is to be given only at his last supper, which is the only matter in controversy, he is not able to prove. His first reason is, that because Christ saith, his flesh is meat in deed, the word vere declareth not only a metaphorical work, by faith, but a true work of the body and soul, the one in believing, the other in eating. As though Christ is not meat truly, when he is eaten by faith in the soul, or as though a metaphorical meat, cannot be called a meat truly or in deed, when Christ speaking metaphorically, saith he is a true vine. But Tertullian saith, the flesh feedeth of the body and blood of Christ, as before we have often heard, where he speaketh of external Sacraments and outward signs, as of baptism, oynting, imposition of hands, &c. What Theophylact a late writer saith, we esteem not worth y ^e weighing. But Cyrillus he allegeth for his purpose, who referreth the gift plainly to the incarnation of Christ, and not to his supper:

Last of all, he citeth Ignatius in Ep. ad Romanos, who expoundeth the bread, and flesh, and blood spiritually, and not of y ^e Sacrament. If the cup of Christ's blood be incorruptible charity and life everlasting, then is it the effect of Christ's blood, that Ignatius speaketh of, and not his natural blood, which is the cause thereof. Other proves then these, Sander hath not in this Chapter for his purpose, which prove it nothing at all.

CAP. VII.

This argument is thus framed: The son of man i • equal with God his father. God the father hath given his son to the world, and made him true man, the true bread of life: therefore God the son being equal with his father, will give us the same true flesh of the son of man as meat that shall tarry with us to everlasting life. But his father gave him to the world, not only in faith and spirit, but in real and substantial flesh. Therefore God the son by drift of his talk doth signify, that he will give in his supper, whereof he speaketh, not in spirit and faith only, but in truth of nature and substance, the self same real and substantial flesh. O what sport would such an argument make among the Sophisters in Cambridge and Oxford: In which be so many terms and never a mean, so many false propositions, so many petitions of principles, so much more in the conclusion, then was in the premisses, finally so many words, and so little to y ^e purpose. But I will make answer briefly and plainly. The equally of Christ with his father, proveth in deed that he is able to do whatsoever it pleaseth him, and to perform whatsoever he promiseth. But he nowhere in his Chapter promiseth to give his real & substantial flesh to be eaten bodily: therefore his almighty power proveth nothing of that purpose. But he promiseth to give us the same true flesh, which he received of his father to be meat tarrying unto eternal life. This promise he perfourmeth daily unto the elect, making his body and blood which was crucified and shed for us, to be food of everlasting continuance. Yea (saith Sander) but God gave him to the world, not only in faith and spirit, but in truth of nature and substance: therefore Christ will give us his real flesh in substance not in faith and spirit only. A strange argument, God gave Christ to y ^e world in the true nature and substance of flesh, not in spirit and faith only. What mean you by this: God gave him not in spirit and faith only? For anything that I understand of your meaning, God gave him not in faith & spirit at all. For when you speak of Christ's incarnation, and of God sending him in the flesh, what sense is it to say, he sent him in faith or in spirit? But God gave him natural flesh, and God gave him to the world manifested in the flesh. But howe doth the world receive him being given in real and substantial flesh? How did all the Patriarchs, Prophets, and elect before the time of his incarnation receive him, who being given to the world, must needs be given to them also? Verily no otherwise, then in spirit and by faith. Even so Christ promising to give his flesh and his blood to be meat & drink unto us, meaneth not, that it should otherwise be received then in spirit and by faith, either in his supper or in baptism, or without any of the Sacraments. And hereunto the divine power of Christ serveth to assure our faith, that he can give us his very natural and divine flesh, to be received spiritually, and faithfully, to feed and nourish us unto life everlasting assuredly.

CAP. VIII.

It is marvel, why it should not suffice us to eat hi • flesh, which is the bread of life, as all the children of God did eat it before his incarnation, and as many thousands since, which have been partakers of eternal life, and yet never were admitted to the Lord's supper. But Sander saith, it is expressly against the word of God, that by the incarnation of Christ, we have not the bread of life given us by any other way then we had it before. The reason belike is this: That the bread of life is now first promised by the gift of Christ, as who came into the world to bring us this everlasting meat. Mark this Popish divinity which restraineth the virtue of Christ's incarnation to the instant & time, in which he took flesh, and thereby denieth eternal life to all the Patriarchs and Prophets, who by his reason never tasted of the bread of life. He talketh much, and to little or no purpose of the controversy, that the godhead is life properly, which that it might be communicated to us, it assumpted flesh, and this flesh is made meat for us, but what is the conclusion? It is given at Christ's supper, under the form of bread, no other mean of giving will serve. Doeth he not by this conclusion exclude all them from eternal life, which have not been admitted to the Sacrament? and yet like a foolish hypocrite, he crieth out of our cruelty, which depriving men of the true flesh of Christ, deprive them of the godhead and of eternal life. Whereas he slandereth us altogether: for we affirm, that everyone of God's elect from the beginning of the world, hath been fed truly with the very natural flesh of Christ, but spiritually received, and by other means then under y ^e form of bread in the supper, namely by faith, and in other Sacraments in them that were of discretion, and might come to them, and even without faith and without Sacraments (in such of God's elect, as lacking age were prevented by death, before they could be partakers of sacraments) by the only working of God's holy spirit, who no less worketh in this wonderful spiritual nourishment, then in any spiritual regeneration.

And therefore Sander reasoneth like a gross Philosopher, when he saith: that no sign is able to comiey that heavenly bread to us. It is horrible blasphemy to say, that my faith is able to derive the substance of God, as meat into my soul and body, seeing faith is but a creature only, wherein the fullness of Godhead dwelleth not, and therefore is not able to attain to the union of God's nature, and much less able to give it me. And yet for all this that Sander saith, the Apostle prayeth that Christ, in whom the fullness of the godhead dwelleth corporally, may dwell in our hearts by faith. In deed, not by the worthiness of faith, but by the grace of the holy spirit, who giveth strength to the weak elements of the world, and to our imperfect faith, to bring to pass wonderful effects, as we may see in baptism. Wherefore, to reason of the weakness of signs, and unableness of faith, severally from the spirit of God, is as much, as if you would go about to prove, that because a man's body without his soul can do nothing, therefore, being united to his soul, it is not of force to do anything. To prove that we cannot be partakers of the Godhead of Christ without his flesh, he allegeth Cyrillus and Augustine, whose authorities, it is needeles to repeat, seeing we grant as much as he would have to be proved by them. But beside them, he citeth Hilarius

Hereof, he gathereth that we receive Christ into our bodies after a carnal manner of receiving, which is far from Hilaries meaning, although he use the word naturally, which even Sander must confess to be improperly used, or else he shall admit many unnatural conclusions. Wherefore by naturally, he meaneth properly, verily, and truly, yet after a divine and spiritual manner, not after a gross, natural, and sensible manner of habitation.

Again, this dwelling of Christ in us naturally, doeth not prove, that he is corporally received into our mouths, and settled in our stomachs. But this is sufficient to prove, that he meaneth Christ to be spiritually received, in that he affirmeth, it is not possible but that he must dwell naturally in them that receive his flesh in the Lord's meat. Sander addeth, worthily: But Hilary saith, truly. Therefore whosoever truly receiveth the flesh of Christ in the meat of our Lord, Christ must needs dwell in him naturally: but Christ dwelleth not at all in the ungodly, therefore the ungodly receive not his flesh in the Lord's meat, as the Papists say, in whom also he should dwell naturally, if he were received truly, or as they say, corporally.

CAP. IX.

The three times of giving, do not prove that three diverse things are given (neither doeth Sander say one word to prove that they do) and where is then the ground of this disputation? God by Moses (saith Sander) is said to have given in time past, he hath given them bread from heaven to eat. But Christ saith, Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven: Even he which gave them Manna for a Sacrament of the true bread, even he gave then, giveth now, and shall give forever the true bread from heaven, which is the flesh of our Savior Christ incarnate, crucified, revived, and ascended into heaven for our salvation. And howe can Sander prove, that Christ saying, he will give his flesh, meaneth any other gift then God his father did always give, except he refer his giving to the time of his passion, the fruit whereof was and is given unto the ende of the world. That the bread which Christ giveth, is true under a figure, that is the form of bread, fulfilling the figure of Manna, is a dream of Sanders own head, for Christ speaketh not of any giving under a figure or form of bread, or of giving the bread of his supper, but of the general food of eternal life, which it is necessary that all they be partakers of, which shall be partakers of eternal life. And therefore it is out of measure absurd, that Sander would prove his figurative form by Irenaeus, which saith, that the Eucharistie consisteth of two things, of one earthly, which is the form of bread and wine, the other heavenly &c: Irenaeus saith, not y ^t the forms of bread and wine are the earthly part of the Sacrament, but bread and wine in deed, for those external forms or accidents, be not any earthly thing, which is a substantial matter. Irenaeus saith, of the bread and wine, our bodies are increased and nourished: so can they not be of Sanders Accidents lib. 5. But he will show the absurdities that rise of the Sacramentaries opinion. If Christ's gift (saith he) consisted of the substance of bread sanctified in quality, and made a sign of his body (as the sacramentaries teach) it should neither be the true bread, which his father gave him, nor better then Manna, &c: But where do the Sacramentaries teach, that Christ's gift spoken of in this Chapter is the substance of bread sanctified in quality &c. We teach that Christ's gift is his own natural body and blood given in his passion to all the faithful of the world, to be the food of eternal life, as for the substance of bread given in his last supper, we teach that it is a Sacrament and seal of this gift. Therefore he must seek other Sacramentaries to fight against, if any such be. For we teach the true doctrine of the Sacraments, according to the word of God, making difference as all Christian divines have done before us, of the sacrament and the matter of the sacrament.

CAP. X.

He groundeth upon the 10. to the Hebrews: The Law hath the shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of things: applying the shadow to the Law, the image to the gospel, and the things themselves to the life to come. In which application, he seeth not howe he granteth to the Gospel, but an image of things, and not the things themselves, and thereby in deed, denieth the very flesh of Christ to be given us, but an image thereof, For his gloss will not stand with the Apostles words, that we have the very flesh of Christ under the image o • form of bread, the Apostle saying, we have the image of things: which image if it be none other, but the accidents of bread, we have no great prerogative above the Law. In deed the Apostle meaneth, that the same things which were but rudely shadowed, as it wer with a cole, to the fathers in the Law, are in a lively image described, and set forth unto us in the Gospel. For the Gospel hath not those good things which are to come, but possesseth them by faith. Therefore how foolish is that conclusion of Sander, upon this text? Christ gave us his real flesh under the form of bread, or else he gave not the thing it self: and if he gave it without figure, out state were not an image of the things themselves. Whereas the Apostle speaketh not of these things which are given, but of the clearenes of the doctrine, of those things which are promised: and therefore he calleth them good things to come, and Christ an high Priest of good things to come. As mad, yea and more frantic is that conclusion, that Christ cannot be a mediator between the two Testaments, except he gave his flesh under the form and figure of bread. By which drunken conclusion, it should follow, that Christ's mediation depended upon the institution of the Sacrament, which the Apostle in express words doth affirm to have been made complete in his death, which was effectual unto all ages alike. Heb. 9. Also that Christ in Baptism, hath not shown himself to be a mediator greater then Moses, because he hath not therein given us his natural flesh, which is in heaven: And last of all, that Christ is not a mediator unto the fathers that lived before the institution of his supper, but only to them that are partakers of his flesh in the supper. Again, as untrue it is, that because Christ came to fulfill the Law, therefore it was necessary, that he should give his flesh under a figure: which flesh was not given to them that lived under the Law: as though there were one mean of salvation for them, and another for us.

The scripture doth often distinguish the Law, and the Gospel, showing what is peculiar to either of them, but it never affirmeth, that the persons living in the time of the strength of Moses Law, were saved otherwise then by the Gospel, that is by remission of sins, through faith in y ^e mercy of God reconciled to us by Jesus Christ. Therefore it is more then blockish, to wrest the distinction of the Testamēts, to make a difference of the salvation of the persons. Seeing the New Testament was not first ordained (as Sander seemeth to say) when Christ did institute his supper, which he called the New Testament, but even from the beginning of the world, but yet to take effect, virtue and strength, by the death of Christ, of which Testament, the supper is a sacrament, bearing the name of the thing whereof it is a Sacrament, as well when it is called the new Testament, as when it is called the body and blood of Christ. And therefore the example of the precept, of not killing, expounded by Christ to extend to anger, proveth not any new truth to be added by the Gospel, but the ancient right meaning of the commandment, delivered from the gloss of the Pharisees, which expounded the precept, only of murthering with the hand. For who will say that such anger as Christ forbiddeth, was lawful before the time he made that exposition; or that to commit adultery in heart, by lusting after a woman, was not sin, before Christ did so interpret that commandment. If it were sin, then it was a breach of the Law: if it were a breach of the Law, it was of the Law that was given: therefore the Law was always spiritual, and had that true meaning, and was so taken of all good men, before Christ reproved the corruption of the Pharisaical glosses. That all legal instruction, and prophetical figures, are transferred into the sacraments of Christ, as Leo saith, we agre. We deny not, that which Dionyse saith, although we may not acknowledge him to have been S. Paul's scholar: that our holy government partaketh of heaven, spiritual contemplation, and of the Law sensible signs. Neither of both these authorities prove y ^e matter in question. As for the distinction of gifts, whereunto Sand. tumbleth again, in the end of this chapter, we make not void by our figurative doctrine. But such distinction as was in deed, between that which Moses gave, and God gave, we uphold by our figurative doctrine, which showeth y ^• right difference between the auctor and y ^e minister, the sign & the thing signified. But y ^t distinction between y ^e gift which y ^e Father gave always, and y ^t which the son promiseth to give to be diverse, whē Sander cā prove, we may be brought to acknowledge it: In the mean time, y ^t promise of continuance of that gift, in the Future temps, which Christ hath always given, is a slender argument to prove the distinction of gifts imagined by Sander.

Finally in substance of the food of eternal life, as we differ not in the life eternal it self, we are not preferred before y ^e Jews. They did all eat the same spiritual meat &c: Our prefermente is more clear sight and understanding, even such difference as is between the knowledge, obtained by a description of a body shadowed, and lively set forth in colors, which is the shadow and very image that the Apostle speaketh of. Heb. 10.

CAP. XI.

There is no doubt but Christ did give the substance of his flesh, which being crucified for us, is made y ^e bread of life and spiritual meat and drink to be received of us, not after any corporal manner of eating, but by faith in spirit, not only in the Sacrament of his supper, but in baptism also, and without any sacrament. But that it must stand for a truth universally received, that Christ saying, The bread which I will give is my flesh, meant y ^e bread which I will give you at my last supper, that I say I deny. What Sander vaunteth he hath proved thereof, in the 5. and 6. chapters of this book, let it be examined with mine answer. But admit he had spoken principally of his supper, yet doeth it not follow, which Sander doth infer, that he promised to give his flesh to Judas because he was one of the twelve which tarried with him at Capernaum, for his promise in offer, was as large to all that departed, and to the world, for the life whereof he promised to give his flesh, therefore it cannot be concluded that it was not only a spiritual gift that was promised but an external gift delivered by hand, which Judas might receive. For Christ promiseth such a gift, as if it be received, worketh eternal life in the receivers.

Finally, it cannot be proved, that Judas was prsēt at the supper, who departed about his treason, before the institution of the sacrament, as appeareth by saint John immediately after the soppe received, whereunto some of the ancient writers also do consent. Furthermore, y ^t the gift of Christ doth differ from y ^e gift of his father in person and time, and therefore cannot be given by faith only, it is no good consequent. For God gave his son for the world, and Christ gave himself for us, yet but one gift. The difference of time, I have often answered. As for the objection, y ^t he feigneth the Sacramentaries must say, that that flesh here standeth for the sign or figure of his flesh, is of his own making, for as I said before, we understand the flesh of Christ given for the life of the world, his natural body, crucified for us, and not the sacrament of his body given in his last supper.

CAP. XII.

First he repeteth his three gifts. God gave by Moses, naked figures, as Manna: God giveth presently, the flesh of Christ to our eyes and hearts: and Christ will give hereafter the same flesh, under the form of bread. Of these gifts he maketh three diverse works: the first by teeth and belly, the seconde by faith and spirit, and the third by both. The gift of Christ differing from Manna, is expressed in the Chapter. But any difference of the gift of the father, and of the son, there is not expressed, nor to be gathered by any note of distinction or dissentanie argument. Yet Sander hath found out a great number of differences, to prove that although the Father and the Son give one thing, that is the flesh of Christ, yet not one way to be received, the Father giveth it to be received by faith only, the Son to be received corporally.

The first difference is, of the time, The Father doeth give in the Present tense, the Son will give in the Future tense. This I have often answered to be no differēte, for Christ saith in y ^e present temps, except ye do eat y ^e flesh: &c. ergo he did presently give it. Again, he that doth eat often, is often̄ times repeated, in y ^e present time, and my flesh is meat in deed: all which prove that Christ's gift, was present when he spake to be received, therefore it differeth not from the Fathers gift, and way of receiving the same.

The second difference: the Father giveth Christ in the form of man, by the manner of the Fathers gift, the faithful may see y ^t son of Man, upon whom they believe: as it is said, This is the will of my Father which sent me, that everyone who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have everlasting life. And again: ye have seen me, and have not believed. Of the Sons gift it is not said, that his flesh shall be seen, but rather insinuated, that it shall be under the covering of another kind of food. I answer, that Christ in neither of both these sayings, speaketh of the corporal sight of his body. But in the one which is first placed in S. John, Ye 〈◊〉 au: seen me, and not believed; he exprobrateth to the Jews their willful blindness, which had acknowledged him before to be y ^e Messias, when he fed their bellies, & now refuse to believe him, when he offereth to feed their souls. In the other place, he showeth, y ^t obedience of faith joined to a manifest acknowledging of Christ, by the will of God, is the way to eternal life. For if seeing, should be taken for bodily seeing of Christ's flesh, it could not extend to us which cannot bodily behold him. Again, this difference overthroweth Sanders supposed way of the fathers giving, which is by faith and spirit only & not sensibly to the eye of the body. Last of all, it is a weak argument, it is not said in this or that text: ergo it is not meant, or it is not true at all.

The 3. difference: The Fathers gift is called the true bread from heaven: The Sons gift is called, not only true bread, but also truly bread and meat in deed. Some true meat may chance not to be truly meat, bec •• se it is not eaten: but nothing is meat in deed, and truly meat, except it be in deed eaten. If this difference be worth a straw, then your consecrated hosts be not the Sons gift, before they be eaten: and except they be eaten (as some time ye woe •• well they are burned) they be not his gift at all; if not his gift, then not flesh and blood. The difference of a true Vine, and a Vine truly, is sufficiently discussed in the later ende of the fourth book answered by master Nowel. Sander cannot or will not consider y ^e difference of the opposition between truly and falsely, and truly and properly.

The fourth difference: The Jews and disciples, went not away from Christ, for anything, that was spoken about the Fathers gift, thinking that a gift of eating by faith, might stand with the custom of God's people, but in the Sons gift, they saw more apparent absurdity, not lacking understanding, but faith, and therefore departed. I answer, they lacked understanding, as much as faith, and therefore Augustine • saith:

It is a simple difference, that is gathered of y ^e Jews ignorance and incredulity.

The 5. difference, The gift of the father is called by such names only, as belong to the persō of Christ, or to his divine nature to say, the bread of life, the lively bread, the true bread (for God only is absolutely the true bread of life) or by the Pronoun I: The gift of Christ is called also by the names of his human nature, to wit, the flesh and blood of the son of men. If this difference prove anything, it proveth not the diverse ways of giving the same thing, but that the same thing is not given by the Father and the Son: Whereas Sander said before, that the Father giveth Christ in human nature, to the world. If the human nature of Christ be given of the father, the names thereof may well agree to the Fathers gift.

The 6 difference, That Christ endeth his talk of eche gif • , with repeting the old figure Manna, betokening by both, the shadow of Manna to be fulfilled. But Manna was more perfectly fulfilled in outward doings by the sons gift. This is an agreement rather then a difference, except in the last illation, which is a mere begging of the matter in question. But there is a great difference, in that it is said of the one, If any man eat, ex hoc pane of this bread; in the other, he that eateth hunc panem this bread: and here is made a great difference, between eating of Christ, and eating Christ himself: the one is only by faith, the other in the Sacrament of the Altar, the one is to be partaker of the virtue and grace of Christ, the other to receive the substance of Christ. &c. But our savior Christ in S. John confoundeth this difference, using the Accusatiue case and the Ablatiue: with the preposition, for all one. I am the living bread, which came down from heaven, if any man shall eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: Here is the Ablatiue with a preposition, but what is this bread, of which he that eateth shall, live? he answereth: The bread which I will give, is my flesh, whereof he saith afterward, Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, &c: where he useth the Accusatiue: by which it is plain, that with Christ, to eat this bread, & to eat of this bread, is all one. Saint Paul also overthroweth this difference, showing that the Israelites did drink of y ^e spiritual Rock, which was Christ, unworthily, where as none can receive the effect of Christ's death unworthily. So he saith we are all partakers of one bread. But Sand, not satisfied, asketh if this be y ^e end of our long disputatiō, y ^t Christ came into the world to give a less token, then God had given before, under Moses &c? as though Christ came into the world for no end but to give y ^e sacrament. As for so many differences as he dreameth of his fathers gift, and his, we find not any one, but that they may all agree in one gift, which was not his supper, but himself to death, for the life of y ^e world, whereof everyone of his elect is made partaker, as of spiritual food, by faith & his holy spirit.

But this difference is learned, saith he, out of Chrysostom, upon John. Ho. 45. &c. where he noteth first the diversity of persons, saying: Se, non patrem, that he, not his father dare to give (saith Sander) but he falsifieth Chrysostom, which saith dedisse, to have given, which proveth that it is not given only in the Sacrament, which then was not instituted. 2 That he saith, Hom. 44. that Christ speaketh first of his divinity, and about the ende, of his body, proveth not that he speaketh only of the Sacrament: For Hom. 45. he saith plainly, as Sander confesseth, that y ^e bread signifieth either the doctrine of Christ, and salvation, and faith in him, or else his body. Wherein he dissenteth altogether from Sanders interpretation, who will not have the body of Christ promised before flesh be named.

But Chrysostom saith upon these words: my flesh is meat in deed: &c. that he so said, to the end they should not think him to speak in parables; but by flesh, to mean the sign of flesh, or by eating, to mean be leeuing is to speak in parables. I answer, that we say neither of both: but that Christ is verily eaten by faith, and by the spirit of God: yet Sander omitteth the other cause which Chrysostom rendereth of his so saying: A •• quod is est verus cibus, &c. either that he is the true meat which saveth the soul, or else &c. But he saveth not the soul only by eating the Sacrament: therefore this meat is not eaten only in the sacrament.

Finally that which is noted out of Hom. 83. in Matth. that Christ is joined unto us, not by faith and love only, but in very deed: We confess, but so is he joined to infants that never received the supper, and so was he joined to all the faithful before his incarnation, in as much as they all were members of his body. And so confesseth Chrysostom, in John. Homil. 46. that Abraham by eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ, shall be partaker of the resurrection, and therefore Christ said, He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath life eternal and I will raise him up in the last day. The testimonies of Theophilact, and Euthynius which are but late writers in comparison, I will not stand upon.

CAP. XIII.

Neither the one precept of regeneration is principally of baptism, neither the other of the Lord's supper. And the necessity of eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ, is not • aide only upon men of lawful age, because they were of lawful age to whom Christ spake, anymore then the necessity of regeneration upon all men, seeing Nicodemus, to whom Christ said, Except a man be borne &c. was of lawful age. For spiritual food, which is nothing else but y ^e body & blood of Christ, is as necessary for all ages, as for perfect age. But that the flesh of Christ is as necessary in the supper to feed us, as water in Baptism to wash us, it is a froward and foolish comparisō: for water washeth not our souls, nor regenerateth us, but the holy ghost, whereof water is a sign: so the flesh of Christ is as necessary in the supper to feed us, as the holy ghost, to wash us and regenerate us, which seeing it doth without transubstantiation of the water into the spirit, likewise doth the flesh and blood of Christ nourish us, without transubstantiation of the outward signs into them. The right Analogy is between water, and bread, and wine, and between the spirit of God, and the flesh and blood of Christ, not between outward water & spiritual flesh of Christ, which is as preposterous a comparison, is if you would compare the holy ghost in baptism, with the bread and wine in the sacrament. But of the error of Cyprian, Innocentius, and Augustine, he will prove, the necessity of the presence of Christ's flesh in the supper, because they gave the communion to infantes, y ^t could not receive it with faith & understanding: therefore they thought y ^e very body & blod of Christ to be really contained in y ^e sacrament. I answer it was not because they thought so, but because they thought y ^e one sacrament as necessary as the other, which might, and may in deed be ministered to infants, y ^t have not faith nor understanding actually. Therefore that they ministered the communiō to infants, it shown their error proceeding of ignorance, as all error doth: but it showeth not, y ^t they thought y ^e one sacrament to be other wise then the other, a seal or assurance of justification, w ^t out any dream of transubstantiatiō. That Sand would excuse their custom to have been used more for a security, then for necessity, is to no purpose. It is manifest y ^t they thought erroneously, y ^t the eternal sign or seal was necessary in both, as Aug. & Innocent. B. of Rome hath defined, denying eternal life to infants y ^t died without the communion and baptism, as though the grace of God had been necessarily tied to the outward elements.

CAP. XIIII.

There is no better way to be joined to the spirit of god, thē by eating y ^e flesh of Christ spiritually, which Aug. doth teach, not y ^e carnal manner of eating which Sander doth defend. S. Aug. de doct. Christ lib. 3. ca 16. as Sander doth confess, affirmeth y ^t this speech of Christ, Except ye eat y ^t flesh &c: containeth a figure. And what the meaning of this figure is, August. telleth us: It is a figure (saith he) commanding, that we should communicate with the passion of our Lord, and that we should sweetly and profitably remember, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. But Sander replieth, first against y ^e Lutherans, y ^t August. calling this speech a figure, meaneth not to deny y ^t it appertaineth to the last supper. And which of the Lutherans I pray you, denied, that it appertaineth to the last supper, although they deny y ^t it is singularly spoken of the last supper? Secondly he fathereth upon y ^e Zwinglians an untruth, that they grant the place to be understood of Christ's last supper, to prove y ^e necessity of both kinds, which is a fable: for they grant none otherwise, then I have often shown, & yet a good argument for necessity of both kinds may be taken out of y ^t place, because Christ giveth us a perfect nourishment of meat and drink, or as Justin saith, of d • ie and moist nourishment, unto which spiritual truth, the external seal must be made consormable. But now, will Sander teach us to understand, what S. Augustine meaneth by a figurative speech, which is all one as if he would teach us to go to supper, as it is in the Greek proverb. First a siguratiue speech must not deny any word in the speech, to be used improperly, but is measured by faith and good manners. Whereas Augustine telleth us, that if in any sentence of the scripture, the words sound against faith, & good manners, the words must not be taken in their proper sense, but they are a figure, and signify some other thing, then the words in their proper taking do sound, as diverse examples which he bringeth in the same place, beside his plain words, do declare. This saying he affirmeth to be a figurative speech, Thou shalt heap burning coals on his head, which he doeth thus interpret:

Behold, even as coals of fire in this text, are not taken in their proper sense, for a bodily substance of woodde incensed: so is not eating and drinking in y ^e other sentence, taken in the proper sense, for receiving at our mouth, chawing and swallowing, But as Augustine interpreteth, for communicating with the flesh of Christ by faith and spirit, &c. either in the Sacrament, or without it. And it is a foolish cavil of Sander, to say that charity is not broken, when we eat Christ whole under the form of bread, without hurting of him, &c. For Augustine counteth it slagitium, an heinous offense, to eat the flesh of man in proper sense of eating, that is corporally: Yea, faith Sander, to eat it in pieces, as it is sold in though shambles. As though to eat an whole man after that manner, were not more monstrous, then to eat a piece of him. But Sander to show his sincerity, rehearseth a large place out of Augustine in Psal. 98. which, howe cunningly he can wrest for his purpose you shall see. Three things Sander noteth out of this saying: First against the Lutherans, that Augustine understandeth the precept of eating Christ's flesh of the Sacrament. I answer, that Augustine in other places, and namely in his purposed commentary of that place, understandeth it not to be singularly spoken of the eating in the Sacrament, but otherwise also: which is all that we affirm and deny of referring this place to the Sacrament. Secondly he no teth against the Zwinglians, that the figurative speech which Augustine saith to be in these words, is to be meant of the manner of eating, in the natural understanding of c • r • all men, by cutting, tearing, chawing, &c. not denying the substance of his flesh whole, sound, and quick, to be eaten under the form of bread. I answer the natural understanding of carnal men is by eating to receive in at the mouth that which is eaten &c. wherefor Augustine denieth that also. Thirdly he noteth that he calleth it Sacrament which in his book de doct. Christ, he called a figure, taking the name of a figure for a holy sign of an higher truth. This is a grosle and shameless collection, for he calleth the words of Christ a figure, and a figurative and improper speech, which must not be taken according to the sound of the words: By which words you see that a figurative speech is an improper speech. But how can this snake slide away from those words of Augustine? You shall not eat that body which you see, nor drink that blood which they shall shed, I commend unto you a Sacrament. Therefore y ^• Sacrament is not his body which then was seen, nor his blood which afterward was shed. But Sander gliding over these words, as though he saw them not, presuming upon the credulity of Papists, which must believe that they make nothing against the carnal manner of presence, if he say so: he passeth to another saying of Augustine in John. Tr. 26. &. 27. to prove that the error of the Jews was not concerning the substance of y ^e flesh that must be eaten really, but concerning y ^e manner of eating of it. Because Augustine saith carnem intellexerune quomodo, &c. They understood flesh, so as it is torn in a carcase, or sold in the shambles, and not as it is quickened with y ^e spirit of God. I answer, this was one of their errors, but not all. For Augustine in Ps. 98. bringeth in Christ, denying them his natural body and blood: ergo they erred in the substance as well as in the manner: & in John Tr. 24. he saith: In these words, the argument of his ascension, taketh away all corporal presence as well of Christ whole, as broken in pieces, secondly the exposition of his grace not consumed w ^t biting, showeth after what manner he understandeth his body to be present, namely by spiritual grace, not by corporal substance. Therefore all Sanders jangling of signs and figures, is to no purpose. For when he hath prated what he can, a sign shall never be the thing which it signifieth; nor a figure the same thing that it figureth, except opposites may agree to one thing at one time, and in one respect.

For to use his own foolish example, a loaf of bread, which a baker setteth out, to signify that bread is there to be fold, although it be of that kind of bread, which it signifieth to be in y ^e house in greater quantity, yet it is not that same bread, whereof it is the sign. No more is the Sacrament, that same thing, whereof it is a sign, and yet an assured testimony that the thing signified is given to our souls and faith, as certeinely as the sign to our bodies. But because Augustine saith, except ye eat my flesh, are words figurative. Sander will reason thus: as cunningly I warrant you, as any collier in Cambridge or Oxford. The eating of Christ's flesh and drinking of his blood, being real deades which must be performed in Christ's supper, and yet being called for good respect figurat 〈…〉 e words, must needs be figures of somewhat, and the deeds and words being referred to the supper, must needs betoken somewhat, as they are considered. But the eating of the flesh in Christ's supper, can betoken nothing at all, except his flesh be there eaten▪ the eating whereof may be the ground of this betokening. Therefore these words import of necessity, that in Christ's supper the flesh of Christ is really eaten, and his blood is really dr • nken. For the flesh of Christ cannot be made the figure of baker • bread, &c.

O what whistling and hissing would be in the Sophisters schools, if such an argument came among them, which reasoneth jointly of things to be divided! Augustine saith the words are figurative, & not the deeds of eating & drinking, which are signified by the words, Except ye eat, &c.

The words I say, of eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ, are figurative, betokening another thing then they sound in common and proper understanding; and what they signify, he showeth, the communication with the passion of Christ, and profitable remembrance of his death, which as they are represented in the supper, so may we eat and drink his flesh and blood without the Sacrament, by faith and working of God's spirit. But (saith Sander) if the eating of Christ's flesh be not the figure, the words Except ye eat my flesh, be not figurative. Se you not howe this fond Sophister, confoundeth the distinction which he him self before had made of figurative speeches and figures of things themselves? between rhetorical figures and sacramental figures. I say the spiritual eating which is the communication, with his passion, &c. is not a figure, but that which is understood by those figurative words, except ye eat the flesh, &c.

And although there may be a real eating to warn us of spiritual eating; yet that spiritual eating which Saint Augustine calleth communicating with the passion of Christ, &c. may be without the Sacrament, and so is Augustine discharged of Sanders Sophistry.

But now he will discover the errors of the Sacramentaries in expounding these words: the first is, that they make the words of Christ to be figurative only passively, whereas they are also figurative actively. But how I pray you are the words figurative actively? He answereth, the actual eating of Christ's flesh, is not only said to be figured, but also is taught to be a figure it self, of another spiritual eating.

If Sander were as ignorant, as his arguments are absurd, he were the most notable Ass, that ever wrote in divinity, but I impute it not to ignorance, but to malicious deceitfullnes, that he confoundeth words and deeds, and reasoneth thus: the words be figurative actively, because the deed is figurative actively, which is such a monster, as Sophistry never bred a greater. And what proof have you of this actual eating of Christ's flesh, to be a figure actively of spiritual eating? Nothing but a mangled place of Ambrose, 〈◊〉 1. Cor. Cap. 11. wherein he chargeth us with corrupting his words, with evil pointing or distincting, which he doth himself most manifestly. For upon these words he writeth:

But Sander readeth, in eating and drinking the flesh and blood, we signify those things which were offered for us. Against this wresting by mispointing, first is the relative quae, which lacketh an antecedent, if flesh and blood which was offered for us, be not signified: Secondly the words Carnem & sanguinem are put absolutely, not showing whose theie are, and the relative is referred to uncertain things. For if he had meant the same to be eaten which was offered, he would have said not quae but eadem, last of all the accusative case following the verbs eating and drinking, can be reasonably none other in an expositor, but the accusative case which Paul useth, that is this bread and this cup.

The second fowl error of the Sacramentaries, is that they expound the words of Christ: Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, that is to say the figure of his flesh, which is bread and wine. And here he crieth what ignorance? what abusing of God's word? what blasphemy? where is honesty? where is shamefastness? where is common understanding? I answer, that for honesty and shamefastness, it is in the devil, as soon as in Sander. For what honesty or shamefastness is it? thou a •• ant traitor, and stinking heretic, to fain such an interpretation of the Sacramentaries, as if thou wouldest hang thyself, thou canst not find that ever any used, or said, that the flesh of Christ is a figure of bread and wine, or that Christ in that place speaking of his flesh and blood, spake of a figure thereof. But if no man have either written or spoken so, thou wilt perhaps infer it of other sayings or writings of theirs, which say, those words belong to the supper so truly, that they build falsely, upon them the necessity of both kinds. But wilt thou not understand by an hundredth times repeating, that none of us referreth those words or any other in that Chapter, unto the supper, otherwise, then as the supper is a sacrament, seal, or outward token ordained of Christ to confirm our faith in that doctrine of our spiritual food, to be given by him unto eternal life, which is given to the worthy receiver in that Sacrament, in baptism, and without either of them, by the working of God's spirit only in some, in men of discretion not without faith? As for the necessity of both kinds, is proved by that analogy which ought to be between the things signified & the signs: and also upon your own concession, who understanding those words only of sacramental eating and drinking, may no more exclude drinking then you can do eating.

CAP. XV.

Three things (saith Sander) must be considered of him that will know, why the flesh of Christ is called meat in deed. The first, that the Jews asked howe he would give his flesh to be eaten. The second, that Christ saith, the eating of his flesh was necessary and profitable, both for body and soul. The third, that Christ confirmeth these his sayings with this reason. For my flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed: that is, it hath truly and in deed, those properties, that any man would wish for in true meat. But the properties of true meat are, to be received into the body, and to be a medicine against death. If none be true meat, but that which is received into the body, then that which Sander so often calleth the fathers gift, the bread of life, which came down from heaven is not true meat, for that he hath often said, may be received by saith and spirit not entering into the body, yet thereof saith Christ, that he is the true bread. But Chrysostom upon these words, My flesh is meat in deed, &c. saith that it meaneth that flesh to be the true meat, which saveth the soul, or else he speaketh it to confirm them in the former words, that they should not think him to have spoken in parables darkly, but that they should know it to be by all means necessary, to eat his body, in John. Hom. 46. He that granteth both these senses (saith Sander) must needs grant that the true eating of the flesh, standeth not for eating truly the sign of the flesh, because he spake not obscurely in parables. Verily he were worthy to wear a cockescombe, that would say true eating of the flesh, standeth for eating truly the sign of the flesh. Against whom then doeth Sander fight, but against an idol of his own brain? but it is an obscure saying to put eating for believing. I answer, Chrysostom speaketh of the meat, and not of the manner of eating: for if there be no obscurity in the manner of eating, let Sander speak of his small conscience, when he saith the manner of eating to be under another kind, then it self is, which is most obscure and imperceptible. But if his flesh be called meat, because it must be eaten bodily, wherefore then is his blood called drink in deed, which Sander holdeth not to be necessary to be drunk bodily? For if his blood in that sense be drink in deed, it must be drunk in deed, and not eaten with the body. But Augustine, lib. 13. De ciuitate Dei. Cap • 0. saith: Tanquam caetera, &c. That other trees of Paradise were a nourishment; the tree of life, a Sacrament: So that the tree of life should be taken to be after such a sort, in the bodily Paradise, as the wisdom of God is in the spiritual intelligible Paradise. Of which wisdom it is written, It is the tree of life, to all that embraece it. What can Sander make of this saying? As corporal tasting in the tree of life, was necessary for the spiritual effect of incorruption, so Christ's flesh must be corporally tasted that it may be meat indeed. I deny the comparison, which should be made of the tree with bread, and of life with Christ, and not of wood with the flesh of Christ. And it is certain, that Augustine not only compareth the sacrament with the sacrament, but also calling Christ, the spiritual part of the sacrament, the wisdom of God, which is a tree of life to all that embrace him, signifieth that Christ is otherwise received, then with the mouth: for embracing is more aptly said to be with the arms of faith, then with the lips of the body, who cannot touch the wisdom of God. But Sander once again to make his matter good, repeateth his rank and rotten distinction of two gifts, two givers, two manners of eating, true meat, and meat truly: affirming meat truly to be because it is received in at the mouth, and goeth into the body, after such sort, as other meats do, although it nourish spiritually. Where there is no effect of that he calleth meat truly, but it is by plain words of the Chapter, ascribed to that which is called true meat, which he consesseth may be received only spiritually: even the virtue of raising up our bodies: for which cause he would make the bodily eating to be necessary. He that believeth in me, hath life eternal, and I will raise him up again in the last day.

Afterwarde, he citeth Hilary: who presseth the word vere against the Arians. But yet Sander translateth him falsely. For to make it seem, that Hilary spake of such bodily eating as he doeth, he turneth these words, Haec accepta atque hausta efficiunt: these things taken and swallowed: whereas he should say, these things, that is the flesh and blood of Christ, being taken and drunken, do cause this, that both Christ is in us, and we in him, which must needs be taken for eating and drinking spiritually: For eating & drinking his flesh corporally, Sander confesseth to have no such effect. Howe Christ tarrieth in us naturally, and how we truly under a mystery take the flesh of his body, I have spoken before, and these places of Hilary are discussed more at large in mine answer to Heskins, lib. 2. Cap. 20. & 2 • . by which it may appear, that Hilary taught no corporal manner of receiving, but sub sacramento carnis communicandae, under a sacrament of his flesh to be communicated, vere, sub mysterio, truly, under a mystery, and so as therebie Christ of necessity dwelleth in us and we in him. The last auctor is Gregory Nyssenus in vita Mosis. Puro defaecató{que} animo coelestem cibum sumere, &c. To take the heavenly meat with a pure and clean mind. The which meat (saith he) no sowing brought forth unto us by the art of tilling the ground. But it is bread provided for us without seed, without sowing, without any other work of man, It flowing from above, is found in the earth for the bread which came down from heaven, which is the true meat, which is obscurely meant by this History of Manna, is not a thing without a body. For by what means can a thing without a body, be made meat unto the body? The thing which is not without a body, is by all means a body. Here (saith Sander) Nyssenus proveth the truth of Christ's body, by the truth of the eating thereof, which must be really taken into our bodies, by our mouths, or else Nyssenus faileth in his whole discourse: which is a shameless manifestly. For Gregory saith expressly, we must take that heavenly meat with a pure and clean mind of taking it into our bodies, by the mouth he speaketh not. He gathereth that Christ's body is a true body, not because it is bodily eaten, but because it is meat unto our bodies, which yet as spiritual meat nourisheth spiritually, as Sander confessed even now. How strong the argumen • of Nyssenus is, I force not, but he neither affirmeth, neither anything can rightly be gathered out of him, which we do not confess and acknowledge in as ample manner as he, That Christ hath a true body, and that his flesh is heavenly meat indeed, to nourish the whole man, which must be received with a pure and clean mind, not put in at our mouths, nor swallowed down our throats.

CAP. XVI.

The tarrying of Christ in us, and we in him, Chry 〈…〉 sostome in John. H. 46. calleth a mingling w ^t him: which Cyril declareth by a similitude of pouring wa •• upon melted wax, in John. lib. 4. Ca. 16 and of a little leave 〈…〉 which tempereth the whole lump of dowe: so a little of the blessing draweth the whole man into it self, and filleth us with h 〈…〉 grace, and so doeth Christ dwell in us, & we in him. By a little of that blessing, Cyril meaneth a small portion of the sacramental bread, or that which seemeth bread as Sander. will have it. And by these interpretations (saith he) it cannot be avoided, but that the heavenly food which we receive into our mouths, is the real substance of Christ's flesh. For it is called benedictio, the blessing, which word is not meant of an inward virtue, coming from heaven, but of that which seemeth bread, and is visibly received. To all this I answer, first, that the terms of mingling, and similitudes of pouring wax & of leaven, must have a spiritual understanding, or else they will breed monstrous absurdities. And unto the term • blessing, I say it is taken for the external Sacrament, even as the body of Christ, the flesh of Christ, the blood of Christ. &c. by the figure synecdoche of the most principal parte of y ^e Sacrament, not in respect of that which seemeth bread, and is visibly received, but of the spiritual blessing, whereof they are partakers which receive the Sacrament worthily. Therefore saith Cyril, a little blessing draweth us into it, and filleth us with his grace, and so Christ tarrieth in us and we in him. I ask howe, but by his grace? For Sander will confess, that which seemeth bread to tarie but a little while in us: likewise, that the body of Christ tarrieth no longer in us then the kinds or shows of bread and wine tarie in us: Where▪ fore the tarrying of Christ by grace in us, proveth not his real receiving of Christ's flesh into our bodies. Yea, Sander saith himself: A little of that blessed food being received worthily of us, is not so properly said to tarie in us, as we to tari • in it, for that though it be small in form yet in virtue it is great. I pray thee Sander, tell us what is that blessed food thou speakest of, which doeth not properly tarie in us? For of his flesh, Christ saith, that it is meat in deed, & that he tarrieth in him which eateth it. And what is that which is small in form, the body of Christ, or the external sacrament, which thou callest the shows of bread and wine, which in deed are small in form? The body of Christ, I suppose thou art not so mad, to contract into smaller quantity then it is, and as for the accidents or shows of bread and wine, what virtue is in them? And in deed, y ^t only word of Cyril, A little of the blessing, meaning thereby the external Sacrament, for the internal virtue thereof, overthroweth Popish transubstantiation, & carnal manner of receiving into the mouth. For by a little of the blessing, he meaneth not a little of the body of Christ, nor the body of Christ in a little quantity, but a little of the consecrated bread and wine, which by divine and spiritual operation, is of infinite virtue to convert us into an heavenly and spiritual nature, aunswerable to our regeneration, which is testified unto us in baptism. But Sander replieth, that if the Sacrament were wheaten bread, it could not be true that a little thereof should draw the whole man unto it. I answer, if it were nothing but wheaten bread, it could do no such thing: but Cyril calleth it by the name of that which it is more principally, as it is a Sacrament, that is a blessing, which draweth the whole man to it, and filleth him with grace: E • ho • modo in nobis Christus manet, & nos in Christo, and by this mean doeth Christ dwell in us and we in him. To the term of tarrying naturally, used by Hilary, I have answered before. Theophylact I force not of, as being a late writter, although he say nothing in effect more thā Chrysostom and Cyril. But Sander still urgeth, what joining as of wax & leaven, what mingling can be made of things so far distant as heaven & earth? If you say, by faith & spirit, either you give a cause of joining (saith Sander) which may stand with the cause alleged by Christ, or else you correct his cause and put a better. I answer, we neither ad to, nor correct the cause of joining alleged by Christ, but express y ^e very same which he doth: The words which I speak, are spirit & life, but there be some among you that believe not. Nay (saith Sander) our tarrying in Christ is assigned to eating, and not only to believing. But we reply, that this eating is not corporal eating, but eating by faith & spirit, which may be without eating the Sacrament, and yet eating the flesh of Christ, not leaving the eating thereof (as Sander saith) and staying upon feeding by faith alone, which is an absurd saying, for by faith we feed upon Christ through the virtue of his holy spirit.

CAP. XVII.

Sander always reasoneth so, as he maketh eating by faith and spirit, to exclude the flesh of Christ and the virtue thereof, as in this chapter, he saith, He that eateth Christ's flesh, receiveth life of him, not by the means of faith & spirit only, but also by natural participation of his flesh: as Christ liveth for the father, so he that eateth Christ shall live for him: but Christ liveth not for his father in faith, nor by mean of spirit alone, as we take spirit for devotion or spiritual gifts and qualities, but by his whole substance present in him. But whē we say, that we eat Christ by faith & spirit, we mean not by spirit, devotion, or spiritual gifts, but the working of the holy spirit, as the principal efficient cause, and faith as the instrumental cause, by which we eat Christ present in whole substance. The controversy is not, whether we must be joined to Christ by eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, for that we believe without all controversy, that from the beginning of the world, to the end, none can be joined to Christ otherwise then by eating his flesh & drinking his blood: but whether Christ's flesh can be eaten and drunken without eating bodily the Sacrament, that is the question. And therefore Sander maketh a large & needless discourse, in this Chapter, to show how Christ liveth for his father and how we must live for him, that is by participation of his flesh and blood, which is that natural participation, whereof Hilary speaketh against the Arians, which said, we are joined to him only in unity of will, which is not so: for he by his incarnation, is naturally joined to us, and we by participation of his flesh are naturally joined to him, so that we are flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, of which conjunction the Sacrament is an heavenly pledge and assurance. But now cometh Sander, and saith, that in four pointes the Sacramentaries be against S. Hilary: first b • couse they pr • suppose Christ's flesh not to be eaten of us, and consequently not to be in us, in his own nature and substance. This is a false supposell, for we affirm Christ's flesh to be eaten of all the elect of God, and whole Christ to be in them. Secondly they are against the Godhead of Christ, if we do not live by eating of Christ's flesh as he by the father. This is the 2. slanderous cauell, answered before. Thirdly they are against the life of our bodies, because they say that in the Sacrament, we eat nothing into our bodies, but bread and wine, which are not able to give life to our bodies, whereby they may live forever. This is a peevish Sophistry, we eat into our bodies, and we eat in the Sacrament bodilye nothing, but bread and wine, therefore we eat not at all. Yes, we eat the flesh of Christ both in the Sacrament and without it, with our souls which is of force to give life both to bodies and souls. Fourthly they are against the food of our bodies, which is the flesh of Christ. No forsooth, we acknowledge that flesh of Christ to be food to feed the whole man, body and soul unto eternal life, but yet so to feed the body as it is not received corporally, nor feedeth corporally, but after a spiritual and divine manner. And here he maketh the Zwinglians to affirm, that the sanctified bread in the supper, is the food of our bodies, unto eternal life, as water in baptism is the instrument and mean as well to bodies & souls of everlasting life. Which is utterly false, for they affirm, neither y ^e bread to be food, nor the water to be regeneration otherwise, then as holy signs, seals, pledges, assurances of spiritual feeding and regeneration. But Sander by scripture, will destroy this comparison, affirming that God in deed may use what means he will, to save us, but by his word, he hath testified his will, y ^t baptism hath his promise of saluatiō annexed to it, but no promise is made to material bread and wine, nor to him that eateth and drinketh them. I answer, neither is any promise made to the water in baptism, but to him that receiveth it worthily, and to him that eateth and drinketh material bread and wine in the Sacrament, the like promise is made of remission of sins and of eternal life: not in respect of y ^e bread & wine, but in respect of him that feedeth our faith by that Sacrament, and by faith and working of his holy spirit feedeth us with his flesh and blood, even when that Sacrament is not received. But Cyril saith in John, lib. 10, Cap. 13. Non poterat, &c. This corruptible nature of the body could not otherwise be brought to incorruption and life, unless the body of the natural life, were joined unto it. This is true: but the manner of the conjunction is all the matter we stand vpō, which we affirm must be such, as may join everybody of God's elect that hath been & shall be, to the body of the natural life, which cannot be the Sacramētal coniunctiō or corporal receiving of Christ's natural body into our bodies, which was denied to all y ^e fathers before Christ's incarnation. And yet except everyone of their bodies had been joined to the body of Christ, which is the body of natural life, they could not be partakers of incorruptiō & life, as Cyril saith. Therefore the manner of our conjunction, is not the receiving of Christ's body in at our mouths, but an heavenly & divine manner wrought by the spirit of God, apprehended by faith in all that have heard the word of God •• d are partakers of it.

CAP. XVIII.

If Christ had not meant to give his flesh in deed (saith Sander) he would not have cast a stumbling block in his disciples way, nor hindered their faith by words more hard then needed. I answer, he meant to give them his flesh in deed, to be eaten, not only in his supper, but even then presently, if they had been faithful to have received it. And therefore he saith to them, he that eateth me, shall live for me or by me, my flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed. Sander must remember, what he hath taught us before, that Christ's flesh cannot be meat in deed, except it be eaten, but Christ saith it is meat in deed, before it was to be eaten in the Sacrament, therefore it was presently eaten by faith and spirit, and he speaketh not there of Sacramental eating only. Neither doth Cyril say, that only in the Sacrament, Christ's flesh is eaten, although he show that Christ instructed his Apostles, when he gave them fragmenta panis, pecces of bread, how his flesh might be eaten, in John lib. 4. Cap. 14. namely spiritually and not corporally.

CAP. XIX.

Basil, Chrysostom, and Augustine, (saith Sander) expound the name flesh for carnal and fleshly understanding of the Jews: which Calvin of Luciferian pride reprocueth: And yet Augustine and Cy 〈…〉 l do chiefly follow another understanding, which also Cal 〈…〉 e followeth, that Christ's flesh, should not profit anything, but that by the spirit of his Godhead, it is made able to give everlasting life. See the ran • or of Sander, which condemneth Calvin of devilish pride, for refusing one interpretation of some fathers, & taking the exposition of others, and that, which one of the same fathers doth chiefly follow, as Sander doth confess. But now (saith he) what need more ado? If this saying appertain not to the last supper, it maketh nothing against our belief. If it do appertain, they are words prophetical, fulfilled in the supper. I have often shown how all this doctrine of eating the flesh of Christ, pertaineth to the supper, and howe it pertaineth not. And this I prove out of this saying against your Popish opinion, wherein you hold that wicked men eat Christ's flesh. Our savior Christ showing whence his flesh hath power to give life, namely not of it self, but of the spirit, doth also show the necessary effect of his spirit, which is never separated from his flesh. The spirit (saith he) quickeneth or giveth life: seeing therefore that no man can receive the flesh of Christ separated from his spirit, no man can receive his flesh, but he that receiveth it quickening or giving life. But where Sander saith, that when Christ gave his body, he gave it after a spiritual sort, and no • after a fleshly manner. It might seem that he fully agreed with us in mind, as he doth in words: but when he cometh to expound spiritually and fleshly, he declareth, that he meaneth not to exclude, all fleshly manners, but only one manner of eating his body by pieces, as though the eating of it whole according to their imagination into their bodies were not also a fleshly manner: but when he cometh to spiritual sort, he expoundeth it only by invisible sort: as though he which giveth a piece of gold closed in a paper, so that it could not be seen, did give it after a spiritual manner. As for the conversion of bread and wine into his body and blood, his presence at the table and in their mouths, and in heaven, &c. show not a spiritual manner of giving his body, but a monstrous alteration of bodily things, which are affirmed to be so really and corporally, and yet contrary to the nature of all things and bodies spoken of. I omit his ridiculous interpretations of Jeremiah's saying. Let us put wood into his bread, which he applieth to the crucifying of Christ's flesh, where yet wodde was not put into his flesh, but his flesh put upon wodde. But the Prophet rehearseth the saying of his adversaries, which threatened to give him wood in steed of bread, that is to famish him in the stocks. Likewise of Abacuks saying: Horns are in his hands, which he meanein of the almighty power of God, often called figurative horns, Sander referreth it to the corners of the cross, which yet were not in the hands of Christ, but his hands stretched out toward them.

CAP. XX.

Sander, as his manner is, can rest in no certain 〈…〉 sition, but will have every interpretation to 〈…〉 sense of the place, if it affirm anything that 〈…〉 first, because the flesh of Christ is unprofitable, 〈…〉 the spirit which giveth it power of quickening 〈…〉 have this saying all one in effect with the woe 〈…〉 ing before, it is the spirit that quickeneth. 〈…〉 upon occasion of a phra • e used by Cyrillus, 〈◊〉 , 〈…〉 words are of the spirit, he will have the meaning to • e, y ^t the words of Christ have in them some of his spirit & divine power therefore the naming of flesh & blood before, was not figurative, but proper. I grant the conclusion, but I deny the argument: for he uttered other words before, which we • figurative & improper as, I am the bread that came, &c. yet were these words spirit & life, and so are all the words of the Gospel, that is, give h •• , if they be spiritually understood, I say not always figuratively, but always believed to be true in that sense they are uttered & meant by him, whether they be figurative or proper, as concerning the prhase. Thirdly, the words of Christ are spirit and life, because they make the spiritual body of Christ, which is a spiritual food, as Ambrose saith, de ijs qui myster, init. Cap. 9. Ambrose saith truly, that for as much as the body of Christ is a spiritual body, it is not a corporal food, but a spiritual food. Why is it not a corporal food, seeing it feedeth our bodies as well as our souls? Verily, because it is not received corporally, but spiritually, which is y ^e difference in which we stand. We agreefully with Augustine, in John. Tra. 27. The words of Christ are to be understanded spiritually, & so are spirit & life to us, as they be of their own nature, howsoever unfaithful persons esteem of them, they work whatsoever it pleaseth him to signify to be wrought by them, as Basil teacheth de Bap. lib. 1. Cap. 2. We believe, as Chrysostom teacheth, Hom. 47. in John. That they contain no natural course, but are free from all earthly necessity. And therefore, when Christ promiseth to give us his flesh to be eaten, & delivereth the bread, calling it his body, we believe his words to be spirit and life, that is not to contain any natural course, but to be free from all earthly necessity, that is, we believe unfeignedly to be fed with Christ's body and blood, although we do not eat & drink it corporally with our mouth, which is a natural course of eating, we believe, that by the flesh & blood of Christ, both our bodies & souls are nourished wonderfully unto eternal life, not thinking it necessary, that the flesh and blood of Christ should carnally enter into our bodies, as the Papists teache, for that is an earthly necessity, from which the words of Christ, are free, & yet the only thing that Sander urgeth so vehemently, & without the which he thinketh it impossible to communicate with the flesh and blood of Christ.

But Sander commandeth all heretics to cease to mock them, for making so many miracles in the Sacrament of the altar, because the words of Christ, This is my body, are spirit and life. Nay verily, this argument will stir up all men to mock the Papists more then they did before: seeing they think it lawful to fain what miracles they will in the Sacrament, because Christ's words be spirit & truth, & yet more to laugh at Sa • ders reason, which will prove these words to be most proper, & least figurative, because they partake most of the godhead, in which there is no change, whereas figures or tropes come of the Greek word, which signifieth changing. Notwithstanding this great clerk, oftentimes before hath taught us, that whatsoever is spoken of bread and meat, and eating in John 6. Chapter, until he come to this saying: (And the bread which I will give is my flesh) doth pertain to the godhead of Christ, and the participation thereof by faith: in which words he cannot deny, but bread, meat, eat, hunger, thirst, &c. must be taken figuratively. But what drunkenness is it to reason of these words only? This is my body, when all the words of Christ, as well figurative speeches, as proper, be spirit and life, as well as these. Yet now now we shall see a whole world of difference between the words of the Gospel & the interpretation of false gospellers, between the old fathers & y ^e new brethren. For Christ (saith he) was by his incarnation made the bread of life to the end we might eat his godhead otherwise then the fathers had done before. The new brethren bid us feed upon him by faith alone, as Noah & Abraham did. I trust it shall be sufficient to prove those new brethren, to be y ^e right children & heirs of those old fathers, when they have all one matter of salvation, the flesh and blood of Christ, & all one instrument of eating, faith alone. And why should the new brethren eat the godhead, or manhood of Christ, otherwise in substance, then the old fathers did? But Sander asketh, where is the word of God so given me after his incarnation, as it could not be given before? And I ask Sander, wherefor it should be given now otherwise then it was before? and why it could not be given before so as it is given now? but that he will bind the word of God to a natural course, & not suffer his working to be free from earthly necessity? He demandeth further, where is any everlasting meat for his body? I demand likewise, where was any everlasting meat for the body of Noah & Abraham our fathers? But Sander saith his flesh is rebellious to his spirit, and hath need to be fed, his body was the mean to poison his soul, therefore his soul must have a medicine, which shall be received into his body. I answer, the flesh of our old fathers Noah and Abraham was rebellious to the spirit, had need to be fed, were a mean to poison the soul &c, yet needed they not, that the flesh of Christ should be received into their bodies, that it might be a medicine unto their souls: no more is it needful for the new brethren that are their children. But let us see the other differences. Irenaeus reproved them that denied the resurrection of men's bodies, because Godly men in scripture are called spiritual: the new brethren wrest the name of spirit or spiritual body, to deny the real substance of flesh in the sacrament: Nay, they infer y ^t the manner of y ^e eating must be spiritual, in which respect it is called a spiritual body, and not only for the power of quickening which it hath of y ^t spirit of Christ. But it is a great mystery, that where S. Paul 1. Tim. 3. would have Deacons to be chosen of such men, as have the mystery of faith in a pure conscience, Sander thinketh, he meaneth the Sacrament, which in their mass at the consecration of y ^e blood, is called mysterium sidei, & in Justinus time was delivered by y ^e Deacons. O blockish imagination! such be the arguments of popery. But if it be so, why is not the bread so called in your Mass, as well as the cup? And if there be a special reason why the cup should rather be so called, what conscience have your Priests and Deacons to spoil y ^e people thereof, and not to deliver it as the Deacons did in y ^e time of Justinus? The other differences that without order he heapeth and repeteth, come all to this end, y ^t we deny the flesh of Christ any way to be profitable; y ^t we affirm y ^t spirit to quicken us, w ^t out eating of Christ in his supper; we wrest to the spirit of man, that which Christ saith of y ^e spirit of god: all which is false & slāderous, for as I have often̄ shown. We believe it to be of necessity y ^t we should eat & drink y ^e flesh & blod of Christ, which by virtue of his spirit hath power to give eternal life to all them that receive it, we acknowledge all the words of Christ to be spirit and l •• e, so as no mortal man's words can be, neither did we eu •• say that flesh and blood signifieth bread and wine, and the same bread and wine must again signify the flesh and blood of Christ: although we say that bread and wine in the sacrament are a seal and confirmation of that doctrine which Christ teacheth in this Chapter, concerning the eating and drinking of his very true and natural flesh and blood, which hath power to seed unto eternal life, them that eat and drink it spiritually, as there is none other way of eating and drinking thereof, but by faith through the almighty working of God's holy spirit.

CAP. I.

That no reason ought to be heard, why the words of Christ's supper, should now be expounded improperly or fig • ratiuely. And that the Sacramentarics can never be sure thereof.

Christ (saith he) in his last supper, was both a testator and a law maker: a testator, in giving his body and 〈…〉 oude; and a lawemaker, in commanding his Apostles 〈…〉 d their successors, to continue the making of this 〈…〉 acrament. This testament and law was soon after writ 〈…〉 n and published. At which time, and ever since, the Church hath taken these words, This is my body, not 〈…〉 guratiuely, but properly. This last saying, is utterly, 〈…〉 alse, neither can it be proved, by Ambrose, Chryso 〈…〉 tome, Augustine, Theodoret whom he nameth, or any before or after their time, for 600 years, that ever the visible Sacrament was adored as y ^e very body of Christ. If he have anything to show, we shall have it hereafter. But it is a folly (he saith) upon allegation of a thing so far beyond the memory of man, as the primitive Church is, to leave the custom of the present Church, which Christ no less redeemed, governeth, and loveth, then he did the faithful of the first six hundredth years. I answer shortly, that is not the Church of Christ, but of antichrist, which of late years hath taught, the worshiping of the sacrament, as God and man. And whereas, Sander replieth, that then we shall have no quietness or end of controversies, if heretics may appeal to the primitive Church, as the Trinitaries in Poolande, and the Circumciders in Lithuania, for these appeal to the primitive Church, and deny writings of Fathers and scriptures, as the Protestant: I answer, the Protestants receive all the canonical scriptures, by which all heresy may be condemned, the authority or practice of the primitive Church, they allege but as a witness of truth, which is sufficient proved out of the word of God. Whereas he saith, there was but one universal change to be looked for in religion, which was to be made by Christ: I affirm, the truth of Christ's religion to be unchangeable, but there was an universal change to be looked for from Christ's religion, to Antichrist, which saint Paul calleth an Apostasy, & saint John in the Revelation, the cup of fornication, whereof all nations should drink &c. Yet was not this change so universal, but that the servants of God, though in small number and credit, with the world, were preserved out of that general apostasy, and called out of Babylon, as we see it now come to pass, by the preaching of the eternal Gospel, then also foreshowed, Apocal. 14. 17. 18. &c.

Another reason, why we should give none ear to them, that say the words are figurative, is for that then we should doubt of our former faith, and in doubting become men that lack faith. And why should you not only doubt, but refuse a false opinion, believed contrary to the word of God? But we must tell Sander, whether he that gave ear first to Berengarius and Zwinglius, may give ear to another that should say the Apostles had no authority to write holy Scriptures. No forsooth, for he that gave ear to Berengarius and Zwinglius, did hear them, because they brought the authority of scriptures, which is the only certain rule of truth, against which no question or doubt may be moved. As for the opinion of carnal presence, if it had been as generally received before Berengarius, as Sander falsely affirmeth, yet it was lawful to bring it to the trial of holy Scriptures, as we do all the articles of our faith which are true, not so much because they are generally received, as for that they are manifestly approved, by the authority of the holy scriptures.

But Sander will yet enter farther, into the bowels of the cause, & before he hear what reasons cā be brought against the popish faith, he saith the Sacramentaries cannot possibly have any ground of their doctrine, that the words of Christ in the supper are figurative, either in respect of the word written, or the faith of all Christians, or the glory of God, or the love of Christ toward us, or the profit of his Church. Yes verily, all these five respects, move us to take the words of Christ at his supper to be figurative. And, First the word written by saint Luke, and saint Paul, This cup is the new Testament in my blood: which words being manifestly figurative, have the same sense that the other rehearsed by Saint Matthew, and Saint Mark, This is my blood: and that these words have, This is my body, which are used by all four: Therefore by the written word, they are all figurative and signify the delivery of a Sacrament or seal of the new covenant established in the death and bloodshedding of the son of God.

Secondly, the faith of all Christians, for six hundred years and more after Christ, hath been sufficiently proved to have understood the words figuratively, for a figure, sign, token, pledge of the body and blood of Christ, and not for the very substance contained in forms of bread and wine. Insomuch, that the very gloss upon the Canon Law, De cons. dist. 2. Cap. Hoc est, hath these words,

The author of this gloss, durst not have written thus, if it had not been an opinion generally received, that the words of Christ were not proper, but figurative.

Thirdely it is against the glory of GOD that the body of Christ, should be so made present, as it should enter not only into the mouth of wicked persons, as a dead body working no life, but also into the bellies of brute beasts, which is even horrible to name.

Fourthly it is not agreeable to the love of Christ toward us in his second coming, that his body by such a presence should be thought to have lost all natural conditions of a substantial body, seeing the scripture putteth us in hope, that our vile bodies shall be made confirmable at his coming to his glorious body, Philip. 3. Wherefore that heresy of carnal presence, is contrary to our faith of the resurrection of our bodies.

Fifthly, it is against the profit of Christ's Church, which by his ascension is drawn upward into heaven from the earth, but by this imagined presence, is moved to look down unto Christ upon the earth. Col. 3. Therefore in all these respects, the exposition of the words must be figurative.

Another reason Sander hath, that seeing all figures were invented either for lack of words, or for pleasantness of speaking, and Christ neither lacked words nor can be proved to have spoken figuratively, only for his pleasure, therefore he spake not figuratively. If there be no more causes of figurative speech, then these two noted by Sander, then Christ never used any figurative speeches, for he never wanted words, to have spoken properly that other men could speak properly, neither can he be proved to have spoken figuratively, only for his pleasure, and least of all, he affected the praise of Eloquence. But if it be out of question: & Sander also confesseth, that in other places, Christ spake figuratively, then is it out of question, that this argument of Sander is not worth the paring of his nails. For there are other causes of figurative speeches, then these two by him alleged, and especially the profit of the hearers, who are more moved, and better understand often times by figurative, then by proper speeches. And for this cause, y ^• holy ghost speaking of Sacraments, doth usually call thē (figuratively, by the names of that they signify & seal unto us, as the Lamb is called y ^e Passover, baptism regeneration, the bread his body, the cup the new Testament. The profit that we take by these kind of speeches, is great, for they admonish • s to be as sure of the things, as we are of the signs, when the signs bear the name of the things signified and promised by them.

Of Saint Augustine's rule of figurative speeches, Sander, that loveth no repetitions, hath written a whole Chapter before, lib. 3. Cap. 14. and therefore I will say no more of it here, only I note that by quoting the place, he abuseth Augustine's rule, against his own example which he bringeth of eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ, to prove that Christ's words are not figurative, when Augustine saith expressly, those words are figurative which Christ spake of eating and drinking his flesh and blood.

The rock was Christ, (he saith) must needs be a figurative speech, because it cannot be proper. And for the same cause, say we, These words. This is my body, are figurative, for y ^t they cannot be proper. But Sander replieth, that if he had said, this bread is my body, it might have been so thought, for bread cannot be his body no more then the rock be Christ. yet S. Paul doubteth not, to say, this bread, of that of which before he had said, this is my body. 1. Cor. 11. And I ask Sander, what was that which Christ had in his hand, and whereof he said this? It could not be his body, before the words of consecration spokē as all Catholic papists affirm: then it was bread, then, the word following Is, will not suffer the sense to be, this shall be my body, wherefore in effect it is all one to say, having bread in his hand, This is my body, and to say, This bread is my body, the one is impossible by Sanders confession: ergo by necessity of argument the other.

CAP. II.

By authority of Tertullian and Marcellus the Lawyer, he laboreth to prove, that all words must be taken in their proper signification, except the contrary be manifestly shown. Likewise Epiphanius affirmeth, that all words in the Scripture, need not to be taken figuratiuelie, and that to know which is figurative, and which is not, diligent consideration and ancient tradition helpeth much. All this I confess, but withal I affirm, that these words: This is my body, both by diligent consideration, and ancient tradition, are found to be figurative. Neither hath Sander anything to the contrary. Yes I wis: the Pronowne, This (saith he) pointeth not to a thing absent. No verily, for it pointeth to the bread that was in his hand.