Acts and Monuments Volume 2 Part 1

Your opinion differeth from the scripture.

Ergo, you are deceived.

I deny the antecedent.

Christ when he instituted his last supper, spake to his Disciples: Take, eat, this is my body, which shall be given for you.

But his true body was given for us:

Ergo, his true body is in the sacrament.

The right form of this Argument is thus to be framed.

Da- The same which was givē for us, is in y ^e sacrament.

ri- But his true body was given for us:

j. Ergo, his true body is in the sacrament.

His true body is truly present to them that truly receive him: but spiritually. And so is it taken after a spiritual sort. For when he said: This is my body, it is all one as if he had said, this is the breaking of my body, this is the shedding of my blood. As oft as you shall do this, it shall put you in remembrance of the breaking of my body, and the shedding of my blood: that as truly as you receive this sacrament, so truly shall you receive the benefit promised by receiving the same worthily.

Your opinion differeth from the church, which saith that the true body is in the sacrament.

Ergo your opinion therein is false.

I say and agree with the Church, that the body of Christ is in the sacrament effectually, because the Passion of Christ is effectual.

Christ, when he spake these words: This is my body, spake of the substance, but not of the effect.

I grant he spake of the substance, and not of the effect after a sort: and yet it is most true that the body of Christ is effectually in the sacrament. But I deny that he is there truly present in bread, or that under the bread in his organical body. And because it should be to tedious (he said) to make discourse of the whole, he delivered up there his opinion thereof to D. Weston writ̄ at large, with answers to everyone of their 3. propositions: which he disired D. Weston, sitting there on high, to read openly to the people: which he promised to do. But it was not the first promise that such Papists have broken.

The copy of this writing although it were not there read, yet the contents thereof here we have drawn out as followeth.

In the assertions of the Church and of religion, trifling and new fangled novelties of words, so much as may be, are to be eschewed, whereof riseth nothing but contention and brawling about words and we must follow so much as we may, the manner of speaking of the scripture.

In the first conclusion if ye understand by this word [really] reipsa. i. in very deed and effectuallye, so Christ by the grace and efficacy of his Passion is in deed and truly present to all his true and holy members.

But if ye understand by this word [really] Corporaliter. i. Corporally, so that by the body of Christ is understanded a natural body and organical: so the first proposition doth vary, not only from usual speech and the phrase of scripture, but also is clean contrary to the holy word of God & Christian profession: when as both the scripture doth testify by these words, and also the Catholic church hath professed from the beginning. Christ to have left the world and to sit at the right hand of the father till he come unto judgment.

And likewise I answer to the second questiō: that is that it swerueth from the accustomed manner and speech of Scripture.

The third conclusion, as it is intricate and wrapped in all doubtful and ambiguous words, & diffring also much from the true speech of y ^e Scripture, so as the words thereof seem to import in open sense: it is most contumelious against our only Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, and a violating of his precious blood, which upon the alter of the Cross is the only sacrifice and oblation for the sins of all mankind.

By this your interpretation which you have made upon the first conclusion, this I understand, the body of Christ to be in the Sacrament only by the way of participation: in so much as we communicating thereof: do participate the grace of Christ: so that you mean hereby only the effect thereof. But our conclusiō standeth upon the substance, and not the efficacye only, which shall appear by the testimony both of Scriptures, and of all the fathers a thousand year after Christ.

And first to begin with the Scripture, let us consider what is written in Math. 26. Mark. 14. Luke 22. first to the Corinthians. 11. Matthew saith: As they sat at supper Jesus took bread. &c. In Mark there is the same sense although not the same words: who also for one part of the Sacrament speaketh more plainly, Jesus taking bread. &c. After the same sense also writeth Luke. 22. And when Jesus had taken bread. &c. In the mouth of two or three witnesses saith the Scripture, standeth all truth. Here we have three witnesses together, that Christ said that to be his body which was givē for many: and that to be his blood which should be shed for many: whereby is declared the substance and not only the efficacy alone thereof.

Ergo it is not true that you say there to be, not the substance of his body, but the efficacy alone thereof.

Thus you gather upon mine answer, as though I did mean of the efficacy, and not of the substance of the body: but I mean of them both, as well of the efficacye as the substance. And for so much as all things come not readily to memory, to a man that shall speak ex tempore, therefore for the more ample and fuller answer in the matter, this writing here I do exhibit.

Because we will not consume and spend the time in waste, this your writing which you exhibit, hereafter shall be read in his place. In the mean season let us now fall to the Arguments.

The Scriptures in many places do affirm, that Christ gave his natural body. Mat. 26. Mark. 14. Luk. 22 Ergo, I do conclude that the natural body is in the Sacrament.

To your argument I answer: If you understand by the body natural (organicum) that is, having such proportion and members as he had living here, then I answer negatively.

Furthermore, concerning the Evangelists, thus I say and grant, that Christ took bread and called it his body.

The text of the Scripture maketh against you: for the circumstance thereto annexed doth teach us, not only there to be the body, but also teacheth us what manner of body it is, and saith: The same body which shall be given.

Ba- That thing is here contained, that is given for us.

ro- But the substance of bread is not given for us.

co. Ergo, the substance of bread is not here contained.

I understand not yet what you mean by this word [contained]: If ye mean really, then I deny your Major.

The Major is the text of scripture. He that denieth the Major, denieth the scripture. For the Scripture saith: This is my body which shall be given for you.

I grant he said it was his body that should be given, but he said it was not his body which is here contained: but the body (saith he) that shall be given for you. As though he should say: This bread is the breaking of my body, and this cup is the sheading of my blood. What will ye say then? is the bread the breaking, and the cup the shedding of the blood really? If you so say, I deny it.

If you ask what is the thing therein contained, because his apostles should not dout what body it was that should be given, he saith: This is my body which shall be given for you, and my blood which shall be shed for many. Ergo, here is the same substance of the body, which the day after was given, and the same blood which was shed. And here I urge the scripture, which teacheth that it was no fantastical, no feigned, no spiritual body, nor body in faith, but the substance of the body.

You must prove that it is contained: but Christ said not which is contained. He gave bread, and called that his body. I stick not in the words of the Scripture, but in your word which is feigned and imagined of yourself.

When Christ took bread and brake it, what gave he?

He gave bread. The bread sacramentally & his body spiritually, and the bread there he called his body.

This answer is against the Scripture, which saith that he gave his body.

It did signify that which he did eat.

They did not eat the body as the Capernaites did understand it, but the self same body which was given for the sins of the world. Ergo, it was his body which should be given, and his blood which should be shed.

I deny the Major, which is, that the same natural body is given in the sacrament, which was given on the cross, except you understand it spiritually. And after he • denied also the argument as utterly naught, as he might well do, the Major in y ^e second figure being not universal.

When M. Chedsey had put forth his Argument, and prosecuted the same, and Doct. Cranmer answered as before is shown, Doctor Oglethorpe, one of those Doctors which the Prolocutor called Censores (belike to be Arbiters to order the disputations) said on this wise.

You come in still with one evasion or starting hole to flee too. He urgeth the scriptures, saying y ^e Christ gave his very body. You say that he gave his body in bread. Quo modo praedicatur corpus? qualis est corpus? qualis est praedicatio, pa • is est corpus.

You should say, Quale corpus. I answer to the question: It is the same body which was borne of the virgin, was crucified, ascended: but tropically, & by a figure. And so I say, Panis est corpus, is a figurative speech, speaking sacramentally, for it is a sacrament of his body.

This word body being praedicatum. doth signify substance.

But substantia is not predicated denominatiuely:

Ergo, it is an essential predication, and so it is his true body, and not the figure of his body.

Substantia may be predicated denominatiuely in an allegory or in a metaphor, or in a figurative locution.

It is not a likely thing that Christ hath less care for his spouse the church, then a wise householder hath for his family in making his will or testament.

Your reason is drawn out of the affairs of men, and not taken out of the holy scriptures.

But no householder maketh his Testament after that sort.

Yes, there are many that so do. For what matter is it so it be understood and perceived? I say Christ did use figurative speech in no place more, then in his sacraments, and specially in this his supper.

No man of purpose doth use tropes in his testament, for if he do, he deceiveth them that he comprehendeth in his testament: therefore Christ useth none here.

Yes, he may use them well enough. You know not what tropes are.

The good man of the house hath a respect that his heirs after his departure, may live in quiet and without brablyng.

But they cannot be in quiet if he do use tropes:

Therefore (I say) he useth no tropes.

I deny your Minor.

Augustine in his book entitled, De vnitate Ecclesiae, the x. chap. hath these words following.

Quid hoc est rogo▪ cum verba nouissima hominis morientis audiantur itur ad inferos, nemo eum dicit esse mentitum, & illius non iudicatur haeres qui forte ea contempserat. Quomodo ergo effugiemus iram dei, si vel non credentes, vel contemnetes, expulerimus verba nouissima & vnici filij Dei & domini nostri saluatoris, & ituri in coelum & inde prospecturi quis ea negligat, quis non obseruet, & inde venturi vt de omnibus iudicet?

That is to say.

What a thing is this I pray you? when the last words of one lying on his death bed are heard: which is ready to go to his grave, no man saith that he hath made a lie: and he is not accounted his heir, which regardeth not those words. How shall we then escape gods wrath, if either not believing or not regarding, we shall reject the last words both of the only son of God, and also of our lord and savior, both ascending into heaven, & beholding from thence who despiseth, and who observeth them not, & so shall come from thence to judge all men?

The argument is thus formed.

Ba- Whosoever saith that the Testator lied, is a wicked heir.

ba- But whosoever saith that Christ spake by figures, saith that he did lie:

ra. Ergo, whosoever saith that Christ here spake by figures, is a wicked heir.

I deny the Minor. As who say it is necessary that he which useth to speak by tropes and figures, should lie in so doing.

Your judgment is disagreeyng with all churches.

Nay, I disagree with the papistical church.

This you do through the ignorance of Logike.

Nay, this you say through the ignorance of the Doctors.

I will go plainly to work by Scriptures. What took he?

Bread,

What gave he?

Bread.

What brake he?

Bread.

What did they eat?

Bread.

He gave bread, therefore he gave not his body.

He gave not his body, therefore it is not his body verily in deed and in truth.

I deny the argument.

This argument holdeth a disparatis. It is bread: Ergo, it is not the body, and it is such an argument or reason, as cannot be dissolved.

The like argument may be made. He is a rock: Ergo, he is not Christ.

It is not like.

He gave not his body in deed: Ergo, it was not his body in deed.

He gave his death, his passion, and the sacrament of his passion. And in very deed setting the figure aside, formally it is not his body.

Why? then the scripture is false.

Nay, the scripture is most true.

This saith Chrysostom Homil. 61. ad populum Antiochenum▪ Necessarium est dilectissimi, mysteriorum dicere miraculum quid tandem sit, & quare sit datum, & quae rei vtilitas, &c.

That is to say.

Needful it is (dear friends) to tell you what the miracle of the mysteries is, and wherefor it is given, and what profit there is of the thing. We are one body and members of his flesh, and of his bones. We that be in the mystery, let us follow that thing which was spoken. Wherefore that we may become this thing, not only by love, but also that we may become one with that flesh in deed, that is brought to pass by this food which he gave unto us, mynding to show his great good will that he hath toward us: and therefore he mixed himself with us, and united his own body with us, that we should be made all as one thing together, as a body joined and annexed to the head, for this is a token of most ardent and perfect love. And the same thing Job also insinuatyng, said of his servants, of whom he was desired above measure, in so much that they, showing their great desire toward him, said: who shall give unto us to be filled with his flesh? Therefore also Christ did the same, who, to induce us into a greater love toward him, and to declare his desire toward us, did not only give himself to be seen of them y ^t would, but also to be handled and eaten, and suffered us to fasten our teeth in his flesh, and to be united together, and so to fill all our desire. Lyke Lions therefore, as breathyng fire, let us go from that table, being made terrible to the devil, remembering our head in our mind, & his charity which he shown unto us. For parents many times give they • children to other to be fed, but I do not so (saith he) but feed you with mine own flesh, and set myself before you, desiring to make you all jolly people, and pretending to you great hope and expectation to look for things to come, who here give myself to you, but much more in the world to come. I am become your brother, I took flesh & blood for you. Agayne my flesh and blood by the which I am made your kinsman, I deliver unto you.

Thus much out of Chrysostom. Out of which words I make this argument.

The same flesh whereby Christ is made our brother & kinsman, is given of Christ to us to be eaten.

Christ is made our brother and kinsman, by his true, natural, and organical flesh:

Ergo, his true, natural, and organical flesh, is given to us to be eaten.

I grant the consequence, and the consequent.

Therefore we eat it with our mouth.

I deny it. We eat it through faith.

He gave us the same flesh to eat, whereby he became our brother and kinsman.

But he became our brother and kinsman by his true, natural and organical flesh:

Therefore he gave his true, natural, and organical flesh to be eaten.

I grant he took and gave the same true, natural, and organical flesh wherein he suffered, and yet he feedeth spiritually, and that flesh is received spiritually.

He gave us the same flesh which he took of the Virgin:

But he took not the true flesh of the Virgin spiritually, or in a figure:

Ergo, he gave his true natural flesh not spiritually.

Christ gave to us his own natural flesh, the same wherein he suffered, but feedeth us spiritually.

Chrysostom is against you. Homil. 83. in 26. cap. Mat. where he saith: Veniat tibi in mentem quo sis honor honoratus, qua mensa fruaris. Ea nam{que} re nos alimur, quā angeli▪ &c.

That is to say.

Let it come into thy remembrance with what honor thou art honored, and what table thou sittest at: for with the same thing we are nourished, which the angels do behold and tremble at: neither are they able to behold it w ^t out great fear, for the brightness which cometh thereof: and we be brought and compact into one heap or mass with him. Being together one body of Christ, and one flesh w ^t him. Who shall speak the powers of the Lord, and shall declare forth all his praises? What Pastor hath ever nourished his sheep with his own members? Manye mothers have put forth their Infantes after their birth, to other Nurses: which he would not do, but feedeth us w ^t his own body, & conioyneth and uniteth us to himself.

Wherupon I gather this argument.

Like as Mothers nurse their children with milk: so Christ nourished us with his body.

But mothers do not nourish their Infants spiritually with their milk:

Therefore Christ doth not nourish those that be his, spiritually with his blood.

He gave us the wyne for his blood.

If he gave the wyne for his blood (as you say) then he gave less then mothers do give.

But Chrysostom affirmeth that he gave more then mothers give.

Therefore he gave not the wyne for his blood.

You pervert mine answer. He gave wyne, yet the blood is considered therein. As for example. Whē he giveth Baptism, we consider not the water, but the holy Ghost, and remission of sins. We receive with the mouth y ^e Sacrament: but the thing and the matter of the Sacrament we receive by faith.

When Christ said, eat ye, whether meant he by the mouth or by faith?

He meant that we should receive the body by faith, the bread by the mouth.

Nay, the body by the mouth.

That I deny.

I prove it out of Chrysostom, writing upon the fifty Psalm.

Erubescit fieri nutrix, quae facta est mater. Christus autem nō ita ipse nutritor est noster: ideo pro cibo carne propria nos pascit, & pro potu suum sanguinem nobis propinauit. Item in 26. Mathaei, Homil. 83. Non enim sufficit ipsi hominem fieri, flagellis interim caedi: sed nos secum in vnam vt ita dicam, massam reducit, neque id fide solum, sed reipsa nos corpus suum efficit?

That is to say.

She that is a mother, shameth sometime to play the Nurse. But Christ our Nurse doth not so play with us. Therefore instead of meat he feedeth us with his own flesh, and instead of drink he feedeth us with his own blood. Likewise, upon the 26. chap. of Matthew, the 83. homily, he saith: For it shall not be enough for him to become man, and in the mean while to be whipped: but he doth bring us into one mass or lump with himself (as I may so call it) and maketh us his body not by faith alone, but also in very deed.

I grant: We make one nature with Christ. But that to be done with mouth we deny.

Chrysost. 2. Cor. cap. 13. Homil. 29. hath these words: Non vulgarem honorem consequutum est os nostrum, accipiens corpus dominicū. i. No little honor is given to our mouth, receiving the body of the Lord.

This I say, that Christ entereth into us both by our ears & by our eyes. With our mouth we receive the body of Christ, and tear it with our teeth, that is to say, the Sacrament of the body of Christ. Wherefore I say and affirm that the virtue of the sacrament is much: & therefore Chrysostom many times speaketh of sacraments no otherwise, then of Christ himself, as I could prove, if I might have liberty to speak, by many places of Chrysostom, where he speaketh of the sacrament of the body of Christ.

With the which word of the sacrament of the body, &c. D. Cole being highly offended, denied it to be the Sacrament of the body of Christ, save only of the mystical body which is the Church.

And why should we doubt to call it the Sacrament of the body of Christ offered upon the Cross, seeing both Christ and the ancient Fathers do so call it?

How gather you that of Chrysostom?

Chrysostom declareth himself. Lib. 3. De Sacerdotio, cap. 3. O miraculum, O Dei in nos beneuolentia, qui sursum sedet ad dextram patris, sacrificij tamen tempore hominum manibus continetur, traditur{que} lambere cupientibus eum. Fit autem id nullis praestigijs, sed apertis & circumspiciētibus circumstantium omnium oculis.

That is to say.

O miracle, O the good will of God towards us, which sitteth above at the right hand of the father, and is hold̄ in men's hands at the sacrifice time, & is given to feed upon, to them that are desirous of him. And that is brought to pass by no subtlety or craft, but with the open and beholding eyes of all the standers by.

Thus ye hear Christ is seen here in earth every day, is touched, is torn with the teeth, y ^t our tongue is red with his blood: which no man having any judgment will say or think to be spoken without trope or figure,

What miracle is it if it be not his body: & if he speak only of the sacrament, as though it were his body?

But hearken what Chrysostom saith: Homil. 34. Quod summo honor dignum est, id tibi in terra ostendo. Nam quemadmodum in regijs non parietes, non lectus aureus, sed regium corpus in throno sedens omnium praestantissimum est: ita quoque in coelis regium corpus, quod nunc in terra proponitur. Non Angelos, non Archangelos, non coelos coelorum, sed ipsum horum omnium Dominum tibi ostendo. Animaduertis quonam pacto quod omnium maximum est atque praecipuum in terra, non conspicaris tantum sed tangis, neque solum tangis, sed eomedis, atq́ue eo accepto domum redis. Absterge igitur ab omni sorde animam tuam.

That is to say.

I show forth that thing on the earth unto thee, which is worthy the greatest honor. For like as in the palace of kings, neither the walls, nor the sumptuous bed, but the body of Kings sitting under the cloth of estate, and royal seat of Majesty, is of all things else the most excellent: so is in like manner, the kings body in heaven, which is now set before us on earth. I show thee neither Angels nor archangels, nor the heaven of heavens, but the very Lord & master of all these things. Thou perceivest after what sort thou doest not only behold, but touchest, and not only touchest, but eatest that which on the earth is the greatest and chiefest thing of all other, and when thou hast receued the same, thou goest home: Wherefore cleanse thy soul from all uncleanness.

Upon this, I conclude that the body of Christ is shown us upon the earth.

What? upon the earth? no man seeth Christ upon the earth? He is seen with the eyes of our mind, with faith and spirit.

I pray you what is it that seemeth worthy highest honor on the earth? It is the Sacrament or else the body of Christ.

Chrysostom speaketh of the sacrament, and the body of Christ is shown forth in the Sacrament.

Ergo, then the Sacrament is worthy greatest honor.

I deny the Argument.

That thing is shown forth, and is now in the earth [ostenditur & est] which is worthy highest honor.

But, only the body of Christ is worthy highest honor?

Ergo, the body of Christ is now on the earth.

I answer, the body of Christ to be on the earth, but so as in a Sacrament, and as the holy Ghost is in the water of Baptism.

Chrysostom saith [ ostendo [I show forth which noteth a substance to be present.

That is to be understood Sacramentally.

He saith [ostendo in terra] I show forth on the earth, declaring also the place where.

That is to be understood figuratively.

He is shown forth, and is now on the earth, &c. as before.

Your Major and conclusion are all one.

But the Major is true: Ergo, the conclusion also is true.

That thing is on the earth, which is worthy of most high honor.

But no figure is worthy of highest honor:

Ergo, that which is on the earth is no figure.

I answer, that is true Sacramentally.

Here Weston crieth to him that he should answer to one part, bidding him repeat his words. Which when he went about to do, such was the noise and crying out in the school, that his mylde voice could not be heard. For when he went about to declare to the people how y ^e Prolocutor did not well english the words of Chrysostom, using for ostenditur in terra, he is shown forth on the earth, est in terra, he is on the earth, where as Chrysostom hath not [est] nor any such word of being on the earth, but only of showing, as the grace of the holy Ghost, in baptismo ostenditur, i. is shown forth in Baptism: and oftentimes did inculcate this word ostēditur. Then y ^e Prolocutor stretching forth his hand, set on the rude people to cry out at him, filling all the school with hissing, clappyng of hands, and noise, calling him indoctum, imperitum, impudentem, i. unlearned, unskillful, impudent. Which impudent and reproachful words, this reverend man most patiently and meekly did abide, as one that had been inured with the suffering of such like reproaches. And when the Prolocutor not yet satisfied with this rude and unseemly demeanor, did urge and call upon him to answer the argument. Thē he bade the Notary repeat his words again.

That which is worthy most high honor, here I show forth to thee in earth.

The body of Christ is worthy highest honor.

Ergo, he showeth forth the body of Christ here in earth.

That is shown forth here on the earth which may be seen, which may be touched, and which may be eaten, but these things be not true of the body.

Why should not these things be true of the body of Christ.

The Major out of Chrysostom is true, meaning of the Sacrament. For in the Sacrament the true body of Christ, and not the figurative body is set forth.

Show me somewhat in earth worthy greatest honor.

I cannot, but in the sacrament only.

Ergo, the Sacrament is worthy greatest honor.

So it is.

Let it be written.

I pray you let my answer be written likewise: I affirm that the body of Christ is shown forth unto us. It is our faith that seeth Christ.

Ostendo tibi. i. I show it to thee, saith Chrysostom, not to thy faith.

He speaketh sacramentally.

Ergo, Chrysostom lieth. For he speaking of showing, saith: Ego Chrysostomus ostendo. i. I Chrysostom do show. But he can show nothing sacramentally.

By force of argument we are brought to this point that the body of Christ is proved to be on earth, not only sacramentally, but in very deed also, by this reason, that it is worthy highest honor. The reason is indissoluble.

I never heard a more vain argument, & it is most vain: also it hath mine answer unto it.

Will you affirm that it is absurd which Chrysostom saith, that the body of Christ is touched?

I touch the body of Christ in the Sacrament, as Thomas touched Christ.

Thomas touched Christ, and said Dominus meus, Deus meus, my Lord, my God:

Ergo, that which he touched, was the Lord God.

This Argument as I received it out of the Notaries book, is not formal: but rather he should conclude in the third figure thus:

Da- As Thomas touched the body of Christ, so we touch it in the sacrament.

ti- Thomas touched the body of Christ corporally:

si. Ergo, we touch the body of Christ corporally in the sacrament.

I deny your Argument. He touched not God, but him which was God. Neither is it sound doctrine to affirm that God is touched.

This is because of the union: so that God is said to be touched, when Christ which is both God and man, is touched.

Tertullian De carnis resurrection, saith: Videamus de propria Christiani hominis forma, quanta huic substantiae friuolae & sordidae apud deum praerogatiua sit. Etsi sufficeret illi quod nulla omnino anima salutem posset adipisci nisi dum est in carne, crediderit: adeo caro salutis cardo est, de qua cum anima deo alligatur, ipsa est quae efficit, vt anima alligari possit: sed & caro abluitur, vt anima emaculetur: caro inungitur, vt anima consecretur: signatur, vt anima muniatur: caro manus impositione adumbratur, vt anima spiritu illuminetur, caro corpore & sanguine Christi vescitur, vt anima de deo saginetur.

That is to say.

Let us consider as concerning the proper form of the Christian man, what great prerogative this vain & foul substance of ours hath with God. Although it were sufficient to it, that no soul could ever get salvation, unless it believe while it is in the flesh: so much the flesh availeth to salvation, by the which flesh it cometh, that where as the soul so is linked unto god, it is the said flesh that causeth the soul to be linked: yet the flesh moreover is wasshed, that the soul may be cleansed: the flesh is annointed that the soul may be consecrated, the flesh is signed that the soul may be defended, the flesh is shadowed by the imposition of hands, that the soul may be illuminated with the spirit: the flesh doth eat the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be fed of God. Wherupon I gather this argument.

The flesh eateth the body of Christ.

Ergo, the body of Christ is eaten with the mouth.

Item Phocëus 1. ad Cor. cap. 11. upon these words: Reus erit corporis & sanguinis, &c.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . i. Quod ait, reus corporis & sanguinis, istud declarat quod sicuti Judas ipsum quidem tradidit, Iudaei contumeliose in ipsum insaniebant: sic ipsum inhonorant qui sanctissimum ipsius corpus impuris manibus suscipiunt, tanquam Iudaei ipsi tenent & execrabili ore recipiunt. Quod crebro mentionem facit corporis & sanguinis Domini, manifestat quod non sit simplex homo qui sacrificatur, sed ipse Dominus omnium factor, tanquam per haec quidem ipsos perterrefaciens.

That is to say.

Whereas he saith: Is guilty of the body and blood: this he declareth, that like as Judas betrayed him, & the Jews were fierce and spiteful against him: so do they dishonor him which receive his holy body with their impure hands and as the Jews did hold him then, do now receive him with impure mouths. And where as he often maketh mention of the body & blood of the Lord, he declareth that it is not simply man that is sacrificed, but even the Lord himself, being the maker of all things, hereby (as it were) making them afraid.

Ergo, (as it is hereby gathered) the body of Christ is touched with the hands.

You vouche two authors against me upon sundry things. First I must answer Tertullian, and then the other.

They tend both to one meaning.

Unto Tertullian I answer (because our disputatiō is wandering and uncertain) that he calleth that the flesh which is the Sacrament. For although God work all things in us invisibly beyond man's reach: yet they are so manifest, that they may be seen, and perceived of every sense. Therefore he setteth forth Baptism, unction, and last of all the supper of the Lord unto us, which he gave to signify his operation in us. The flesh liveth by the bread, but the soul is inwardly fed by Christ.

Sticke to those words of Tertullian: Corpus vescitur vt anima saginetur, id est, The body eateth that the soul may be fed.

The flesh eateth the body of Christ, that the soul may be fed therewith.

Here you see two kinds of food: of the soul and of the body.

He saith, that not only the soul, but the flesh is also fed.

The soul is fed with the body of Christ, the body with the sacrament.

Is the soul fed with the body of Christ, & not with the sacrament?

Read that which followeth, and you shall perceive that by things external, an operation internal is understood. Inwardly we eat Christ's body, and outwardly we eat the sacrament. So one thing is done outwardly, another inwardly. Like as in Baptism the external element whereby the body is washed, is one: so the internal thing whereby the soul is cleansed, is another.

The soul is fed by that which the body eateth.

But the soul is fed by the flesh of Christ:

Ergo. the body eateth the flesh of Christ.

We eat not one thing outwardly and inwardly. Inwardly we eat Christ's body: Outwardly we eat the Sacrament.

I will repeat the Argument.

The flesh eateth Christ's body, that the soul may be fed therewith.

The soul is not fed with the Sacrament, but with Christ's body.

Ergo, the flesh eateth the body of Christ.

The Sacrament is one thing, the matter of the Sacrament is another. Outwardly we receive the Sacrament: Inwardly we eat the body of Christ.

I prove that we receive that outwardly wherewith the soul is fed.

The soul is fed with the body of Christ.

Ergo, we eat the body of Christ outwardly.

The flesh eateth Christ his body,

Ergo, the soul is fed therewith.

The flesh (I say) eateth the Sacrament. It eateth not Christ's body. For Tertullian speaketh of the Sacrament: and the place hath not [inde] thereof, but [de deo] of God.

What say ye to Phoceus saying: They which receive the body with impure hands, are guilty of the Lord's blood, as Judas was.

That which followeth in Tertullian doth take away your shift, where as he saith: Non possunt ergo separari in mercede, quos opera coniungit. i. They cannot be separated in reward, whom one work joineth together.

But manducation is the work or labor, Ergo, &c.

Your authority (I suppose) is taken out of the book, De resurrection carnis. i. of the resurrection of the flesh: & the meaning thereof is this. Tertulliā goeth about there to prove that the flesh shall rise again, because it is joined together in one work with the soul. Thorough Baptism in this world, the body is washed, and the soul is washed: the body outwardly, the soul inwardly, the work is one. In this work they are joined. And he speaketh of signs.

He speaketh of eating in a sign.

Ergo, the reward is in a sign.

They are coupled in one work, namely, in the Sacrament.

There are two works:

Ergo, there are two rewards.

I • the work be in a figure.

Ergo, the reward is in a figure.

He speaketh not of two works. Two works are but one work. And yet he saith not, quos vna opera coniungit. i. Whome one work joineth together, but opera. i. A work: as in Baptism the soul and the body are joined in understanding.

The flesh and soul shall have one and the self same reward, because they have one work.

Because they be joined together in one work.

For as much as the reverend Doctors here have impugned, and overthrown your assertion & your answers sufficiently: I will fall to another matter, not altogether impertinent to the purpose, and that in few words, against a certain sequel of your opinion. The sequel is this: that between us and Christ there is no further conjunction, whiles we receive the Eucharist, then a conjunction of the mind, or a spiritual conjunction, whereby we are united & knit unto Christ thorough faith & love. As for the presence of Christ concerning the substance that you utterly deny. Wherupon in very deed you leave but a spiritual union and joining together of mind. Howbeit you would seem to think otherwise by your subtle answers. But I will declare by manifest testimonies of the fathers, y ^t this your sequel which you accompt so sure, is far wide from the truth. And I will begin with S. Hillary, who is both an ancient and a learned author. For disputing against the Arians, octauo de Trinitate, he saith that this was their opinion: that the father and the son are conjoined only through unity of will. Wherupon Arius him self, when scripture was alleged against him, did (as you do now) elude the right meaning of it by his false interpretations. But the catholic church hath always believed and ever maintained, that Christ is one with the father in nature, and not by consent of will only. To y ^e proof whereof, when the Catholics vouched this testimony of John, Pater & ego vnum sumus. i. The father and I are one. The Arians answered, that [vnum sumus] was to be understand by the assent of their wyls, and agreement of their minds, not by unity of their natures. Thus it happeneth now a dais, where men do doubt of the sacrament. But Hillary going on, and proving the natural coniunctiō between the father and the son a fortiori, questioneth with his adversaries after this manner, I demand of them now which will needs have the unity of will only, between the father and the son, whether Christ be now in us truly by nature, or only by the agreement of wyls? If (saith he) the word be incarnate in very deed, and we receive at the Lord's table the word made flesh, how then is he to be thought not to dwell in us naturally, who being borne man, hath both taken the nature of our flesh upon him that is now inseparable, and hath also mingled y ^e nature of his own flesh, unto the nature of eternity under the Sacrament of his flesh, to be communicated unto us. Thus much hath Hillary. Whereupon I ask of you this question. How Christ dwelleth now in us? according to faith, or according to nature?

I say that Christ dwelleth dearly in us carnally and naturally, for that he hath taken of the Virgin our flesh upon him, and because he hath communicated his nature unto us.

Bucer contra Abrincensem, referreth these words only to the Eucharist, saying: Christ doth exhibit all this unto us in his holy supper, & according to the holy fathers (saith he) Christ liveth thereby in us, not only by faith and love, as absent, but naturally, corporally, and carnally. Wherefore he is not absent, neither are we joined to Christ only by a spiritual union, (as you suppose) but also by a corporal and carnal union.

I know that M. Bucer was a learned man. But your faith is in good case, which leaneth upon Bucer.

I do not bring Bucer as a Patron of our faith, but because he is a man of your sort, & yet bringeth this place of Hillary for that union which we have by the sacrament, and confesseth that by it we are carnally united to Christ, where as you think that we are joined by it, only through faith and love.

I say that Christ was communicated unto us, not only by faith, but in very deed also when he was borne of the virgin. We have fellowship with Christ, when we are united in the unity of the church, when we are made flesh of his flesh, & bones of his bones: and so we are united in the communion, in baptism, and in faith.

I pray you what fellowship have we with Christ, in that he is made man? Are not the Turks & Jews therein joined with him? For they are men as we are, and are joined with him in man's nature, in that he was born of a woman, I speak now of a more nere unity. We are made one with Christ by the communion in a perfect unity.

We are made so, I grant: but we are made so also by baptism: and the unity in baptism is perfect.

We are not made one by baptism in a perfect unity, as Hillary there speaketh, but by the communiō, by which we are carnally made one, but not likewise by Baptism: wherefor you understand not Hillary. You shall hear his words, which are these. He had now declared afore the Sacrament of his perfect union, saying: As the living father sent me, so do I also live by the father. And he that eateth my flesh, shall also live through me. And a little after that he writeth thus: This truly is the cause of our life, that we have Christ dwelling by his flesh in us that are fleshly, which also by him shall live in such sort as he liveth by his father. Wherefore, of these words it is manifest, that we obtain this perfect unity by means of the sacrament, & that Christ by it is carnally united unto us.

Nay Hillary in that same place doth teach, that it is done by baptism: and that doctrine is not to be suffered in the Church, which teacheth, y ^t we are not joined to Christ by Baptism.

Repeat the Argument.

You must first make an Argument.

It is made already, but it shall be made again in this form.

Da- As Christ liveth by his father, so they that eat Christ's flesh, live by the same flesh.

ti- But Christ liveth by the father, not only by faith and love, but naturally:

si. Ergo, we live not through the eating of Christ's flesh by faith and love only, but naturally.

We live by Christ, not only by faith and love, but eternally in deed.

Nay naturally. I prove it thus.

As Christ liveth by the Father▪ so live we by his flesh eaten of us:

But Christ liveth not by his father only by faith and love, but naturally:

Therefore we do not live by eating of Christ's flesh only by faith and love (as you suppose) but naturally.

The Minor is not true.

This is the opinion of Arius, that Christ is united to his father by conjunction of mind, and not naturally.

I say not so yet, neither do I think so. But I will tell you what I like not in your Minor. You say that Christ doth not live by his father, only by faith and love: but I say that Christ liveth not at all by his faith.

Mark and consider well this word [by faith] least any occasion of cavilling be given.

Let that word [by faith] he omitted. Neither did I mean that Christ liveth by his father thorough faith. Yet the strength of the Argument remaineth in force. For else Hillary doth not con • ute y ^e Arians, except there be a greter conjunction between us & Christ, when he is eaten of us, then only a spiritual conjunction. You do only grant a union. As for a carnal or natural union of the substance of flesh, by which we are joined more then spiritually, you do not grant. But our lord Jesus give you a better mind, and show you the light of his truth, that you may return into the way of righteousness.

We came hither to dispute, and not to pray.

Is it not lawful to pray for them that err?

It is not lawful yet. But proceed.

Agayne, I reason thus: As Christ liveth by his father, after the same manner do we live by the eating of his flesh.

But Christ liveth not by his father only in unity of will, but naturally:

Ergo, we do not live when we eat the flesh of Christ, only by faith and unity of will, but naturally.

This is my faith, and it agreeth with the scripture: Christ liveth by his father naturally, & maketh us to live by himself in deed: naturally, and that not only in the sacrament of the Eucharist, but also in Baptism. For Infants, when they are baptized, do eat the flesh of Christ.

Answer either to the whole argument, or to the partes thereof. For this argument is strong and cannot be dissolved.

This is the argument.

As Christ liveth by his father, after the same manner do we live by his flesh, being eaten of us:

But Christ liveth not by his father only in unity of will, but naturally:

Ergo, we eating his flesh, do not live only by faith and love, but naturally.

But the Major is false: namely, that by the same manner we live by Christ, as he liveth by his father.

Hillary saith: after the same manner, upon these words: he that eateth my flesh shall live by me. Ergo, Christ liveth by his father, and as he liveth by his father, after the same manner we shall live by his flesh. Here you see, that Hillary saith, after the same manner.

After the same manner, doth not signify like in all things, but in deed and eternally: for so do we live by Christ, and Christ liveth by his father. For in other respects Christ liveth otherwise by his father, then we live by Christ.

He liveth by his father naturally and eternally:

Ergo, we live by Christ naturally, and eternally.

We do not live naturally, but by grace if you take naturally for the manner of nature. As Christ hath eternal life of his Father, so have we of him.

I stick to this word naturally.

I mean it touching the truth of nature. For Christ liveth otherwise by his Father, then we live by Christ.

Hillary in the 8. book De Trinitate, denieth it when he saith: he liveth therefore by his father, and as he liveth by his Father, after the same manner we shall live by his flesh.

We shall live after the same manner, as concerning the nature of the flesh of Christ: for as he hath of his father the nature of eternity, so shall we have of him.

Answer unto the partes of the Argument.

As Christ liveth by his father, after the same manner shall we live by his flesh:

But Christ doth not live by his father only in unity of will, but naturally:

Ergo, we eating his flesh do not live only by faith and love, but naturally.

I grant (as I said) we live by Christ naturally: but I never heard that Christ liveth with his Father in unity of will only.

Because it seemeth a marvel unto you, hear what Hillary saith: These things are recited of us to this ende: because the heretics feigning an unity of will only between the father and the son, did use the example of our unity with god • as though that we being united to the son, and by the son to the father only by obedience and will of religion, had no propriety of the natural communion by the sacrament of the body and blood.

But answer to the argument. Christ liveth by his father naturally and eternally: therefore do we live by Christ naturally and eternally.

Cyril and Hillary do say, that Christ is united to us not only by will, but also by nature: he doth communicate to us his own nature, and so is Christ made one with us carnally and corporally, because he took our nature of the Virgin Mary. And Hillary doth not only say that Christ is naturally in us, but that we also are naturally in him, and in the father: that is, that we are partakers of their nature, which is eternity or everlastingness. For as the word receiving our nature, did join it unto himself in unity of person, and did communicate unto that our nature, the nature of his eternity, that like as he being the everlasting word of the Father, had everlasting life of the Father: even so he gave the same nature to his flesh. Likewise also did he communicate with us the same nature of eternity, which he and the father have, and that we should be one with them, not only in will & love, but that we should be also partakers of y ^e nature of everlasting life.

Hilary where he saith: Christ communicated to us his nature, he meaneth y ^t , not by his nativity, but by y ^e sacrament.

He hath communicated to us his flesh by his nativity.

We have communicated to him our flesh when he was borne.

Nay, he communicated to us his flesh whē he was borne, and that I will show you out of Cyril upon this place: Et homo factus est.

Ergo, Christ being borne gave us his flesh.

In his nativity he made us partakers of his flesh.

Write Sirs.

Yea write.

This place of Hilary is so dark, that you were compelled to falsify it in your book, because you could not draw it to confirm your purpose.

If Christ have taken verily the flesh of our body, and the man that was verily borne of the Virgin Mary is Christ, and also we receive under the true mistery the flesh of his body, by means whereof we shall be one (for the father is in Christ, and Christ in us) how shall that be called the unity of will, when the natural property brought to pass by the Sacrament, is the Sacrament of unity? we must not speak in the sense of man, or of the world in matters concerning God: neither must we perversely wrast any strange or wicked sense out of the wholesome meaning of the holy scripture, through impudent and vile contentiō. Let us read those things that are written, and let us understand those things that we read, and then we shall perform the duty of perfect faith. For as touching that natural and true being of Christ in us except we learn of him, we speak foolishly and ungodly that thing that we do speak: For he saith: My flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him. As touching the verity of his flesh and blood, there is left no place of doubt: for now, both by the testimony of the Lord, and also by our faith, it is verily flesh, and verily blood.

Here you have falsified Hillary, for you have set vero sub mysterio, for vere sub mysterio, we receive truly under a mystery. Hillary thrice reporteth vere sub mysterio, and you interpret it twice vere sub mysterio, but the third time you have vero for vere.

Assuredly, I am not guilty of any deceit herein. It may be that the copy which I followed, had Sub vero mysterio, i. under a true mystery: although touching y ^e sense it differeth little. God I call to witness, I have always hated falsifieng, and if you had laisure and lust to hear false citations, I could recite unto you vi. hundred.

Here shall be shown you two copies of Hilary, the one printed at Basel, the other at Paris.

I suppose that D. Smiths books hath vero.

Here is Doctor Smith: let him answer for himself.

M. Smith, M. Doctor: what say you for yourself? speak if you know it.

Here Doctor Smith, either for the truth in his book alleged, or else astonied with Doctor Westons hasty calling, stayed to answer. For he only put of his cap, and kept silence.

But your own book printed by Wolf your own Printer, hath vero.

That Book is taken from me, which easily might have ended this controversy. I am sure the book of Decrees hath vero.

Now you admit the book of Decrees, when it maketh for you.

Touching the sense of the matter, there is little difference. The change of one letter for another, is but a small matter.

No • s? Pastor (as you know) signifieth a Bishop, and Pistor signifieth a Baker, But Pastor shall be Pistor, a Bishop shall be a Baker by this your change of one letter. If vere and vero do nothing change the sense.

Let it be so that in Pistor and Pastor one letter maketh some difference: Yet let Pistor be either a Baker or maker of bread, ye see here the change of a letter, and yet no great difference to be in the sense.

This disputation is taken in hand, that the truth might appear. I perceive that I must go another way to work then I had thought. It is a common saying: against him that denieth principles, we must not dispute. Therefore that we may agree of the principles, I demand whether there be any other body of Christ then his instrumental body.

There is no natural body of Christ, but his organical body.

Again I demand whether sense & reason ought to give place to faith.

They ought.

Thirdly, whether Christ be true, in all his words?

Yea, he is most true, and truth it self.

Fourthly, whether Christ at his supper mineded to do that which he spake or no?

Dicendo dixit, non fecit dicendo: sed fecit Discipulis Sacramentum. That is: In saying he spake, but in saying he made not, but made the sacrament to his disciples.

Answer according to the truth: whether did Christ that as God and man, which he spake, when he said: This is my body.

This is a sophistical cavillation: go plainly to work. There is some deceit in these questions. You seek subtlenesse, leave your crafty fetches.

I demand whether Christ by these words wrought anything or no?

He did institute the Sacrament.

But answer, whether did he work anything?

He did work in instituting the Sacrament.

Now I have you: for before you said it was a figurative speech.

But a figure worketh nothing.

Ergo, it is not a figurative speech. A liar ought to have a good memory.

I understood your Sophistry before. You by working understand converting into the body of Christ: but Christ wrought the Sacrament, not in converting, but in instituting.

Woe be to them that make Christ a deceiver. Did he work any other thing then he spake, or the self same thing?

He wrought the sacrament, and by these words he signified the effect.

A figurative speech is no working thing.

ti- But the speech of Christ is working:

no. Ergo, it is not figurative.

It worketh by instituting, not by converting.

The thing signified in the sacrament, is it not in that Sacrament?

It is. For the thing is ministered in a sign. He followeth the letter that taketh the thing for the sign. Augustine separateth the Sacrament from the thing. The Sacrament (saith he) is one, and the thing of the Sacrament another.

Sticke to this Argument.

It is a figurative speech.

Ergo, it worketh nothing.

But the speech of Christ is a working thing.

Ergo, it is not figurative.

O howe many crafts are in this Argument? they are mere fallacies: I said not that the words of Christ do work, but Christ himself: and he worketh by a figurative speech.

If a figure work, it maketh of bread the body of Christ.

A figurative speech worketh not.

A figurative speech by your own confession, worketh nothing.

But the speech of Christ in the supper (as you grant) wrought somewhat:

The speech of Christ in the Supper was not figurative.

I answer these are mere sophisms: the speech doth not work, but Christ by the speech doth work the sacrament.

I look for Scriptures at your hands: for they are the foundation of disputations.

Are not these words of scripture: This is my body, The word of Christ is of strength: and by the Lord's words the heavens were made. He said: This is my body. Ergo, he made it.

He made the Sacrament: and I deny your Argument.

If he wrought nothing, nothing is left there. He said: This is my body. You say contrary to the Scriptures, it is not the body of Christ, and fall from the faith.

You interpret the scriptures contrary to all the old writers, and fain a strange sense.

Ambrose. De ijs qui initiantur sacris, cap. 9. saith: De totius mundi • operibus legisti, quia ipse dixit. & facta sunt, ipse mandauit & creata sunt. Sermo Christi qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat, non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quae non erant 〈◊〉 enim minus est nouas res dare, quam mutare naturas: Sed quid argumentis vtimur? suis vtamur exemplis, incarnationis{que} exemplo astruamus mysterij veritatem. Nunquid naturae vsus praecessit cum Dominus Jesus ex Maria nasceretur? Si ordinem quaerimus, viro mixta foemina generare consueuit, Liquet igitur quod praeter naturae ordinem virgo generauit: & hoc quod conficimus corpus ex virgins est. Quid hic quaeris naturae ordinem in Christi corpore, cum praeter naturam sit ipse Dominus Jesus partus ex virgins? Vera vtique caro Christi quae Crucifixa est, quae sepulta est: vere ergo illius Sacramentum est. Clamat Dominus Jesus: Hoc est corpus meum. Ante benedictionem verborum coelestium alia species nominatur, post consecrationem corpus significatur. Ipse dicit sanguinem suum. Ante consecrationem aliud dicitur: post consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur. Et tu dicis, Amen: hoc est▪ verum est. Quod os loquitur, men's interna fateatur: quod sermo sonat, affectus sentiat.

That is.

Thou hast read of the works of all the world, that he spake the word and they were made: he commanded and they were created. Can not the word of Christ which made of nothing that which was not, change those things that are, into that they were not? For it is no les matter to give new things, then to change natures. But what use we Arguments? let us use his own examples, and let us confirm the verity of the mystery by example of his incarnation. Did the use of nature go before, when the Lord Jesus was borne of Mary? If you seek the order of nature, cōception is wont to be made by a woman joined to a man. It is manifest therefore, that contrary to the order of nature, a virgin did conceive: and this that we make, is the body of the virgin. What seekest thou here the order of nature in y ^e body of Christ, when against the order of nature the Lord Jesus was conceived of a Virgin? It was the true flesh of Christ which was crucified, and which was buried: therefore it is truly the sacrament of him. The lord Jesus himself crieth: This is my body. Before the blessing of the heavenly words, it is named another kind: but after the consecration the body of Christ is signified. He calleth it his blood. Before consecration, it is called another thing: after consecration it is called blood, and thou sayest Amen: that is, it is true, That the mouth speaketh, let the inward mind confess: that the word soūdeath, let the heart perceive.

The same Ambrose in his 4. book of sacraments the 4. chap. saith thus: Panis iste, panis est ante verba Sacramētorum vbi accesserit consecratio, de pane fit caro Christi. Hoc igitur astruamus: quomodo potest, qui panis est, corpus esse Christi consecratione? consecratio igitur quibus verbis est, & cuius sermonibus? Domini Jesus. Nam ad reliqua omnia quae dicūtur, laus Deo defertur, oratione petitur pro populo, pro regibus, pro caeteris, vbi venitur vt conficiatur venerabile Sacramentum, iam non suis sermonibus Sacerdos vtitur, sed sermonibus Christi. Ergo sermo Christi hoc conficit Sacramentum. Quis sermo nempe is quo facta sunt omnia. Iussit Dominus & factum est coelum: iussit Dominus & facta est terra: iussit Dominus & facta sunt Maria. &c. Vides ergo quam operatorius sit sermo Christi. Si ergo tanta vis est in sermon Domini, vt inciperent esse quae non erant, quanto magis operatorius est, vt sint quae erant & in aliud commutentur.

That is to say.

This bread is bread before the words of the Sacraments, when the consecration cometh to it, of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. Let us cōfirm this therefore: how can that which is bread, by consecration be the body of Christ? by what words then is the consecration made, and by whose words? by the words of our Lord Jesus. For touching all other things that are said, praise is given to God, prayer is made for the people, for kings, and for the rest. When it cometh, that the reverent Sacrament must be made, then the Priest useth not his own words, but the words of Christ: therefore the word of Christ maketh this Sacrament. What word? That word, by which all things were made, The Lord commanded, and heaven was made: the Lord commanded and the earth was made: the Lord commanded, and the seas were made. the Lord commanded, and all creatures were made. Doest thou not see then how strong in working the word of Christ is? If therefore, so great strength be in the Lord's word, that those things should begin to be which were not before, how much the rather is it of strength to work, y ^t these things which were, should be changed into another thing? Ambrose saith that the words are of strength to work.

You omit those words which follow, which maketh the sense of Ambrose plain. Read them.

Coelum non erat, mare non erat, terra non erat. Sed audi dicentem: ipse dixit & facta sunt, ipse mandauit & creata sunt. Ergo tibi vt respondeam, non erat corpus Christi ante consecrationem, sed post consecrationem dico tibi quod iam corpus Christi est. That is. Heaven was not, the sea was not, the earth was not, but hear him that said: he spake the word and they were made: he commanded, and they were created. Therefore to answer thee, it was not the body of Christ before consecration, but after the consecration I say to thee, that now it is the body of Christ.

All these things are common. I say that God doth chiefly work in the Sacraments.

How doth he work?

By his power as he doth in Baptism.

Nay, by the word he changeth the bread into his body, This is the truth, acknowledge the truth, give place to the truth.

O glorious words, you are too full of words.

Nay O glorious truth, you make no change at all.

Not so, but I make a great change, as in them that are baptized, is there not a great change when the child of the bondslave of the devil, is made the son of God? So it is also in the sacrament of the supper when he receiveth us into his protection and favor.

If he work in the sacraments, he worketh in this sacrament.

God worketh in his Faithful, not in the Sacraments.

In the supper the words are directed to the bread: in baptism to the spirit. He said not, the water is the spirit, but of the bread he said: This is my body.

He called the spirit a Dove: when the spirit descended in likeness of a Dove.

He doth not call the spirit a Dove: but he saith, that he descended as a Dove. He was seen in the likeness of a Dove. As in Baptism, the words are directed to him that is baptized, so in the supper the words are directed unto the bread.

Nay it is written: Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the spirit descending. He calleth that which descended, the holy spirit. And Augustine calleth the dove the spirit. Hear what Augustine saith in 1. John. Quid voluit per columbam, id est, per spiritum sanctū, docere, qui miserat eum. That is: What meant he by the Dove, that is, by the holy Ghost? forsoothe to teach who sent him.

He understandeth of the spirit descending as a dove: the spirit is invisible. If you mind to have the truth heard let us proceed. Hear what Ambrose saith: Vides quam operatorius sit sermo Christi. Si ergo tanta vis in sermon domini. &c. vt supra. That is: You see what a working power the word of Christ hath. Therefore if there be so great power in the Lord's word, that those things which were not, begin to be, howe much more of strength is it to work that those things that were, should be changed into another thing?

And in the 5. chap. Antequam consecretur, panis est: vbi autem verba Christi accesserint, corpus est Christi. i. Before it is consecrated, it is bread: but when the words of Christ come to it, it is the body of Christ.

But hear what he saith more: Accipite, edite, hoc est corpus meum: Take ye, eat ye, this is my body. Ante verba Christi calix est vini & aquae plenus: vbi verba Christi operata fuerint, ibi sanguis efficitur, qui redemit plebem. That is.

Before the words of Christ, the cup is full of wine and water, when the words of Christ have wrought, there is made the blood of Christ, which redeemed the people. What can be more plain?

Nay, what can be less to the purpose? The words are of strength to work in this Sacrament, as they are in Baptism.

The words of Christ (as Amb. saith) are of strength to work. What do they work? Ambrose saith, they make the blood which redeemed the people.

Ergo, the natural blood is made.

The Sacrament of his blood is made. The words make the blood to them that receive it: not that the blood is in the cup, but in the receiver.

There is made the blood which redeemed the people.

The blood is made: that is, the Sacrament of the blood, by which he redeemed the people. [Fit) it is made: that is to say [ostenditur] it is shown forth there. And Ambrose saith: we receive in a similitude. As thou hast received the similitude of his death, so also thou drinkest the similitude of his precious blood.

He saith in a similitude, because it is ministered under another likeness. And this is the argument.

There is made the blood which redeemed the people.

But the natural blood redeemed the people.

Ergo, There is the natural blood of Christ.

You answer, that words make it blood to them that receive it: not that blood is in the cup, but because it is made blood to them that receive it. That all men may see how falsely you would avoid the fathers, hear what Ambrose saith in the 6. book and 1. chap.

Forte dicas, quomodo vera? qui similitudinem video, nō video sanguinis veritatem. Primum omnium dixi tibi de sermon Christi qui operatur, vt possit mutare & conuertere genera instituta naturae. Deinde vbi non tulerunt sermonem discipuli eius, sed audientes, quod carnem suam dedit manducari, & sanguinem suum dedit bibendum, recedebant. Solus tamen Petrus dixit: Verba vitae eternae habes. & ego a te quo recedam? Ne igitur plures hoc dicerent, veluti quidam esset horror cruoris, sed maneret gratia redemptionis, ideo in similitudinem quidem accipis sacramentū, sed vere naturae gratiam virtutemque consequeris.

That is to say.

Peradventure thou wilt say, how be they true? I which see the similitude, do not see the truth of the blood. First of all I told thee of y ^e word of Christ, which so worketh, that it can change & turn kinds ordained of nature. Afterward, when the Disciples could not abide the words of Christ, but hearing that he gave his flesh to eat, and his blood to drink, they departed: Only Peter said, thou hast the words of eternal life: whether should I go from thee? Least therefore moe should say this thing, as though there should be a certain horror of blood, and yet the grace of redemption should remain: therefore in a similitude thou receivest the sacrament: but in deed thou obtainest the grace and power of his nature.

These words of themselves are plain enough. (And he read this place again: Thou receivest the Sacrament for a similitude ) But what is that he saith: Thou receivest for a similitude. ) I think he understandeth the sacrament to be the similitude of his blood.

That you may understand that truth discenteth not from truth, to overthrow that which you say of that similitude, hear what Ambrose saith lib. 4. De sacrament.

Si operatus est sermo coelestis in alijs rebus, non operatur in sacramentis coelestibus? Ergo didicisti quod e pane corpus fiat Christi, & quod vinum & aqua in calicem mittitur. sed fit sanguis consecratione verbi coelestis. Sed forte dices, speciem sanguinis non videri. Sed habet similitudinem. Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti, ita etiam similitudinem preciosi sanguinis bibis, vt nullus horror cruoris sit, & pretium tamen operetur redemptionis. Didicisti ergo, quia quod accipis corpus est Christ • .

That is to say.

If the heavenly word did work in other things, doth it not work in the heavenly sacraments? Therefore thou hast learned, that of bread is made the body of Christ, and that wine and water is put into that cup: but by consecration of the heavenly word, it is made blood. But thou wilt say peradventure, that the likeness of blood is not sent. But it hath a similitude.

For as thou hast received the similitude of his death, so also thou drinkest the similitude of his precious blood, so y ^t there is no horror of blood, & yet it worketh the price of redemptiō. Therefore thou hast learned, that that which thou receivest, is the body of Christ.

He speaketh of sacraments sacramentally. He calleth the sacraments by the names of the things: for he useth the signs for the things signified: and therefore y ^e bread is not called bread, but his body, for the excellency and dignity of the thing signified by it. So doth Ambrose interpreat him self when he saith: In cuius typum nos calicem mysticum sanguinis ad tuitionem corporis & animae nostrae percepimus. 1. Cor. 11.

That is.

For a type or figure whereof we receive the mystical cup of his blood, for the safeguard of our bodies and souls.

A type? he calleth not the blood of Christ a type or sign: but the blood of Bulls and Goats in that respect was a type or sign.

This is new learning: you shall never read this among the fathers.

But Ambrose saith so.

He calleth the bread and the cup a type or sign of the blood of Christ, and of his benefit.

Ambrose understandeth for a type of his benefit, that is, of redemption: not of the blood of Christ, but of his passion. The cup is the type or sign of his death, seeing it is his blood.

He saith most plainly, that the cup is the type of Christ's blood.

Da- Ched. As Christ is truly and really incarnate, so is he truly and really in the Sacrament.

ri- But Christ is really and truly incarnate.

j. Ergo, the body of Christ is truly and really in the sacrament.

I deny the Major.

I prove the Major out of Justin in his 2. Apology: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

This place hath ben falsified by Marcus Constantius. Justin meant nothing else, but that the bread which nourisheth us, is called the body of Christ.

To the Argument. As Christ is truly and naturally incarnate. &c. vt supra.

I deny your Major.

The words of Justin are thus to be interpreated word for word.

Quemadmodum per verbum Dei caro factus Jesus Christus Saluator noster, carnem habuit & sanguinem pro salute nostra: sic & cibum illum consecratum per sermonem precationis ab ipso institutae, quo sanguis carnesq́ue nostrae per communionem nutriuntur, eiusdem Jesus qui caro factus est, carnem & sanguinem esse accepimus. That is to say.

As by the word of God Jesus Christ our savior, being made flesh, had both flesh and blood for our salvation: so we are taught that the meat consecrated by the word of prayer, instituted of him, whereby our blood and flesh are nourished by communion, is the flesh and blood of the same Jesus, which was made flesh.

You have translated it well: But I deny your Major. Thys is the sense of Justin: that that bread is called the body of Christ, and yet of that sanctified meat our bodies are nourished.

Nay, he saith of that sanctified meat, both our bodies and souls are nourished.

He saith not so: but he saith that it nourisheth our flesh and blood: and howe can that nourish the soul, that nourisheth the flesh and blood?

It feedeth the body by the soul.

Speak uprightly. Can that which is received by the soul and the spirit, be called the meat of the body?

Hear then what Irenaeus saith: Eum calicem qui est creatura, suum corpus confirmauit, ex quo nostra auget corpora. Quando & mixtus c • lix. & Fractus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit Eucharistia sanguinis & corporis Christi, ex quibus augetur, & cōsistit carnis nostrae substantia This is y ^e same cup which is a creature, he confirmed to be his body, by which he increaseth our bodies. When both the cup mixed, and the bread broken, hath joined to it the word of God, it is made the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, of which the substance of our flesh is increased, and consisteth.

The substance of our flesh is increased by the body and blood of Christ:

Ergo, our body is nourished by the body and blood of Christ.

I deny your Argument. He calleth it the flesh and blood: for the Sacrament of the body and blood, as Tertullian also saith: Nutritur corpus pane Symbolico, anima corpore Christi. That is, Our flesh is nourished with Symbolical or sacramental bread, but our soul is nourished with the body of Christ.

Look what he saith more. Quomodo carnem negant capacem esse donationis Dei quae est vita aeterna, quae sanguine & corpore Christi nutritur. li. 5. post duo folia a principio. That is: How do they say, that the flesh cannot receive the gift of God that is eternal life, which is nourished with the blood and body of Christ? That is in the 5. book 2. leaves from the beginning.

The body is nourished both with the sacrament, and with the body of Christ, with the sacrament to a temporal life: with the body of Christ to eternal life.

I cannot but be sorry when I see such a manifest lie in your writings. For where you translate Justin on this fashion: that the bread, water and wine, are not so to be taken in this sacrament, as common meats and drinks are wont to be takē of us: but are meats chosen out peculiarly for this, namely for the giving of thanks, and therefore be called of the Greeks Eucharistia, that is, Thanks giving, they are called moreover the blood and body of Christ (so have you translated it): the words of Justin are thus: We are taught that the meat consecrated by the word of prayer, by the which our flesh and blood is nourished by Communion, is the body & blood of the same Jesus which was made flesh.

I did not translate it word for word, but only I gave the meaning: and I go nothing from his meaning.

You remember, touching Justin, to whom this Apology was written, namely to an Heathen man. The Heathen thought that the Christians came to the Church to worship bread. Justin aunsweareth, that we come not to common bread, but as to. &c. as is said afore. Weigh the place well, it is right worthy to be noted: Our flesh is nourished: according to mutation.

We ought not to consider the bare bread: but whosoever cometh to the Sacrament, eateth the true body of Christ.

You have corrupted Emissenus, for instead of cibis satiandus, that is, to be filled with meat: you have set cibis satiandus spiritualibus: that is, to be filled with spiritual meats.

I have not corrupted it, for it is so in the Decrees.

You have corrupted another place of Emissenus. For you have omitted these words: Mirare cum reuerendum altare cibis spiritualibus satiandus ascendis: sacrum Dei tui corpus & sanguinem fide respice, honorem mirare, merito continge. &c. That is: Maruell thou when thou comest up to the reverend altar to be filled with spiritual meats: look in faith to the holy body and blood of thy God: marvel at his honor: worthily touch him.

Thys book hath not that

Also you have falsified this place by evil translating Honora corpus Dei tui. i. Honor the body of thy God. You have translated it: Honora eum qui est Deus tuus. i. Honoure him which is thy God. Whereas Emissenus hath not [honor him] but [honor the body of thy God.]

I have so translated him, and yet no les truly, then not without a weightye cause, for else it should not have been without danger, if I had translated it thus: Honor the body of thy God: because of certain, that according to the error of the Anthropomorphites, dreamed that God had a body.

Nay you most of all, have brought the people into y ^e error, which so longe have taught that he sitteth at the right hand of God the father: and counted me for an heretic because I preached y ^e God had no right hand. Then I will appose you in the very Articles of your faith.

Christ sitteth at the right hand of God the Father.

But God the Father hath no right hand:

Ergo, Where is Christ now?

I am not so ignorant a novice in the articles of my faith, but that I understand, that to sit at the right hand of God, doth signify to be equal in the glory of the Father.

That is a great offense, I promise you.

For you have omitted secundum apparentiam. i. as it appeareth. Where his words are these: Et si quaeras quare voluit Ecclesia eligere istum intellectum ita difficilem huius articuli, cum verba Scriptura possint saluari secundum intellectum facilem & veriorem, secundum apparentiam, de hoc articulo. &c. That is: And if you demand why the Church did choose this so hard an understanding of this Article, where as the words of scripture may be salued after an easy & true understanding (as appeareth) of this article, &c.

It is not so.

Also you have set forth a Catechism in the name of the Synod of London, and yet there be 50, which witnessing that they were of the number of the Conuocation, never heard one word of this Catechism.

I was ignorant of the setting too of that title: and as soon as I had knowledge thereof, I did not like it. Therefore when I complained thereof to the Council, it was answered me by them, that the boke was so entitled, because it was set forth in the time of the Conuocation.

Moreover, you have in Duns translated in Romana Ecclesia, pro Ecclesia Catholica. i. In the Church of Rome, for the Catholic Church.

Yea, but he meant the Romish Church.

Moreover you have depraved S. Thomas, namely where he hath these words: In quantum vero est sacrificium, habet vim satisfactiuam: Sed in satisfaction attenditur magis affectio offerentis, quàm quantitas oblationis. Vnde Dominus dicit apud Lucamde vidua quae obtulit duo aera, quod plus omnibus misit. Quamuis ergo haec oblatio ex sui quantitate sufficiet ad satisfaciendum pro omni poena: tamen fit satisfactoria illis pro quibus offertur, vel etiam offerentibus secundum quantitatem suae deuotionis, & non pro tota poena. That is: In as much as it is a sacrifice, it hath the power of satisfaction: But in satisfaction the affection of the offerer is more to be waied then the quantity of the oblation. Wherefore the lord said in Luke's Gospel, of the widow which offered two mites, that she cast in more thē they all. Therefore, although this oblation of the quantity of it self will suffice to satisfy for all pain, yet it is made satisfactory to them, for whom it is offered, or to the offerers, according to the quantity of their devotion, and not for all the pain.

You have thus turned it: Quod sacrificium Sacerdotis habet vim satisfactiuam. &c. That is, That the Sacrifice of the priest hath power of satisfaction. &c. And therefore in this place you have chopped in this word [Sacerdotis] of y ^e priest, whereas in the translation of all the new Testament, you have not set it, but where Christ was put to death. And again, where s. Thomas hath [pro omni poena] for all pain, your book omitteth many things there.

Thus you see brethren the truth steadfast and invincible, you see also the craft and deceit of heretics, the truth may be pressed, but it cannot be oppressed: therefore cry altogether, Vincit veritas. i. The truth overcometh.

This disordered disputation sometime in latin, sometime in English, continued almost till 2. of the clock. Which being finished, and the arguments written and delivered to the hands of M. Say, the prisonner was had away by the Mayor, and the Doctors dined together at the university College.

Good Christian people and brethren, we have begun this day our school, by God's good speed I trust, and are entering into a controversy, whereof no question ought to be moved, concerning the verity of the body of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Christ is true, which said the words. The words are true which he spake, yea truth it self that cannot fail. Lette us therefore pray unto God to send down unto us his holy spirit, which is the true interpreater of his word: which may purge away errors, and give light that veritye may appear. Let us also ask leave and liberty of the Church to permit the truth received, to be called this day in question, without any prejudice to the same. Your partes therefore shall be to implore the assistance of almighty God, to pray for the prosperity of the Queens majesty, and to give us quiet and attentive ears. Now go to your questions.

This day (right learned M. Doctor) 3. questions are propounded, whereof no controversy among Christians ought to be moved, to wit:

1. Whether the natural body of Christ our Savior, conceived of the Virgin Marie, and offered for man's redemption upon the cross, is verilye and really in the sacrament by virtue of God's word spoken by the Priest. &c.

2. Whether in the sacrament after the words of consecration, be any other substance. &c.

3. Whether in the Mass be a sacrifice propiciatorie. &c.

Touching the which questions, although you have publicly and partly professed your judgment and opinion on Saturday last: yet being not satisfied with that your answer, I will assay again to demand your sentence in the first question: Whether the true body of Christ, after the words pronounced, be really in the Eucharist, or else only the figure. In which matter I stand here now to hear your answer.

Reverend master Doctor, concerning the lack of books, there is no cause why you should complain. What books soever you will name, ye shall have them, & as concerning the judgment of your answers to be had of yourself with farther deliberation: it shall (I say) be lawful for you until Sunday next to add unto them what you shall think good yourself. My mind is that we should use short arguments, least we should make an infinite process of the thing.

There is another thing besides, which I would gladly obtain at your hands. I perceive that you have writers and Notaries here present. By all likelihood our disputations shall be published, I beseech you for gods sake let me have liberty to speak my mind freely, & without interruption, not because I have determined to protract y ^e time with a solemn Preface, but least it may appear that some be not satisfied. God wotte I am no Orator, nor I have not learned Rhetoric to set colors on the matter.

Among this whole company, it shall be permitted you to take two for your part.

I would choose two, if there were any here w ^t whom I were acquainted.

Here are two which M. Cranmer had yesterdaye. Take them if it please you.

I am content with them: I trust they are honest men.

Let this be sufficient.

If we lack time at this present, there is time enough hereafter.

These are but evasions or starting holes, You consume the time in vain.

I cannot start far from you, I am captive & bound.

Fall to it my masters.

That which you have spoken, may suffice at this present.

Let me alone I pray you, for I have not much to say behind.

Go forward.

Moreover, there is ambiguity in this word, really, whether it be to be taken as the Logicians term it, transcendenter, that is, most generally (and so it may signify any manner of thing which belongeth to the body of Christ, by any means: after which sort we also grant Christ's body to be really in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, as in disputation, if occasion be given shall be declared) or whether it be taken to signify the very same thing, having body, life and soul, which was assumed & taken of the word of God, into the unity of person. In which sense, since the body of Christ is really in heaven, because of the true manner of his body, it may not be said to be here in the earth. There is yet a further doubtfulness in these words, under the forms of bread and wine, whether the forms be there taken to signify the only accidental and outward shows of bread and wine: or there withal the substantial natures thereof, which are to be seen by their qualities, and perceived by exterior senses.

Now the error and falseness of the proposition, after the sense of the Romish church and scholemen, may hereby appear, in that they affirm the bread to be transubstantiated and changed into the flesh, assumed of the word of God, and that (as they say) by the virtue of the word, which they have devised by a certain number of words, and cannot be found in any of the Evangelists, or in Paul, and so they gather that Christ's body is reallye contained in the sacrament of the alter. Which position is grounded upon the foundation of transubstantiation: which foundation is monstrous against reason, and destroyeth the Analogy or proportion of the sacraments, and therefore this proposition also, which is built upon this rotten foundation, is false erroneous, and to be counted as a detestable heresy of the Sacramentaries.

We lose time.

You shall have time enough.

Fall to reasoning. You shall have some other day for this matter.

I have no more to say concerning my explication. If you will give me leave and let me alone, I will but speak a word or two for my confirmation.

Go to: say on.

Thus you consume time, which might be better bestowed on other matters. Master Opponent, I pray you to your arguments.

I will here reason with you upon transubstantiation, which you say is contrary to the rule and Analogy of faith. The contrary whereof I prove by the Scriptures and the doctors. But before I enter argumentation with you, I demand first whether in the 6. chap. of John, there be any mention made of the sacrament, or of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament.

It is against reason that I should be impeached to prosecute that which I have to speak in this assembly, being not so long, but that it may be comprehended in few words.

Let him read on.

First of all, this presence is contrary to many places of the holy Scripture.

Secondly, it varieth from the articles of the faith.

Thirdly, it destroyeth and taketh away the institution of the Lord's supper.

Fourthly, it maketh precious things common to profane and ungodly persons: for it casteth that which is holy unto dogs, and pearls unto swine.

Fifthly, it forceth men to maintain many mōstruous miracles without necessity and authority of God's word.

Sixthly, it giveth occasion to the heretics which erred concerning the two natures in Christ, to defend their heresies thereby.

Seventhly, it falsifieth the sayings of the godly fathers: it falsifieth also the Catholic Faith of the Church, which the Apostles taught, the martyrs confirmed, and the faithful (as one of the Fathers saith) do retain and keep until this day. Wherefore the second parte of mine argument is true.

He requireth time to speak blasphemies. Leave your blasphemies.

I had little thought to have had such reprochefull words at your hands.

All is quiet. Go to the arguments M. Doctor.

I have not many moe things to say.

You utter blasphemies with a most impudent face: leave off (I say) and get you to the argument.

It forceth men to maintain many monstrous miracles, without all necessity and authority of God's word. For at the coming of this presence of the body and flesh of Christ, they thrust away the substance of bread, and affirm that the accidents remain without any subject, and in the stead thereof, they place Christ's body without his qualities and the true manner of a body. And if the Sacrament be reserved so long until it mould, & worms breed some say that the substance of bread miraculously returneth again, and some deny it. Other some affirm y ^t the real body of Christ goeth down into y ^e stomach of the receivers, & doth there abide so long only as they shall continue to be good, but another sort hold that the body of Christ is carried into heavē, so soon as the forms of bread be bruised with the teeth. O works of miracles: Truly & most truly I see that fulfilled in these men, whereof S. Paul prophesied. 2. Thess. 2. Because they have not received the love of the truth, that they might be saved, God shall send them strong delusions, that they should believe lies, and be all damned which have not believed the truth. This gross presence hath brought forth that fond fantasy of concomitaunce, whereby is broken at this day and abrogated the commandment of the Lord for the distributing of the Lord's cup to the laity.

It giveth occasion to heretics to maintain and defend their errors: as to Martion, which said that Christ had but a fantastical body: and to Eutiches which wickedly confounded the two natures in Christ.

Finally, it falsifieth the sayings of the godly fathers and the Catholic faith of the church, which Vigilius a Martyr, and grave writer saith was taught of the Apostles, confirmed with the blood of Martyrs, and was continually maintained by the faithful, until his time. By the sayings of the fathers, I mean of Justin, Irenee, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Emisene, Athanasius, Cyril, Epyphanius, Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine, Vigilius, Fulgentius, Bertram, and others most ancient fathers. All those places, as I am sure I have read, making for my purpose, so am I well assumed that I could show the same, if I might have the use of mine own books, which I will take on me to do, even upon the pearill of my life, and the loss of all that I may lose in this world.

But now (my brethren) think not, because I disallow that presence which this first proposition maintaineth (as a presence which I take to be forged, fantastical, and besides the authority of God's word, pernitiously brought into the Church by the Romanists) that I therefore go about to take away the true presence of Christ's body in his Supper rightly and duly ministered, which is grounded upon the word of God, and made more plain by the commentaries of y ^e faithful fathers: They that think so of me, the Lord knoweth how far they are deceived. And to make the same evident unto you. I will in few words declare what true presence of Christ's body in the sacrament of the Lord's supper I hold and affirm with the word of God and the ancient fathers.

I say and confess with the Evangelist Luke, and with the Apostle Paul, that the bread on the which thanks are given, is the body of Christ in the remembrance of him and of his death, to be set forth perpetually of the faithful until his coming.

I say and confess the bread which we break to be the Communion and partaking of Christ's body, with the ancient and the faithful fathers.

I say and believe that there is not only a signification of Christ's body set forth by the sacrament, but also that therewith is given to the godly and faithful, the grace of Christ's body, that is, the food of life & immortalitye. And this I hold with Cyprian.

I say also with S. Augustine, that we eat life, and we drink life: with Emisene, that we feel the Lord to be present in grace: with Athanasius, that we receive Celestial food, which cometh from above: the property of natural Communion, with Hyllarius: the nature of flesh and benediction which giveth life in bread and wine, with Cyril: and with the same Cyril, the virtue of the very flesh of Christ, life and grace of his body, the property of the only begotten, that is to say, life, as he himself in plain words expoundeth it.

I confess also with Basil, that we receive the mystical Advent and coming of Christ, grace, & the virtue of his very nature: the sacrament of his very flesh, with Ambrose: the body by grace, with Epiphanius: spiritual flesh, but not that which was crucified, with Jerome: Grace flowing into a sacrifice, and the grace of the spirit, with Chrysostom: grace and invisible verity, grace and society of the members of Christ's body, with Augustine.

Finally, with Bertram (which was the last of all these) I confess that Christ's body is in the Sacrament in this respect: namely (as he writeth) because there is in it the spirit of Christ, that is, the power of the word of God, which not only feedeth the soul, but also cleanseth it. Out of these I suppose it may clearly appear unto all mē, how far we are frō that opinion, whereof some go about falsely to slander us to the world, saying we teach that the godly and faithful should receive nothing else at the Lord's table, but a figure of the body of Christ.

You have occasioned me to go otherwise to work with you, then I had thought to have done. Me seemed you did in your supposition abuse the testimonies of scripture concerning the Ascension of Christ, to take away his presence in the Sacrament, as though this were a strong Argument to enforce your matter withal:

Christ did ascend unto heaven.

Ergo, he is not in the Sacrament.

Now therefore I will go about to disprove this reason of yours.

Christ's Ascension is no let to his real presence in the Sacrament.

Ergo, you are deceived, whereas you do ground youre self upon those places.

You import as though I had made a strong Argument by Christ's going up into heaven. But howsoever mine Argument is made, you collect it not rightly. For it doth not only stay upon his Ascension, but both upon his Ascension, and his abiding there also.

Christ's going up to heaven, and his abiding there, hinder not his real presence in the Sacrament.

Ergo, you are deceived.

Of Christ's real presence there may be a double understanding, if you take the real presence of Christ according to the real and corporal substance which he took of the virgins: that presence being in heaven, cā not be on the earth also. But if you mean a real presence, secūdum rem aliquam quae ad corpus Christi pertinet. i. according to something that appertaineth to Christ's body, certes the Ascension and abiding in heaven are no let at all to that presence. Wherefore Christ's body after that sort is here present to us in the Lord's supper: by grace I say as Epiphanius speaketh it.

I will cut off from henceforth all equivocation and doubt. For whensoever we speak of Christ's body, we mean that which he took of the Virgin.

Christ's Ascension and abiding in heaven cannot stand with this presence.

Christ appeared corporally and really on the earth for all his Ascension and continual abode in heaven unto the day of Dome.

Ergo, his Ascension and abiding in heaven, is no let to his real presence in the Sacrament.

Master Doctor, this Argument is nothing worth I do not so straightly tie Christ up in heaven, that he may not come into the earth at his pleasure. For when he will, he may come down from heaven, and be on the earth, as it liketh himself. Howbeit I do affirm that it is not possible for him to be both in heaven and earth at one time.

Mark I pray you my Masters, diligently that be here, what he answereth. First he saith, that the sitting of Christ at the right hand of his father, is a let to the real presence of his body in the Sacrament: and then afterward he flieth from it again.

I would not have you think that I do imagine or dream upon any such manner of sitting, as these men here sit in the School.

Ergo, it is lawful for Christ then to be here present on the earth, when he will himself.

Yea when he will, it is lawful indeed.

Ergo, his ascending into heaven, doth not restrain his real presence in the Sacrament.

I do not gaynesay, but that it is lawful sor him to appear on the earth, when he will: but prove you y ^t he will.

Then your answer dependeth upon the will of Christ, I perceive, Therefore I will join again with you in this short argument.

Christ, albeit he doth always abide in heaven after his ascension, was seen really and corporally on the earth. Ergo, not withstanding his Ascen • ion and continual sitting at the right hand of the father, he may be really and corporally in the sacrament.

If the Notaries should so record your Argument, as you have framed it, you peradventure would be ashamed thereof hereafter.

Christ after his Ascension was seen really and corporally upon the earth.

Ergo, notwithstanding his Ascension and abiding with his father, he may be corporally in the Sacrament.

I grant the antecedent: but I deny the consequent.

Do you grant the antecedent?

Yea I grant the antecedent. I am content to let you have so much. Because I know that there be certain ancient fathers of that opinion. I am well content to let you use that proposition as true. And I will frame the argument for you.

He was seen on earth after his Ascension, Ergo &c.

Nay, nay, I will frame it myself.

Christ after his Ascension was seen really and corporally on earth, albeit he do abide in heaven continually:

Ergo, notwithstanding his Ascension and continual abiding at the right hand of the father, he may be really and corporally on the earth.

Let us first agree about the continual sitting at the right hand of the father.

Doth he so sit at the right hand of his father, that he doth never forsake the same?

Nay I do not bind Christ in heaven so straitly. I see you go about to beguile me w ^t your equivocations. Such equinocatiōs are to be distincted. If you mean by his sitting in heaven, to reign with his father, he may be both in heaven and also in earth. But if ye understand his sitting to be after a corporal manner of sitting, so is he always permanent in heaven. For Christ to be corporally here on earth, when corporally he is resident in heaven, is clean contrary to the holy scriptures, as Augustine saith: Corpus Christi est in coelo, sed veritas eius vbi{que} diffusa est. i. The body of Christ is in heaven: but his truth is dispersed in every place.

Now if continually he abide in heaven after the manner of his corporal presence, then his perpetual abiding there, stoppeth or letteth that the same corporal presence of him cannot be in the sacrament.

Act. 3. We read that Christ shall sit perpetually at the right hand of God, unto the consummacion of the world.

I perceive you are come here to this issue, whether the body of Christ may be together both in earth and in heaven. I will tell you, that Christ in very deed, is both in earth and in heaven together and at one time, both one & the same natural Christ after the verity and substance of his very body, Ergo, &c.