WHat good man doeth not sor­row, or what man zealous in Religion, doeth not often be­waile the pitifull and vnluckie contention about the LORDS SVPPER, which hath now ma­ny yeres troubled the Churches of CHRIST which haue im­braced the pure doctrine, whereby not onely brotherly Loue is broken, but also cities and whole countreys be thereby brought in danger? For whereas after the ex­pelling the darkenesse of Ignorance, and the happy re­storing to the Church the gift of tongues, a certaine new Light was restored to the world, and the Gospel had begun to take so great roote, that thereby hope of very great fruit was offered to ensue: By and by this sharpe and vehement contention, bursting in among the chiefe champions of the Word, hath miserably troubled these very good beginnings. For looke what weapons they had valiantly vsed, in setting foorth the [Page 2] trueth, & in ouerthrowing the enemies of the Gospel, the very same, after this strife was risen, did they bend one against another. So that the happie course of the Gospel that began to flourish is not only hindered, but also by factions & discords, the matter is come to that passe, that vnlesse the mighty Right-hand of the Lord do resist, the trueth doeth seeme to appaule and decay againe, yea, and to returne to the former confusion.

For if we will iudge the matter truely, no force hath so much withstand the inlarging of the Gospel, no not the deceits and inchantments of the idole of Rome, not the crueltie of Princes against the flocke of CHRIST, not the troublesome motions of breeders of Sects, as this onely rash contention hath done hurt, which brin­geth to the minds of godly men sorrow, to the enemies cause to reioyce, and to the weake and vnlearned, of­fence and falling. And surely there is no doubt, but that our owne wickednesse hath bene the originall of this so great an euil, as it hath bene of many other: For wee not regarding, or rather contemning the light of­fered vs, are iustly thought vnworthy of so great a be­nefit. Which thing also is the cause, that albeit many learned & good men vnderstand what profit it should be for the Christian common wealth speedily to paci­fie this quarrell, and to ende the contentions, few not­withstanding doe earnestly traueile about this matter; And if any haue attempted it, it seemeth to fall out as vnluckily taken in hand to the contrary part. For my part, when I saw no end could be made of strife, nor a­ny hope in any one of better sequele, I thought best to commit the matter to GOD by prayer, and with silence to looke for helpe in season at his hands. Yet in this meane space I thought it my part, not to neglect a mat­ter of so great waight, but after examination had of the [Page 3] chiefe points of this controuersie, to bolt out what was trueth, and what not; and then to determine vpon a sure grounded opinion, both by authoritie of holy Scripture, and by the vndoubted testimonies of the Fa­thers, aswell to satisfie my selfe, as to yeeld a reason thereof to any that should perhaps demand it of mee: that the minde should not wauer continually to & fro, tossed as it were with the contrary violence of winds.

While I take this worke in hand, & diligently tread the steps of the old Interpreters, me thinketh I perceiue (vnlesse my opinion deceiue me) that this controuersie is not so intangled, nor darke, as most men suppose, and that these sharp cōtentions haue come rather by mens fault, then by the nature of the matter; and that the way of Reconciliation shall not bee so hard with men, desirous rather of the trueth then of quarrelling.

Wherefore albeit I took in hand this worke, what­soeuer it be, priuately to my selfe, yet because among my friends certaine good men and well giuen were so desirous, I did not greatly passe to haue it come to the eares & eyes of other, that if there be herein any profit, it may also do them good. The cause I haue thought good so to diuide, that briefly it may bee brought to three especial points: First wil I shew the trueth of the body of CHRIST in the Sacrament to be giuen to the faithful, and that these termes Nature and Substance are not to be shunned, but that they of old time disputing of the Sacrament vsed them: Then will I declare the difference betweene the Lords proper body, and that which is in the Sacrament, and that the olde Fathers were of that opinion: And lastly I will set foorth at large, what maner of Body that is which is receiued in the mysterie, & why it is called by that name, after the opinion of the selfe same Fathers. Which things once [Page 4] expounded, a man may easily iudge of the whole con­trouersie. First, it is manifest ynough by the declara­tion of the Euangelists Matthew, Matth. 26. c. Matth. 14. c. Luke 22. c. Marke and Luke, that our Lord IESVS CHRIST, when he should depart out of this world, and leauing the earth, should goe vp to the Father, did ordeine the Sacrament of his Body and Blood in the presence of his disciples at Supper; and so when he had taken the bread, he blessed, brake it and gaue it to them, saying, This is my body: After the like maner the Cup also, saying, This Cup is the new Te­stament in my Blood, 1. Corinth. 11. Doe this in remembrance of me. Paul also writeth to the same effect to the Corinthians, in his first Epistle the 11. chapter, rehearsing in a maner the very same words,Et cap. 10. & in the tenth chapter, The Cup (saith he) of blessing which we blesse, is it not the partaking of the Blood of Christ? The bread which we breake, is it not the par­taking of the Body of Christ? By these words of the Euan­gelists, and the Apostle, they of old time were of that opinion that CHRIST our Lord, which is Trueth it selfe, spake these things truly, and did in deed performe those things that he spake, so that no place of doubt might any more be left, concerning the trueth of the matter.

Moreouer those words which in the sixt chapter of Iohn, Iohn 6. c. the Lord spake, My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drinke indeed, &c. The bread which I will giue you is my flesh. And vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drinke his Blood, &c. The Fathers with great accord, as well Grecians as Latines, doe apply to the Sacrament of Thankesgiuing; And that they haue interpreted those places so, both in Iohn, and the rest of the Euangelists and Paul to the Corinthians, the testimonies that follow taken out of the authors themselues,Iustin Martir Apol. 2. shal happily proue.

First, Iustin Martyr in his second Apologie writeth [Page 5] thus, And this meate is called with vs, that is, Thankesgi­uing, &c. whereof none other may be partaker but he, which both beleeueth those things to be true which we say, & also hath bene purified with the washing, which is giuen for the remission of sinnes, and regeneration, and also so liueth as CHRIST hath appointed. For wee take not these things to be common and wonted bread, and accustomed drinke, but euen as the word of God IESVS CHRIST our Sauiour was made man, and had both flesh and blood for our saluation: Euen so in like maner wee haue bene taught, that the meate which is hallowed by the prayers of the word that we receiued of him, and by which our blood and flesh, by a change made are nourished, is both the flesh & blood of the same CHRIST which was made man. For the Apostles in their Commentaries, which be called the Gospels, haue left in writing, that CHRIST did so com­mand them, and that he said, when he had taken bread and giuen thankes, Doe this in remembrance of me, This is my body. And that when he had taken the cup and giuen thankes hee said, This is my Blood. Partly the other words of this testimoniall doe affirme the trueth of his body: and chiefly because by a similitude taken of the two natures in CHRIST, he declareth that there be al­so two natures in the Sacrament, namely of the out­ward signe, and of the flesh & Blood of IESVS CHRIST.

Alike vnto this is spoken in Irenaeus in his 4. booke: For how say they againe that the flesh commeth into corruption, & doth not receiue life which is nourished of the body and Blood of the Lord? Therefore let them either change their opinion, or else abstaine to of­fer the things which are aforesaid: but our opinion is agreeing to the Sacrament of thankesgiuing, and this Sacrament againe confirmeth our opinion: For wee [Page 6] offer those things that be his, preaching agreeably the partaking and trueth of Flesh and Spirit. For euen as the bread which is of the earth receiuing the calling vp­on God, is now no more common bread, but a Sacra­ment of thanksgiuing, made of two things, earthly and Heauenly: so also our bodies receiuing the Sacrament of thankesgiuing, be not now corruptible, because they haue the hope of resurrection. The same man in his fift booke; and because wee be his members, and are nourished by the creature, & he giueth vs the creature, making his Sonne to arise, and raining as he listeth, the same Cup which is a creature, he confirmed to be his Body, by which he increaseth our bodies. When there­fore both the Cup mixed, and the bread made, recei­ueth the word of God, it is made the Sacrament of the blood and body of CHRIST, whereof both the sub­stance of our flesh is increased, & consisteth: how then doeth he denie, that the flesh is able to receiue the gift of God which is life Euerlasting, seeing it is nourished with the blood and bodie of CHRIST?

These words of Irenaeus albeit not very dark, yet wil they be more plaine if we adde certaine things to them out of S. Augustine. August. tit. de consecrat. dist. 2. He in his booke of the Sentences of Prosperus, and is found De consecratione distinct. 2. writeth thus, This is it that we say, and that by al meanes we la­bour to proue, that the Sacrifice of the Church is made two maner awayes, that it consisteth of two things, Of the visible forme of Sacraments, and the inuisible flesh and blood of our Lord IESVS CHRIST: of the Sa­crament, and of the substance of the Sacrament, that is the body of CHRIST. As the person of CHRIST con­sisteth of God and man, since CHRIST himselfe is ve­ry God and very man, because euery thing conteineth in it selfe the nature and trueth of those things whereof [Page 7] it is made; But the sacrifice of the Church is made of two things, of the Sacrament, and of the substance of the Sacrament, that is, the body of CHRIST. There is therefore the Sacrament, and the substance of the Sa­crament the bodie of CHRIST. S. Augustine repeateth that comparison between the person of CHRIST, and the Sacrament of thankesgiuing, and therein hee saith plainely, that the trueth and nature of the bodie is con­teined. The same man De consecrat. distinct. 2. Idem ibidem. Whe­ther is this mysticall Sacrament of the Cup made in fi­gure or in trueth? The trueth saith, My flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drinke; Else how can it bee a great matter, The bread that I shall giue, is my flesh for the life of the world, vnlesse it bee very flesh? But be­cause it is not godly that CHRIST should be deuoured with teeth, the Lords will was to haue this bread and wine in mysterie to be by his power made his flesh and blood, in veritie by the consecration of the holy Ghost, and to be daily offered mysticallie for the life of the world. That like as his true flesh is created of the Vir­gin by the holy Ghost without the companie of man, so by this same Spirit the same bodie mystically, is conse­crated of the substance of bread and wine. The body of CHRIST is both trueth and figure; Trueth, in that the bodie and blood of CHRIST by the power of the holy Ghost, is made by the strength thereof of the sub­stance of bread and wine: And the figure is that which outwardly is perceiued.

The same man in the same title:Idem ibidem. They that eate and drinke CHRIST, eate and drinke life. To eate him is to be refreshed; to drinke him is to liue. That which is visiblie taken in the Sacrament, is eaten and drunke spi­ritually in very trueth.Idem ibidem. The same man in his booke of the Sentences of Prosperus in the same title saith: But we [Page 8] in the forme of bread and wine, which we see, do honor inuisible things, namely, flesh and blood. Neither doe we alike take these two formes, as we did take them be­fore the consecration, seeing that we faithfully confesse that before the consecration, they be bread and wine which nature hath framed, but after the consecration, they be the flesh & blood of CHRIST which the bles­sing hath hallowed. He againe vpon the 54. Psalme, Vntill the world come to an end the Lord is aboue, yet for all that the Lords trueth is also here with vs: For it is fit that the body in the which he rose againe, should be in one place, but his trueth is spred euery where. He also in his Epistle to Irenaeus: CHRIST is bread of the which hee who so eateth, liueth for euer; whereof hee himselfe saith thus, And the bread which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the world. And he expoundeth it how it is bread, not onely according to the word whereby all things liue, but according to the flesh that hee tooke for the life of the world. For mans flesh which was dead through sinne being knit to pure flesh incorporat, made one with it, doth liue by his spirit euen as one bo­die by his owne spirit: But he that is not of the body of CHRIST, liueth not of the Spirit of CHRIST. Hither­to Augustine hath plainly inough proued the trueth and nature of the body of CHRIST in this Sacrament.

Hilar. de tri. lib. 8. Hilarie in his 8. booke of the Trinitie: I would know now of them that alledge vnitie of wil between the Fa­ther and the Sonne, whether CHRIST nowadayes be in vs by trueth of nature, or by agreement of will. For if the Word be verily made flesh, and wee receiue the word, verily flesh in the Lords meate: how should a man not suppose him to remaine naturally in vs, which being borne man, tooke to himselfe an vnseparable na­ture, now of our flesh, and hath mixed the nature of his [Page 9] owne flesh with the nature of eternitie vnder the Sacra­ment of his flesh to be partaked among vs? And a little after: Therefore whosoeuer wil denie the Father to be naturally in CHRIST, let him first denie either him­selfe to be naturally in CHRIST, or CHRIST to be in him, because the Father in CHRIST, and CHRIST in vs, do make vs to be one thing in them. If CHRIST therefore did verily take the flesh of our bodie, & if the same man which was borne of the Virgine Mary be ve­rily CHRIST; and we verily take vnder a mysterie the flesh of his body, and thereby shal become one, because the Father is in him, and hee in vs: How is the vnitie of will alledged, seeing the naturall propertie (by meanes of the Sacrament,) is a Sacrament of perfect vnitie? Al­so a little after; For those things which wee speake of the naturall trueth of CHRIST in vs, vnlesse we learne of him, we speake foolishly and wickedly. For he saith, My flesh is meat in deed, and my Blood is drinke in deed: Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, remaineth in mee, and I in him. There is no place left of doubting of the trueth of Flesh and Blood: For now it is verily Flesh, and verily Blood, both by the confession of our Lord himselfe, and also by our Faith; and these things being receiued by eating and drinking, doe worke that effect, that both wee be in CHRIST, and CHRIST is in vs. Is not this trueth? Let it happen vnto them not to bee true, which denie IESVS CHRIST to be very God. And soone after: And so by a Mediator, the perfit Vni­tie should be taught, when as wee abiding in him hee should abide in the Father, and he abiding in the Father should abide in vs, and so should we clime to the vnitie of the Father, when hee is naturally according to his birth in him, we also should be naturally in him, so long as he abideth naturally in vs. And that this natural vni­tie [Page 10] is in vs, he hath thus witnessed, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him. And by and by he addeth, This is truely the cause of our life: for that we haue CHRIST remaining in vs carnal men according to the flesh, whereas wee shall liue hereafter by him, after the same sort as he liueth by the Father. If we therefore liue naturally by him after the flesh, name­ly hauing taken vpon vs the nature of his flesh, how hath he not the Father after the spirit naturally in him, since he liueth by the Father? And he concludeth: To this end be these things rehearsed by vs, because the he­retiks affirming falsly the vnitie of wil onely betweene the Father and the Sonne, vsed for the example of our vnitie with the Lord, as though we were vnited to the Sonne, and by the Sonne to the Father, only by obedi­ence and will of Religion, and no propertie of naturall fellowship were granted to vs by the Sacrament of his flesh and blood: whereas in deed the mysterie of the true and naturall vnitie should be taught, both for the honour of the Sonne of God that is giuen vs, and for the Sonne carnally abiding in vs, and wee knit corpo­rally, and vnseparably in him.

Hilarius doeth manifestly teach the true and naturall partaking of the flesh of CHRIST in the Sacrament; And as plainely doeth Cyrillus witnesse the same in the 10.Cyrillus lib. 10. cap. 13. booke chap. 13. when he saith, Yet wee denie not that wee be ioyned spiritually in CHRIST by a right faith, and sincere loue: but that wee haue no maner of ioyning with him according to the flesh, that truely we vtterly denie. And soone after; But doth hee happily thinke that the vertue of the mysticall blessing is vn­knowen to vs? which when it is wrought in vs, doth it not also make CHRIST to dwell corporally in vs, by the partaking of the flesh of CHRIST? For why be the [Page 11] members of the faithfull the members of CHRIST? Know ye not (saith he) that your members be the members of Christ? Shal I therefore make the members of Christ the mem­bers of an harlot? Our Sauiour also saith, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, remaineth in me and I in him; whereby it ought to be considered, that CHRIST is in vs, not onely by that accustomed qualitie which is per­ceiued by loue, but also further by a naturall partaking. For euen as if a man shall melt waxe by the fire, and mingle it with other waxe which is likewise melted, so that one lumpe may seeme to be made of both; So by the communion of the body and blood of CHRIST he is in vs, and wee in him. For this corruptible nature of the bodie could not otherwise be brought to vncor­ruption and life, vnlesse the body of naturall life should be ioyned thereto. The same man also in his 4.Idem in Io. lib. 4. cap. 14. booke vpon Iohn the 14. chapter doeth witnesse: For truely it behoueth that not onely the soule should ascend into blessed life by the holy Ghost, but also that this rude and earthly body should be brought againe to immor­talitie, by a taste, feeling, and meate like vnto it. The same man in his 11. book vpon Iohn cap. 27. The Sonne,Idem in Io. lib. 11. cap. 27. as man, is made one with vs corporally by the mystical blessings, but spiritually as God. And a little after; For we receiuing corporally and substantially, (as it hath bene said) the Sonne of God which is made one by na­ture with the Father, be made pure and glorified, being partakers of the nature that is from aboue. The same man in the same book vpon the 26. chapter:Idem eodem lib. cap. 26. For to the end therefore ye might knit euery one of vs among our selues and God, although wee differ both in body and soule, yet hath he found a meane agreeable to the de­termination of his Father, and his owne wisdome. For he blessing with his owne body (through the mystical [Page 12] communion) them that beleeue, doth make vs one bo­die, both with himselfe, and also among our selues. For who wil thinke those distant from this naturall vnion, which be vnited in one CHRIST by the vnion of one CHRISTS bodie? For if all we eat one bread, we be made all one body. And within few wordes after: But that this bodily vniting to CHRIST is attained by the parta­king of his flesh, Paul himselfe againe doeth witnesse, disputing of the mysterie of godlinesse: the which (saith he) hath not bene knowen to the sonnes of men in other gene­rations, as it hath bene reueiled now to his holy Apostles and Prophets in the Spirit, that the Gentiles be coheires and ioyned in body, and equall partakers of the promise in Christ. The same man to Calosyrius: Idem ad Calo­syrium. For that wee should not be a­fraide of the flesh and blood set vpon the holy Altars, God submitting himselfe to our frailtie, putteth a force of life into those things that bee offered, turning them into the trueth of his owne flesh, that the body of life as it were a certaine quickning seed, may bee found in vs: whereupon he addeth, Doe this in a remembrance of me. Hitherto Cyrillus.

Cyprianus de coena Domini. Cyprian of the Supper of the Lord; This bread not in outward apparence, but in nature changed by the mightie power of the Word, is made flesh, which the Lord did reach to his disciples. And in the same place; Who euen to this day createth, and sanctifieth, & bles­seth, and diuideth, to those that take it godly, this his most true and holy bodie.Hieron. in Matth. de con­secrat. dist. 2. Hierom vpon Matthew, De consecrat. dist. 2. He tooke bread, which is the comforter of man, and passed to the true Sacrament of Passeouer. That as Melchisedec for a figure therof before had done when he offered bread and wine, he should represent it in the trueth of his bodie and blood.Chrysost. in Io. Hom. 45.

Chrysostom vpon Iohn, Hom. 45. But that not onely by [Page 13] loue, but euen in very deed wee should be turned into that flesh, he worketh the same by the meate which hee hath giuen vs. For when he ment to bring his loue vp­on vs, he ioyned himselfe to vs by his body, and made himselfe one with vs, that the body might be knit with the head. The same man Homil. 61. Idem Hom. 61. Therefore that we should be this not only by charitie, but in very deed should bee mingled with that flesh, this is brought to passe by the meat which hee hath giuen vs. Chrysostom hath also many other sayings to the same meaning.

Those things that S. Ambrose writeth in his 6.Ambros. lib. 6. de sacra. cap. 1. booke the first chapter of the Sacraments, do agree with these: Euen as our Lord IESVS CHRIST is the true Sonne of God, not as men be by grace, but as a Sonne of the substance of the Father; so is that which wee take, the very flesh of CHRIST, and they drinke his very blood as he himselfe said. And a little after; Then when his disciples could not away with the talke of CHRIST, but hearing that he would giue them his flesh to eate, and his blood to drinke, they went away: But Peter a­lone said, Thou hast the words of eternall life, and whither should I goe from thee? Lest therefore any moe should say this, as though there should be a kinde of lothsomnesse of blood, but that the grace of redemption might re­maine, therefore receiuest thou the Sacrament in a si­militude, but thou obteinest the grace and vertue of the true nature. The same man in his 4. booke the 4.Idem lib. 4. cap. 4. cap. Thou seest therefore how effectuall in operation the word of CHRIST is. If then there be so great effica­cie in the word of our Lord IESVS CHRIST, that that should begin to bee, which was not; How much more is it of effect, to make those things to be that were before, and to be changed into another thing? And so that which was bread before the consecration, the [Page 14] same is become the body of CHRIST after the conse­cration, because the word of CHRIST doeth change the creature; And so of bread is made the body of CHRIST, and the wine mixed with water in the cup, is made blood by the consecration of the heauenly word. But perhaps thou wilt say, I see not the forme of blood, But it hath a likenesse. For euen as thou hast taken the likenes of his death, so also doest thou drinke the similitude of his blood, that there should be no ab­horring of blood, and yet the price of our redemption wrought. Also before the wordes of CHRIST the cup is full of wine & water: after the words of CHRIST haue wrought, there is the blood made which hath re­deemed the people. Therefore marke how the word of CHRIST is able to make alteration in all things. Be­side, CHRIST himselfe doeth testifie, that wee doe re­ceiue his bodie and blood, of whose fulnesse and testi­monie we ought not to doubt. Likewise peraduenture thou saiest, I see another thing, How prouest thou that I do receiue the bodie of CHRIST? This remaineth yet for vs to proue, that this is not it which nature hath fashioned, but it, that blessing hath hallowed; and that there is greater force of the blessing, then of nature: be­cause nature it selfe is also changed by the blessing. Al­so: But if the blessing of man was of such force that it could turne nature; What doe we say of the very hea­uenly consecration, whereas the very wordes of the Lord our Sauiour do worke? For this Sacramēt which thou receiuest, is wrought by the words of CHRIST. But if the word of Elias was of such force that it could bring fire from heauen; Shall not the word of CHRIST be of power to change the kinds of elements?

Eusebius Emys­senus de conse­crat. dist. 2. Eusebius Emyssenus likewise, who was in yeeres be­fore Ambrose, doth witnes in these wordes, the opinion [Page 15] which was then had of the Sacrament, and it is had De consecrat. dist. 2. Whereupon the heauenly authoritie confirmeth, That my flesh is verily meat, and my blood is ve­rily drinke. Let therefore all doubt of misbeliefe be laid aside, because hee that is author of the gift is likewise witnesse of the trueth. For the inuisible priest doeth turne with his word, by a secret power, the visible crea­tures into the substance of his bodie and blood, saying thus, Take ye, eate ye, this is my body, and the hallowing be­ing repeated, Take ye, drinke ye, this is my blood. Therefore euen as the height of the heauens, the depth of waters, and largenesse of earth had their being of nothing, sud­denly at the becke of the Lord that commanded: so with the like power in the spirituall Sacraments when power commandeth, effect obeieth. How great there­fore and wonderfull benefits the force of the heauenly blessing doeth worke. How it ought not to seeme a new & vnpossible matter to thee, that earthly and mor­tal things bee turned into the substance of Christ, aske thy selfe that art borne anew in Christ. Hee againe in his oration of the bodie of the Lord: Let not man dout but that the chiefe creatures at the becke of power by the presence of Maiestie, may be turned into the nature of the Lords bodie.Leo & Syn. Rom. de consec. dist. 2. Leo the bishop and the Synode of Rome as is there declared; In what darknesse of igno­rance, in what bodie of slouthfulnes haue they hitherto lyen, that they would neither learne by hearing, nor know by reading that which is so agreeable in the con­gregation vvith the confession of all persons, that the trueth of the bodie and blood of Christ, among the Sa­craments of the communion cannot be kept in silence, no not of the tongues of Infants, because in that mysti­call distribution of the spirituall food, this is giuen, and this is receiued, that wee receiuing the strength of this [Page 16] heauenly meat, doe become his flesh, which was made our flesh.

Gregor. hom. Pasch. ibidem. Gregorie homilia paschali, and it is there rehearsed. For he is daily eaten and drunke in trueth, but yet he remai­neth vvhole and one, and vnspotted. And it is there­fore a great mysterie, and to be reuerenced with feare, because there is one thing to the sight, and another to the vnderstanding.Euthym. in Matth. cap. 64. Euthymius vpon Matthew cap. 64. Therfore euen as the old Testament had sacrifices and blood, so also hath the Nevv, namely the bodie and blood of the Lord. For hee said not, These be signes of my body, but he said, These be my body & my blood Ther­fore vvee must not take heed to the nature of those things that bee set before vs, but to the vertue of them. For euen as aboue nature hee did deifie the flesh that vvas taken of the Virgine (if it bee lavvfull to vse this phrase) so also doeth hee vnspeakeably change these things into his very liuely bodie, and into his very pre­cious blood, and into the grace of them.

Theophil. in Matth. cap. 26. Theophilactus vpon Matt. 26. In saying This is my body, hee declareth that the bread vvhich is sanctified vpon the Altar, is the very body of the Lord, and not a figure ansvvering vnto it; for he said not, This is a figure, but This is my body. The bread is transformed by an vn­speakable working into the body of Christ; albeit it seemes bread to vs that bee weake, and abhorre to eate raw flesh, especially the flesh of man. For that cause tru­ly bread appeareth, but it is flesh. The same man vpon Marke cap. 14. Idem in Marc. cap. 14. When he had blessed it, that is, vvhen he had giuen thanks, he brake the bread, which thing also we do, adding thereto prayers, This is my body: this I say which you take. For the bread is not a figure and ex­ample onely of the Lords body, but it is turned into the very bodie of Christ. Damascenus doth also vvrite al­most [Page 17] the very same things lib. 4. cap. 14. Damas. de fide. Orth. lib. 4. cap. 14. The bread and vvine is not a figure of the body and blood of Christ to the right faith; for God forbid wee should beleeue so: but it is the very deified bodie of the Lord by his owne saying, This is my body; not a figure of my bodie, but my bodie, This is my blood, not a figure of my blood.

Many other places also may be brought forth here, taken out of the Fathers, vvhich agree with the re­hearsed, by al the vvhich vve may easily perceiue, what vvas the opinion of them al, asmuch as apperteineth to this part of our diuision, namely, that the Sacrament of Thankesgiuing is not only a figure of the Lords body, but also comprehendeth in it the trueth, nature & sub­stance of the same. For it cannot be a doubt to any man that will read their writings, that they oftentimes vsed these termes, Truly, Naturally, & Substantially, & the coniugates of them. And although our faith dependeth not vpon men, but vpon the word of God: yet since they defend their opinion with the authoritie of the Scripture, it is very profitable for godly minds & desi­rous of the trueth, to cōsider how so many notable men both for godlinesse and learning, haue vnderstood the words of the Scripture, and with great agreement left their interpretations to their succession; neither shall he auoid the blame of rashnesse (whosoeuer he be) that dare despise so great authoritie.

Now let vs take in hand our second part. Whether they of ancient time haue thought that there is any dif­ference between the body of our Lord, which is distri­buted in the Sacrament, and that which was taken of the Virgin mother, vvhich ascended into heauen, and from thence shall come at his time to Iudgement. That is, whether the body of Christ bee in the Sacrament of Thankesgiuing, according to the proper signification [Page 18] of a mans body, or otherwise, differing somewhat from a proper body. When I speake of a proper body, I meane a body properly vnderstand, which shall suffice to haue once admonished. Then vvhether these termes, Trueth, Nature, Substance ought to be vnder­stand after the common sort in this matter, or after a more peculiar maner, and more fit for the Sacraments.

Finally, whether there be any aequiuocation in these termes or no. For there is not onely heed to bee taken with vvhat words the fathers haue spoken in old time, but also what they ment when they so spake. And that is not to be proued by our ovvne or other mens inuen­tions, or light coniectures, but by the assured testimo­nies of the Fathers themselues. But that wee may haue the easier entrie to this matter, wee must perceiue that the body of Christ is called not after one maner vvise in the Scriptures, but sundry vvaies. First, as that bo­die as vvas taken vpon him, and borne of the Virgin, vvhich also rose againe, and ascended into heauen, of the vvhich this vvas spoken, Mee truely shall ye not haue alway. And this, I leaue the world, and go to my Father And this, Feele and behold, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me haue. Secondarily, as the Church is called the body of Christ, according to this saying, You are Christs body. And this, And he gaue him to be a head ouer all things to the Church which is his body. Thirdly, as the Sacrament of the body of Christ is called the body of Christ, wherof Christ himselfe said, This is my body. And Paul, The bread which we breake, is it not the partaking of the body of Christ? And this, Making no difference of the Lords bodie. Which places be vnderstood of the Sacrament of his body, vvhereby it commeth to passe, that the bo­die of Christ is called properly and vnproperly. Pro­perly that bodie taken of the Virgin; Vnproperly, the [Page 19] Sacrament and the Church. That the Church is not properly the bodie of Christ, no man doubteth. It re­maineth that vvee prooue the same of the Sacrament. This is especially to bee marked, as oft as they of old time treat of the Sacrament, they all apply to the Sa­crament the vvords of our Lord, vvhich are spoken in the sixt chapter of Iohn, My flesh is verily meat, & my blood is verily drinke. The bread which I will giue is my flesh, and vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, &c. Which things shalbe proued by their ovvne sayings before al­ledged, and also by those that shall follovv. Neither are they to bee allovved, that deny this chapter of Iohn to be referred to this Sacrament, seeing so great a troupe of vvitnesses be against them. But the opinion of them seemed more probable, vvho as they iudge this Euan­gelist to set forth the humanitie of Christ lesse then the rest, and his diuinitie more amply: so doe declare that these things vvhich are rehearsed by the other Euan­gelists concerning the institution, and outvvard cere­monie of this Sacrament, are not at all mentioned of Iohn; but that he openeth & expoundeth more plainly vnto vs the true and right vnderstanding of them. And it is plaine that the mindes of the Capernaites vvhen the Lord said, My flesh is verily meat; And vnlesse ye eat the flesh of the Sonne of man, &c. vvere much offended and trou­bled, and therefore leauing him departed, for they vn­derstood him too grosly, and after the common sort. But his Tvvelue Apostles that taried by him being ad­monished, and lift vp to a more higher meaning, and of more Maiestie, heard of him, The words which I haue spo­ken be spirit and life. Vpon this it commeth to passe, that all the old vvriters do flie the common iudgement and vsuall vnderstanding in those vvordes, This is my body, and vvhich the Lord spake of eating his flesh, and fol­lovv [Page 20] a more diuine vvay of vnderstanding them, and more agreeable to the Sacraments, as they themselues affirme.

Chrysost. in Matth. cap. 26. Hom. 83. Chrysostom vpon Matthew 26. hom. 83. expounding the vvords of the Supper, Take ye, eate ye, this is my body, &c. doth aske this question, Why were they not troubled vvhen they heard this? And he ansvvereth, Because he had taught them alreadie many and great things con­cerning this point before: Wherefore also hee did not confirme that vvhich they had often before perceiued. And not long after hee addeth, Hee himselfe did also drinke of it, least at the hearing of those vvordes, they should say, What? do vve then drinke blood, and eate flesh? and vpon that might be troubled; For at the first also when he spake of these matters, many vvere offen­ded onely for the wordes. Lest therefore this should then also haue happened, he did this first himselfe, that hee might bring them to the partaking of these myste­ries vvith a quiet minde. We be taught here by Chry­sostom, that the Apostles were not troubled when they heard the Lord say, Take ye, eat ye, this is my body; Because they had bene alreadie taught before, hovv that which vvas spoken ought to be vnderstood, namely where o­thers were offended, as it is in Iohn, & said, This is a hard saying, they abode and had learned, It is the Spirit that gi­ueth life, the flesh profiteth nothing; The wordes that I haue spoken vnto you, are spirit & life: that is to say, as the same Chrysostom in the same place expounded it, they are spi­ritually to bee vnderstood: which selfe thing the Lord himselfe confirmeth by his owne deed, vvhen hee did eat the same bread, & drinke the vvine vvith them, lest they should thinke vpon any base or common matter, but should be brought to the partaking of the mysteries with quiet minds. It is no hard matter to perceiue by [Page 21] this that Chrysostom vvriteth in this place, that it is one way a body, that Christ himselfe called his body when he said, Take ye, eat ye, this is my body, the which he also re­ceiueth himselfe together with his disciples; and ano­ther vvay to bee his proper body which was fed vvith the other. The one did eat, the other was eaten, & af­ter a diuers sort either of them is called his body.

To this purpose maketh also that vvhich Clemens A­lexandrinus schoolemaster to Origen, Clemens Alex­and. lib. inscrip. Paedagogus. teacheth in his booke, intituled Paedagogus, when he saith, [...]. The blood of Christ is two maner of wayes: the one fleshie where­by vve are vvashed, the other spirituall vvherevvith we haue bene anointed.Hierom. in Epi. ad Ephes. ca. 1. Whom Hierom follovving vpon the Epistle to the Ephesians the first chapter saith, The blood and flesh of Christ (saith he) is vnderstood tvvo maner of vvayes: that is, either that spirituall and hea­uenly, whereof he himselfe spake, My flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drinke; And vnlesse you eate my flesh and drinke my blood, you shall not haue euerlasting life: Or else the flesh and blood that vvas crucified, that was shed vvith the speare of the souldier. There bee tvvo things that Hierom teacheth in this place, That those vvords in the 6. chap. of Iohn, do appertaine to the Sa­crament, euen as Chrysostom doth: and that the flesh that vvas crucified, doeth differ from that vvhich is in the Sacrament, vvhich he calleth Spirituall & Diuine. The same man vpon Leuiticus, and is to be seen De consecrat. Idem. in Leuit. de consecrat. dist. 2. dist. 2. Of this sacrifice vvhich is by miracle vvrought for the remembrance of Christ it is lavvfull to eate: but of that which Christ offered vpon the Altar of the Crosse, it is of it self lavvful for no man to eat. A plaine and manifest distinction.

Augustin in lib. senten. Prosperi. August. in lib. Sent. Prosperi. It is his flesh vvhich co­uered [Page 22] with the forme of bread, we receiue in the Sacra­ment, and his blood which vnder the forme and tast of wine we drinke, that is to say, the flesh is the sacrament of flesh, and blood is the sacrament of blood. By flesh and blood being both inuisible, spirituall, intelligible, is betokened the visible & sensible body of our Lord Ie­sus Christ, full of the grace of all vertues & diuine Ma­iestie. Who seeth not hovv plainly Augustine putteth a difference between the proper body of Christ which he termeth visible and sensible, and that flesh which we receiue in the sacrament, vvhich he affirmeth to be in­uisible, spirituall, intelligible, and a signe of the other body?Idem in Epist. ad Iren. The same man in his Epistle to Irenaeus, You shall not eat this body which you see, and drinke that blood which they that shall crucifie me shall shed. The same truely, and not the same; The same inuisiblie, and not the same visibly. He putteth a difference when hee saith, Not this body: and againe, The same, & not the same. The maner of the difference is, the same inuisibly which hee termeth before the inuisible body, namely the Sacrament of the body: and not the same visibly, or the visible body, which is referred to the proper body: for this body wheresoeuer it be, is visible. The same man in his booke Sent. Prosperi: Idem in lib. Sent. Prosperi. Christ was once offered in himselfe, yet is hee daily offered in the Sacrament, which is thus to be vnderstood. That, in the outward shewing foorth of his body, in the distinction of all his members, very God, and very man, did but once hang vpon the Crosse, offering himselfe a liuely sacrifice to the Father. The body which is in the Sacrament, hath neither outward shewing forth of the body, nor distin­ction of members, but his proper body neuer wanteth his distinction of members.

Idem in Ps. 33.The same man vpon the 33. Psalme: And he was ca­ried [Page 23] in his owne hands. But my brethren, who can vn­derstand how this might be done in a man? For who can be caried in his owne hands? A man may well be caried in other mens hands, in his owne hands no man is caried. How it may be vnderstond in Dauid himselfe, according to the letter, we shall not finde, but in Christ wee shall finde it. For Christ was caried in his owne hands when he commending his owne body, said, This is my body; for that body was caried in his hands, and af­terward expounding himselfe better he saith, And hee was caried in his own hands. How was he caried in his owne hands? Because when he ment to cōmend that body and blood of his, hee tooke into his hands, that which the faithfull knew, and he caried himselfe after a sort, when he said, This is my body. In saying that body was caried in his hands, and he tooke into his handes that which the faithfull knew, and he bare himselfe af­ter a sort; he doeth declare that this saying is not to be vnderstand simply of one selfe body, but that body that did carie was one, namely his proper bodie, and that which was caried another, to say, the Sacrament of his body.

The same man vpon the 98. Psalme,Idem in Psal. 98. It seemed a hard saying to them, when he said, Vnlesse a man do eate my flesh, hee shall neuer haue euerlasting life. They tooke it foolishly, imagined of it fleshly, and thought that the Lord would haue cut certaine pieces out of his bodie to giue them, and they said, This is a hard saying. They themselues were hard, not the saying: for if they had not bene hard, but humble spirited, they would haue said within themselues; He speaketh not this without a cause, there is may hap a certaine hid Sacrament in it; They would haue taried with him meeke spirited, not hardned, and haue learned of him that which those [Page 24] that remained did learne when they were gone. For when his Twelue disciples abode with him after their departure, they seemed to bewaile to him the death of them, because they were offended at his wordes, and gone backe. But he instructed them & said vnto them, It is the Spirit that quickeneth, for the flesh profiteth nothing; The words that I haue spoken to you, are Spirit and life, Vn­derstand you that spiritually which I haue spoken to you. You shall not eate this bodie which you see, nei­ther shall you drinke the blood which they shall shed that crucifie me. I haue commended to you a certaine Sacrament. If it be spiritually vnderstood, it will giue you life. Although of necessitie it must be ministred vi­siblie, yet must it bee vnuisibly vnderstood, where hee saith, Not this bodie which you see, &c. And I haue commended a certaine Sacrament vnto you; hee ma­keth a plaine distinction betweene the two bodies, whereof one is properly his body, the other the Sacra­ment of his body.

Idem de doct. Christ. lib. 3.The same man, De doctrina Christiana lib 3. Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood, yee shall haue no life in you. Hee seemeth to command a hainous and wicked thing; therefore it is a figure commanding that wee must communicate with the passion of the Lord, & sweetly and profitably lay vp in remembrance that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. If we following the letter do vnderstand it, as the words doe properly sound, Hee seemeth (saith he) to command a hainous thing: therefore (hee saith) it is a figuratiue speach, and ought not to be vnderstood of the eating of his proper body, but of the Sacrament of his body, which is after a spirituall sort the body of Christ.

Idem ad Boni­fac. Epist. 23.The same man to Boniface in the 23. Epistle; For so wee speake, as when Easter draweth nie, wee say, To [Page 25] morrow, or the day after is the passion of Christ, whereas indeed he suffered so many yeeres before, and that passion hath not at all bene made but once. For vpon very Easter day we say, This day the Lord rose againe. whereas so many yeres are past since he rose a­gaine, Why is none so foolish to reproue vs, & say we lie in so saying? but because we call these dayes accor­ding to the similitude of those in which these things were done, so that it is called the same day, which is not the same, but by the course of time is like that, and it is said to bee done that day for the ministring of the Sacrament, which was not done that day, but long be­fore. Was not Christ once offered in himselfe? and yet in the Sacrament not onely at all the solemnities of Easter, but euery day he is offered to the people. And hee lieth not, that being asked the question, doeth an­swere that he is offered: For if the Sacraments should not haue a certaine likenesse of those things whereof they be Sacraments, they should be no Sacraments at all. And of this likenesse, they take the names often­times also of the things themselues. Euen as therefore after a certaine sort, the Sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ, and the sacrament of the blood of Christ, is the blood of Christ: so also the sa­crament of faith is faith. We see also in this place, that the proper body of Christ which was once offered, is discerned from that sacrament which is daily offered, and after a sort is the body.

The same S. Augustin, Idem de con­secrat. dist. 2. as it is to be found De consecrat. dist. 2. Whether is this mysticall sacrament of the cup vnder a figure, or vnder the trueth? The trueth saith, My flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drinke, else how shall it be a great matter; The bread which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the world, vnlesse it be very [Page 26] flesh in deed? But because it is not lawfull to deuoure Christ with teeth, the Lords will was that this bread and wine should be made potentially in a mysterie, his flesh and blood verily by the consecration of the holy Ghost, and should be daily offered mysticallie for the life of the world: That euen as very flesh was made of the Virgin by the holy Ghost, without the company of man; so also by the same through the substance of bread and wine, the same body is mysticallie consecra­ted. The body of Christ is both trueth and a figure; Trueth, while the body and blood of Christ, by the power of the holy Ghost in power of the same, is made of the substance of bread and wine: but the figure is that which is outwardly seene.

Here also Augustin doeth put a difference betweene the very flesh taken of the Virgin, and the trueth of the flesh that is made of the substance of bread and wine: for this (saith he) is daily created his very flesh, and of­fered in mysterie, which thing is not lawfull to be spo­ken of the very proper body of Christ. The same au­thor in the same booke, Vntill the end of the world the Lord is aboue: but yet the trueth of the Lord is for all that here with vs. For it is fit that the body wherein hee rose againe should bee in one place, but the trueth thereof is spread euery where. Doeth he not plainely teach, that the body wherein hee rose againe is one, which necessarily must be contained in one place, and that the trueth of his body is another, which is so farre spred abroad, as the sacrament is rightly ministred?

Here is moreouer to be noted, that the trueth of the Lords body is spoken two wayes, and ought two ma­ner wayes to bee vnderstood; for one maner of trueth of his body is required in mysterie, another simply and without mysterie.

[Page 27]Those words also of Augustin in the same place,Idem ibidem. De consecrat. dist. 2. Vtrum sub figura, &c. doe make for this purpose; That because we do now take the similitude of his death in our Baptisme, so also wee may take the similitude of his flesh and blood, so that the trueth should not be wanting in the sacrament, and yet be no laughing stocke to the Infidels for drinking the blood of a man slaine. He affirmeth the likenesse of flesh and blood to be coupled with the trueth in the sacrament: yet so as if one would vnderstand it properly to be the blood of a man slaine, wee drinke it not: for so might the infidels laugh vs to scorne.

He againe in the same title, Hoc est quod &c. Idem ibidem. Euen as therefore the heauenly bread, which is the flesh of Christ after his sort, is called the body of Christ, wher­as indeed it is the sacrament of Christs body, namely of that which was to be seene, handled, mortall, set vp­on the Crosse; and the sacrifice of the flesh which is made by the hands of the Priest, is called the passion of Christs death and crucifying, not in very deed, but by the signification of the mysterie: so the sacrament of faith which is meant Baptisme, is faith. Againe he tea­cheth plainely, that the body of Christ which is to be seene and felt is one thing, and that another, which af­ter his sort is called the body of Christ, whereas indeed it is a sacrament of that body of his which is to be seen and felt.Glossa ibidem. Whereupon the Glosse vpon the same place hath thus, The heauenly bread (that is to say) the hea­uenly sacrament which doth truely represent the flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ, but vnproperly; and therefore it is called after a peculiar maner, not in the trueth of the matter, but by the signification of the mysterie. And a little before,Idem ibidem. the same Glosse saith in the same place; The heauenly sacrament which is vp­on [Page 28] the Altar is vnproperly called the body of Christ, euen as Baptisme is vnproperly called faith.

August. ad Dard.To this agree those wordes that the same Augustin writeth to Dardanus in this wise: Keepe faithfully the Christian profession, That hee rose againe from the dead, He ascended into heauen, Sitteth on the Right-hand of the Father: Neither shall he come from any o­ther place then from thence to iudge the quicke and the dead; And so shal he come, (the voice of the Angel being witnesse) as hee was seene to goe into heauen, namely in the same forme and substance of flesh: vnto the which flesh hee hath assuredly giuen immortalitie, and not taken away the nature. After this forme he is not to be thought that he is euery where spred abroad: For we must take heed that wee affirme not so the di­uinitie of his manhood, that wee take away the trueth of his body.

Idem ibidem.Afterward in the end of the same Epistle; Doubt not that Christ our Lord the onely begotten Sonne of God, equall to the Father, euen that Sonne of man which is lesse then the Father, is both altogether pre­sent euery where as God, and also in some certaine place of heauen, for the measure of his true body. The trueth of Christs body, which in another place he said is euery where spred abroad when hee speaketh of the sacrament of his body, here where he entreateth of his true body indeed properly vnderstood, he denieth that according to that maner of body it is euery where spred abroad, but that so the trueth of his body is cleane taken away.

Augustin is not contrary to himselfe, but sheweth plainely ynough that the body, and the trueth of the body is to be taken two waies. Peraduenture I seeme to haue rehearsed ouer many places out of Austin, but [Page 29] yet this one place doe I thinke not to bee ouerpassed, which he hath left in writing vpon the Gospel of Iohn tract. 50. The poore haue ye alwayes with you, Idem in Ioan. tract. 50. but me shall you not haue alwayes. Let good men receiue this also, and not bee troubled: for hee spake of the presence of his body. For according to his Maiestie, according to his prouidence, according to his vnspeakeable and inui­sible grace, that is fulfilled which was said by him, Be­holde I am with you euery day, euen to the ende of the world. But according to the flesh, which the Word tooke vp­on him, according to that that he was borne of the Vir­gin, according to that, that hee was taken of the Iewes, that he was nailed to a tree, that hee was taken downe from the Crosse, that he was wrapped in linen clothes, that he was layed in the graue, that hee appeared in his resurrection, ye shall not alvvayes haue him with you. Why? Because according to the presence of his body, hee was conuersant vvith his disciples fourtie dayes, and they being in company vvith him, by seeing him and not follovving him, he ascended into heauen, and is not here, for he is there, he sitteth on the Right-hand of the Father: and here hee is also, for the presence of his Maiestie did not depart. After another sort accor­ding to the presence of his Maiestie, we haue Christ al­wayes. According to the presence of his flesh it vvas rightly said to the disciples, but mee shall you not haue al­wayes: for the Church had him a few dayes according to the presence of his flesh, and now keepeth him by faith, and seeth him not with eyes. Thus much out of Augustin.

Where Augustin speaketh of that which is properly called Christs body, he denieth that it is simply present here, and doeth refuse such a presence of his body: but when he speaketh of the Sacrament, hee doeth affirme [Page 30] that his body is verily present, and a true presence of his body, yet not properly, but, as he himselfe doeth in­struct vs, according to his Maiestie, according to his vnspeakeable & inuisible grace, whereof we wil speake more at large hereafter. It is plaine therefore, that the body of Christ in the sacrament is to bee vnderstood one way, and that an other way which of necessitie must be in some place of heauen, for the fourmes sake of a true body, as hee saith. Now let vs goe forward to other.

Gregor. Nazi­anz. oratione de Pasch. Gregorie Nazianzene in his Oration of the feast of Easter, saith thus, But let vs be made partakers of the Passeouer, but yet still figuratiuely, albeit this Passeo­uer be more manifest then the old. For truly the Passe­ouer of the Law (I speake boldly) was a more darke figure of a figure: but within a while wee shall enioy it more perfect and manifest, when the Sonne the Word it selfe, shall drinke it new with vs in the kingdome of his Father, opening and teaching vs those things which he hath now shewed sparingly. Here Nazianzene cal­led the sacrament of Thankesgiuing a more manifest Passeouer then the Passeouer of the Law: yet still for all that a figure, namely of that which wee shall enioy more perfit and manifest in the kingdome of his Fa­ther. This Passeouer therefore which is performed in mysterie, doeth differ from that which remaineth for euer, wherewith wee shall bee satisfied in the world to come.

Gregor. in hom. Pasch.The other Gregorie in his Homily of the Passeouer: This wholesome sacrifice doeth renew to vs by a my­sterie the death of the onely begotten Sonne: which al­though he rising againe from death dieth no more, nor death shall haue any more dominion ouer him, yet hee liuing immortally, and vncorruptibly in himselfe, dieth [Page 31] againe in this mysterie, and his body is also receiued e­uery where, and his flesh for the health of the people, his blood is not now shed into the hands of the vnfaith­full, but is powred out in the mouth of the faithfull. By this therefore we may iudge what maner of sacrament this is, which for our absolution doeth alwayes repre­sent the Passion of the onely begotten Sonne. For what faithfull man can doubt, that in the very houre of the sacrifice, at the voyce of the Priest, the heauens open, and the company of Angels be present in the mysterie of Iesus Christ? This Gregorie maketh a difference be­tweene this sacrifice, and the other, and doeth also shew that this death, this passion, this body, which things be done in this mysterie, doe represent and imitate those things which were done long agoe. For if you follow the letter, his body is not spred out euery where, nor his flesh suffereth, nor dieth any more, although these things be said to be done in mysterie.

The same opinion had Eusebius Emissenus, Euseb. Emis. de consecrat. dist. 2. whose wordes are rehearsed De consecrat. Dist. 2. as followeth. Forasmuch as hee would take away from the eyes the body taken of the Virgin, and would place it aboue the starres; it was necessary that in the day of his Supper, the sacrament of his body and blood should bee conse­crated vnto vs, to the end that that might be worship­ped continually by a mysterie, which was once offered for a ransome: that seeing a dayly and vnceasing re­demption did runne for the saluation of all men, there might be a continuall oblation of redemption, and that continuall sacrifice might liue in memorie, and might euer be present in grace, a true, perfect, and onely sacri­fice to be esteemed in faith, not to bee iudged by forme nor by outward sight, but by the inward affection. Whereupon the heauenly authoritie confirmeth, that [Page 32] My flesh is verily meat; and my blood is verily drinke.

Let all doubt therefore of vnfaithfulnes depart, see­ing he that is the author of the gift, the same is witnes of the trueth: for the inuisible Priest by his word and se­cret power, turneth the visible creature, into the sub­stance of his body and blood, saying, Take, eate, this is my body, and after the blessing being repeated, Take and drinke (saith he) this is my blood. Therefore euen as at the becke of the Lord commanding it, suddenly, and of nothing the hie heauens, the depth of the waters, and largenesse of the earth was made: so by the like power in spiritual sacraments, where power doeth command, effect doth obey. By plaine words doth Eusebius teach vs, that the proper body which he termeth taken vpon him, is not in the sacrament, but withdrawen from the earth, placed aboue the starres: and therefore is or­dained the sacrament of the body, wherein is contai­ned the substance of the body, yet in a mysterie and by grace, not that substance which hee said before was ta­ken away, which if it were present, the sacrament were not needfull; but a spirituall substance, and fit for the sacraments, whereupon hee also calleth the sacraments spirituall. And lest we should imagine it a more grosse substance then is fit, hee alledgeth foorthwith the ex­ample of regeneration, saying, How great benefit ther­fore, and worthy to be praised, the force of the heauen­ly blessing doeth worke, and how it ought not to bee a new and vnpossible matter to thee, that earthly & mor­tal things be changed into the substance of Christ, aske thy selfe that art new borne againe in Christ. Lately farre from life, a stranger from mercie, and inwardly a dead man, from the way of health thou wast banished; and suddenly professing the Lawes of Christ, and by wholesome mysteries renewed, thou hast leapt into the [Page 33] body of the Church, not by sight, but by beleefe, and of the childe of perdition wast thought worthy by a secret purenesse, to be the Sonne of God by adoption, abiding still in the visible measure, and made inuisibly greater then thy selfe, without increase of quantitie. For al­though thou wast the very selfe-same man before, yet by augmentation of faith, thou art become much o­therwise: for in the outward man nothing is added, and all in the inward man is cleane changed, and so man was made the sonne of God, and Christ was for­med in the minde of man. Euen as therefore without corporall feeling (the former basenesse set apart) thou hast suddenly put on a new dignitie; and as in this point that God hath healed those things that were a­misse in thee, put away thine infections, wiped away thy spots, thy eyes are not trusted vvithall, but thy in­ward senses: so when thou goest vp to the holy Altar, to be fed with the spirituall meat, behold in thy faith the holy body and blood of Christ, honour it, marueile at it, touch it with thy minde, take it in the hand of thy heart, and especially receiue it, whole Christ, with the thirstie draught of the inward man.

Eusebius declareth by this similitude, what maner of change is made in the sacrament, how earthly things be turned into the substance of Christ, and what maner of substance that is: without doubt, like vnto that change wherewith wee be altered in our Baptisme, and such a substance as wee put on in the bath of Regeneration, when we be borne the children of God, and made a new creature, and new men, when we passe into the bo­dy of the Church, where in our outward part nothing is changed, but all inwardly, and for that cause calleth he it spirituall food, which we behold in faith, touch with minde, take with the hand of our heart, and re­ceiue [Page 34] with the thirstie draught of the inward man.

Ambros. in E­pist. ad Hebr. de consecrat. dist. 2.With this agreeth that that Ambrose writeth vpon the Epistle to the Hebrewes, and is repeated De consecrat dist. 2. In Christ was once a mighty sacrifice offered for an euerlasting Redemption: vvhat doe vve then? doe vve not dayly offer him? yes, but in remembrance of his death: and it is but one sacrifice, not many: for Christ vvas once offered, and this sacrifice is a paterne of that. Ambrose saith plainely, that that true sacrifice vvas once offered, but this sacrifice is offered euery day: and hee declareth in vvhat sort it is one sacrifice, and not one, vvhen he saith that this is a paterne of that. The same man in his booke of Mysteries saith,Idem in lib. de Myst. In that sacrament is Christ, because it is the body of Christ: it is not then a corporall, but a spirituall food, vvhereupon the Apo­stle also saith of the figure of it, That our fathers did eate the same spirituall food, for the body of God is a spiritual body, the body of Christ is the body of the diuine spi­rit. These things cannot be said of Christes true and proper body, namely, that it is a spirit: for a spirit hath not flesh and blood, vvhich that body hath, as the Lord himselfe did vvitnesse before his disciples, Feele yee, and see you (saith he) for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me haue. Idem de Sacr. lib. 4. Wherefore the same auctour De sacramen­tis lib. 4. saith thus: Thou seest therefore hovv mighty in operation the vvord of Christ is. If then there be so great force in the vvord of the Lord Iesu, that those things should begin to be which were not: hovv much more is it of force, to make those things remaine which were, and yet to change them into another thing? The heauen was not, the sea was not, the earth was not. But hearken to him that saith, He spake the word and they were made, he commanded and they were created. Therefore that I may ansvvere thee, it was not the body of Christ be­fore [Page 35] the consecration, but after the consecration I tell thee it is now the body of Christ. He spake the word and it was made, he commanded and it was created Thou wast thy self, but thou wast an old creature; after thou wast consecrated, thou didst beginne to be a new creature. Wilt thou know how new a creature? Euery one is (saith he) a new creature in Christ. Ambrose taketh his argument à maiore, By the word of God new things are made: then is it no marueile, if things which now be, and remaine, are changed into another thing by his word, vvhich thing is done in Sacraments. Examples of the first are Heauen, the Sea, the Earth: of the later, man, which before he be regenerate is an old creature, but after regeneration, by force of the word, albeit he be the very same he vvas before, namely a man still, yet he receiueth an invvard change, and of an old, is made a new creature.

Like vnto this he affirmeth the change in the sacra­ment to bee, when as both bread remaineth, and yet getteth to it selfe a nevv substance (that is to say) a new dignitie. That same thing doth hee yet more fully ex­pound in his sixt booke, writing thus:Idem de sacra­ment. lib. 6. Peraduenture thou mayest say, How is it very flesh? for I see a simili­tude, I see not the trueth of blood in deed. First of all, I told thee of the vvord of Christ, that it worketh as of force, to change and alter the appointed kindes of na­ture. Moreouer, when the disciples of Christ could not away with his talke, but hearing that hee vvould giue them his flesh to eate, and his blood to drinke, went their way; yet Peter alone said, Thou hast the words of eternall life, whither shall I goe from thee? Least there­fore any moe should so say, but the grace of Redemp­tion should remaine; Therefore thou takest the sacra­ment in a similitude, but thou doest attaine the grace [Page 36] and vertue of the true nature. At the last he addeth to make vp the matter; And thou which receiuest bread, art made partaker in that spirituall food, of the diuine substance.

We learne by the authoritie of this so great a man, that that which we take in the sacrament, is a spiritual, not a corporall food; neither that that flesh is to be ta­ken after the maner of his proper flesh, as the Capernaits did, and vvith offence went backe, but together with the outvvard signe we obtaine the grace and vertue of the true nature, and receiuing the bread are partakers of his diuine substance. And here also we see that Am­brose was of the same opinion that Emissenus was, and far otherwise vnderstandeth both the alteration which is made in the sacraments, and also the very terme of substance, then it is either taken in proper speach, or as Philosophers do naturally speake.

Idem de offic. lib. 4. cap. 48.To the same purpose serueth also that which he wri­teth in his booke De officijs lib. 4. cap. 48. Here is the sha­dovv, here is the image; there is the trueth: the shadow in the Lavv, the image in the Gospel: but the trueth in heauen. In time past the Lambe was offered, the calfe vvas offered; Novv is Christ offered: but he is offered as man, as taking his Passion, but hee as a Priest doeth offer himselfe here as in an image, but there in trueth, where hee maketh intercession for vs, as an aduocate vvith his Father. Hee putteth a difference in the one oblation from the other. And albeit both (after their maner) be done in deed, yet this vvhich is solemnized in the Church, is done in an Image, but the trueth it selfe remaineth as an Aduocate for vs vvith the Father.

And this place of Ambrose doeth seeme to be like to that place of Origen vpon the 38.Origen in Psal. 38. Psalme, vvhere he in­treateth of that saying of Paul, For the Law hauing a sha­dow [Page 37] of those good things to come, hath not the very Image of the things &c. And thus he vvriteth: But if any man can passe from this shadovv, let him come to the Image of the things, and see the comming of Christ made in the flesh; Let him behold that hie Priest, both novv offer­ing sacrifices to the Father, & that shall hereafter offer; And let him vnderstand all these things to be the Ima­ges of spirituall things, and that heauenly things be no­ted by corporall Offices. It is therefore called an I­mage vvhich is receiued for the present time, and may be discerned by the nature of man. If thou canst vvith thought and mind pearce the heauens, and follovv IE­SVS vvho hath pearced the heauens, and is novv pre­sent before the face of God for vs, there shalt thou find those good things of vvhich the Lavv had a shadovv, and Christ shevved the Image in the flesh, vvhich are prepared for the blessed, vvhich neither eye hath seene, nor eare heard, nor ascended into the heart of man: vvhich things vvhen thou shalt see, thou shalt vnder­stand that he that vvalketh in them, and continueth in desire and earnest affection after them, such a one vval­keth not novv in an Image, but in the very trueth it selfe. Origen writeth to the learned and practised, and therefore not easie to be vnderstood of all men. Not­vvithstanding, he shevveth plainely that the sacrifices vvhich be here offered, be Images of that trueth vvhich pearced to heauens, and abiding before the face of God is intercessor for vs: And therefore that the I­mages of the trueth be one thing, and the very trueth another. And that although these Images haue also their trueth, yet this differeth from that proper trueth vvhich vve shall there indeed attaine to, vvhen vve fol­lovving Christ, shall pearce the heauens vvhere hee a­bideth; the vvhich after a sort vvee also enioy here, [Page 38] while in our deuout meditations our mindes being lift vp to heauen, we behold those secret good things. He also vpon Matthew cap. 15. Idem in Mat. cap. 15. saith: Neither is it the mate­rial bread, but the word that is spoken ouer it, that pro­fiteth to him that eateth not vnvvorthily of the Lord. And these things are spoken of the figuratiue and my­sticall body.

Many things beside may be said of the Word which was made flesh. Here Origen doeth declare, that the true flesh, (that is to say) the true nature of man, which Christ being the Word tooke vnto him, to bee one maner of flesh, and an other thing to bee his figuratiue and symbolical body, with which words he calleth the Sacrament. To this purpose serue the wordes that he writeth Contra Celsum lib. 8. Idem contra Celsum lib. 8. We obeying the Maker of all things for his great benefits bestovved vpon vs, when we haue giuen Thankes, are fed with the loaues set before vs, which by intercession and prayers are made a certaine more holy body. These words, A cer­tain more holy body, do not agree to the proper body of Christ, but they agree to the sacrament of Thankes­giuing, which after a certaine maner is his body. The same man vpon Leuiticus Homil. 7. Idem in Leuit. Homil. 7. expoundeth the same matter more plainely, saying: But you if ye be the chil­dren of the Church, if you bee indued with the myste­ries of the Gospel, if the Word made flesh dvvelleth in you; acknowledge you these things which we speake, that they be the Lords, lest peraduenture he that is ig­norant, be ignorant still: Acknowledge that they be fi­gures which be written in the holy Volumes, & there­fore examine them as spiritual, & not carnall men, and vnderstand those things which bee spoken: For if you take those things as carnal men, they hurt you, and doe not nourish you. For there is also in the Gospel a let­ter [Page 39] that killeth: The killing letter is not onely found in the olde Testament. There is also a letter in the nevv Testament that can kill him which will not spiritually marke those things that bee spoken. For if thou follow this that hath bene spoken, according to the letter, Vn­lesse ye eat my flesh and drinke my blood, this letter slayeth. Seeing then the Authors euery where referre these wordes to the sacrament; and Origen commandeth so much to flee the letter, as to say that it killeth: Who seeth not, that Christes flesh is in the sacrament one way to bee vnderstood, and another according to the letter, and in proper speech?

Epiphanius in Anchor [...]to is of the same opinion,Epiphanius in Anchorato. where he saith: For wee see that our Sauiour tooke into his hands, as the Gospel cōtaineth, that he rose in the Sup­per, and tooke these things, and when hee had giuen Thankes, he said, This is mine, &c. And we see that it is not equal, nor like, neither to the Image that is in flesh, nor to his inuisible Godhead, nor to the features of his members: for this is of a round fashion and without sence, as much as to the povver of it selfe appertaineth. And therefore his will was to speake by grace, This is mine, &c. And euery man beleeueth his saying: for he that beleeueth not that he is true as he hath said, hee is fallen from grace and health. But that which we haue heard wee beleeue that it is his: for vve know that our Lord is altogether sence, all indued with sence, all God, all moouing, all working, all light, all incompre­hensible; but yet he, that hath giuen vs this with grace. Epiphanius doeth in this place endeuour himselfe to proue, that man being made after the Image of God, hath in deed the Image of God, not according to the proper nature of diuinitie, but after grace; and vseth the similitude taken of the Sacrament of Thankesgi­uing, [Page 40] the which according to the proper nature of a body, he denieth it to be the body of Christ, since it hath neither the forme of a true body, and lacketh fee­ling and mouing, and yet it is verily beleeued to be his body by grace.

Cyprian de Coena D mini. Cyprian also in his sermon of the Supper of the Lord, doeth very godly and plentifully reason to the same ef­fect, out of the which I haue thought sufficient to touch these fevv places. For none of the Fathers haue more extolled the dignitie of the Sacrament, and shut­ting out all carnall sence, more plainely declared the true vnderstanding of so great a mysterie. An vncon­suming meat (saith hee) the Master did set before his disciples: neither were the people bidden to a sumptu­ous and cunningly dressed Banquet, but there is giuen an immortall food differing from common meates, re­taining the shape of bodily substance, but prouing by inuisible vvorking, that the diuine vertue is present. Againe, There did sometime arise a question (as it is read in the Gospel of Iohn) of the noueltie of this word, and at the doctrine of this Mysterie were the hearers amazed, vvhen the Lord said, Vnlesse you eate of the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drinke his blood, you shall not haue life in you: Because certaine, for that they did not yet be­leeue, nor could vnderstand, went backe, for that it see­med to them an horrible and hainous thing to feed vp­on mans flesh, thinking hee had spoken this after that sort, as though they should haue bene taught to haue eaten his flesh sod, or rosted, and cut in pieces: where­as the flesh of his person, if it should bee deuided into morsels, could not haue bene sufficient for all man­kinde, which being once spent, Religion should seeme to perish, vvhich should not haue aftervvard a sacrifice remaining any longer. But in such like thoughts flesh [Page 41] and blood profiteth nothing, because as the Master himselfe hath expounded, These words be Spirit and life: neither doth the carnall sense pearse the vnderstanding of so great a depth, vnlesse Faith be added too. The Bread is food, the Blood is life, the Flesh substance, the Body the Church. A body, because of the agreeing of members in one; Bread, for the conformitie of nou­rishment; Blood, for the effect of life giuen; Flesh, for the propertie of the humanitie taken. Also hee sayth, This common bread beeing changed into flesh and blood, doeth procure life and encrease to the bodies, and therefore by the accustomed effect of things, the weakenesse of our faith is aided, and taught by a sensi­ble argument, that the effect of eternall life is in the vi­sible Sacraments, and that we be knit to Christ not so much by corporall, as by spirituall passage. Also this bread which hee reached to his disciples, beeing chan­ged, not in forme but in nature, by the omnipotencie of the Word is made flesh; and euen as in the person of Christ the humanitie was seene and the diuinitie hid, so into the visible Sacrament vnspeakeably doeth the diuine substance powre it selfe. Also the Master truely of this Institution sayd, that Vnlesse wee should eate and drinke his blood, we should not haue life in vs: in­structing vs by a spirituall lesson, and opening our vn­derstanding to so hidden a matter, that wee should knowe that our eating is an abiding in him, and our drinke as it were a certaine incorporation, by submit­ting our seruice, and ioyning our willes, and vniting our affections. Also hee sayth, Among the guests of the Lords table the natural man is not admitted; what­soeuer flesh and blood doeth appoint is shut out from this company, it sauoureth nothing, it profiteth no­thing, whatsoeuer the finenes of the sence of man doth [Page 42] goe about. Cyprian hath these and many other places to the same purpose. The very words of Cyprian doe sufficiently declare that which belongeth to our pur­pose: How the Letter is not to bee followed in these things which be spoken of this mysterie; how the vn­derstanding of the Flesh is vtterly to be shunned, and all things to be referred to a spiritual sense: That there is the presence of the diuine power in this Bread, the effect of euerlasting life, and that the diuine substance is powred thereinto; that the words are spirit and life, that a spirituall lesson is giuen; that this Body, this Blood and Flesh, this substance of body, ought not to be taken after a common sort, nor as mans reason doth appoint, but to be named, thought of, beleeued for certaine excellent effects, powers and properties ioy­ned thereto, which be euen within the body and blood of Christ by nature; namely, that it doeth both feede and reuiue our soules, and prepareth our bodies to re­surrection and immortalitie.

Cyrill. in Ioan. lib. 4. cap. 14.The same opinion hath also Cyrillus, who though he affirme in many places, the trueth and nature of the body of Christ to be in the Sacrament; yet hee is in opinion, that it is a spiritual and diuine matter, and not to be vnderstood after the manner of men. For first he declareth, that the same maner of eating is set foorth in the words of the Lords Supper, which the Lord him­selfe signified when he said, Vnlesse you eat the flesh of the Sonne of man, &c. For so he writeth in his 4. booke vp­on the 14. Chap. of Iohn: Where after he had spoken somewhat of them that did say, How can this man giue his flesh to be eaten? hee addeth these words; Therefore they ought first to haue set the rootes of faith in their minde, and then to seeke for those things that are to be sought for of man: but they, before they would be­leeue, [Page 43] did seeke importunately. For this cause there­fore, the Lord did not open, how it might be, but ex­horteth to seeke it by faith. So to his disciples that be­leeued, he gaue the pieces of bread, saying, Take ye, and eate ye, this is my body. The cup also in like maner he ca­ried about, saying, Drinke yee all of this: This is the cup of my blood, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins. Thou seest manifestly, that by no meanes he would de­clare the maner of the mysterie to them that sought it without faith: but to them that did beleeue, and did not seeke it, he plainely declared it. Likewise in cap. 21.Idem in cap. 21 vp­on these words, This is a hardsaying, thus he saith: And such as want sharpenesse of wit, are wont to abhorre knowledge, which should be sought with great study, and much labour: but yet the spirituall man accusto­med to the Lords doctrine, as to great dainties, doth continually sing, How sweet be thy words vnto my throat! yea aboue hony to my mouth. But the naturall Iew doeth thinke this spirituall mysterie full of foolishnesse; and where by the Lords words he is stirred to an higher vn­derstanding of things, yet he falleth still to his accusto­med madnesse. Likewise in his cap. 22. expounding these words, Doeth this offend you? Idem in cap. 22 &c. hee writeth on this sort. For ignorance, many which followed Christ, not vnderstanding his words, were troubled: for when they heard him say, Verely, verely, I say vnto you, vnlesse ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drinke his blood, you shall not haue life in you, they thought Christ had cal­led them to the cruel maners of beasts, and stirred them to eate the rawe flesh of a man, and to drinke blood, which be euen horrible to heare. For they had not yet knowen the maner of this mysterie, and the godly mi­nistration thereof. Also in the 24. chapter.Idem cap. 24. The words therefore that I haue spoken to you bee spirit, that is [Page 44] spirituall, and of the spirit, and life, that is to say, they be of the liuely and naturall life.Idem ad Calo­syrium. The same mans words are rehearsed to Calosyrius, which follow. For least we should abhorre flesh and blood set vpon the holy Al­tars, God fauouring our frailty, powred into the things offered the power of life, turning them into the trueth of his owne flesh, that a body of life, as it were a cer­taine seed that giueth life, might be found in vs.

By these and many other places in Cyrillus, we be lift vp from the letter to the spirite, from the sence of the naturall man, to a more hie vnderstanding of a spiritu­all mysterie. It must not be thought here, that we eate the rawe flesh of a man, or drinke his blood, but that the words bee spirituall, and spiritually to bee vnder­stood, that they be termed flesh and blood, but ought to be vnderstood of spirit and life, that is to say, of the vertue of the Lords flesh that giueth life: And therfore saide hee that the povver of life was put into the out­ward signes,Idem in Ioan. lib. 11. cap. 26. and called it by an apt signification the body of life. The same man vpon Iohn lib. 11. cap. 26. doth expound somewhat more plainely, how wee be coupled corporally both with Christ and with our selues, and that by the partaking of the sacrament, al­though we be seuered both in body and soule. It must be considered, saith he, whether to the vnitie of con­sent and will wee may also finde a naturall vnity, by which we shall be lincked among our selues, and we all vnto God. For peraduenture we are ioyned also with corporall vnion, although we be seuered one from a­nother, that ech one apart hath his being and distance of place. For although Peter and Paul be one by vnity in Christ, yet Peter is not Paul. Afterward within few words hee thus concludeth; The originall therefore, and the way whereby wee bee partakers of the holy [Page 45] Ghost, and vnited to God, is the mysterie of Christ, for we bee all sanctified in him. Therefore, that hee might vnite vs one to another, and euery one to God, although we bee seuered both in body and soule, yet hath hee found a vvay agreeable to the counsell of his Father, and to his ovvne wisedome. For hee blessing those as beleeue, with his body, through the mysticall communion doeth make vs both with himselfe, and al­so among our selues, one body. It is plaine that Cyrillus spake not of the same kind of body, when he saith, Al­though they bee seuered in body and soule, yet they which beleeue, through the body of Christ, and by the mysticall communion be made one body with Christ, and betvveene themselues. For euen as the faithfull, being ioyned in that spirituall body, are one body, al­though their proper bodies remaine seuered: Euen so also wee being ioyned with Christ in that spirituall body, are made one body with him, although his ovvne proper body bee farre distant from our bodies. Let vs adde one place more taken out of this Father,Idem in lib. ad Euop. Anat. 11 which is in his booke Ad Euoptium Anath. 11. where he speaketh thus of Nestorius. Doeth not he pronounce this mysterie to be [...], that is a deuouring of mans flesh, and violently driue the mindes of the faithfull, without conscience, into false interpretations, and with mans inuentions take those things in hand, which are receiued by an onely pure, and vnsearchable faith? Cyrillus doth in this place obiect against Nestorius, That to maintaine this error, he did speake too grosly of the Sacrament, as though the faithfull doe properly there­in eate mans flesh, which by the Greeke word hee cal­leth [...]: But such kind of thoughts hee termeth [...], that is to say, as Budaeus doeth interpret it, coun­terfeite, not right, not sincere: For so much as here is [Page 46] no place for such kinde of worldly and common ima­ginations.

We ought to thinke the like of Theophylactus, who although in some place he may seeme to haue follovv­ed a more grosse opinion, as vpon Matthew the 26. Chapter, whose words wee haue aboue rehearsed, wherein he seemeth to denie, that the bread of the Sa­crament of thankesgiuing, is a figure of the Lords bo­dy, but the very body indeede; yet when he saith, It is no figure, he meaneth that it is not onely a figure, as in another place, where vpon Marke and Iohn it is read: for else hee should haue repugned against all the olde Writers (and that is not likely) who throughout, terme this Sacrament a figure, an image, a signe and patterne. Besides, in that he said it was the body in ve­ry deede, his meaning was not to haue it taken after a worldly and common sort, as it shall manifestly ap­peare by those things that follow: for he writing vpon these words in the sixt Chapter of Iohn, Theophylac. in Ioan. cap. 6. The Iewes there­fore did striue among themselues, saying, How can this man giue vs his flesh to eate? saith thus: It behoueth vs there­fore, after that wee heare, vnlesse yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, yee shall haue no life, in taking the heauenly mysteries to keepe stedfast and vnwauering faith, and not to be inquisitiue how. For the naturall man, that is, hee that follovveth mans carnall and naturall thoughts, is not apt to conceiue such matters as bee a­boue nature and spirituall, and euen so he doth not vn­derstand the spirituall eating of the Lords flesh, where­of who so bee not partakers, shall not bee partakers of euerlasting life. And by and by hee expoundeth thus these words, Hee that eateth my flesh, &c. In this place vve learne the Sacrament of the communion. For he that eateth and drinketh the Lords flesh and blood, [Page 47] abideth in the Lord himselfe, and the Lord in him: for there is a new mixture made, and aboue reason, so that God is in vs, and wee in God. Here the Author tea­cheth, that faith must be had in the mysteries, and not to be inquisitiue how: and therewithall he remoueth apart mans carnall or naturall thoughts, and requireth onely a spirituall meaning, and commendeth a more hie maner of eating. For he addeth not long after vp­on these words, This is a hard saying, who can heare him? &c. But see their folly; For their duetie had been, to haue asked, and learned those things whereof they were ignorant. But they drew backe, and did expound nothing spiritually, but all things as they outwardly appeared. For in as much as they heard of flesh, they thought he would compell them to be [...], that is, deuourers of flesh and blood. But because we vnder­stand it spiritually, neither wee bee deuourers of flesh, and yet be we sanctified by such meate. By and by al­so expounding this, It is spirit that quickeneth, thus he writeth: Because, as we haue often sayd, they that car­nally expounded such things as Christ spake, were of­fended: he sayth, When those things that I speake are spiritually vnderstood, that onely bringeth profit: but the flesh, that is to say, to expound them carnally, pro­fiteth nothing, but is occasion of offence. So there­fore such as heard carnally those things that Christ spake, were offended. He addeth therefore, The words which I speake are spirit, that is to say, they be spirituall, and life, (hauing nothing that is carnall) and bringing euerlasting life. Let vs adde hereunto those things which he writeth vpon Marke 14. cap. 1. For the bread is not onely a figure, and a certaine patterne of the Lords body, but it is turned into the very body of Christ. For the Lord sayth, The bread which I will giue, [Page 48] is my flesh. And againe, Vnlesse ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, &c. And how, saith he, is not the flesh seene? O man, this is done for our infirmitie. For since the bread and wine bee of those things which we be ac­quainted withall, we abhorre them not: but if wee should see blood and flesh set before vs, we could not abide it, but should vtterly abhorre it. Therefore God of his mercie fauouring our frailtie, retaineth still the forme of bread and wine, but he altereth the element into the power of flesh and blood. By all these places it is most certaine, that Theophylactus followed the steps of the ancient fathers, set aside all carnall imaginations in this Sacrament, & called vs to such as be hie and spi­rituall, that it is not only a figure of the Lords bodie, but rather is verely his body, & yet they that be parta­kers are not [...], that is to say, flesh eaters: And he addeth the cause, for that we vnderstand it not carnally but spiritually, that is to say, that they remaine the formes of bread and wine, but yet do passe into the po­wer of the Lords flesh and blood, and, as he tearmed it, be transelemented, in which tearme there is no cause why we should faine to our selfe any Popish Transub­stantiation as they cal it.Idem in Ioan. cap. 6. For writing vpon the 6. Chap­ter of Iohn, he vseth the same terme, saying thus: Ther­fore euen as I, saith he, liue for the Father, that is, as I am borne of the Father, which is life: euen so also, he that eateth me, liueth by the meanes of me, while he is after a sort mixed with me, and is transelemented into me that can quicken. By this terme of transelementatiō he meant to signifie nothing els, but the same change that is fit for the Sacraments: wherof Ambrose, Emissenus and others make mention, as before we haue repeated: for otherwayes wee cannot be transelemented into Christ. And no maruell that Theophylactus so tearmed [Page 49] it, since Chrysostom himselfe vpon the sixt chap. of Iohn, homilia 45. vseth these wordes:Chrysost. in Ioan. cap. 6. homil. 45. But that we should not onely by loue, but also in very deed bee turned into that flesh, hee hath wrought it by the meate which hee hath giuen vs. Behold, Chrysostome saith, we are turned into the flesh of Christ really, as I may so terme it: But yet who seeth not that turning to be spirituall, not car­nal? Euen so is bread turned in very deede, and trans­elemented into Christes flesh, but by a spiritual and no carnall turning, because the bread doeth get to it the power of the flesh. And these things which haue bene thus cited out of Theophylactus, albeit he be not so anci­ent an authour, yet because hee is chiefly alleaged of such as followe the carnall sence in the sacrament of thankesgiuing, though hee doth very manifestly ex­pound himselfe, and teacheth nothing repugnant to holy Scriptures and writings of old Authors, I meant to shew the true opinion of so learned a man, and not to discredit his authoritie as a late writer.

Damascenus is yet vnspoken of, whom the aduersaries vse as it were a chief champion: but in case they would not snatchingly picke out such sentences as serue the humor of their affections, but marke well the through drift of his writing; he helpeth not so much their cause as he doth ouerthrow it. Albeit (that I may frankely admonish the reader and vtter mine opinion) he is but a very slippery and an vncertain author in expounding of this mysterie, and none, I dare say, among the olde writers, shall be found, that hath reasoned of this mat­ter so obscurely and doubtfully. Truely I gather by him, that vvhen hee had determined to write a breuiat of the true faith, hee vvould neither leaue this sacra­ment vnspoken of, nor yet vvist how to intreate of it plainely enough: The vvhich of his ovvne vvords the [Page 50] indifferent reader shall easily iudge.Damas. De fide Orthod. lib. 4. cap. 14. He vvriteth De fi­de orthod. lib. 4. cap. 14. of Christ in this vvise: It behoo­ued, not onely that the first fruits of our nature should come into the partaking of a better, but that all per­sons, as many as would, should both be borne by a se­cond natiuitie, and nourished with a nevv meat, meet for that natiuity, and so preuent the measure of perfe­ction. And a litle after: And because he is a spirituall Adam, it behoued the natiuitie also to be spirituall, and likewise the meate. For since vvee haue a double and compound nature, it is fitte that the natiuitie bee also double, and the food likevvise compound. The nati­uitie therefore is giuen vs by vvater and spirit, I meane by holy Baptisme: but the meate is our Lord himselfe Iesus Christ, vvhich came dovvne from heauen. Then after alleaging the vvordes of the Lords Supper, and proofes of vvhat force the vvord is, he addeth: Euen as all things vvhatsoeuer God had made, he hath made them by the vvorking of the holy Ghost: so novv also the same force of the holy Ghost bringeth to passe those things that be aboue nature, the vvhich no thing can comprehend but onely faith. And a little after: But bread and vvine bee taken: For God knovveth mans vveakenes: For commonly those things vvhich it is not acquainted vvith, it shunneth vvith loathsom­nesse. Therfore he humbled himselfe after his wonted maner, and bringeth to passe by the accustomed things of nature, such things as bee aboue nature. And euen as in Baptisme, because it is the maner of men to bee washed vvith vvater, and anointed vvith oyle, he cou­pled vvith oile and vvater the grace of the holy Ghost, and made it to be the vvashing of regeneration: After the same sort, because men are vvont to eate bread and drinke vvine and vvater, he coupled therevvithall his [Page 51] Diuinitie, and made them his body and blood, that by matters vsuall and agreeable to nature, we may be cari­ed to those things which passe nature. Hitherto hee seemed to agree with the rest; for such as the second natiuitie is, such, saith he, is the meate: He termeth the natiuitie spirituall, likewise also the meat: The natiui­tie to be double, through water and the holy Ghost, the meat also double: but how it is double hee allea­geth not forthwith, as hee did in the natiuity, but the meate, saith he, is the very bread of life which came downe from heauen: yet after a few wordes he decla­reth howe it is done, saying, As the water is coupled with the grace of the holy Ghost, and is made the wa­shing of regeneration: so is the diuinitie coupled with the bread, and is made the body & blood of the Lord. And this hee affirmeth to be the working of the holy Ghost, and that the bread and wine be taken for mans infirmitie, and by matters vsual to nature, those things bee wrought that passe nature, which onely faith can comprehend. None of these things be contrary to the opinion of the other Fathers: but those things that follow be not so. It is verely his body, saith he, that is knit with the diuinitie, that body taken of the holy Virgin. This before him no man had said. If his mea­ning be of the proper body, the authoritie of the Fa­thers that were before him cryeth out against him, which plainely affirme that body to be taken from the earth, caried aboue the starres, and not to be here: who also with manifest difference doe separate that body from the sacrament of the bodie, vnlesse peraduenture we may so interprete it, as that saying of Augustine, The same body, and not the same body: the same by grace and power, and not the same according to the proper maner of a body: the which it may seeme that [Page 52] this Authors meaning was when he writ this. For by and by there followeth: Not that the body that was taken of the Virgin, should come down from heauen, but that the very bread and wine is chaunged into the body and blood of the Lord. By which woords hee himselfe testifieth, that this body which is receiued in the Sacrament, is to bee vnderstood one way, and that body which was taken, which hee denieth to come downe from heauen, another way. For if it abide in heauen without comming downe hither; and if bread be made of the very same body that was taken; sure the bread must be in heauen, and the faithfull shall here receiue neither the bread nor yet the body, which thing no man in his right wits can affirme. But if wee leaue the body that was taken in his place in heauen, as our faith doth require, and say notwithstanding that the same is present in the sacrament by grace and pow­er, as the rest of the Fathers do pronounce, and there­fore this bread may be called and beleeued for the na­turall propertie of a body that is coupled with it, to be the body of Christ, not properly as that body that he tooke vpon him, but after a spirituall sort, as the sacra­ment of that body; the matter is not intricate, but plainely opened, neither shall there bee any neede to frame crooked mazes that be cleane contrary to our faith, or to knit vaine ropes of sand, or to shun the si­militudes that the former Fathers vsed, and to inuent other similitudes grosse and strange from mysteries, as Damascenus doth in this place. For euen as (saith hee) the bread in eating, and the wine and water in drink­ing, are naturally turned into the body and blood of him that eateth and drinketh them, and be made ano­ther body, then that they had before: so the Shewe bread, and the wine and water by inuocation and [Page 53] comming of the holy Ghost, bee changed aboue the law of nature, into the body and blood of Christ, and be not two but one and the same. What other thing doeth hee by this similitude, but open a way to [...] and [...]: that is, the eating of mans flesh, which thing Cyrillus, Theophylactus and other Fathers do detest? How much better haue Cyprian, Ambrose, Epiphanius, E­missenus, and other said, which affirme a like change in the sacrament of thankesgiuing, as that which is made in Baptisme? whereby it commeth to passe, that the signes do remaine the same, and by grace they get to themselues a new substance in like maner, as one selfe man being not yet regenerate doeth belong to the olde Adam, and after regeneration becommeth a new man, and a new creature, not by a fleshly meane, which a­greeth not to sacraments, but after a spirituall sort.

But Damascenus forgetting himselfe, who had before affirmed this meate to be spirituall, as the regeneration in Baptisme; now teacheth it to be carnall, if this bread must passe into the body of Christ, as common bread doth into the bodies of those that eate it: vvhereby it happeneth, that he falleth also into another errour: for he denieth this bread and wine to bee a figure. This bread and wine (saith he) is not a figure of the body and blood of Christ, God forbid, but the very deified body of the Lord. And no marueile it is that he denieth this, if he be in opinion that this bread is so changed as com­mon bread is into the body of the feeder. But all they of old time throughout be repugnant: and surely hee iarreth with himselfe: for after those wordes cited out of the sixt Chapter of Iohn, Vnlesse yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, &c. And My flesh verely, &c. by and by he bringeth another similitude of a coale, farre di­uerse from the former. A coale (saith he) is not simple [Page 54] wood, but coupled with fire: so the bread of commu­nion is not simple bread, but coupled with the diuini­tie. How diuers is the maner of these two similitudes? before he said, that the Shewbread was turned into the body of Christ, beyond nature, as the common bread is naturally changed into the body of him that eateth it, but that is not done vvhile there remaineth bread: here he saith, that the bread of communion is not sim­ple bread, but bread coupled with the diuinitie. The bread therefore remaineth: to what is it coupled? to the diuinitie. Where is then that grosse transmutati­on? Againe a litle after: This is that pure sacrifice without blood, which God hath commanded by the Prophet should be offered to himselfe, from the rising of the Sunne, to the going dovvne of the same. If hee speake of the body that hee tooke vpon him, how is it without blood? if hee speake of his spirituall body and blood, he saith trueth. Againe he saith: This body is not consumed, it is not corrupted, nor cast into the draught. If his meaning be of his spirituall and better substance of the sacrament, vvee confesse it: if of the outward signe, Origen farre better learned then Da­mascenus saith, As touching to that material part that it hath, it goeth into the belly, and is cast into the draught. Damascenus goeth yet further and saith, The bread is the first fruites of the bread to come, which is [...], but epiousios doth signifie either the bread to come, that is of the world to come, or els that which is taken for the consecration of our substance. But vvhether it be this way or that way, it is aptly called the body of Christ. For the Lords flesh is a spirit giuing life, be­cause it was conceiued of a quickening spirit. For that which is borne of spirit, is spirit. But this I speake not, to take away the nature of a body, but willing to shew [Page 55] his quickening and diuinitie. How changeable is this speach? sometime one and the selfe bread is one and selfe body, another time it is the first fruits of the bread to come: otherwhile flesh: at another time spirit: At last, about the end he saith, For albeit some named the bread and wine patternes of Christs body and blood, as that holy man Basill; yet after the sanctifying they called it not so, but before the sacrifice was sanctified. But in that which is commonly called the liturgie of Basill, it is plaine otherwise, and the rest of the Fathers do oftentimes the like. And Damascenus himselfe shut­teth vp his oration with this conclusion: And they be called the patterns of things to come, not because they be not verely the bodie and blood of Christ, but be­cause now by them we be made partakers of the diui­nitie of Christ, and then shall be by vnderstanding, by sight onely. What shall we do with this man, who a lit­tle before denied that they were called patternes after sanctification, and now he himselfe doeth plainely call them patternes after sanctification? what maner incon­stancie is this? This is not a teaching of mysteries, but in saying somewhile one thing, and another while an­other, it is to wrap all things in blind darkenesse. Tru­ly I thinke in my mind, that Damascenus knew not how to determine this matter certainely, but did heape to­gether hastily and confusedly those things which hee had read, and which were written wisely of the olde Fathers, and when hee could not winde himselfe out, hee floteth to and fro, and as the Grecians terme it, [...] that is to say, wafteth with his wings. For that hee was perswaded that there should be a carnall (as they terme it) transubstantiation, that is not likely, since that the very Greeke Church vnto this present day hath not admitted that opinion. And indeede no [Page 56] marueile, if in this mysterie he saw the lesse, or had no sound opinion, if those things be true which be repor­ted of him in his life, that after hee was made a Monke hee fondly became a basketseller in the market place, that he fained foolish miracles, that he was a superstiti­ous worshipper of Images, and a most earnest main­tainer of the same.

The authoritie of them of old time ought to bee of more credit with vs, whose iudgement commended to vs with learning and vnfained godlinesse, is of much more weight: vvho for the vnderstanding of this so great a mystery, exclude all sence of the flesh, and cal vs backe to a spirituall maner of vnderstanding. Where­fore wisely and learnedly doth Bertram, which was no long time after, seeme to haue obserued this distincti­on in the ancient Fathers, and agreeable also to the scriptures, and to haue set foorth in a worke of his, though not long, yet clearely and truely, what ought to be thought of this controuersie: and if wee gather thereout a few places fit for our purpose, it shall not be amisse; for he is neither a very new Author, seeing hee liued about seuen hundreth yeeres past, and beside, he was no lesse famous for his life then for his learning. With many arguments hee proueth this proposition, That the flesh of Christ taken of the Virgine, and that which is taken in the sacrament, differ one from ano­ther. For he writeth in this maner, expounding these wordes of Ambrose: That is the vndoubtedly true flesh of Christ, that was crucified, that was buried. There­fore it is verely a sacrament of that flesh. The Lorde Iesus himselfe cryeth,Bertramus de corp. & sang. Christi. This is my body. How diligently, saith Bertram, hovv wisely is this distinction made? Of the flesh of Christ vvhich was crucified, which was buried, that is, by the vvhich Christ vvas both cru­cified [Page 57] and buried, he saith, It is his very flesh indeed: but of that which is receiued in the sacrament, he saith, It is therefore verily the sacrament of that flesh: ma­king a distinction betweene the sacrament of his flesh, and the trueth of his flesh, in that he said, That in the trueth of his flesh which he tooke of the Virgine, he was both crucified and buried, and therefore said that the mysterie that is now ministred in the Church, is verily a sacrament of that flesh wherein he was cruci­fied: manifestly instructing the faithfull, that that flesh in which Christ was crucified and buried, is not a my­sterie, but the trueth of nature. But this flesh which now conteineth in a mysterie the similitude of that o­ther, is not flesh in forme, but in Sacrament: so that in forme it is bread, in sacrament the true body of Christ, as the Lord IESVS himselfe crieth, This is my body. Whose minde that we may the better vnderstand, it is to be marked (the which we did also note before) that as he meaneth the body of Christ two maner of wayes, so doth he alledge also two maner of truethes of the same, namely the one trueth properly, which he ter­meth the trueth in forme, and the trueth of nature, which he doth attribute to the flesh that was crucified and buried; the other a spirituall trueth, which he ter­meth the true body in the sacrament.

The same man repeating the saying of Ambrose, The food then is not corporall but spirituall, saith: Thou mayest not therefore bring the sense of the flesh: for ac­cording to that, there is nothing here determined. It is indeed the body of Christ, but not corporall, but spi­rituall: It is the blood of Christ, but not corporall, but spirituall. There is nothing therefore to be vnderstood corporally, but spiritually. It is the body of Christ, but not corporally: and it is the blood of Christ, but [Page 58] not corporally. Note when he saith, Not corporally, he meaneth not properly corporally, (for by the spiri­tuall eating also in the sacrament we are corporally an­nexed with Christ, as Cyrillus and Hilarius doe witnes,) but mystically, not properly. The same man saith of the same Ambrose a little after: He hath taught vs very plainely, how we ought to vnderstand the mysterie of the Body and Blood of Christ. For after he had said that our Fathers did eate spiritual food, and drinke spi­rituall drinke, when as for all that there is no man that doubteth, but the Manna which they did eate, and the water which they did drinke, were corporall; he ap­plieth it to the mysterie which now is ministred in the Church, defining after what sort it is the body of Christ. For in that he saith, The body of God is a spiri­tuall body, Christ vndoubtedly is God, and that body vvhich he tooke of the Virgine Mary, which suffered, which was buried, which rose againe, was vndoubted­ly a true body, the same that continued visible, and able to be felt: but that body which is called the my­sterie of God, is not corporall but spirituall. But if it be spirituall, then is it not visible, nor able to be felt: and therefore S. Ambrose addeth, saying, The body of Christ is the body of a diuine Spirit. But a diuine spi­rit is nothing that is corporall, nothing that is corrup­tible, nothing able to be felt. But this body which is so­lemnized in the Church, as touching the visible forme, is both corruptible and to be felt. Soone after also he concludeth vpon the words of Ambrose, in this wise: By the authoritie of this great learned man, we be well taught, that there is a great difference betweene the body wherein Christ suffered, and the blood which he shed hanging vpon the Crosse out of his side, and this body which in the mysterie of Christes passion is daily [Page 59] solemnized of the faithfull, and that blood also which is receiued in the mouth of the faithfull, is a mysterie of that blood wherwith the whole world was redeemed. Hee confirmeth that also by the authoritie of Hierom, and after rehearsall of this place, The blood and flesh of Christ is vnderstood two maner of wayes; either that spirituall, &c. thus he concludeth: With no small difference hath this doctour made a distinction of the body and blood of Christ. For in that he saith, that the flesh or blood which are daily receiued of the faith­full are spirituall, and yet that the flesh that was cruci­fied, and the blood which was shed with the souldiers speare, are not said to be spirituall nor diuine; he doeth manifestly signifie, that they differ as much one from another, as do spirituall things and corporall, visible and inuisible, diuine and humane, and that those things which differ from themselues, are not all one. But the spirituall flesh which is receiued in the mouth of the faithfull, and the spirituall blood which is daily giuen to the faithfull to drinke, doe differ from the flesh that was crucified, and from the blood that was shed with the souldiers speare, as the authoritie of this man doth witnesse. Therefore they be not all one: For that flesh which was crucified, was made of the flesh of the Vir­gin, framed together of bones and sinevves, and seue­red with the features of the members of a man, quick­ned with the spirit, of a reasonable soule, indued with reason into a life proper to it selfe, and motions agree­able to the same. But on the other side, the spirituall flesh which feedeth spiritually the people that doe be­leeue, after the forme that it beareth outwardly, is made of the graines of corne, by the handes of the workeman, framed together of no sinewes and bones, seuered with no varietie of members, quickened with [Page 60] no reasonable substance, nor can exercise any proper motions. For whatsoeuer giueth the substance of life, it is of a spirituall force, and of an inuisible working, and of a diuine power. Againe, of the wordes of Au­gustine he concludeth in this maner: By authoritie of this doctour intreating of the Lords wordes of the sa­crament of his body & blood we be manifestly taught, that those wordes of the Lord be to be vnderstood spi­ritually, and not carnally, as hee himselfe sayeth, The words which I speake to you, bee spirit and life, Namely the words of eating his flesh and drinking his blood: for he spake it vpon that occasion, whereat his disciples were offended. Therefore that they should not bee offended, the heauenly Master calleth them back from the flesh to the Spirit, and from a corporall sight to in­uisible vnderstanding. We see therefore the food of the Lords body, and the drinke of his blood, are after a sort his very body, and his very blood, namely in that they be Spirit and life. Hee addeth againe after the matter proued: Therefore we see, that there is a great difference betweene the mysterie of the body & blood of Christ which is now receiued of the faithfull in the Congregation, and that body which was borne of the Virgin Mary, which suffered, which was buried, which rose againe, which ascended into heauen, which sit­teth at the right hand of the Father. For this that is ministred in the way, is to be taken spiritually: For Faith beleeueth that which it seeth not, and spiritually feedeth the soule, and doth reioyce the heart, and gi­ueth euerlasting life, and incorruption, while that is not minded which feedeth the body, which is crushed with teeth, which is broken in pieces, but that which by faith is spiritually receiued. But that body where­in Christ suffered and rose againe, is his owne proper [Page 61] body taken of the Virgin Maries body, able to be felt and seene, euen after his resurrection, as he himselfe said to his disciples, Beholde my hands and my feet: for I am euen he, handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me haue.

Bertram writeth many things to this purpose: but let it suffice that wee haue touched thus much. Which mans exposition, and manner of disputing vpon the Sacrament, is (in mine opinion) diligently to be way­ed and imbraced, for tvvo respects: First, because hee sticketh to the authoritie and testimonie not onely of those fathers of whom he hath repeated a few, but also many moe, I might say of all the most auncient: Se­condarily, because that where the credit of the man was so much that he was prouoked to write by a most famous Prince, and his writing published abroad, and in sight of all men, he was praised of many, reprehen­ded of none, or noted of any one spot of erronious do­ctrine, whereby it came to passe that before these new grosse and naturall transubstantiation makers sprung vp, the doctrine of Bertram touching the Sacrament, was allovved by the iudgement of euery man that was best learned: Albeit this terme of transubstantiation being indeed new & not necessarie, yet perhaps might haue some place, as the word Trans-elementation, if they had not brought in another change of the sub­stances then a sacramentall, and that which the aunci­ent fathers did vnderstand, which is brought to passe the former substance remayning still. But they not sa­tisfied with the noueltie of the terme, haue inuented a monstrous interpretation. For they appoint the ve­ry proper body of Christ to be in the Sacrament, and plucke from it the true properties of a mans body, whereas it should seeme that Aquinas himselfe was not [Page 62] ignorant of the distinction aboue mentioned.Aquin. 3. parte. Sum. q. 76. art. 3. For he writeth 3. part. Sum. q. 76. art 3. on this manner: Christ is whole vnder ech peece of the formes of Bread and Wine, not onely when the hoste is broken, but also when it remaineth whole: neyther is there distance of parts one from another, as the eye from the eye, or the eye from the eare, or the head from the feete, as there is in other bodies organicall: for such maner of distance is in the true body of Christ, but not as it is in this Sa­crament. He affirmeth the true body of Christ to bee one, which is organicall, and hath difference of mem­bers, which also hee denyeth to bee in the Sacrament; and that to be another, which is in the Sacrament, and wanteth varietie of members: which thing if he meant of the spirituall body as the old writers did speake, he iudged right; but if hee meant to signifie any masse of flesh without forme, it is a great absurditie, and con­trarie to the opinion of all the old writers.

Lombardus. Lombardus also Author of the sentences, concerning the verie and proper flesh of Christ lib 3. Sentent. Dist. 3. saith thus: Christs flesh that was taken, is neither hea­uenly, nor of the aire, nor of any other nature then of such as all mens flesh is. Since therefore the manner and nature of the flesh of Christ is common with the flesh of other men, as Lombardus saith, and such flesh as Aquinas affirmeth commeth not into the Sacrament; it followeth by their testimonie, that these two kindes of flesh differ much. And that this may the better ap­peare, and bee laide vp in memorie, I thought it not without profit to adde, of such things as we haue spo­ken of before, a certaine distinction which the Greekes call [...] by comparison.

1 The proper bodie of Christ, hath the naturall forme of a mans body: The mysticall bodie hath not.

[Page 63]2 The proper body hath a head, breast, members seuered: The mysticall hath not.

3 The proper body hath bones, vaines, & sinewes: The mystical hath not.

4 That may bee seene and touched: This can nei­ther be seene nor touched.

5 That is indued with the true sences of a body: This is without sence, as Epiphanius saith.

6 That is organicall: This is not.

7 That is no figure: This is a figure of his proper body.

8 That is not in mysterie: This is in mysterie.

9 That, of his owne nature, is humane and bodily: This is heauenly, diuine, and spirituall.

10 The matter of that is not subiect to corruption: The materiall part of this is bread, and is corrupted.

11 No man may eate that by it selfe: This, both a man may and ought to eate.

12 That is contained in one place: This, whereso­euer the Sacrament is ministred, is present; but not as in a place.

13 That is not a Sacrament of another body: This is a Sacrament of another body.

14 That being taken of the virgin Maries bodie, was once create: This is not taken of the Virgin, but daylie by the mysticall benediction is create potential­lie, by the testimonie of Augustin and Cyprian.

15 That is a naturall body: This is aboue nature.

16 Finally, that is simply: This is after a sort.

17 That properly & perfectly: This is a bodie vn­properly.

Hitherto wee haue spoken of the difference which the auncient Fathers haue godly and diligently obser­ued, betweene Christs proper bodie, and the Sacra­ment [Page 64] of the same bodie. In the which although many things haue beene spoken, which doe not only declare that there is a difference (which in this place we meant to doe) but also doe admonish vs vvithall, what man­ner of bodie that is in the sacrament: Yet because wee haue not hitherto so fully expressed this point, as the weightines of the matter requireth, We haue thought good from hence-forvvard to intreate of this part more fullie; Namely, in vvhat sort this Sacrament is the Lords bodie, and wherefore our Lord himselfe at the first, as the Euangelists make mention, aftervvard Paul the Apostle, lastly all they of old time, following the authoritie of them, haue left in writing that it is so called, and is so indeed; not that this manner which is a spirituall and hid thing, can be found out by mans reason, or that wee goe about to search out curiously such things as bee forbidden and denyed, but that all mans inuentions set apart, we may follow those things that haue bene left vs by the authoritie of Scriptures, and auncient Fathers that agree with them, and that manner which the Lord himselfe would wee should know, and the Church instructed by him and his Apo­stles, hath receiued, not to depart from that. This is to bee holden fast which wee proued before, that not onely the Lordes wordes, which be spoken in the 6. Chapter of Iohn, Vnlesse yee eate the flesh &c. And My flesh is verily meate, and the rest that followeth in the same place, but also these wordes of the Lords supper, Take ye, eate ye, this is my body, and This is my blood, are to bee vnderstood spiritually, not carnally, and that one maner of eating is meant in both places. When I say, Not carnally, I meane, Not according to the letter, nor as the words doe properly sound: for this is to vnder­stand carnally, as Chrysostome witnesseth vpon Iohn, of [Page 65] these words, The flesh profiteth nothing. What is it,Chrysostom. in Ioan. Hom. 46. saith he, to vnderstand carnally? To vnderstand the things simply as they be spoken, and nothing else. For those things that be seene, are not so to be iudged, but all my­steries are to be considered with inward eyes, that is to say, spiritually. Let not this rule of Chrysostome go out of our minds. But these two, Carnally, and Spiritually, are contrary; when the one is forbidden, the other is commanded, and contrarywise. And that carnall sense hath no place in this mysterie, not onely Chrysostome is the Author, as we recited euen now, and Cyprian, where he saith, Neither doth carnall sense pearse the vnder­standing of so great a depth, and Theophylactus writing thus, But because we vnderstand it spiritually, we be neither deuourers of flesh, and yet be sanctified by that meat. But to be short, I may in maner say, that all the ancient Fathers with one voice do forbid vs to vnder­stand the wordes of the Lords Supper carnally, and command a spirituall meaning: The which by many testimonies repeated in this peece of worke, euery man may readily perceiue. Neither is this sufficient, if we auoyd one maner of vnderstanding carnally, and fall into another. For he that doth vnderstand the eating of Christs flesh after the letter, and as it were a proper kinde of speech, he is a carnall Capernaite, whether he suppose it to be done properly one way or another. That is plaine by these wordes of Augustin vpon the 98. Psalme:Augustine in Psal. 98. It seemed a hard matter to them that he said, Vnlesse a man eate, &c. They tooke it fondly, and imagined of it carnally, and thought that the Lord would haue cut out peeces of his body, and haue giuen to them. And a little after: That which I haue spo­ken, vnderstand ye spiritually. You shall not eate this body which you see, I haue commended to you a cer­taine [Page 66] sacrament, if it be spiritually vnderstood, it will giue you life. Here Augustine calleth carnall vnder­standing foolishnesse, and appointeth spirituall vnder­standing as necessary. And his meaning is not that this is onely a carnall sense, if a man should imagine of the cut pieces of the Lords body, albeit he rehearseth but this one carnall way of vnderstanding, but also of all o­ther the like. For it is a likely matter, that euen all the Capernaites did vnderstand it carnally, and yet not all after one way.Cyprian. For one maner is rehearsed of Cyprian writing thus: It seemed to them a horrible and wicked matter to feed of the flesh of man, imagining that this had bene so spoken, as though they should haue bene taught to eate his flesh either sodden, or rosted, or cut in gobbets.Cyrillus. And Cyrillus doth impute to them another kinde of carnall vnderstanding: for he saith, For after they had heard, Verily verily I say to you, vnlesse ye eate the flesh, &c. they thought Christ had called them to the cruel maner of wilde beasts, and that they were prouo­ked to an appetite to eate the raw flesh of man, and drinke blood, which things bee horrible euen to bee heard. Wherefore if we beleeue that the flesh of Christ properly so called is there present, whether we thinke it raw, rost, or sodden, either whole or cut in gobbets, open or couert, the sense is vtterly carnal, & the words be carnally vnderstood. For it is not therefore to be thought a spirituall sense, because they say the flesh of Christ is present inuisibly: For if their meaning be of the proper flesh, we cannot say that we eate him not therefore carnally, because we see him not. The blinde see not those things which they eate, and men many times in pottage and brothes eate egges and flesh, which neither they see, nor otherwhile feele in taste. But none of all these is a spirituall sense, or doth con­taine [Page 67] a more hie meaning, but as the wordes simply do signifie, eate egges and flesh, which Chrysostome termeth carnall vnderstanding.

Since therefore, all carnall meaning of the words set apart, a spirituall must be had and retained therein; we ought godly to seeke, and reuerently to search out, what maner of vnderstanding that is, that hath bene set foorth and commended vnto vs; the which we also wil indeauour our selues to doe, not departing from the footsteps of the very same Fathers. Euen as there be two parts, whereof the sacrament doth consist, that is, the outward signe, and inward vertue: so is that spiri­tuall sense which is here required, taken of both these parts. The carnall vnderstanding doth follow the let­ter, as Nicodemus when he had heard, Vnlesse a man bee borne againe of water and the spirit, &c. hee asketh this question: How can a man be borne againe? Can he returne againe into his mothers wombe? The spirituall man de­parteth from the letter, and so are we borne againe in Baptisme. And the washing is of two sorts: Outward and inward; carnall and spiritual: the one according to the letter, and is made by water; the other doth shunne the letter, and is performed in spirit. Either of them is said to be truely done, but after a diuers maner. The first maner of speaking is proper, the other figuratiue; and the figure hath otherwhile relation to the out­ward similitude, otherwhile to the vertue inwardly hid. It is figuratiuely spoken, All flesh is grasse. For the withering grasse hath a certaine similitude of a man that soone perisheth. Beware of the leauen of the Pharises. This is taken of the proper strength of leauen, which spreadeth the taste therof thorowout the whole lumpe; very like whereunto is the infection of ill doctrine. Now in this sacrament the Fathers of old time haue [Page 68] noted tvvo things, for either of the which it may well be called and accompted the body of Christ, but espe­cially when it comprehendeth them both. For both because the Bread is a figure of the true bo­dy, it is iustly called his body, and much more be­cause it hath the liuely force of the same ioyned there­to, but in especiall, because it comprehendeth both. And that the figure of any thing hath by good reason the name of the same, and is called the thing it selfe, indeed Esay sheweth where he saith, The people bee ve­rily hay, and He verily hath borne our iniquities. By a si­militude is the people called hay, and the Lord vpon the Crosse had in him a similitude of a sinnefull man, although he himselfe was without sinne: after which maner also Christ is said to be the true Vine. I am the true Vine, saith he: and other places which a man shall often finde in the Scriptures. Iohn Baptist spake the trueth when he said, Behold the Lambe of God. The Lord himselfe said the trueth when he said of Nathaniel, Be­hold an Israelite in deed in whom is no deceit. That word Verily, or Indeed, is not to be referred to the outward, but to the inward circumcision: for the people of God also vvhich is gathered of the Gentiles is now more truely called Israel, then the Ievves themselues, accor­ding to the saying of Paul, We be the Circumcision which worship God in spirit. And this, He is not a Iew which in out­ward appearance is a Iew, but he is a Iew which is a Iew in se­cret. Yet be we not for all that properly Iewes, but we are called so by a figure, & all these figuratiue speaches for the outward similitude of the things. Wherefore it ought to seeme neither a new thing, nor yet a marueile, if the Lords bread be said to be verily the body, where it is a figure of the body.August. ad Bonif. epist. 23.

Hereupon Augustin to Boniface in his 23. Epistle saith: [Page 69] For thus wee speake oftentimes: As when Easter is at hand, we say, The Lords passion shal be to morrow, or the next day, where hee suffered so many yeeres agoe, and that passion hath neuer been done but once. Like­wise vpon the very Easter day wee say, To day the Lord rose againe, when since hee rose againe so many yeeres are past. Why is none so foolish to reproue vs, and say we lie in so saying, But because wee vse to call these dayes according to the similitude of them in which these thinges were done? So that it is called the same day which is not the same, but by course of time is like vnto it, and it is said to be done that day for the ministring of the Sacrament, which was not done that day but long agoe. Was not Christ once offered in himselfe? yet in the Sacrament, not onely in all the so­lemnities of Easter, but euery day hee is offered to the people. Againe he lieth not, that being asked the que­stion, doth answere that he is offered: for if the Sacra­ments should not haue a certaine likenesse of those things whereof they be Sacraments, they should be no Sacraments at all: and of this likenes also many times they take the names of the things themselues. Euen as therfore after a certaine manner, the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ is the bodie of Christ, and the Sacra­ment of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ: so also the Sacrament of faith is faith. By this place of Augustin, and many other both of his & other fathers, we see that the figures and similitudes of things bee of­ten called by the name of the thinges themselues, and that this is one cause, though not the onely, why this sacrament is called verily Christs bodie.

To this agree those things that we commonly finde amongst olde writers, who tearme this Sacrament o­therwhile a figure, as Tertull. cont. Mart. lib. 4. Tertull. This is my [Page 70] body, saith he, that is to say, a figure of my bodie. And Nazianzene, Nazianzene. which said the old Passouer was a figure of a figure.Augustin. And Augustin, The bodie, saith hee, of Christ is the trueth, and a figure. Sometime a signe, as Augustin contra Adimant cap. 12. The Lord put no doubt to say, This is my body, when he gaue the signe of his bo­die.Chrisostome. And Chrysostome vpon the 26. of Matthew Homi­lia 83. For if Christ be not dead, whose figure & signe is this sacrifice? Finallie, of some it is called a figure, and a badge, as of Origen and Chrysostom; of some other, an example, patterne, and image, as of Ambrose, Basill, and Origen: wherefore not without cause, it hath also the name of that thing, whose figure, badge, and pat­terne it is. Wherefore it is the more to be maruelled what commeth into their mindes, that cannot abide to haue it called a figure, nor doe acknowledge any fi­gure in the words of the Supper, but doe reprochfully call them that doe acknowledge it, figure framers: whereas it is plaine for all that, that all old writers did so call it, and that by those words of the Lords supper, the Lorde did consecrate the Sacrament of his body: this being manifest also, that after the letter & proper manner of speech, the bodie of Christ signifieth one thing, and the Sacrament of his bodie another. And if it shall not be a figure, it shall neither be a signe nor a sacrament, And so such as be ready to call other men sacramentaries, they themselues doe take away the sa­craments altogether. Therefore let no man doubt but this sacrament is both a figure, and therefore doeth also take the name of that thing whereof it is a figure.

We said there was another thing which the aunci­ent Fathers acknowledging in this sacrament, would haue it verily to be the Lords body, and that is the ver­tue of the body it selfe that is of force, and giueth life, [Page 71] which vertue by grace and mysticall blessing is ioyned with the Bread and Wine, and is called by sundry names, where the matter it selfe is all one. Of Augustin an intelligible, inuisible & spirituall body: Of Hierom, diuine & spirituall flesh: Of Irenaeus, a heauenly thing: Of Ambrose a spirituall foode, and body of a diuine spi­rit: Of other, some such like thing. And this also doth make much the more, that the sacrament is most wor­thy to haue the name of the true body and blood, see­ing not onely outvvardly it showeth forth a figure and image of it, but also inwardly it draweth with it a hid and secret naturall propertie of the same bodie, that is to say, a vertue that giueth life: so that it cannot now be thought a vaine figure, or the signe of a thing cleane absent, but the very body of the Lord, diuine indeede and spirituall, but present in grace, full of vertue, migh­tie in operation. And it hapneth often, that the names of the thinges themselues be giuen to their vertue and strength. We say leauen is in the whole lumpe, wher­as a small quantitie of leauen cannot spread so farre a­broad, but the strength and sharpenes of the leauen. We say that the fire doth warme vs, when the heate of the fire doth it, we being a good way off from the fire. Likewise that the Sunne is present, doth lighten, bur­neth, nourisheth, when indeede the heat of the Sunne doth it, and the Sunne himselfe cannot goe out of his spheare. So is a King said to be in all his realme, be­cause of the power of his dominon. Neither doth the scripture want these examples: for we often meet with them. Wee will at this time bee content with one of them, but very manifest. Christ spake of Iohn, saying, He is Helias, because he was indewed with the vertue or power of Helias, the angell vnto Zacharie witnessing the same and saying, Hee shall goe before him in the spirit [Page 72] and power of Helias. Likewise therefore as Iohn was He­lias, because he had the spirit and power of Helias; So the Lords bread is the body of Christ, because it hath his grace and liuely power ioyned therewithall.

But that this is not a fained or a lately sprung opini­on, but was receiued, and allowed of the auncient wri­ters, we wil confirme it by their open testimonies, part­ly reciting some of the forenamed places, and partly adding other. Augustin vpon Iohn tract. 27. If therefore yee shall see the Sonne of man where hee was before: What meaneth this? by this hee answereth that which had troubled them: by this he openeth the cause why they were offended: by this plainely, if they would vnder­stand. For they thought that hee would haue giuen a­mong them his body: but he said that he would ascend into heauen euen whole. When ye shall see the sonne of man ascend where hee was before, surely euen then shall ye see, that hee giueth not his body in such sort as ye imagine; surely euen then shall yee vnderstand that his grace is not consumed by biting, nor perisheth by eating. The same man out of the sermon of the words of the Lord, and it is rehearsed de consecrat. Dist. 2. The faithfull doe know how they do eat the flesh of Christ: Euery man taketh his part, whereupon the parts bee called the grace it selfe: by parts hee is eaten, and he remayneth all whole: by parts he is eaten in the sa­crament, and remayneth all whole in thy heart. The same man vpon Iohn, tract. 50. Thou hast Christ both at this present, and in time to come; presently by signe, presently by the sacrament of Baptisme, presently by the meate and drinke of the Altar. Thou hast Christ presently, but thou shalt haue him alway: for when thou shalt goe from hence, thou shalt come to him that said to the thiefe, This day shalt thou be with mee in Para­dise. [Page 73] And soone after: The poore shall yee alway haue with you, but mee shall yee not alwayes haue. Let good men re­ceiue this also, and not be troubled: for he spake of the presence of his body. For according to his maiestie, ac­cording to his prouidence, according to his vnspeake­able and inuisible grace, that is fulfilled which he hath spoken, Behold I am with you daily, euen vnto the end of the world. But according to the flesh which the Worde tooke vpon him, according to that that hee was borne of the Virgin, according to that that hee was taken of the Iewes, that he was fastned to the tree, that hee was taken downe from the Crosse, that he was wrapped in linnen clothes, that he was laid in the graue, that hee appeared in his resurrection, yee shall not haue him al­waies with you. Why? Because according to the pre­sence of his body he was conuersant with his Disciples fortie dayes, and they being in his company, and seeing him, and not following him, he ascended into heauen, and is not here: for he is there, hee sitteth on the right hand of the Father. These be Augustins words. Where­as he said before that Christ is present with vs by faith, and by the sacraments; afterward he said that he is pre­sent with vs by Maiestie, by vnspeakeable and inuisible grace, and so that is fulfilled by him which hee spake, Behold I am with you to &c. But according to the proper presence of the flesh, that he is not here, which proper nature of the flesh also he hath dilated plentifully by a Periphrasis, to exclude altogether such a manner of presence, & to establish his presence in the sacraments by grace & power. Augustin teacheth vs by the Lords words, that his true and proper body is ascended into heauen euen whole, but the grace of that body we re­ceiue by the sacraments, which is neither consumed by biting, nor perished by eating.

[Page 74] Idem in Psal. 65.To this agreeth that the same Author writeth vpon the 65. Psal. The murtherers dranke the same blood by grace,Idem in Ioan. tract. 26. which they shed through madnes. The same man vpon the Gospel of Iohn tract 26. Giue eare to the Apostle: I would not (saith he) haue you ignorant, brethe­ren, that our Fathers were all vnder a cloud, and all did eate one maner spirituall food: Spirituall truely all one, but corporall, another: for they did eate Manna, we ano­ther thing, but the same spirituall meat that wee doe. And they all dranke the same spiritual drinke: yet they one thing, we another in outward appearance, which notwithstanding did signifie all one in spiritual power. He calleth the sacrament spirituall food, for the spiri­tuall power ioyned therewith, which power also was in the sacraments of the old testament, albeit our out­ward signes and theirs were diuerse. The spiritual po­wer was all one in both: That of a body to bee borne at his time; This of a body alreadie borne, suffered and raysed againe. So Manna was to them the bodie of Christ, as the sacrament of thankes-giuing is now to vs. For this spirituall power, Augustin also called it, as we said before, a spirituall, inuisible, and intelligible body, wherby is signified the visible body of the Lord, and able to be felt. Hereunto also belongeth that say­ing of the same Author: The body of Christ is both trueth, and a figure: Trueth, while the body & blood of Christ, by the power of the holy Ghost, in power of the same is made of the substance of bread & wine: but a figure is that which is outwardly seene. The meaning of these words be, that the substance of bread & wine be made the body of Christ, for the power of his body giuen to them by the holy Ghost. The same man in Psalme 77. Idem in Psal. 77. Their meate and drinke therefore in my­sterie was all one with ours; yet in signification, not in [Page 75] outward appearance: for the selfe same Christ was fi­gured to them in the rocke, but to vs he was made ma­nifest in flesh. But hee saith, That God was not well pleased with them all. In that he saith, not with all, there were some then there in whom God was pleased. And albeit the sacraments were common to all, yet his grace, which is the power of the sacraments, was not common to all. This place of Augustin if it bee well weighed, doth much helpe to vnderstand how Christ is present in the sacraments. For he ioyneth together these two, Signification and Grace, which hee affir­meth to be the strength of the sacrament.

To these agree those things which Ambrose writeth lib. 6. de Sacramentis: Afterward,Ambros. de Sacra. lib. 6. when the Disciples of Christ could not away with his talke, but hearing that hee would giue them his flesh to eate, and his blood to drinke, went their way; yet Peter alone said, Thou hast the words of eternall life, whither shall I goe from thee? Least therfore any moe should so say, as though there should be a kind of loathsomenes of blood, but that the grace of redemption might remaine, thou therefore takest the sacrament in a similitude, but thou doest obtaine the grace and vertue of his true nature. Ambrose doth plainely teach, how it is true flesh. For hee hath noted both: The figure, where hee saith, thou takest it in a si­militude; and the inward strength, because vndoubted­ly it giueth the grace and vertue of the true nature. Which place being diligentlie marked, the residue which be found of his, may easilie be expounded. The same man in his booke De ijs qui initiantur mysterijs: Idem de ijs qui initiantur my­sterijs. Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the bodie of Christ. Therefore it is not a corporall, but a spirituall food: whereupon the Apostle speaketh of the figure of it, that our fathers haue eaten spirituall meate, & haue [Page 76] drunke spirituall drinke; For the body of God is a spi­rituall body. The body of Christ is the body of a di­uine spirit. By these words of Ambrose we be admoni­shed, what manner of body this is, and why it is so cal­led, because it hath the spirituall vertue of the true bo­die. For these termes, Not a corporall but a spirituall food, and The body of the heauenly spirit, bee most aptly applied to the grace and vertue of his true bodie. Which thing also Eusebius Emissenus confirmeth de con­secrat. Dist. 2. Eusebius Emissenus. Seeing hee meant to take from our eyes the body taken of the virgin, and would place it aboue the starres; it was necessary, that in the day of his sup­per the sacrament of his body & blood should be con­secrated vnto vs, to the end that that might bee wor­shipped continually in mysterie, which was once offe­red for a ransome for vs; that seeing a daylie and vn­ceasing redemption did runne for the saluation of all men, it might be a continuall oblation of redemption, and that continuall sacrifice might liue in memorie, and might euer be present in grace, a true, perfect, and only sacrifice, to be esteemed in faith, not to be iudged by forme nor outward sight, but by the inward affecti­on. It is manifest by the wordes of Emissenus, that the body that was taken of the Virgin was taken from vs, and was placed aboue the starres, and therefore that the sacrament of the same was necessarily ordayned, that that true, perfect, and onely sacrifice which vvas once offered vpon the Crosse, might liue continually in memory, and might alvvay be present in grace, that vve should not cease to remember continually the be­nefit of our perpetuall redemption, neither haue any cause vvhy vve should require the presence of his flesh, seeing vve feele the presence of the same by grace to be of no lesse efficacie, vvhich is to bee esteemed by faith, [Page 77] not to be iudged in forme, or outward appearance, but n the inward affection.Idem ibidem. And that which he writeth im­mediatly after in the same place: For the inuisible priest doth turne with his word, by a secret povver, the vi­sible creatures into the substance of his body & blood, saying thus: Take ye, eate ye, this is my body &c. And least we should imagine it a more grosse substance, or that called againe which he said before was taken avvay, he alledgeth foorthvvith the example of Regeneration, saying, Hovv great benefit therefore the force of the heauenly blessing doth worke, and hovv it ought not to be a nevv and vnpossible matter to thee, that earthly and mortall things bee changed into the substance of Christ, aske thy selfe, that art nevv borne againe in Christ. Lately thou wast farre from life, a stranger from mercy, and being invvardly dead, banished from the way of health: and suddenly professing the Lawes of Christ, and by vvholsome mysteries renued, diddest passe into the body of the Church, not by sight, but by beleefe, and of the childe of perdition wast thought worthy by a secret purenesse to be made sonne of God by adoption, abiding stil in thy visible measure, and in­uisibly made greater then thy selfe, without increase of quantitie. For although thou wast the very selfe-same man before, yet by augmentation of Faith thou art be­come farre another; in the outvvard man nothing is added, and all is changed in the invvard man, and so man was made the Sonne of Christ, and Christ was formed in the minde of man. Euen as therefore the former basenesse set apart, thou hast suddenly put on a nevv dignitie; and as in that God hath healed those things that were amisse in thee, put avvay thy imperfe­ctions, vviped avvay thy spots, thy eyes are not trusted withall, but thy senses: so when thou goest vp to the [Page 78] reuerend Altar to bee fed with the spirituall meat, be­hold in thy faith the holy Body and Blood of thy God, honour it, marueile at it, touch it vvith thy minde, take it in the hand of thy heart, and especially receiue it whole, vvith the thirstie draught of the invvard man.

Eusebius Emissenus declareth by this similitude, what maner of change is made in the sacrament; how earth­ly things, namely bread and wine, be turned into the substance of Christ, and what maner of substance that is: surely like vnto that change wherewith wee be changed in Baptisme, and such a substance as we put on in the washing of regeneration, when we passe into the body of the Church, where nothing is changed in our outward part, but all in our inward man, which is called a new man and a new creature: and for that cause doeth Emissenus terme this substance, A secret purenesse, and new dignitie. In like maner also he cal­leth the bread of the Lord, which hath gotten a nevv substance, that is to say, a secret power and nevv digni­tie, Spirituall food, which we behold with faith, touch in minde, take in the handes of our heart, and receiue with the thirstie draught of our inward man. If it be well and diligently weighed, how Emissenus, Ambrose, and the other fathers haue vsed the termes of Nature and Substance, it may easily be vnderstood how vaine­ly they trouble themselues, which appoint a carnall ea­ting of the flesh, and doe not apply the wordes to the matter intreated of. For that which we see done in o­ther disciplines, that the words do change their signifi­cations, according to the matter that euery kinde of learning treateth of, as Genus, Species, Figura, and other such like, do signifie one thing with the Grammarians, another with the Logitians, and another thing with o­ther writers; the same also ought we to obserue in di­uinitie, [Page 79] when they intreat of the Sacraments. The fa­thers make mention of Nature and Substance, not [...] but [...], that is, not as naturall Philosophers speake, but men disputing of diuine matters, do apply the terme of Nature and Substance, to grace, vertue, and efficacie, forasmuch as the nature of the Sacra­ment so requireth.

The like maner of speaking doeth Chrysostome vse when he saith: But that not onely by loue,Chrysostome. but euen in very deed, we should be turned into that flesh, that is wrought by the meat which he hath giuen vs. We be turned in very deed into the flesh of Christ: but that conuersion is spirituall, not carnall. And thus much by the way of the signification of the words.Epiphan. in Ancho. Epiphani­us in Anchorato: For we see that our Sauiour tooke into his handes, as the Gospel containeth, that hee rose in the Supper and tooke this, and when he had giuen thankes, he said, This is mine &c. And we see that it is not equall, nor like, neither to the image that is in the flesh, nor to his inuisible Godhead, nor to the features of his members. For this is of a round shape, and without sense, as farre as pertaineth to power; and therefore his will was to speake by grace, This is mine &c. and euery man belee­ueth his word: for he that doth not beleeue that he is true as he said, he is fallen from grace and health. But we beleeue that we haue heard, that it is his: for wee know that the Lord is all sense, all indued with sense, all God, all mouing, all working, al light, all incompre­hensible, but yet as one which hath giuen vs this with grace. We admonished you before, that Epiphanius doth in this place goe about to proue, that man being made after the Image of God, hath verily the Image of God, not according to the proper nature of diuinitie, but af­ter grace, and vseth the similitude taken of the sacra­ment [Page 80] of Thankesgiuing, the which, according to the proper maner of a body, he denieth to be the body of Christ, since it hath neither the forme of a true body, neither can feele, or moue, and yet is beleeued by grace to be verily his body.

Idem lib. 3. cont. Haer. To. 2.He is of the same opinion Lib. 3. against Haeresies To. 2. where he speaketh thus of the sacraments: Christ went downe into the waters, rather giuing then receiuing, rather offering then needing, giuing them light, making them mighty for a figure of those things that were to be wrought in them; whereby they that beleeue on him in trueth, and haue the faith of trueth, might learne that he was verily made man, and was verily Baptized, and that so by his ascension they also might come and receiue the vertue of his comming downe, and might be made lightsome by his giuing light, that the saying of the Prophet may here bee fulfilled, in the change of power that was giuen for saluation, the vertue I meane of the bread that was receiued from Ierusalem, and of the strength of the water: so that here the vertue of the bread and strength of the water may be made of force in Christ, that the bread should not be the strength in vs, but the vertue of that bread. And the meat surely is bread, but the vertue in it is it that quickneth; And not that water alone should cleanse vs, but that in the strength of water, by faith and efficacie, and hope, and perfection of mysteries, and calling vpon the sanctifi­cation, might be wrought for vs the perfection of sal­uation. This place doeth make the other somewhat more plaine. There he said, that the bread of the sa­crament of Thankesgiuing is the body by grace: here he attributeth vertue to the bread, as strength to the water in Baptisme, often repeating this terme Vertue, and confirming that this vertue and strength doth san­ctifie. [Page 81] The meat (saith he) is bread, but the vertue in it doth quicken: and he declareth that this vertue of the bread doth sanctifie, and strength of the water is made by grace, not naming it with one word, but describing it more fully with many wordes, saying, That these things be done by faith, and hope, and the perfection of the mysteries,Idem in Ana­cephaleosi. and calling vpon of the sanctification for the perfection of saluation. The same Author re­hearseth almost the same words in Anacephaleosis. Cyprian. de Coena Dom.

The same was also Cyprians opinion. There is giuen (saith he) an immortall food differing from common meats, retaining the shape of bodily substance, but pro­uing by inuisible working, that the presence of a diuine povver is there. Thou hearest the presence of a diuine povver, thou hearest an inuisible working (that is to say) the grace of God. Againe, By the wonted effect of things the weakenesse of our faith being aided, is taught by a sensible argument, that the effect of eternal life is in the visible sacraments. And againe, Euen as in the person of Christ humanitie was seene, and diui­nitie hid: so into the visible sacraments, vnspeakeably doth the diuine substance powre it selfe. Againe, These words be spirit and life, neither doth the carnall sense pearce the vnderstanding of so great a depth, vnlesse faith be added. The bread is food, the blood is life, the flesh substance, the body the Church. A body, for the agreeing of members in one; bread, for the conformi­tie of nourishment; blood, for the working of quick­ning; flesh, for the propertie of the humanitie taken. In this place Cyprian witnesseth, that this sacrament is called flesh and blood, for the working of the quick­ning, and for the propertie of the humanitie which Christ tooke (that is) the proper vertue thereof, name­ly spirit and life. And foorthvvith he addeth; Christ [Page 82] doth othervvhile call this sacrament his body, other­while flesh and blood, othervvhile bread, with the cor­poral nature whereof, according to these visible things, he hath communicate the portion of euerlasting life. And againe, The sacraments, as much as in them is, cannot be without their proper vertue, neither by any meanes doeth the diuine Maiestie absent it selfe from the mysteries. These termes which Cyprian commonly vseth, The diuine povver, The working of quickning, The effect of eternall life, The portion of life, The di­uine substance, The diuine Maiestie, what other thing doe they set out to vs, then that which Augustine said, that according to his Maiestie, according to his vn­speakeable and inuisible grace, Christ is with vs euen vnto the end of the world, especially since that he shut­teth out the carnall sense, and requireth a spirituall, as we haue in another place more fully expounded?

Neither thought Cyrillus any othervvise, writing in this sort to Calosyrius: Cyril. ad Calos. For that we should not abhorre flesh and blood being set vpon the holy Altars, God fa­uouring our frailtie, putteth a force of life into those things that be offered, turning them into the trueth of his proper flesh, that a body of life, as it were a certaine quickning seed, may be found in vs. That trueth of bo­dy which Cyprian calleth The working of quickning, The effect of eternall life, The portion of life, the same doth Cyrillus terme the force of life, a body of life, a quickening seed, meaning the spiritual power & grace, as he expoundeth himselfe vpon Iohn lib 4 ca. 17. Idem in Ioan. lib. 4. cap. 17. saying thus: Euen as a little leauen (as Paul saith) doth sowre the whole lumpe, so a little blessing of God doth draw the whole man into himselfe, and doth fill him with his grace, and in this sort doeth Christ abide in vs, and we in Christ. By this meanes he reiecteth [...] that [Page 83] is to say, the eating of mans flesh, and withdraweth the minds of the faithfull from vntrue meanings & world­ly thoughts, and affirmeth to Euoptius, Idem ad Euopt. that this myste­rie is receiued in an onely pure and exquisite faith, as we haue mentioned before. For it is necessary that such an eating be spirituall and made by grace.

Athanasius was of this opinion.Athanas. de Pecca. in Spiri. Sanct. In his booke of the sinne against the holy Ghost he writeth in this sort: For this cause made hee mention of the Ascension of the Sonne of man into Heauen, that hee might withdraw them from a corporall imagination, & that they might afterward learne, that the heauenly meate that com­meth from aboue, and the spirituall food which he gi­ueth, is called the flesh of Christ. For, the wordes that I haue spoken to you (saith he) be Spirit and life. Which is asmuch as if he should say, The body which is shewed and slaine, shalbe giuen for the food of the world, that it may be spiritually distributed in euery one, and bee made a preseruation for all to the resurrection of eter­nall life. For this cause (sayeth Athanasius) mention was made of the Ascension of the Sonne of man, that he might call vs away from corporall imagining of his presence, and might aftervvard learne that the grace, or spirituall povver which he termeth the heauenly meat comming from aboue, and spirituall food, and affir­meth that it is spiritually distributed, is called the flesh of Christ.

To these agreeth Chrysostome vpon Matthew cap. 26. Chrysost. in Matth. cap. 26. Homil. 83. Hom. 83. Will ye not see (saith he) with what a cheare­fulnesse of minde Infants doe snatch the breast, with what appressing do they fasten their lips to the nipples? Let vs with no lesse desire come also to this Table, and spirituall nipple of this cup, yea rather with a greater coueting let vs (like sucking babes) sucke the grace of [Page 84] the Spirit:Idem ibidem. Let vs haue one griefe and heauinesse of heart, if we be depriued of this spirituall food. The same man in the same Homily saith, That it is an in­sensible thing which is giuen vs in this sacrament, but by things sensible, euen as in Baptisme. These be the words: Since therefore he saith, This is my body, let vs haue no doubt, but beleeue, and behold it with our vn­derstanding. For no sensible thing is deliuered vs from Christ, but by sensible things, and yet all things which he deliuered be insensible. So also in Baptisme, by wa­ter which is a sensible thing, that gift is granted: but that which is wrought in it, (namely regeneration and renuing) is a certaine intelligible thing. For if thou haddest bene without a body, hee would haue giuen thee the gifts barely without body: but because thy soule is ioyned to a body, in sensible, things to be vn­derstood are giuen thee. O hovv many do now a daies say, I would I might see his forme and shape, I would I might see his garments, also his shooes I would I might see. Thou doest therefore see him, touch him, eat him; thou desirest but to see his garments, but he giueth thee himselfe, not only that thou maiest see him, but maiest touch him and haue him in thee. Chrysostom doth here command vs to beleeue Christ, vvhen he saith, This is my body, but to behold it with the eyes of vnderstan­ding: For he saith, that neither any sensible or bodily thing is giuen in the sacraments, but by those things that be sensible, the very gifts to be vnderstood, and in­corporall are giuen vs; and that not onely in Baptisme, but also in the Supper of the Lord. But if Christ do giue vs himselfe in his Supper, and yet no bodily thing is giuen, (for he saith that the gifts be incorporall) It is manifest that Chrysostome doth agree with the rest of the Fathers, that Christ is present in the vse of the sacra­ment [Page 85] by grace and vertue of his body. And although this Author doe vse in some places deuout Hyperboli­call speeches disputing of this sacrament, which thing he hath also done here, when hee affirmeth that Christ is set before vs, not only to be seene, but also to be tou­ched: yet an indifferent reader may easily perceiue by this place and some other,Theodoritus Dial. 1. what was his right opinion of this matter. The very same thing doth Theodoritus plainely teach in his first Dialogue, in this wise;

Ortho. Our Sauiour himselfe chaunged the names, and gaue the name of the figure to his bodie, and the name of his bodie to the figure.

Sodal. Thou saiest true: but I would learne the cause of this change of names.

Ortho. The cause is plaine to them that bee instru­cted in the heauenly mysteries: for his will was, that they which partake the heauenly mysteries, should giue no heed to the nature of the thinges which bee seene, but by the change of names they should beleeue the alteration that is made by grace: for he which be­fore had called his naturall body meat and bread, and againe calleth himselfe a Vine, the same hath honou­red the figures which be seene, with the title of his bo­die and blood, not altering the nature, but ioyning grace to the nature. Nothing can bee spoken more plainely then Theodoritus doth here expounde, how bread is the body of Christ, that is to say, because the nature of bread remaineth, and yet by grace is made his bodie, in that grace is ioyned to the nature of the bread. The same man Dial. 2. Idem Dial. 2. For neither doe the my­sticall signes, after the sanctification, depart from their proper nature, for they tarie in their former substance, shape and forme, and may bee seene and touched euen as before: but they be vnderstood to be the things that [Page 86] they bee made, and so beleeued and worshipped, as though they were the same which they be beleeued. He said before, that the nature of the signes did remaine, but that there was a change made by grace; that the nature was not changed, but that grace was ioyned. Here doth he plainely say, that the substance, fashion and forme of the outward figures bee the same after sanctification, that they were: but yet they be made o­ther things to our vnderstanding and faith, that is to say, by grace as he taught vs before, singing al one song with Chrisostome, That no sensible or corporate thing is here giuen, but that they bee things intelligible, and incorporate, which be giuen by grace and with vertue.

Euthymius in Matth. cap. 64.Hereunto appertaine the words of Euthymius vpon Matthew chap. 64. Therefore euen as the olde Testa­ment had sacrifices and blood, so hath the new also, namely the body and blood of the Lord: for hee saide not, These bee signes of my body, but, These bee my body & my blood. Therfore we must not take heed to the nature of those things which bee set before vs, but to the vertue of them. For euen as aboue nature, hee deified the flesh that was taken of the Virgin, if it bee lawful to vse this phrase; so also doth he vnspeakeably change these things into his verie liuely body, and into his verie precious blood, and into the grace of them. In that hee saith, Wee may not regard the nature of those things that be set before vs, he teacheth that the nature of the bread remaineth: and in that hee addeth, But to the vertue of them, hee sheweth that by vertue they be the body of Christ, and not by any carnall meanes. Finallie he addeth by interpretation, And in­to the grace of them, that hee might exclude carnall imaginations.Leo & Synod. Ro. de con. dist. 2. Leo and the Synode of Rome de conse­crat. Dist. 2. doe not differ from these: for thus bee the [Page 87] words: Because in that mysticall distribution of spiri­tuall food, this is giuen, and this is receiued, that wee receiuing the vertue of this heauenly meate, may be­come his flesh which was made our flesh. You haue almost the very words which Emissenus and Chrysostome vsed, as we rehearsed before, The distribution of the heauenly food, the vertue of the heauenly meate re­ceiued, and that so we become his flesh. What other thing is this, then that wee be ioyned with his flesh by grace and vertue? For how can we otherwise be chan­ned into his flesh?

To this tendeth also the saying of Hilary there brought in among other:Hilarius. For the visible quantitie is not to be esteemed in this mysterie, but the vertue of the spirituall sacrament. Moreouer Theophylactus, which is counted as it were a certaine follower and in­terpreter of Chrysostome, doth affirme this most plaine­ly, as we haue aboue more fully set foorth: out of the which I will repeate a few thinges here; the rest, Rea­der, thou maist thy selfe take out of him. For both he taketh vtterly away carnal imaginations, and affirmeth that the words of this mysterie are spiritually to be vn­derstood, as those which haue no things carnall, but bring euerlasting life: and he sheweth the manner and way how to vnderstand them writing in this wise. And how (saith he) is not flesh seene? O man,Thoph. in Mar. cap. 14. this is done for our infirmitie: for insomuch as the bread and wine be of those things which we be acquainted withall, we abhorre them not: but if we should see blood and flesh set before vs, we could not abide it, but should abhorre it. Therefore God of his mercie fauoring our frailtie, retaineth still the forme of bread & wine, but he chan­geth the creatures into the power of flesh and blood. The same man in Ioan. cap 6. vpon these words,Idem in Ioan. cap. 6. This is [Page 88] a hard saying, who can away withall? &c. See their follie: for their dutie had been to haue asked & learned those thinges whereof they were ignorant: but they started backe, and did construe nothing spiritually, but all things as they outwardly appeared: For when they heard of flesh, they thought hee would compell them to be deuourers of flesh and blood. But because wee vnderstand it spiritually, neither wee be deuourers of flesh, and yet we be sanctified by such meat. The opi­nion of Theophylactus is certaine, that the faithfull be not in the sacrament [...], that is, deuourers of flesh, as I may so terme it, as the letter properly soundeth: but that spirituall sence is required, that is, the forme of bread & wine being retained, the vertue of his flesh and blood is receiued of the faithfull, as it is manifest by his owne words both here and those before rehear­sed.Bertram. Wherefore Bertram following the opinion of the old Fathers, hath thus written: For according to the substance of the creatures, they be the same also after, that they were before the consecration. They were before bread and wine, in which forme being now consecrated they seeme to remaine. Therfore is there a thing changed inwardly by the mightie power of the holy Ghost, which faith beholdeth, and feedeth the soule, and ministreth substance of eternall life. Like­wise: But now, because faith doeth behold that whole, whatsoeuer that whole is, and the eye of the flesh per­ceiueth nothing, ye shall vnderstand that those things which be seene, be the bodie and blood Christ, not in forme but in strength. The same Bertram when he had rehearsed this saying of Isidore: Which thinges for that cause be called sacraments, because vnder the co­uer of corporall things, the diuine power doth worke more secret saluation, whereupon they be called sa­craments [Page 89] also, of their secret and holie vertues, and in Greek it is called [...] because it hath a secret & hid di­spensation. And after he addeth of his own this saying: What be we taught therby, but that the body & blood of the Lord be for that cause called Mysteries, because they haue a secret and hid dispensation, that is, they be one thing which they outwardly betoken, and another which inwardly they inuisibly worke? Of this also they be called sacraments, because vnder the couer of corpo­rall things, the diuine power doth more secretly mini­ster the saluation of those that receiue them faithfully. By all these things which haue hitherto bene spoken it hath bene made manifest, that the body and blood of Christ which in the Church be receiued by the mouth of the faithfull, bee figures, according to their visible forme; but according to their inuisible substance, that is, the power of the heauenly Word, they verily be the body and blood of Christ. Whereupon, according to the visible creature they feed the body, but according to the vertue of their better substance, they both feed and sanctifie the minds of the faithfull. These bee Ber­trams words.

Hitherto haue we declared, what hath bene the opi­nion of the old true diuines of the Supper of the Lord, aswell Grecians as Latines, euen vnto Bertrams time, who in the yeere after Christs birth 840. was a famous man both in life & learning, noted by no man of Here­sie, nor found fault with as hauing ill written, but great­ly praised by the iudgement of learned and good men. Wherefore that Iohn, called Abbas Trithemius, Abbas Tri­them. doubted not to reckon him in the roule of diuine & famous wri­ters, and to praise him by this his testimony that folow­eth: Bertram an Elder and Monke very expert in holy Scripture, and notably wel learned in humanitie, quick [Page 90] of wit, eloquent of speech, no lesse famous in life then learning, writ many notable little treatises, whereof a few haue come to my knowledge. He writ one booke of Predestination, a cōmendable worke: To Charles the king, brother to Lotharius the Emperor, of the body and blood of the Lord, another booke. These things haue I the more willingly rehearsed, to this intent, to reproue that railing boldnes of tongue that some man hath v­sed, who in a book newly set forth of this controuersie, when he had nothing wherewith he could answer Ber­tram, thought it sufficient to despise this so famous a man, & to note him with the name of an heretike. Ber­tram, saith he, or what other soeuer was author of that worke set forth in his name, was a crafty and an impu­dent Heretike. O shameles face and meet to be bridled! Barnard also which liued 300. yeere after Bertram, doth reiect all carnall vnderstanding in the wordes of the Lords Supper, and acknowledgeth onely a spirituall; whose words, taken out of his Sermon in the day of the Lords Supper, I haue here added: A sacrament is cal­led a holy signe, or holy secret. Many things certainly be done only for themselues: some other also for other things betokened: and they be called signes, and be so. As for example of vsual matters, a ring is giuen abso­lutely for a ring, & there is no signification: It is giuen to set a man in possession of any estate of inheritance, and it is a token: so that now he that receiueth it, may say, the ring is of smal value, but it is the inheritance that I seeke. After this sort therefore our Lord drawing neere his Passion, was careful to set his disciples in pos­session of his grace, that his inuisible grace might be gi­uen by some visible signe. To this intent hee ordained the sacraments.Idem de S. Mart. To this end is the partaking of the sa­crament of Thankesgiuing. The same man of S. Martin: [Page 91] Without faile euen vnto this day is the same flesh gi­uen vs, but spiritually, not carnally: neither haue we to finde fault that there is denied to this our time, the ap­pearing which was shewed to the Fathers of the olde Testament, or that presence of his flesh which was de­clared to the Apostles: For certainely, neither of both can be prooued to be wanting to those that consider it faithfully. For the true substance of his flesh is also now present with vs no doubt, but in a sacrament, and there be reuelations, but yet in spirit and povver: so that no part of grace can be prooued to be wanting in the time of grace that now is. In cōclusion, neither the eye hath seene, nor the eare hath heard, neither haue they ascen­ded into the heart of man, which God hath prepared for them that loue him. Notwithstanding, he hath re­ueiled them vnto vs by his Spirit. Neither marueile thou, that he gaue carnal apparances vnto them which looked for his carnall comming: for it is necessary that we haue the grace so much more of force, & the reue­lation of more dignitie, as those things vndoubtedly be more excellent that we looke for. It cannot be hid by these things that we haue spoken, what was Bernards o­pinion of the presence of the flesh in the Lords Supper. First, folowing the old writers, he appointeth two parts of the sacrament: the outward signe, and the invvard matter, which he defineth to be inuisible grace. Againe, the flesh is giuen to vs, but spiritually, not carnally. Fi­nally, that the very substance of his flesh is present, but yet as it is fit for the time of grace, in grace, spirit and povver. As for that other Sermon of the Supper of the Lord, since it is not reckoned among Bernards owne works, albeit it be not contrary to these things that we haue now spoken, (if so be the author be thought to a­gree with himselfe) yet since it is counted another mans [Page 92] worke, & to haue a false title, it ought not to take place in a controuersie of so great a matter. Therefore in this third part of this worke I meant to shew, & I thinke I haue so done, how Christ our Lord ought to be belee­ued to be present in the administration of his holy Sup­per, according to common & agreeable interpretations of the ancient Fathers. First I taught, that a spirituall vnderstanding of eating the flesh of Christ was required by them, and all carnal imagination abolished. Then, that it was no spiritual maner of vnderstāding, if a man folow the letter, and proper signification of the words, such as they fained which brought in Transubstantia­tion, or doe appoint a grosse presence of flesh with the bread, but that all such imaginations be carnall and hu­mane, & not spiritual. Lastly, what those Fathers dee­med spirituall vnderstanding, namely that the body of Christ in the sacrament of Thankesgiuing, is giuen to the faithfull by grace and effectual povver, in a certaine holy signe.

But here a doubt riseth. If we beleeue that the grace and vertue of his true body bee ioyned with the bread and wine, wee shall seeme to attribute too much to the Elements, & therof should come a double euil: for so it shall come to passe, that the worshipping of the sacra­ment will follow, & the perill of idolatrie; & euill men when they receiue the sacrament should also eate his body, & be partakers of his grace. But that cannot be. He that eateth me (saith Christ) he shall liue for me, and hee that eateth this bread shall liue for euer: which cannot bee vnderstood of ill men. As concerning the worshipping of the sacrament, I answere, that the ancient fathers re­ceiued the sacrament of thanks-giuing with reuerence and great honor, & yet for all that, were safe from ido­latrie; which thing might also happen to vs, if the anci­ent [Page 93] discipline were reuoked,August. in Psal. 98. & the maner of Catechis­me restored. For Augustin doth euidently teach in Psal. 98. when he saith, That the ancient fathers worshipped when they did receiue. He gaue you his very flesh to be eaten for saluation: but none eateth that flesh vnles he haue first worshipped. And we do not only not offend in worshipping, but we offend in not worshipping. The same man in Sent. Prosperi: Idem in Sent. Prosp. But we in the forme of bread and wine which wee see, doe honour inuisible things, namely flesh and blood. Likewise Eusebius Emissenus: Euseb. Emiss. When thou goest vp to the holy Altar to bee fed with the spirituall food, behold in thy faith the holy bodie and blood of thy God, honour it, esteeme it greatly. And Chrysostome 1 Cor. 10. Homilia 24: Chrysost. 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 24. For I will shew thee that on earth, which is worthy of greatest honor. For euen as in Kings pallaces, not the walles, not the goulden roofe, but the body of a King sitting in his throne, is the excellentest of al: so is also in heauen, the body of the king, which is now set before thee to bee seene in earth: I shew thee neither Angels, nor Arch­angels, nor the hie heauens, but the Lord of all them. Ambrose vpon the 1. Cor. 11. Ambros. 1. Cor. 11. The sacrament of thankes­giuing is a spirituall medicine, which being tasted with reuerence doth purifie a deuout mind. And by and by he teacheth, that we must come with a deuout minde, and with feare to the holy Communion, that the mind may know, that it oweth a reuerence to him whose body it cōmeth to receiue. Theodorit also dial. 2. Theodoritus Dial. 2. For nei­ther do the mystical signes after the sanctificatiō depart from their proper nature; for they remaine in their for­mer substance, shape & fashion, and may be both seene and touched euen as before: but the things which they be made, be vnderstood, and beleeued, & worshipped, as if they were the self things which they be beleeued.

[Page 94]By this and other places, it is easie to perceiue, with what honor, & with what reuerēce the ancient fathers came to the holy Communion. Neyther is it any mar­uell, since they beleeued that they receiued in that bread, the true nature, and vertue of our Lords true body, and were farre off from idolatrie, being instru­cted and diligently taught, not to worship the outward signe, but the inward vertue. Which thing Augustin declareth by these wordes,August. de doct. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 9. De doctrina Christiana lib. 3. cap. 9. For he serueth vnder a signe, which worketh or reuerenceth any thing that signifieth, not knowing what it signifieth: but he that either worketh or reue­renceth a profitable signe ordained of God, whose force and signification he vnderstandeth, doth not ho­nor this that is seene and passeth away, but rather that whereunto all such things be referred. And soone af­ter: But in this time, after that by the resurrection of our Lord Iesus Christ the most manifest iudgement of our libertie appeared, we haue not bene laden with the weightie operation of those signes which we now vn­derstand: but the Lord himselfe, & the doctrine of the Apostles hath deliuered vnto vs a few in steed of ma­nie, and those verie easie to be done, & most pure to be kept; namely the sacrament of Baptisme, and the cele­bration of the body & blood of our Lord, which eue­rie man when he receiueth, being instructed, he know­eth whereto they be applied, so that he doth reuerence them not with a carnal seruitude, but rather with a spi­rituall liberty. Here wee see with what learning the Christian men in time past were seasoned, before they should come to the vse of the sacraments; and how, al­beit they honored or worshipped aswell in Baptisme as in the celebration of the Supper, yet that was done without perill or offence. Perill, as here it is euident, [Page 95] when as they had no respect to that which is seene and doth decay, but to the vertue and signification therof: Offence, because they had a conscience in time past, I will not say to receiue the sacraments before Infidels, and such as were ignorant of the mysteries, but not so much as to talke of so secret matters before them. Of the which thing there be many testimonies: but wee wil for this time be content with this one, taken out of the 2. Dial. of Theodoritus. For Orthodoxus, Dial. 2. Theod. being asked how he before the consecration called that which was offered by the Priest, answered, We must not speake frankely: for it is likely that there be some here pre­sent which be not instructed in the mysteries of Christ. Eran. Answere mee therefore softlie. By this place it is euident, how warily, and soberly they in time past spake of the mysteries. And this is worth the labour to note, That the ancient writers, when they spake of the sacraments, did vse diuers termes of honoring, re­uerencing, or worshipping: By the which notwithstan­ding either they meant to signifie some other honour and reuerence meet for holy matters, then that which is cōmanded of God when he saith, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him onely shalt thou serue. So that worshipping may be defined to bee of two sorts: the one, wherewith we worship God himselfe: The other, wherewith we worship the prescribed signes & diuine mysteries, according to that saying, Worship yee his foot­stoole: which thing most men vnderstand to be spoken of the arke of couenant: other interpret it to be of the humanitie of Christ. Or admit that there is one man­ner of worshipping in both places, wee might say, that the flesh of Christ is to be worshipped, though it bee a creature, for the diuinitie ioyned therewith; that the arke of couenant was to be worshipped, for the pre­sence [Page 96] of the diuine maiestie, which God himselfe pro­mised should be there present. After the which sort al­so we may worship the sacrament of Thankes-giuing for the vnspeakeable and inuisible grace of Christ ioy­ned therewith, as Augustin saith, not honouring that which is seene and passeth away, but that which is be­leeued and vnderstood. This also is worthy to be mar­ked, that the worship in old time, was not done by the idle lookers on, but by them which did receiue the my­steries, and were made partakers of their grace. For he that worshippeth & receiueth, to him it is the body of Christ; not to him that worshippeth & receiueth not. For to this intent was that meat ordained, that wee worshipping should eate, and not that wee should wor­ship it when others eate. Thus much bee said concer­ning the worshipping. But in that it is denied that euill men can eate the body of Christ, which thing should necessarily be done, if the spirituall vertue & grace be ioyned with the bread; it may be answered, That there is a distinction to be vsed. For if we haue regard to the very nature of the sacrament, the diuine povver can by no meanes be absent from the signe, in that it is a sacra­ment, & serueth to that vse: but if we regard the man­ners & inclination of the receiuer, it is not life & grace to him, vvhich othervvise of the ovvne nature is both, because the vvickednesse of euill men cannot be parta­ker of so great a goodnesse, & suffereth it not to bring forth fruit, but contrariwise to them is it death & dam­nation. For euen as diuers kinds of meats bee of their owne nature wholesome, but if they be put into disea­sed bodies, they increase the euill, and oftentimes shor­ten their time, not through their nature, but through the fault of the receiuer: so also commeth it to passe in the sacrament, vvhose proper vertue is alvvayes pre­sent [Page 97] till it hath performed the office thereof, although an euil man when he receiueth it, cannot be partaker of so great goodnesse, nor perceiue any fruit thereof.

Cyprian de Coena Domini confirmeth the very same.Cyprian. de Coena Dom. The sacraments truely, saith he, as much as in them is, cannot be without their proper vertue, neither by any meanes doth the diuine Maiestie absent it selfe from the mysteries. But albeit the sacraments permit them­selues to be receiued or touched of vnworthy persons; yet for all that they cannot be partakers of the Spirit, whose infidelitie or vnworthines doth resist to so great an holinesse. And therefore these gifts to some be a sa­uour of life to life, and to some a sauour of death vnto death: For it is altogether right, that the despisers of grace be depriued of so great a benefit, that the puritie of so great grace should haue no dwelling in the vn­worthy. Augustin against the letters of Petiliane lib. 2. August. cont. literas Petill. lib. 2. cap. 47. ca. 47. Therefore remember that the maners of ill men do nothing hurt the sacraments of God, to make that ei­ther they be not sacraments at all, or be lesse holy: but the hurt is to the ill men themselues, that they should haue them for a testimony of damnation, and not for a helpe to saluation. The same man in his fift booke of Baptisme Contra Donatistas cap. 8. Idem de Bapt. lib. 5. For euen as Iudas to whom the Lord gaue a sop, made place for the deuil in himselfe, not by receiuing that which was euil, but by ill receiuing it; So euery man that receiueth vnworthily the sacrament of the Lord, maketh it not euill because he is euill, or that he receiue nothing, because he recei­ueth it not to his saluation. For it was the body of the Lord, & the blood of the Lord also to them, to whom the Apostle said, He that eateth vnworthily, Idem contra Crescen. lib. 1. cap. 25. eateth & drin­keth his owne iudgement. The same man contra Crescen. lib. 1. cap. 25. Albeit the Lord himselfe say, Vnlesse a man [Page 98] eate my flesh, and drinke my blood, he shall haue no life in him, doth not the same Apostle teach, that this becommeth destruction to them that vse it ill? For he saith, He that eateth the bread, and drinketh of the cup of the Lord vnwor­thily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Behold, how diuine and holy mysteries do hurt those that vse them ill. Why not Baptisme in like maner? By these & ma­ny other places it is euident, that the sacrament of Thankesgiuing, asmuch as pertaineth to the nature of the sacrament, is verily the body and blood of Christ, and is verily a diuine and holy thing, albeit it be recei­ued of the vnvvorthy: where notwithstanding they be not made partakers of the grace, & holines thereof, but they draw thereout death and damnation. For neither doth so great a goodnes remaine in them, or enter into them, to the intent to remaine, but to condemne them. Neither doeth the touching of the Lords body any more profit them, then it did the Iewes that crucified Christ, to touch his body that was hallowed, & alwaies indued with his grace. Wherefore let this be certaine, that the sacraments, as long as they be sacraments, doe retaine their vertue, neither can they be separated from it. For they alwayes consist of their parts, heauenly and earthly, visible and inuisible, inward & outvvard, whe­ther good men or euill, worthy or vnvvorthy receiue them. And also that change of signes and passage of elements into the invvard substance, which wee often find in the old writers, can by no meanes stand, if we se­parate the vertue from the signe, or would haue the one receiued apart from the other. But this is so to be vn­derstood, as long as the signe serueth to that vse, and is applied to that end for the which it was ordained, ac­cording to Gods word. For if we apply it to other vses, and abuse it contrary to Christs institution; either it is [Page 99] no sacrament at all, or else it ceaseth from being a sacra­ment. Therefore they commit no light offence, which do not direct the signes of bread and wine to that end which Christ ordained them for, but do consecrat them for a pompe, farre off from Gods word, and yet not­withstanding doe thrust them to the simple people in stead of sacraments. For although they be ministred or­derly, and according to their lavvfull vse; yet when that vse and doing of their proper office doeth cease, they retaine no longer neither the name, nor vertue of sacraments, which thing the old custome of the church doeth proue. For when the Communion was ended, men did eat their common supper, and spent together in the Church those things that remained of the sacra­ments, as Hierom doth witnesse vpon the 1. Cor. cap. 11. Hlerom in 1. Cor. cap. 11. And partly those things that remained vnspent, vvere streightway cast in the fire,Hesych. in Leui. lib. 2. cap. 8. as Hesychius teacheth In Le­uit. lib. 2. cap. 8. whereof neither was lawfull to be done, vnlesse they had ceased to be sacraments. Wherefore, neither is that doubt of them that receiue it vnvvorthi­ly, of any force to subuert this opinion which we haue set forth, but that neuerthelesse remaineth safe, and vn­hurt, and worthily to be imbraced of men desirous of trueth and concord. First, because the dignitie & due honour of the sacraments is not hurt, but remaineth whole and vnblemished, whilest we confesse both the trueth of his body, and the nature and substance of the same, to be receiued of the faithfull together with out­ward signes, which thing the ancient Fathers do testifie to be done. Againe if we receiue that distinction which the same Fathers diligently obserued, betvveene that proper assumpt body of the Lord, or that he tooke vp­on him, and this figuratiue body, or sacrament of his body, there is no offence committed against the rule of [Page 98] [...] [Page 99] [...] [Page 100] our faith, which by no meanes is to be wronged, since that we attribute to either body their due. For we say, that his proper and assumpt body is in a place, and li­mitted within the space of a place, for the maner of his true body, as Augustine saith: As the true maner of hu­mane nature requireth, and the true beleeuing fathers against Marcion, Eutyches, and other heretikes do stoutly affirme; Which thing they that deny, and appoint that body to be euery where, doe by that meanes deny the true nature of his body, and fall into the errors and he­resies of them. And yet there is no let, but the trueth of his mysticall body, because it is a spirituall and diuine matter, is as largely spread & present, as the celebration of the sacrament is spread, according to the opinion of the same true beleeuing Fathers. Furthermore, no ab­surdities follow this doctrine, as very many doe insue both that grosse Transubstantiation, & also that carnal coupling with the bread; namely, that mise, beasts, des­perate men doe gnaw, chew, or swallow that precious body of the Lord which was taken of the Virgine, whereas it is lawfull for no man to eat of that body, no not for a godly man, as Hierom witnesseth. Beside, this is no doubtfull doctrine, nor hard to be perceiued, but open, and very cleare, as farre as the nature of the my­steries do permit. And albeit this controuersie doth o­therwise seeme to many, intricate, and like a maze; this exposition is easie, no darkenes in it, no wordes of the Scriptures, nor testimony of the Fathers be against it, but all they do agree & friendly accord. Adde hereun­to, that this maner of handling this matter, is old, & con­stantly deliuered to vs frō the ancient Fathers, not new sprung, nor at this time first inuented, as the matter it selfe declareth; & therefore it maketh them more friendly to obtaine the peace and tranquility of the Church, [Page 101] since that all men may vnderstand that it is no new opi­nion, made out of our owne heads, but the ancient opinion of the true beleeuing Fathers called to memory againe: especially since it is of such sort as can iustly of­fend no part, but moue & exhort all men to be content. There be some that take in ill part, that the sacrament of Thankesgiuing is called a signe or figure, as though it were a bare signe or vaine figure. Here they heare that it is not only a signe, but the thing it selfe, not one­ly a figure, but also the trueth. Not being contented herewith, they vrge the Fathers, they require the nature of his body in the sacrament. Here also they do heare, that the presence of his nature is taught, and that there is a naturall participation. Yet they goe further, and command vs to confesse a substance of his body. They see also that the substance is by vs affirmed to be pre­sent, and that our communion with Christ naturally and (if I may so say) substantially, is here set out: but yet that these termes ought to bee vnderstood, not as Philosophers, but as Diuines vse to speake. Neither would wee striue so much about that terme of Tran­substantiation, albeit it be barbarous & nothing neces­sary, if so be they would interpret it to be such a change of substance as the ancient Fathers acknowledged, that is to say, a sacramentall alteration; such also as is made in a creature that is regenerat by Baptisme, which is made a new man, and a new creature; and such also as is made when wee be turned into the flesh of Christ, which examples the ancient Fathers vsed. We do not so much eschew the termes themselues, although there is also respect to be had of them; but we require the sig­nificatiō of them, which the Fathers themselues taught and earnestly demaund; And onely that [...] that is to say, the deuouring of flesh, which by no meanes they [Page 102] allow, but condemne as foolish and wicked, we reiect, as farre off from the Scriptures, and farre from the in­terpretation of the Fathers, and finally directly striuing with the true faith: and we iudge, that a spiritual mea­ning is necessary in the eating of this flesh, follovving therein Christ himselfe the Author, and the consent of the best allowed interpreters that we haue. Surely it is a marueilous matter to see, hovv in other controuersies we be Aristotle men, and oftentimes take hold of distin­ctions more curious then necessary: and in this dispu­tation of Sacraments we admit no difference, we allow no equiuocation, although both the nature of the thing requireth it, and the authoritie of the old writers doe as it were point vs to it with a finger; and seeing that nei­ther the Scriptures, nor the holy Fathers do speake of the diuine mysteries after a naturall sort, but after an high and diuine maner, as becommeth men that treat of diuine matters, and inspired with God, comparing spiritual things with spirituall things. Againe, if there be any man that thinketh that there is here too much attributed to the elements, it is not so: but their due re­uerence is giuen to the outward signes for the holy vse of them. But the invvard povver which commeth by the force of the word of God, is onely that which the mind of the faithfull doth respect, which sanctifieth the body and the minde of him that vseth it. But if there be any that require a miracle, (for some of the Fathers called the sacrament of Thankesgiuing, a notable mi­racle) surely it is no lesse to be marueiled at, that the bread and wine being earthly creatures, and ordeined to feed the body onely, doe possesse that force in them, and so mighty an efficacie by the vertue of the mystical benediction, that they cleanse, nourish, sanctifie, and prepare to immortalitie both minds and bodies, so that [Page 103] they make vs members of Christ, and one body with him. Yea this miracle hath more weight, more dig­nitie, greater profit, and more agreeable to the maner of the mysteries, then any grosse Transubstantiation, or naturall and humane flesh-eating can comprehend. Wherefore, the seeds of contention and discord bee now taken away, and there remaineth no cause why, but the Churches of Christ, especially those that pro­fesse the desire of the Gospel, may agree in one with quiet minds and coupled affections, which now disa­gree among themselues with bitter hatred.

These things, my brethren, I haue thought meet to gather together touching this controuersie full of thornes, as it seemed to many: surely at the first not with this intent to set it abroad in print, but to haue some certaintie whereto I may leane, in a matter so full of controuersie, and yeeld a reason of my opinion. But now, that me thinketh I haue taken some fruit of this worke, vvhateuer it bee, I am not vnwilling if it may bring any profit to others also. This I know in my owne conscience, that I haue sought for no other thing in this Treatie, but godly and modestly to profit my selfe and others.

I beseech the GOD and Father of our Lord IESVS CHRIST to remooue from the mindes of Pastours, Doctours and Ministers of the Church, the greatest confusion of the Church, [...], that is, de­sire to striue and rule, and dispose their mindes to peace and brotherly concord in Christ, that they may not a­buse this notable bond of loue, deliuered and com­mended by the Lord himselfe to his Church, wrest­ing it to the nourishing of contentions and factions: And vouchsafe to inspire with his Spirit the hearts of [Page 104] Princes and Magistrates, that they may aboue all things regard what doeth most become the rule com­mitted to their charge, and aduance Gods glory, and not respect vvhat may grovv to their coffers by this troublesome time, with the cruell vexation of their Subiects, and common cala­mitie of their Common-weales.