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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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, 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 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 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, 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : But ſuch kind of thoughts hee termeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is to ſay, as Budaeus doeth interpret it, counterfeite, not right, not ſincere: For ſo much as here is 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, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by compariſon.

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

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 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 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 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 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 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: 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 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, 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 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. 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.

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 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 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, 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 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, when they intreat of the Sacraments. The fathers make mention of Nature and Subſtance, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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. 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that 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 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 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 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 alſo, of their ſecret and holie vertues, and in Greek it is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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: 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 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 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.

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, 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 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 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 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 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 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is to ſay, the deuouring of fleſh, which by no meanes they 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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.