Now then let them tell me how,1 without a crop or figure, that shall be counted the covenant it self, by means whereof, the covenant is established? And yet this further I would gladly demand of them, if the bare word or letter being so precisely observed, that real consubstantiation must of necessity ensue, how it can be that this should not follow likewise, that the signs being not only distincted, but in very deed and truth separated and sundered also the body it self should not likewise in deed be separated and sundered from the blood?2 I many times thinking, and that earnestly of this one matter, to wit, why divers did so greatly urge this same rule Consubstantiation, even as if it were the principal point of all our religion: of a truth, nothing could come into my mind but that which was most easy to be confuted. As for ye that they say,3 that unless Christs very body and his very blood be believed to be so present, that it may be received with the hands and with the mouth, or else the bread and the wine, shall be but empty and void signs, I say it is of no force. In good sooth, suppose ye that ye speak the trueth? Belike ⟨p. 110⟩then all the sacraments that the Fathers had,4 before that Christs flesh was indeed created were void, and of no force. Their Sacraments (saith Augustine) were in signs divers, but in matter equal. But in what matter were they equal? Even in Christ, the only matter of the sacraments: for that same spiritual word, that is, (as the self-same writer upon the 77. 5psalm expoundeth it) signifying some spiritual thing, was Christ; & they did eat the same meat that we eat,6 and did drink the same drink, to wit, Christ that was to be born, as we eat and drink Christ already borne, who is a spiritual meat and drink. How untrue therefore is it that the signs are of no force, except the thing signified, being in deed also present be coupled and joined with the sign?7 Yea shall we say, that the water of Baptism, is an idle sign? & yet I never hard of any man that would say, that the blood of Christ was indeed consubstantiated together with the wine. But against this they reply saying: the reason or cause of that is, because the Lord said not, that that water was his blood.
Now then let them tel me how,1 without a crope or figure, that shall be counted the couenant it selfe, by meanes whereof, the couenant is established? And yet this further I would gladly demaund of them, if the bare word or letter being so precisely obserued, that reall consubstantiation must of necessity ensue, how it can be that this should not followe likewise, that the signes beeing not onely distincted, but in very deede and truth separated and sundered also the body it selfe shoulde not likewise in deede bee separated and sundered from the bloud?2 I many times thinking, and that earnestly of this one matter, to wit, why diuers did so greatly vrge this same rule Consubstantiation, euen as if it were the principall point of all our religion: of a truth, nothing could come into my minde but that which was most easie to be confuted. As for ye that they say,3 that vnles Christs very body and his very bloud be beleeued to be so present, that it may be receiued with the hands and with the mouth, or else the bread and the wine, shall be but emptie and void signes, I say it is of no force. In good sooth, suppose yee that yee speake the trueth? Belike ⟨p. 110⟩then all the sacraments that the Fathers had,4 before that Christs flesh was indeede created were voide, and of no force. Their Sacraments (saith Augustine) were in signes diuers, but in matter equall. But in what matter were they equall? Euen in Christ, the only matter of the sacraments: for that same spirituall word, that is, (as the selfe-same writer vpon the 77. 5psalme expoundeth it) signifieng some spirituall thing, was Christ; & they did eat the same meat that we eat,6 and did drinke the same drinke, to wit, Christ that was to be born, as we eat and drinke Christ alredy borne, who is a spirituall meat and drinke. How vntrue therefore is it that the signes are of no force, except the thing signified, being in deede also present bee coupled and ioyned with the signe?7 Yea shall we say, that the water of Baptisme, is an idle signe? & yet I neuer hard of any man that would say, that the bloud of Christ was indeede consubstantiated together wyth the wine. But against this they replie saieng: the reason or cause of that is, because the Lord saide not, that that water was his bloud.
- 1See for the proof of this Genesis 17.9.See for the proofe of this Genesis 17.9.
- 2Consubstantiation erroneous, and all that is objected for i• most weak.Consubstantiation erronious, and al that is obiected for i• most weake.
- 3An objection.An obiection.
- 4The answer ••ken from an absurdity.The answeare ••ken from an absurditie.
- 5August. in psa. 77
- 61. Corint. 10.2.3.
- 72 A second reason, standing upon comparison of the element of baptism, with the elements of the supper.2 A second reson, standing vpon comparison of the element of baptisme, with the elements of the supper.
