liue for euer And thus I haue declared the sence of Christes wordes brought forth out of the Gospell of Sainct Iohn Wherby appeareth how euidentely they set forth the doctrine of the mysterie of the eatyng of Christes fleshe drinkyng his bloud in the Sacrament whiche must nedes be vnderstanded of a corporall eatyng as Christ did after ordre in thinstitucion of the sayd Sacrament accordyng to his promise and doctrine here declared Now where thauctor to exclude the mysterie of corporall manducacion bryngeth forth of Sainct Augustine suche wordes as entreat of theffect and operacion of the worthy receauyng of the Sacrament the handelyng is not so syncere as this matter requireth For as hereafter shal be intreated that is not worthely and well done may because the principall entent fayleth be called nor done as so Sainct Augustine sayth Let him not thinke to eat the bodie of Christ that dwelleth not in Christ not because the body of Christ is not receaued whiche by Sainct Augustines mynde euill men do to their condempnacion but because theffecie of life fayleth And so thauctor by sleight to exclud the corporall manducacion of Christes most precious bodie vttreth suche wordes as myght sounde Christ to haue taught the dwellyng in Christ to be an eatyng whiche dwellyng may be without this corporal manducacion in him that can not attaine the vse of it and dwellyng in Christ is an effecte of the worthy manducacion and not the manducacion it selfe whiche Christ doth ordre to be practised in the moost precious Sacrament institute in his supper Here thou reader mayst see how this doctrine of Christ as I haue declared it openeth the corporall manducacion of his moost holie fleshe and drinkyng of his moost precious bloud whiche he gaue in his supper vnder the formes of bread and wyne Nowe let vs considre the textes of the Euangelistes and Sainct Paule whiche be brought in by thauctor as foloweth Whē they wee catyng Iesus toke bread Mat. 26 and when he had geuē thankes he brake it gaue it to his disciples and sayd Take eat this is my bodie And he toke the cup and when he had geuen thankes he gaue it to them saiyng drinke ye all of this for this is my bloud of the new testament that is shed for many for the remission of synnes But I say vnto you I wyll not drinke henceforth of this frute of the vine vntill that daye when I shall drinke it new with you in my fathers kingdome As they did eat Iesus toke bread and Mar. 14 when he had blessed he brake it and gaue it to them sayd Take eat This is my bodie taking the cup whē he had geuē thankes he gaue it to them and they dranke of it And he said to them This is my bloud of the new Testament whiche is shed for many Uerely I say vnto you I will drinke no more of the frute of the vine vntill that daye that I drinke it newe in the kyngdome of God When the houre was come he sat doune Luc. 22. and the .xij. Apostels with him And he sayd vnto them I haue greatly desired to eat this Pascha with you before I suffre For I say vnto you henceforth I will not eat of it any more vntill it be fulfylled in the kyngdome of God And he toke the cup and gaue thankes and sayd Take this and deuide it among you For I say vnto you I will not drinke of the frute of the vine vntill the kyngdome of God come And he toke bread and whē he had geuen thankes he brake it and gaue it vnto them saiynge This is my bodie whiche is geuen for you This do in remēbrance of me Likewise also when he had supped he toke the cup saiyng This cup is the new Testamēt in my bloud which is shed for you Is not the cuppe of blessyng whiche we 1. Cor. 10 blesse a communion of the bloud of Christ Is not the bread whiche we breake a communion of the bodie of Christ We beyng many are one bread and one bodie for we are all partakers of one bread and of one cuppe That whiche I deliuered vnto you I 1. Cor. 11 receaued of the Lord. For the Lorde Iesus the same night in the whiche he was betrayed toke bread and when he had geuen thankes he brake it and sayd Take eate this is my bodie whiche is broken for you do this in remembraunce of me Likewise also he toke the cup when supper was done saiyng This cup is the new Testament in my bloud do this as often as ye drinke it in remembraunce of me For as often as you shall eate this bread drinke of this cup ye shew forth the Lordes death till he come wherfore whosoeuer shall eat of this bread or drinke of this cuppe vnworthely shal be giltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lorde But let a man examine him selfe and so eat of the bread and drinke of the cup for he that eateth drynketh vnworthely eateth and drynketh his owne damnacion because he maketh no difference of the Lordes bodie For this cause many are weake and sycke among you and many do slepe After these textes brought in thauctor doth in the fourth chapter begyn to trauers Christes intent that he intēded not by these wordes This is my bodie to make the bread his body but to signify that suche as receiue that worthely be membres of Christes bodie The Catholique church acknowlegyng Christ to be verie God and verie man hath frō the beginnyng of these textes of scripture cōfessed truely Christes intent and effectual myraculous woorke to make the bread his body and the wyne his bloud to be verely meate verely drinke vsyng therin his humanitie wherwith to fead vs as he vsed the same wherwith to redeame vs as he doth sanctify vs by his holy spirite so to sanctify vs by his holy diuine fleshe and bloud and as life is renewed in vs by the gift of Christs holy spirite so life to be encreased in vs by the gift of his holy fleshe So as he that beleueth in Christ and receaueth the Sacrament of beleif whiche is baptisme receiueth really Christes spirite So he that hauyng Christs spirite receaueth also the Sacrament of Christes bodie and bloud doth really receaue in the same and also effectually Christes verie bodie and bloud And therfore Christ in thinstitucion of this Sacramēt sayd deliueryng that he consecrated This is my bodie c. And likewise of the cuppe This is my bloud And although to mans reason it semeth straunge that Christ standyng or sittyng at the table should deliuer them his bodie to be eaten yet when we remembre Christ to be verie God we muste graunt him omnipotent and by reason therof represse in oure thoughtes all imaginacions how it might be and considre Christes intent by his will preached vnto vs by scriptures and beleued vniuersally in his church But if it may now be thought semely for
the sufferyng of the bodie of Christ sheddynge of his moost precyous bloud on thaultar of the Crosse whiche worke and passion of Christ is preached vnto vs by wordes and sacramentes and the same doctrine receiued of vs by faith the effecte of it also And thus farre goeth the doctrine of this auctor But the Catholique teachyng by the scriptures goth futher confessing Christ to feade such as be regenerate in him not onely by his bodie and bloud but also with his bodie and bloud deliuered in this sacrament by him in dede to vs whiche the faythfull by his institucion and commaundement receiue with their faith and with their mouth also and with those specyall deynties be fed specially at Christes table And so God doth not onely preach in his sacraments but also worketh in them and with them and in sensible thynges geueth celestiall giftes after the doctrine of eche sacrament as in baptisme the spirite of Christ and in the sacrament of thaultar the verie bodie bloud of Christe accordyng to the plaine sence of his woordes whiche he spake This is my bodie c. And this is the Catholique faith against the which how thauctor wil fortify that he would haue called Catholique and confute that he improueth I intend hereafter more particularly to touche in discussion of that is sayd wherein I will kepe this ordre First to considre the thirde booke that speaketh against the fayth of the real presence of Christes most precious bodie bloud in the sacrament then against the fourth so returne to the second speakyng of TransubstaÌ„tiation wherof to talke the real presence not beyng discussed were clearly superfluous And finally I wyll somewhat say of the fift booke also The confutation of the thyrd booke IN the beginyng of the thyrde booke thauctor hath thought good to note certaine differences whiche I will also particularly consider It foloweth in him thus They teache that Christ is in the bread and wyne But we say accordyng to The auctor the truth that he is in them that worthely eat and drinke the bread and wyne Note here Reader euen in thenâ—re of the The answer comparison of these differeÌ„ces how vntruly the true fayth of the Churche is reported whiche doth not teache that Christ is in the bread and wyne which was the doctrine of Luther But the true fayth is that Christes most precious bodie bloud is by the might of his worde and determinacion of his will which he declareth by his worde in his holie supper preseÌ„t vnder forme of bread wyne the substaunce of whiche natures of bread wyne is conuerted into his most precious bodie and bloud as it is truely beleued and taught in the Catholique Church of whiche teachyng this auctor can not be ignoraunte So as thauctor of this booke reporteth an vntruth wittyngly against his conscience to say they teache callyng theÌ„ Papistes that Christ is in the bread wyne but they agre in forme of teachyng with that the Churche of England teacheth at this day in the distribution of the holie communion in that it is there sayd the bodie and bloud of Christ to be vnder the forme of bread and wyne And thus much serueth for declaracion of the wrong and vntrue reporte of the fayth of the Catholique church made of this auctor in the settyng forth of this difference on that part whiche it pleaseth him to name Papistes And nowe to speake of the other parte of the difference on thauctors side when he would tell what he and his say he conueyeth a sence craftely in wordes to serue for a difference suche as no Catholique man would deny For euery Catholique teacher graunteth that no man can receaue worthely Christes precious bodie and bloud in the Sacrament onlesse he hath by fayth and charitie Christ dwellyng in him for otherwise suche one as hath not Christ in him receaueth Christes bodie in the Sacrament vnworthely to his condempnacioÌ„ Christ can not be receaued worthely but in to his owne temple whiche be ye S. Paule sayth yet he that hath not Christes spirit in him is not his As for callyng it bread and wyne a Catholique man forbereth not that name signifiyng what those creatures were before the consecracion in substaunce Wherfore appeareth how thauctor of this boke in the lieu and place of a difference whiche he pretendeth he would shew bringeth in that vnder a But which euery Catholique man must nedes confesse that Christ is in them who worthely eate and drinke the sacrameÌ„t of his bodie bloud or the bread and wyne as this auctor speaketh But and this auctor would haue spoken plainely and compared truely the difference of the two teachynges he should in the second part haue sayd somewhat contrarie to that the Catholique churche teacheth which he doth not and therfore as he sheweth vntruth in the first reporte so he sheweth a sleight and shifte in the declaracion of the second part to say that repungneth not to the first matter that no Catholique man will deny consideryng that the sayd two teachynges be not of one matter nor shote not as one might say to one marke For the first part is of the substaunce of the Sacrament to be receaued where it is truth Christ to be present God and man The second part is of Christes spiritual presence in the man that receaueth which in dede must be in him before he receaue the sacrameÌ„t or he can not receyue the Sacrament worthely as afore is sayd whiche two partes may stand well together without any repugnaunce and so both the differences thus taught make but one catholique doctrine Let vs se what the auctor sayth further They say that when any maÌ„ eateth the bread and The auctor drynketh the cup Christ goeth into his mouth or stomoke with the bread and wyne and no further But we say that Christ is in the hole man both in body and soule of him that worthely eateth the bread and drynketh the cup and not in his mouth or stomoke onely In this comparison thauctor termeth the The answer true Catholique teachyng at his pleasure to bryng it in contempte Whiche doyng in rude speache would be called otherwise then I wyll terme it Truth it is as Sainct Augustine sayth we receaue in the Sacrament the body of Christ with our mouthe and suche speache other vse as a booke set forth in the archbisshoppe of Cantorburies name called a Cathechisme willeth children to be taught that they receaue with their bodely mouth the body and bloud of Christ whiche I allege because it shall appeare it is a teachyng set forth among vs of late as hath been also and is by the booke of comen prayor beyng the moost true Catholique doctrine of the substaunce of the Sacrament in that it is there so Catholiquely spoken of whiche booke this auctor doth after specially allow how so euer all the summe of his teachyng doth improue it in
in his last supper was an offryng of him to God the father assuryng there his Apostels of his wil determination by thē al the worlde that his body should be betrayed for thē vs his precious bloud shedde for remissiō of synne which his worde he cōfermed thē with the gift of his precious body to be eaten his precious bloud to be dronken In which mistery he declared his body and bloud to be the very sacrifice of the worlde by him offred to God the father by the same wil that he sayd his body shuld be betrayed for vs. And therby ascertayned vs to be in him willyng that the Iewes on the crosse semed to execute by violence force against his wil. And therfore as christ offred himself on the crosse in the execution of the worke of his wil so he offred himselfe in his supper in declaration of his wil wherby we might be the more assured of the effect of his deth which he suffred willyngly determinatly for the redemptiō of the worlde with a most perfite oblation satisfaction for the synnes of the worlde exhibite offred by him to God the father for the recōciliatiō of mannes nature to gods fauor grace And this I wryte because this auctor speaketh so precisely howe Christ offred himself neuer but ones wherby if he meane by ones offryng the hole action of our redēption whiche was consummate perfited vpon the crosse Al must confesse the substaunce of that worke of redemption by thoblation of Christes body on the crosse to haue been absolutly finished so ones offred for al. But there is no scripture wherupō we myght conclude that Christ dyd in this mortall life but in one particuler momēt of tyme offre himselfe to his father For S. Paule describeth it to the Philippians vnder the Phil. 2. worde of humiliation to haue continued the hole tyme of Christes conuersation here euē to the death the death of the crosse And that thys obedience to God in humilitie is called offeryng appeareth by S. Paule when he exhorteth vs to offre our bodies which meaneth a continual obedience in thobseruation of Gods will he calleth Oblationem gentium Rom. 12 to bryng them to fayth And Abrahās willyng obedience ready at Gods commaūdement to offre Isaac is called the offerynge of Isaac and is in very dede a true offeryng and eche man offreth himselfe to God when he yeldeth to gods callyng and presenteth himselfe ready to do gods wyl and cōmaundement who then may be say de to offre his seruyce that is to say to place his seruice in sight and before him before whom it should be done And because our sauiour Christ by the decree of the hole trinite roke mannes nature vpon him to suffre death for our redemption whiche death in his last supper he declared playnly he would suffre We reade in S. Cyprian how Christ offred himselfe in his supper fulfillyng the figure of Melchisedech who by thoffryng of bread and wyne signifyed that high mistery of Christes supper in which Christ vnder the forme of bread and wyne gaue his very body and bloud to be eaten and dronken and in the geuynge therof declared the determination of his glorious Passion and the fruite and effecte therof Whiche doyng was a swete pleasaunte oblatiō to God the father conteinyng a most perfyte obedience to Gods wyll and pleasure And in the mistery of this supper was writen made and sealed a most perfyte testimonie for an effectuall memorye of Christes offeryng of himselfe to his father and of his death and passion with the fruite therof And therfore Christ ordeyned this supper to be obserued and continued for a memory to his cummyng So as we that sawe not with our bodely eyes Christes death and passion may in the celebration of the supper be most suredly ascertayned of the truth out of Christes owne mouth Who styl speaketh in the person of the ministre of the church This is my body that is betrayed for you This is my bloud that is shedde for you in remission of synne and therwith maketh his very body truely present and his precious bloud truely present to be taken of vs eaten and dronken Wherby we be assured that Christ is the same to vs that he was to them and vseth vs as familiarly as he did them offreth himself to his father for vs aswel as for thē declareth his wil in the fruit of his death to perteyn aswel to vs as to thē Of which death we be assured by his own mouth that he suffred the same to thef fecte he spake of by the continual feadyng in this high mystery of the same very body that suffed and feadyng of it without consumptiō beyng continually exhibite vnto vs a liuyng body and liuely bloud not only our soule is specially and spiritually comforted and our body therby reduced to more conformable obedience to the soule but also we by the participation of this most precious body and bloud be ascertayned of resurrectiō and regeneration of our bodyes fleshe to be by gods power made incorruptible immortal to lyue haue fruition in God with our soule for euer Wherfore hauyng this mystery of Christes supper so many truthes in it the churche hath celebrate thē al and knowledged them al of one certayntie in truth not as figures but really in dede that is to say as our body shal be in the general resurrectiō regenerate in dede so we beleue we fede here of Christes body in dede And as it is true that Christes body in dede is betrayed for vs so it is true that he geueth vs to eate his very body in dede And as it is true that Christ was in yearth and dyd celebrate this supper So it is true that he commaunded it to be celebrate by vs tyl he come And as it is true that Christ was very God omnipotēt and very man So it is true that he could do that he affirmed by his worde himselfe to do And as he is most sincere truth So may we be truely assured that he would and did as he sayd And as it is true that he is most iuss so it is true that he assisteth the doyng of his commaundement in the celebration of the holy supper And therfore as he is auctor of this most holy Sacrament of his precious body and bloud so is he the maker of it is the inuisible priest who as Emissene sayth Emissen by his secrete power with his worde chaūgeth the visible creatures into the substāce of his body and bloud Wherin manne the visible priest and ministre by ordre of the churche is only a dispenser of the mystery doyng and saiyng as the holy ghost hath taught the churche to be done and sayd Finally as we be taught by fayth all these to be true so when wanton reasō fayth beyng a shepe goth about by curiositie to empayre any one of these truthes the
called it wherin also remaynethe true sauor and taste withe true propriete to corrupte or putrifie and also nurrishe God for ordrynge fayth of the true manhode in Chrâ—ste is truely byleued by true preachinge ther of and by the scriptures not by the outwarde senses of mene which al togither we must confesse coulde be no certaine ineuiâ—able prouf ther of And therfore Christe appearinge to his disciples goinge in to EmaÌ„s opened the scriptures to them for the prouf of his deathe that he suffred as very man and yet he vsed also in some parte to preache to there senses with sensible exhibition of himself vnto theÌ„ and so all Christes doinges which were moste true do beare testimonie to the trueth but in there degree of testimonie and the fealinge of sainct Thomas beinge as sainct Gregorie saithe miraculeuse serueth for prouf of an other thinge that goddes workein miracle dothe not empaire the truth of the thinge wrought and so sainct Thomas touched then Christ as truely by miracle after his resurrection in his bodye glorified as if he had touched his bodye before glorificacion Fynally in Christes actes or his ordinaunces be no illusions all is truth and perfite trueth and our senses in the visible formes of bread and wine be not illuded but haue there proper obiectes in those accidentes and reason in carnall vnderstandinge brought and subdued in obsequie to fayth doth in the estimacion of the hoste coÌ„secrate yelde to faith accordinge wheâ—unto we confeâ—â—ruely the same to be the body of Christe Where this auctors woulde al the Papistes to laye their heades together c. I knowe no suche Papistes but this I saye without further counsaile whiche this auctor with al his counsaile shall not auoyde We beleue most certainely the resurrection of our flesh and be persuaded by Catholique teachyng that the same flesh by participation of Christes godly flesh in the Sacrament shal be made incorruptible Ioan. 6. yet not after the iudgemeÌ„t of our senses conclusions gathered of them consideryng the maner of the continuall consumptioÌ„ of the sayd bodies wherof sum philosophers haue at lenght after their reasoÌ„ declared their mynde whom Christen men coÌ„temâ—e withal thexperieÌ„ce of senses which they allege being vehemeÌ„t in that matter we reade in scripture of the fedyng of Angels wheÌ„â—oth receyued Gen. 18. them I will spend no mo wordes herein but hauyng auoyded this authors reasonyng against traÌ„substantiacioÌ„ Now let vs examine his authorities First he begynneth with Iustine the Martyr Whose words be not truly by this authour here reported which be these truely translate out of the greke When the Iustinê° Prieast hath ended his thankes geuyng and prayours all the people hath sayde Amen they whom we cal deacons geue to euery one then present a parte of the breade and of the wyne and water consecrated and cary parte to those that be absente this is that foode whâ—che is amonge vs called Eucharistia wherof it is lawfull for no man to be partaker except he be persuaded those thinges to be true that be taught vs and be baptized in the water of regeneracion in remissioÌ„ of synnes and ordreth his lifâ— after the maner whiche Christ hath taught For we do not take these for commen breade or dryncke but like as Iesus Christe our Sauyour incarnate by the worde of God had fleshe and bloud for our saluacion euen so we be taught the fode wherwith our fleshe and bloud be nourrisshed by alteracion when it is consecrate by the prayour of his worde to be the flesh and bloude of the same Iesus incarnate For the Apostelles in those there workes whiche be called Gospelles teache that Iesus dyd so commande them and after he had taken the breade and ended his geuyng tankes sayd do this in my remembraunce This is my body And like wise takyng the cuppe after he had geuen thankes sayde This is my bloud and dyd geue them to his Apostels onelye And here I make an issue with this author An issue that he wittyngly corrupteth Iustine in the allegacion of him who wryteth not in such forme of wordes as this authour allegeth owt of his seconde Appologie nor hath any suche speache The bread vvater and vvyne in this Sacrament ar meates ordeyned purposely to geue thankes to God and therfore be called Eucharistia nor hath not these wordes they be called the body and bloud of Christ but hath in playue wordes that we be taught this foode consecrate by gods worde to be the flesh and bloud of Christ as Christ in his incarnatioÌ„ toke flesh and bloud nor hath not this forme of wordes placed to haue that vnderstandyng hovve the same meate and drinke is chaunged into our fleshe and bloud for the wordes in Iustine speakyng of alteracion of the fode haue an vnderstandyng of the fobe as it is before the couse cracion shewyng how Christ vsed those creatures in this mysterie whiche by alteracion nurrish our flesh and bloud For the body of Christ which is the verye celestiall substauce of the hoste consecrate is not chaunged but without al alteracion spiritually nurrisheth the bodyes soules of them that worthely receyue the same to immortalite wherby appeareth this authors coÌ„clusion that bread vvyne remayne stil vvhich is turned into our flesh bloud is not deduced vpoÌ„ Iustines wordes truly vnderstanded but is a glose inuented by this auctor a peruertyng of Iustines words there true meaninges Whervpon I may saye conclude euen as this au ctor erreth in his reasonyng of mother wytte against transubstaÌ„tiacion eueÌ„ so erreth he in the first allegatioÌ„ of his auctorites by plaine mysceportynge let it be further named or thought on as the thinge deserueth Next Iustine is Iren in thallegatioÌ„ of whoÌ„ this auctor maketh also an vntrue report who hathe not this forme of wordes in the fourth boke contra ValeÌ„tinu that the bread wherin we geue thaÌ„kes vnto God although it be of the earth yet when the name of God is called vpon it is not then commen bread but the bread of thankes geuyng hauynge two thinges in it one earthely and the other heauenly This is Irene alleged by this auctor who I saye wryteth not in suche forme of wordes For his wordes be these Like as the bread which is of the earth receyuing the calling of God is now no commen bread but Eucharistia consistynge of two thynges earthely and heauenly so oure bodyes receyuynge Eucharistia be no more corrupâ—â—bâ—e This be Irenes wordes where Irene doth not call the bread receyuinge the callynge of God the bread of thankes geuyng but Eucharistia and in this Eucharistia he sheweth how that that he calleth the heauely thing is the body and bloud of Christ and therfore sayth in his first booke when the chalice mixt and the breade broken receyue the worde of God it is made Eucharistia of the body and bloud of Christ of whiche the substaunce of our fleshe is stayed and encreased
vnite thervnto adoration may onely be directed of vs. And so to conclude vp this matter forasmuch as one of these foure markes and notes maye be founde testified and apparaunte in the anucient wryters with other wordes and sentences conformable to the same this shuld suffise to exclude al argumeÌ„tes of any by sentences ambiguons speaches and to vpholde the certeynte of the true Catholique fayth in dede whiche this auctour by a wronge name of the Catholique fayth impugneth to the greate slaunder of the truth and his owne reproch The confutation of the fift booke AS touchynge the fift booke the title wherof is of thoblation and sacrifice of our Sauiour Christ somwhat is by me spoken before whiche although it be suffitieÌ„t to the matter yet somewhat more must also be nowe said whetwyth to encountre thauctors imaginations and surmises with the wronge construyng of the Scriptures and Auctors to wrest them besides the truth of the matter and ther meanynge This is agreed and by the Scriptures playnelie taught that the oblation and Sacrifice of our Sauiour Christe was and is a perfite worke ones consummate in perfection without necessitie of reiteration as it was neuer taught to be reiterate but a mere blasphemie to presuppose it It is also in the Catholike teachyng grounded vpon the scripture agreed that the same sacrifice ones consomate was ordeyned by Christes institution in his most holye supper to be in the churche often remembred and shewyd forth in suche forte of shewyng as to the faythfull is sene present the most precious bodye and bloude of our Sauiour Christ vnder the fourmes of bread wyne which body bloud the faithfull churche of Christen people graunte confesse accordyng to Christes wordes to haue been betrayed shed for the sins of the world so in the same supper represented deliuered vnto them to eate feade of it accordyng to Christes commandement as of a most precyous acceptable sacrifice acknolegyng the same precious body bloud to be the sacrifice propitiatorie for all the sinnes of the worlde wherunto they onely resorte and onelye accompt that the verye perfite oblacion sacrifice of Christen people through which all other sacrifices necessariely be accepted pleasaunt in the sight of God And this maner of shewyng Christes death kepyng the memorye of it is grounded vpoÌ„ the scriptures wryteÌ„ by the EuaÌ„gelistes S. Paul accordyng therunto preached beleued vsed â—requeÌ„ted in the churche of Christ vniuersally froÌ„ the beginnyng This auctor vttering many wordes at large besides scripture agenst scripture to depratie the Catholike doctrine doth in a fewe wordes which be in dede good wordes true coÌ„fonde ouerthrowe al his enterprise that issue wil I ioinewith him which shall suffise for the coÌ„futacion of this booke The fewe good wordes of the auctor which wordes I saye confounde the reste consiste in these two poyntes One in that the auctor alloweth the Iudgement of Petrns Lombardus touchyng thoblacion and sacrifice of the churche An other in that thauetor confesseth the Counsaill of Nice to be an holye concell as it hath bene in dede coÌ„fessed of al good Christen men UpoÌ„ these two confessions I will declare the whole enterprise of this fifte boke to be ouerthrowen First to begyn with the councel of Nice the same hath opened the mysterye of the Sacrament of the bodye and bloude of Christe in this wise that Christen men beleue the lambe that taketh awaye the synnes of the worlde to be situate vpon gods borde and to be sacrificed of the Priestes not after the maner of other Sacrifices This is the doctrine of the councell of Nice and must then be called an holy doctrine and therby a true doctrine consonante to the Scriptures the foundacion of all truth If thauctor will denye this to haue been the teachyng of the counsaill of Nice I shal alleage therfore the allegacion of the same by Decolampadius who beyng an aduersarye to the truth was yet by gods prouidence ordered to beare testimonie to the truth in this poynte and by his meane is published to the worlde in greke as foloweth which neuerthlesse may otherwise appeare to be true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iterum etiam hic in diuina mensa ne humiliter intenti simus ad propositum panem poculum sed mente exaltata fide intelligamus situm esse in sacra illa mensa illum Dei agnum qui tollit peccata mundi sacrificatum à sacerdotibus non victimarum more nos praeciosum illius corpus sanguinem verè sumentes credere haec esse resurrectionis Symbola Ideo non multum accipimus sed parum vt cognoscamus quoniaÌ„ non in satietatem sed sanctificationem These wordes maye be Englished thus Agayne in this godlye table we should not in base and loue consideracion direct oure vnderstanding to the breade and cuppe set forth but hauing oure mynde exalted we shoulde vnderstand by fayth to be situate in the table the lambe of God whiche taketh awaye the syunes of the worlde Sacrificed of the Priestes not after the maner of other Sacrifices and we receauynge trulye the preciouse bodye and bloude of the same lambe to beleue these to be the tokens of oure resurrection And for that we receaue not muche but a litle because we shoulde knowe that not for saturitie and fillynge but for sanctification This holy Councell of Neece hath been beleued vniuersally in declaration of the mysterye of the Trinitie and the Sacramentes also And â—o them that confesse that councell to be holy as thauctor here doth and to such as professe to beleue the determinacioÌ„ of that councell in the openynge of the mysterye of the Trinitie with other wordes the Scripture vseth although they expresse such sence as in the Scripture is contayned Why shoulde not all suche likewise beleue the same councell in explicacion of the Sacramentes whiche to do thauctor hath bound him selfe grauntyng that councell holye And then we muste beleue the verye presence of Christes bodye and bloude on goddes borde and that Priestes do their sacrifice and be therfore called sacrificers So as those names termes be to be honoured and religiously spoken of beyng in an holy councell vttered and confessed because it was so seen to them and the holye goost without whose presente assistynge and suggession beleued to be there the councel coulde not nor ought not to be called holy Nowe if we conferre with that councell of Nice the testimonye of the Churche begynnyng at S. Dionise who was in the time of the apostelles after him comyng to Irene who was nere thapostels theÌ„ Tertulliane And so S. CypriaÌ„ S. Chrisostome S. Cyril S. Hierome S. Augustine from that age to Petrus LoÌ„bardus all spake of the sacrameÌ„t to the same effecte termed it for the word sacrifice and oblacion to be frequented in the church of the body bloud of
Lōbardus al his sift bookee of this 〈◊〉 is cler 〈…〉 defaced And if he wil nowe cal back that againe he might more cōpendionsiye do the same in the hoole treatice beynge so far ouerseene as he is therin The Catholike doctrine reacheth not the dailie sacrifice of Christes most precious body and bloud to be an iteration of the ones perfited sacrifice on the crosse but a sacrifice that representeth that sacrifice sheweth it also before the faythful eyes refreshyth the effectual memorie of it so as in the dailie sacrifice withowt weddyng of bloud we may see with the eye of faith the very body bloud of Christ by gods mightie power without dinision distinctly exhibite the same body bloud that suffered was shed for vs whiche is a liuely memorial to stir vppe our faith to cōsider brefly therin the great charitie of God towardes vs declared in Christ The Catholique doctrine teacheth the dailye sacrifice to be the same in essence that was of fered on the Crosse ones assured thereof by Christes wordes whē he saide This is my body that shal be betrayed for you The offring on the Crosse was is propiciatorye satisfactorie for our redēption remissiō of sinne wherby to destroye the tyrāny of sinne theffect wherof is geuen and dispēsed in the sacramēt of Baptisme ones likewise ministred neuer to be it erate no more thē Christ can be crucified again yet by vertue of the same offering such as fal be reieued in the sacramēt of penance The daylie offering is propitiatorie also but not in that degre of propitiatiō as for redēption regeneraciō or remission of deadlye sinne which was ones purchassed by force therof is in the sacramērs ministred but for the encrease of gods fauor the mitigaciō of gods displeasure prouoked by our infirmities the subduyng of tēptacions the perfectiō of vertue in vs. All good workes good thoughtes good meditacions may be called sacrifices the same be called sacrifices propitiatorie also for so much as in ther degre god accepteth and taketh them throughe the effecte and strenghte of the verye Sacrifice of Christes death whiche is the reconciliacion betwene God and man ministred dispensed particularlye as God hath appoynted in suche measure as he knoweth But Saincte Paul to the Hebrues exortyng men to charitable Hebr. 13. deades saith with suche sacrifices God is made fauorable or God is propitiate if we shall make new Englishe Wherupon it foloweth because the Prieste in the daylye Sacrifice doth as Christ hath ordered to be done for shewynge forthe and remembraunce of Christes death that acte of the Priest done accordynge to goddes commauudement must nedes be propitiatorye and prouoke goddes fauour and ought to be trusted one to haue a propitiatorye effecte with God to the membres of Christes bodye particularly beynge the same done for the whole bodye in suche wise as God knoweth the dispensacion to be mette and conuenient accordynge to whiche measure God worketh most iustlye and most mercyfullye otherwise then man can by his iudgement discusse and determine To cal the daylye offeryng a Sacrifice satisfactory must haue an vnderstāding that signifieth not the actiō of the Priest but the presence of Christs most precious body bloud the verye Sacrifice of the worlde ones perfytely offered being propiciatorie satisfactorie for al the world Or elles the worde satisfactorie must haue a significaciō meanyng as it hath sometyme that declareth thacceptiō of the thynge done not the propre contreuaile of thactiō after which sorte man maye satisfie God that is so mercifull as he will take in good worthe for Christes sake mannes imperfite endeuor so the dailie offeryng may be called a sacrifice satisfactorie because God is pleased with it beynge a maner of worshipping of Christes passiō accordyng to Christes institutiō But otherwise the dailie sacrifice in respect of the actiō of the priest can not be called satisfactorye and it is a worde in dede that soundeth not well so placed althowgh it might be saued by a signification therfore thinke that worde rather to be well expounded thē by captius vnderstādyng brought in slander whē it is vsed and this speache to be frequentide that thonlie immolaciō of Christ in him selfe vpon th aulter of the Crosse is the very satisfactorye Sacrifice for reconciliacion of man kynde to the fauor of God And I haue not red the daylye sacrifice of Christes most precious body to be called a sacrifice satisfactorye but this speache hath in dede bene vsed that the Priest shoulde synge satisfactorye whiche they vnderstande in the satisfaction of the Priestes duetye to attend the prayer he was required to make and for a distinctiō thereof they had prayer sometime required without speciall limitacion that was called to praye not satisfactorye Finally man by eny his action to presume to satisfie God by waye of counteruail is a verye mad furiouse blasphemie Where the auctor citynge S. Paul englisheth him thus that Christes Hebr. 7. Priesthode cannot passe frō him to an other This wordes thus framed be not the simple sincere expression of the trueth of the texte Whiche sayth that Christ hath a perpetuall Prieasthode and the greke hathe a worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whiche the greke scholes expresse exponde by the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifiyng the Priesthode of Christe endeth not in him to go to an other by succession as in the tribe of leui where was among mortall men succession in thoffice of Priesthode but Christe lyueth euer therfore is a perpetuall euerlastyng Priest by whose auctoritie Priesthode is now in this visible Churche as S. Paule 1. Tim. 4. et ad Titū 1. ordred to Timothe Tite and other places also confirme whiche Priestes visible ministers to our inuisible Prieste offer the daylye Sacrifice in Christes churche that is to saye with the very presence by goddes omnipotēcye wrought of the most precious bodye and bloud of our sauiour Christ shewynge forth Christes death celebratyng the memory of his supper and death accordinge to Christes institucion so with daylie oblacion sacrifice of the selfe same Sacrifice to kendle in vs a thankfull remembrance of all Christes benefittes vnto vs. And where thauctor woulde auoyde all the testimonye of the fathers by presence yt should be but a maner of speach the Canon of the Councell of Nice before rehersed and the wordes of it where mysteries be spoken of in propre termes for doctrine auoydeth all that shifte and it hath no absurditie to confesse that Christ in his supper did institute for a remēbrance of the only sacrifice the presence of the most precious substāce to be as the Canon of the concell in propre termes teacheth sacrificed by the Priestes to be the pure sacrifice of the church ther offred for the effect of thencrease of life in vs as it was offered on the Crosse to atcheue life vnto vs.
¶ An explicatioÌ„ and assertion of the true Catholique fayth touchyng the moost blessed Sacrament of the aulter with confutacion of a booke written agaynst the same Made by Steuen Byshop of Wynchester and exhibited by his owne hande for his defence to the kynges maiesties Commissioners at Lambeth Anno. 1551. ¶ Certayne faultes escaped in the prentyng The rest thou mayst geÌ„tle reader easely correcte thy selfe Leafe Pag. Thelyne â—o 2. 2. pag. Lin. 15. for yet it shuld read yet if it shuld 7 1 penul for to purpose read to the purpose 21 1 30 for accasion reade occasion 25 2 29 for dimishe reade diminishe 52 1 25 for shepe reade slepe 42 1 23 for coÌ„municaÌ„do read coÌ„municandis 54 1 13 for manifestye reade manifested 54 1 14 for exhibetie reade exhibited 55 1 19 for enforeth reade enforceth 59 1 20 for Tubax reade Tuba 62 1 13 for fram reade â—rame 81 1 3 for cunclusion reade conclusion 81 2 20 for pretens reade presence 81 1 30 for freundes reade frendes 81 1 31 for possumus reade polluimus 88 1 22 for cratures reade creatures 88 1 24 for entrated reade intreated 88 2 3 for lake read loke 88 2 6 for fede read fed 90 2 6 for speake read spake 91 2 30 for andeleth read handeleth 92 1 8 for hahing read hauyng 92 1 10 for sumuch read so muche 92 1 12 for ityn read it 92 1 15 for wrere read were 92 1 15 for â—e read be 94 1 1 for Ethinkes read Ethnikes 94 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for af read of 96 1 〈◊〉 for 〈…〉 se read likewise 96 2 â—4 〈◊〉 read geueth 97 2 10 for extlude read exclude 105 1 1 for auctors read auctor 106 2 16 for this read these 107 1 3 for commency read commenly 110 1 6 for hatue read hath 119 1 31 for deipara 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deipara 121 2 26 for mage read image 126 2 18 for dowe read doue 131 2 10 for ther read thre 131 2 22 for we read me 134 1 4 for which read with 134 2 5 for obdy read body 136 1 11 for improw read improue 136 1 21 for circuÌ„staÌ„ce pÌ„seÌ„t read circuÌ„staÌ„ce is pÌ„seÌ„t 136 1 23 for supernaturally read naturally 137 1 4 for endureth read abhorâ—ith 138 2 1 for disorowe read improue 142 1 14 for godhod read godhed 143 2 2 for propositiones read ê“positionis 145 2 29 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 145 2 vlt. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 146 1 2 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 146 1 5 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 148 1 19 for saue read sawe 151 2 9 for Ephesine read Ephesin Finis Tabulae ¶ The preface FOr asmuch as amoÌ„ges other mine allegations for defence of my selfe in this matter moued agà ynst me by occasion of my Sermon made before the kynges moost excellent Maiestye touchyng partely the. Catholique faith of the moost precious sacrameÌ„t of thaltare which I see now impugned by a booke set furth vnder the name of my lord of Cauntorburies grace I haue thought expedieÌ„t for the better opening of the matter coÌ„sideryng I am by name touched in the sayde boke the rather to vtter partely that I haue to say by confutatioÌ„ of that boke wherein I thinke neuerthlesse noâ— requisite to directe any speache by speciall name to the person of him that is entitled autor because it may possible be that his name is abused wherwith to set furth the matter beyng him selfe of such dignitie auctorite in the coÌ„men welth as for that respect should be inuiolable For which coÌ„sideracion I shal in my speache of suche reproufe as the vntruth of the matter necessariely requireth omitting the speciall title of the auctor of the boke speake onely of thauctor in generall beyng a thing to me greatly to be me 〈…〉 ed at that such matter shuld nowe be published out of my lord of CaÌ„torburies penne but because he is a man I wil not wondre because he is such a maÌ„ I will reuereÌ„rly vse him forbearyng further to name him talke onely of the auctor by that generall name The confutation of the first booke THis auctor denieth the real preseÌ„ce of Christes most precious bodie bloud in the SacrameÌ„t This auctor denieth Transubstanciation This auctor denieth euil men to eat drinke the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament These thre denials only impugne tende to distroy that faith whiche this auctor termeth the popishe to erre in callyng nowe all popishe that beleue either of these thre articles by him denied the truth whereof shall hereafter be opened Nowe because fayth affirmeth some certaintee if we aske this auctor what is his fayth which he calleth true and catholique it is only this as we may lerne by his boke that in our Lordes supper be coÌ„secrate bread and wyne and deliuered as tokens onely to signify Christes bodie and bloud he calleth them holye tokens but yet noteth that the bread and wyne be neuer the holyer he saith neuerthelesse they be not bare tokeÌ„s and yet concludeth Christ not to be spiritually present in them but onely as a thing is present in that which signifieth it whiche is the nature of a bare token saiyng in another place ther is nothyng to be worshipped for ther is nothing present but in figure and in a signe whiche who so euer sayth calleth the thyng in dede absente And yet the auctor sayth Christe is in the man that worthely receaueth spiritually preseÌ„t who eateth of Christes fleshe and his bloud reignyng in heaueÌ„ whether the good beleuyng man ascendeth by his faith And as oure bodie is norished with the bread wyne receiued in the supper so the true beleuyng man is fedde with the bodie bloud of Christ And this is the summe of the doctrine of that faith whiche this auctor calleth the true catholique faith Nowe a catholique faith is an vniuersall faith taught and preached through all and so receaued and beleued agreablie and consonant to the scriptures testified by such as by all ages haue in their writynges geuen knowlege therof which be the tokens and markes of a true Catholique faith wherof no one can be founde in the faith this auctor calleth catholique Firste there is no scripture that in lettre mainteineth the doctrin of this auctorsboke For Christ saith not that the bread doth only signify his bodie absent nor sainct Paul sayth not so in any place ne any other canonical scripture declareth Christes wordes so As for the sence vnderstaÌ„dyng of Christes wordes there hath not been in any age any one approued and knowen learned maÌ„ that hath so declared expounded Christes wordes in his supper that the bread did onely signify Christes bodie the wyne his bloud as thynges absent And to the intent euery notable
and new wyne haue new bottelles and be throughly new after .xv. C. l. yeres in the verie yere of Iubile as they were wount to call it to be newly erected and builded in Englishe mens heartes Whiche new teachyng whether it procedeth from the spirite of truth or no shall more plainely appeare by suche matter as this auctor vttereth wherewith to impugne the true faith taught hitherto For among many other profes whereby trueth after much trauaile in contencion at the last preuayleth and hath victorie there is none more notable then when the verie aduersaries of truth who pretend neuertheles to be truthes frendes do by some euident vntruth bewray themself According wherunto whē the two women contended before kyng Salomon for the childe yet aliue Salomon descerned 3. Reg. 3. the true naturall mother from the other by their speaches and saiynges Which in the verie true mother were euer conformable to nature and in the other at the last euidently against nature The verie true mother speake alwaies like her selfe and neuer disagreed from the truth of nature but rather then the childe should be killed as Salomon threatened whē he called for asword required rather it to be geuen whole aliue to the other woman The other woman that was not the true mother cared more for victorie then for the childe and therfore spake that was in nature an euidence that she lied callyng her selfe mother and saiyng let it be deuided whiche no true naturall mother could say of her owne childe wherupon proceded Salomons most wise iudgmēt which hath this lesson in it euer where contention is on that parte to be the truth where all saiynges and doynges appeare vniformely consonante to the truth pretended and on what side a notable lye appeareth the rest may be iudged to be after the same sorte for truth nedeth no ayde of lyes craft or slayte wherwith to be supported and maynteined So as in the intreatyng of the truth of this high and ineffable mysterie of the Sacrament on what parte thou reader seest traft slayte shift obliquitie or in any one pointe an open manifest lye there thou maist consider whatsoeuer pretence be made of truth yet the victorie of truth not to be there intended whiche loueth simplicitie plainenes directe speache without admixcion of shift or coloure And that thou reader mightest by these markes iudge of that is here intreated by thauctor against the most blessed Sacratment I shall note certaine euident and manifest vntruthes whiche this auctor is not affrayed to vtter a matter wounderfull consideryng his dignitie if he that is named be the auctor in dede whiche should be a great stay of contradiction if any thyng wer to be regarded against the truth First I will note vnto the reader howe this auctor termeth the fayth of the real and substanciall presence of Christes bodie and bloud in the Sacramēt to be the fayth of the Papistes whiche saiyng what foundaciō it hath thou maiest consider of that foloweth Luther that professed openly to abhore al that might be noted Papish defēded stoutly the presence of Christes bodie in the Sacrament and to be present really and substancially euen with the same wordes and termes Bucer that is here in Englād in a solēpne worke that he wryreth vpon the Gospels professeth the same fayth of the real and substāciall presence of Christes bodie in the Sacrament whiche he affermeth to haue been beleued of all the churche of Christ from the beginnyng hitherto Iustus Ionas hath trāslate a Catechisme out of Douch into Latin taught in the citie of Noremberge in Germanye where Hosiander is cheife preacher in whiche Catechisme they be accompted for no true Christian men that denye the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament The wordes really and substancially be not expressed as they be in Bucer but the worde truely is there and as Bucer sayth that is substancially Which Catechisme was translate into Englishe in this auctors name about two yeres paste Philipp Melancton no Papist nor priest writeth a verie wise Epistle in this matter to Oecolāpadius and signifiyng soberly his beleif of the presence of Christes verie bodie in the Sacrament and to proue the same to haue been the faith of the olde churche from the begīnyng allegeth the saynges of Irene Cyprian Chrisostome Hilarie Cyrill Ambrose and Theophilacte whiche auctors he estemeth both worthy credite and to affirme the presence of Christes bodie in the Sacramēt plainly without ambiguitie He answereth to certaine places of S. Augustine and sayth all Oecolampadius enterprise to depend vpon coniectures and argumentes applausible to Idle wittes with muche more wise matter as that Epistle doth purporte whiche is set out in a booke of a good volume amonge the other Epistles of Oecolampadius so as no man may suspect any thyng counterfecte in the matter One Hippinus or Oepinus of Hamborough greatly estemed among the Lutherians hath written a booke to the kinges maiesty that now is publisshed abrode in prynt wherin muche inueiyng against the churche of Rome doth in the matter of the Sacrament write as foloweth Eucharistia is called by it selfe a sacrifice because it is a remēbraunce of the true sacrifice offered vpō the crosse and that in it is dispēsed the true bodie and true bloud of Christ whiche is plainely the same in essence that is to say substaunce and the same bloud in essēce signifiyng though the maner of presence be spirituall yet the substaunce of that is present is the same with that in heauen Erasmus noted a man that durst and did speake of all abuses in the church liberally taken for no Papist and among vs so muche estemed as his Paraphrases of the gospell is ordred to be had in euery church of this Realme declareth in diuers of his workes most manifestly his faith of the presence of Christes bodie in the Sacrament and by his Epistles recommendeth to the worlde the worke of Algerus in that matter of the Sacrament whom he noteth well exercised in the scriptures and the olde doctors Cypriā Hilarie Ambrose Hierome Augustine Basil Chrysostom And for Erasmus own iugemēt he sayth we haue an inuiolable foundacion of Christes owne woordes This is my body rehersed agayn by S. Paule he sayth further the bodie of Christ is hidden vnder those signes and sheweth also vpon what occasions mē haue erred in readyng the olde fathers and wysheth that they which haue folowed Berengarius in error would also folowe him in repētaunce I will not reader encombre the with mo wordes of Erasmus Peter Martyr of Oxforde taken for no Papist in a treatyse he made of late of the Sacrament whiche is now translated into English sheweth how as touchyng the real presence of Christes bodie it is not onely the sentence of the Papistes but of other also whom the sayd Peter neuerthelesse doth with as many shyftes lyes as he may impugne for that poynte aswell as he doth the Papistes for transubstanciation but yet he doth not as
this auctor doth impute that fayth of the real presence of Christes bodie and bloud to thonly Papistes Wherupon reader here I ioyne with thauctor an issue that the fayth of the real and substantiall An issue presence of Christes bodie and bloud in the Sacrament is not the diuise of Papistes or their fayth onely as this auctor doth consideratly slander it to bee and desire therfore that accordyng to Salomons iudgemēt this may serue for an note and marke for to geue sentence for the true mother of the childe For what should this meane so without shame openly and vntruly to call this fayth papishe but onely with the enuyous worde of Papist to ouermatche the truth It shal be now to purpose to considre the scriptures touchyng the matter of the Sacrament which thauctor pretēdyng to bring forth faithfully as the maiestie therof requireth in the rehersal of the wordes of Christ out of the gospel of saint Iohn he begynneth a litle to lowe and passeth ouer that perteyneth to the matter and therfore should haue begon a litle hygher at this clause And the bread whiche I shall geue you is my fleshe whiche I wyll geue for the life of the world The Iewes therfore striued betwene theim self saiyng How can this mā geue his fleshe to be eaten Iesus therfore sayd vnto them Uerely verely I say vnto you except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud ye haue no life in you Who so eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life I wyl rayse him vp at the last day For my fleshe is verie meat and my bloud verie drinke He that eateth my flesh drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me I in him As the liuyng father hath sent me and I liue by the father Euen so he that eateth me shal liue by me This is the bread which came doune frō heauen Not as your fathers did eat Manna and are dead He that eateth this bread shall lyue for euer Here is also a faulte in the translacion of the texte whiche should be thus in one place For my fleshe is verely meat and my bloud is verely drinke In whiche speache the verbe that cuppleth the wordes fleshe and meat together knitteth them together in their propre significacion so as the fleshe of Christ is verelymeat as thauctor would persuade And in these words of Christ may appere plainly how Christ taught the mysterie of the fode of his humanitie whiche he promised to geue for foode euen the same fleshe that he said he would geue for the life of the worlde and so expresseth the first sentence of this scripture here by me holly brought forth that is to say And the bread whiche I shall geue you is my fleshe whiche I shall geue for the life of the worlde And so it is plaine that Christ spake of fleshe in the same sence that Sainct Ihon speaketh in saiyng The worde was made fleshe signifiyng by fleshe the hole humanitie And so did Cyrill agre to Nestorius when he vpon these textes reasoned howe this eatyng is to be vnderstanded of Christes humanitie to whiche nature in Christes person is properly attribute to be eaten as meate spiritually to norishe man dispensed and geuen in the Sacrament And betwene Nestorius and Cyrill was this diuersitie in vnderstandyng the mysterie that Nestorius estemyng of eche nature in Christe a seuerall personne as it was obiected to him and so dissoluyng the ineffable vnitie did so repute the bodie of Christe to be eaten as the bodie of a man seperate Cyrill maynteyned the bodie of Christ to be eaten as a bodie inseperable vnited to the godhed and for the ineffable mysterie of that vnion the same to be a fleshe that geueth life And then as Christ sayth if wee eate not the fleshe of the sonne of man we haue not life in vs because Christ hath ordered the Sacrament of his most precious bodie and bloud to norishe suche as be by his holy spirite regenerate And as in Baptisme we receaue the spirite of Christ for the renewyng of our life so do we in this Sacrament of Christes moost precious bodie and bloud receaue Christes verie fleshe drynke his verie bloud to continus and preserue increase and augment the life receaued And therfore in the same forme of wordes Christ spake to Nycodemus of Baptisme that he speaketh here of the eatyng of his bodie and drinkyng of his bloud and in both the Sacramentes geueth dispenseth and exhibiteth in dede those celestial gyftes in sensible elementes as Chrisostome sayth And because the true faithfull beleuyng men do onely by fayth know the sonne of man to be in vnitie of person the sonne of God so as for the vnitie of the two natures in Christ in one person the fleshe of the sonne of man is the propre fleshe of the soone of God Saincte Augustine sayd well when he noted these wordes of Christ verely verely onlesse ye eat the fleshe of the sonne of man c. to be a figuratiue speache because after the bare lettre it semeth vnprofitable consideryng that flesh profiteth nothyng in it selfe estemed in thowne nature alone but as the same fleshe in Christ is vnited to the diuine nature so is it as Christ sayd after Cyrilles exposition spirite and life not chaunged into the diuine nature of the spirite but for the ineffable vnion in the person of Christ therunto it is viuificatrix as Cyrill sayd and as the holy Ephesine councel decreed a fleshe geuyng life accordyng to Christes wordes who eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life and I will raise him vp at the latter day And then to declare vnto vs how in geuyng this life to vs Christ vseth the instrumēt of his verie humaine bodie it foloweth For my fleshe is verely meat and my bloud verely drinke So like as Christ sanctifieth by his godlye spirite so doth he sanctifye vs by his godlie fleshe and therfore repeteth againe to inculcate the celestial thing of this mysterie and sayth he that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him whiche is the natural and corporal vnion betwene vs and Christ Wherupō foloweth that as Christ is naturally in his father and his father in him so he that eateth verely the fleshe of Christ he is by nature in Christ and Christ is naturally in him and the worthy receauer hath life encreased augmented and confirmed by the participacion of the fleshe of Christe And because of thin effable vnion of the two natures Christ sayd This is the foode that came doune frō heauen because God whose proper fleshe it is came downe from heauen and hath an other vertue then Manna had because this geueth life to them that worthely receaue it whiche Manna beyng but a figure therof did not but beyng in this foode Christes verie fleshe inseperably vnite to the godhed the same is of suche efficacie as he that worthely eateth of it shall
that point So much is he contrarie to him selfe in this worke and here in this place not caryng what he sayth reporteth suche a teachyng in the first parte of this difference as I haue not hearde of before There was neuer man of learnyng that I haue red termed the matter so that Christ goeth into the stomoke of the maÌ„ that receaueth and no further For that is writteÌ„ contra Stercoronistas is nothyng to this teachyng nor the speache of any glose if there be any such were herein to be regarded The Catholique doctrine is that by the holy coniunction in the Sacrament we be ioyned to Christ really because we receaue in the holy supper the most precious substaunce of his glorious body whiche is a fleshe geuyng life And that is not digested into our fleshe but worketh in vs and attempereth by heauenly nurrttor our body and soule beyng partakers of his passyon to be conformable to his will and by suche spiritual foode to be made more spirituall In the receauyng of whiche foode in the most blessed Sacrament our body and soule in them that duelie coÌ„municate worketh together in due ordre without other discussyon of the mysterie then God hath ordred that is to say the soule to beleue as it is taught and the body to do as God hath ordred knowyng that gloryous fleshe by our eatyng can not be consumed or suffre but to be most profitable vnto such as do accustonie worthely to receiue the same But to say that the churche teacheth how we receaue Christ at our mouth and he goeth into our stomoke and no further is a reporte which by the iust iudgemente of God is suffred to come out of the mouthe of them that fyght against the truth in this most high mysterie Now where this auctor in the secoÌ„de part by an aduersiteue with a But to make the comparison telleth what he and his say he telleth in effect that which euery Catholique man must nedes and doth confesse For such as receaue Christes most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament worthly they haue Christ dwellyng in theÌ„ who conforteth both body and soule whiche the church hath euer taught most plainely so as this comparison of differeÌ„ce in his two parties is made of one open vntruth a truth disguised as though it were now first opened by this auctor and his whiche maner of handelyng declareth what sleyght and shift is vsed in the matter They say that Christ is receyued in the mouth The auctor entreth in with the bread and wyne We say that he is receyued in the heart and entreth in by faith Here is a pretie slaight in this coÌ„parison The answer where both partes of the comparison may be vnderstanded on bothe sydes and therfore here is by thauctor in this coÌ„parison no issue ioyned For the worthy receauyng of Christs body and bloud in the Sacramente is both with mouth heart both in facte faith After whiche sorte S. Peter in the last supper receaued Christes body wheras in the same supper Iudas receaued it with mouth in fact only wherof S. Augustin speketh in this wise Non dicunt ista nisi qui de meÌ„sa domini August contra li teras pe til lib. 2 cap. 47. vitaÌ„sumunt Sicut Petrus non iudicium sicut Iudas et tamen ipsa vtrique fuit vna sed non vtrique valuit ad vnum quia ipsi noÌ„ erant vnuÌ„ Whiche wordes be thus muche to say That they say not so as was before entreated but suche as receaue life of our Lordes table as Peter did not iudgment as Iudas and yet the table was all one to them both but it was not to all one effect in theÌ„ both because they were not one Here S. Augustine noteth the difference in the receauer not in the Sacrament receaued whiche beyng receaued with the mouth onely and Christ entryng in mysterie only doth not sanctify vs but is the stone of stumblyng and our iudgement and condempnacion but if he be receaued with mouthe and body with hearte and fayth to such he bryngeth life and nurrishemeÌ„t wherfore in this comparison thauctor hath made no difference but with diuers termes the catholique teachyng is deuided into two membres with a But facioned neuertheles in an other phrase of speache then the church hath vsed whiche is so commen in this auctor that I will not hereafter note it any more for a faulte Let vs go further They say that Christ is really in the SacrameÌ„tall The auctor bread beyng reserued an whole yere so long as the forme of bread remaineth but after the receauyng therof he flieth vp they say from the receyuer vnto heauen as sone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or chaunged in the stomoke But we say that Christ remayneth in the man that worthely receaueth it so long as the man remayneth a membre of Christ This comparison is like the other before The answer wherof the first parte is garnished and emblossed with vntruth and the second parte that the church hath euer taught most truly that al must beleue and therfore that pece hath no vntruth in the matter but in the maner only beyng spokeÌ„ as though it diffred froÌ„ the continuall open reachyng of the churche which is not so wherfor in the maner of it in vtteraunce signifieth an vntruth whiche in the matter it selfe is neuerthelesse most true For vndoutedly Christ remaineth in the maÌ„ that worthely receiueth the sacrameÌ„t so loÌ„g as that man remayneth a membre of Christ In this first part there is a fault in the matter of the speache for explicacion wherof I wil examin it particularly This auctor saith they say that Christ is really in the SacrameÌ„tal bread beyng reserued an hole yere c. The church geuyng faith to Christes worde wheÌ„ he sayd This is my body c. techeth the body of Christ to be present in the SacrameÌ„t vnder the forme of bread vnto which words wheÌ„ we put the worde really it serueth only to expresse that truth in open wordes which was afore to be vnderstaÌ„ded in sence For in Christ who was the body of al the shadowes figures of the law who did exhibit geue in his sacrameÌ„tes of the new law the things promised in his sacramentes of tholde lawe We must vnderstaÌ„d his wordes in the institucion of his sacraments without figure in the substance of the celestial thyng of theÌ„ therfore when he ordred his most precious bodye bloud to be eateÌ„ drunken of vs vnder the formes of bread wyne we professe beleue that truely he gaue vs his most precious body in the SacrameÌ„t for a celestial foode to coÌ„fort strength vs in this miserable life And for the certayntie of the truth of his worke therin we ê“fesse he geueth vs his body realy that is to say in ded his body the thing it self Which is the heauenly part of the SacrameÌ„t
called Eucharistia hauyng the visible forme of bread wyne coÌ„teinyng inuisibly the verie body bloud of our sauiour Christ which was not wont to be reserued other wise but to be ready for such as in danger of death call for it the same so loÌ„g as it may be vsed is still the same sacrameÌ„t which only tyme altereth not wherof Cyril wrote to this sence Cyrillê° ad Calo syriuÌ„ epi scopum Hesichiê° in leuit li. 2. ca. 8 many hundred yeres past Hesichius also what ought to be done when by negligeÌ„ce of the ministre it wer reserued ouerlong Mary where it liketh thauctor of these differeÌ„ces to saye the church teacheth Christ to flye vp froÌ„ the receauer vnto heaueÌ„ so sone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or chaunged it rite stomake this maner of speache implyeth as though Christ lefte the seate of his maiestie in heauen to be present in the Sacrament which is most vntrue The churche acknowledgeth beleueth and teacheth truely that Christ sytteth on the right haÌ„de of his father in glory from whence he shall come to iudge the world also teacheth Christes very body bloud Christ himselfe God man to be present in the Sacrament not by shifryng of place but by the determinatioÌ„ of his will declared in scriptures beleued of the Catholique church which articles be to reason impossible but possible to God omnipotent So as beyng taught of his wil we should huÌ„bly submitte al our sences reason to the faith of his wil worke declared in his scriptures In the beleif of which mysteries is great benefit consolacion in the vnreuerent serche curious discussioÌ„ of theÌ„ presumptuous boldnes wicked temerite I knowe by fayth Christ to be present but the particularite how he is present more then I am assured he is truely present therfore in substaunce present I caÌ„not tell but present he is truely is verely is and so in dede that is to say really is and vnfaynedly is and therfore in substaunce is and as we terme it substancially is present For all these aduerbes really substancially with the rest be conteyned in the one worde is spoken out of his mouthe that speaketh as he meaneth truely certaynely as Christ did saiyng This is my body that shal be betrayed for you who then caryed himselfe in his handes after a certayne maner as sainet Augustine sayth whiche neuer man besides August Psal 33. him could do who in that his last super gaue himselfe to be eaten without coÌ„sumyng The wayes meanes wherof no man can tell but humble spirites as they be taught must constantly beleue it without thinkyng or talkyng of fliyng or sliyng of Christ agayne vnto heauen where Christ is in the glory of his father continually and is neuerthelesse because he will so be present in the SacrameÌ„t whole God and man and dwelleth corporally in him that receyueth him worthely Wherfore reader when thou shalt agayne well consider this coÌ„parison thou shalt finde true howe the first parte is disguised with vntrue reporte of the commen teachynge of the churche howsoeuer some glose or some priuate teacher might speake of it and the secoÌ„d part suche as hath been euer so taught One thyng I thinke good to admonishe the reader that whatsoeuer I affirme or precisely denye I meane within the compasse of my knowlege which I speake not because I am in any suspicioÌ„ or dout of that I affirme or deny but to auoyde the temerite of deniyng as neuer or affirmyng as euer which he extremities And I mean also of publike doctrin by consent receyued so taught beleued and not that any one man might blindely write as vtteryng his fansye as this auctor dothe for his pleasure There foloweth in the auctor thus They say that in the Sacrament the corporall The auctor membres of Christ be not distante in place on from an other but that whersoeuer the hede is there be the feeâ—e whersoeuer the armes be ther be the legges so that in euery parte of the bread and wyne is all together whole hede whole feete whole fleshe whole bloud whole hearte whole longes whole breaste whole backe and al togither whole confused and mixte without distinction or diuersite O what a folishe and an abhominable inuentioÌ„ is this to make of the most pure and persite bodye of Christ suche a confuse and monstrouse bodye And yet can the Papistes imagyne nothyng so folishe but al christeÌ„ people must receyue the same as an oracle of God as a most certayne article of theyr fayth without whisperyng to the contrarye This is merueylous Rhetorique suche The answer as thauctor hath ouersene himselfe in the vtteraunce of it coÌ„fesseth himself pretely abused to the latter ende of his yeres to haue beleued that he now calleth so folishe But to the purpose In the booke of commen prayor now at this tyme set forthe in this realme At is ordred to teache the people that in eche parte of the bread consecrate broken is the hole body of our sauior Christ which is agreable to the Catholique doctrine UpoÌ„ accasioÌ„ hereof it liketh this auctor to multiply language by enumeracioÌ„ of partes and because reason without fay the directeth the bodely eye to so litle a visible quaÌ„titie in the hooste This auctor beareth in hand the Catholique churche to say and teache al that fonde reason diuiseth where as the churche in the doctrine of this mistery denyeth al that reason without fayth diuiseth And therfore when we acknowledge by faythe Christes body present although we say it is preseÌ„t truely really substancially yet we say our senses be not priuy to that presence ne the maner of it but by instruction of fayth and therfore we saye Christes body to be not locally present not by maner of quantite but inuisibly and in no sensible maner but meruelously in a SacrameÌ„t and mistery truely and in suche a spiritual maner as we can not defyne and determyne yet by faith we know his body present the partes of whiche be in them self distincte one froÌ„ an other in their swne substance but not by circumscription of seuerall places to be comprehended of our capacitie which partes we can not by demonstracion place nor by imaginacioÌ„ displace diminishe altre or coÌ„found as this auctor for his pleasure reporteth who writeth moÌ„st rously in so high a mistery impudeÌ„tly beareth in hand the Catholique churche to teache that he lysteth to beare in haÌ„d may by wanton reasoÌ„ be deduced of their teachyng wher as altrue christiaÌ„ men beleue simply Christes wordes trouble not their heades with suche consequeÌ„ces as seme to stryue with reasoÌ„ This is in th auctor no whisperyng but plainly raylyng wherin if he had remembred himselfe wel he would not haue spokeÌ„ of all christian men in the receypt of that he enteÌ„deth to disproue And if he would say he
spake it by an Ironie or skorne yet it implyeth that all had receyued that he thus mocketh Whiche after the sorte he writeth was neuer diuised by Papiste or other to be so taught otherwise then as this auctor might rede it as an idle argument to shewe absurdite in reason For in gods workes as the sacramentes be we must thinke al semelynes in dede without deformite eueÌ„ as we beleue al gods iudgemeÌ„tes iust true although reasoÌ„ coÌ„clude in theÌ„ euideÌ„t iÌ„iquitie MaÌ„s reasoÌ„ wheÌ„ it semeth most galauÌ„t is ful of sportes folie Gods workes be al semelynes without confusion monstre or any such absurditie as this auctor supposeth Although I caÌ„ not in the sacrameÌ„t with the eye of my reasoÌ„ locally distincte Christes head froÌ„ his foote his legge froÌ„ his arme wher in the boke of coÌ„mon prayor it is truly sayd iÌ„ eche part of the bread coÌ„secrat brokeÌ„ to be Christs hole body if one of curiosite wold questioÌ„ with me I of foly wold answer him first wher is Christs head I should say here pointyng with my finger he would thinke it first a lytle head TheÌ„ he would aske wher is his foote I shold say ther pointe in the same place agayne for there is noone other left If he replyed that I poynted before the same for the head might not the thyrd a Catholique maÌ„ that stode by trowe you wisely caiie vs both madde to goo aboute to discusse that we must grauÌ„t we see not wheÌ„ by faythe we knowe only the beyng present of Christes most preciouse body theÌ„ by blynd reason to discusse the maner of beyng in the situacion of suche partes as we do not see Now if there came among vs a fourth man as a mediator would do as kyng Alexander did when he could not open the knot of Quintê° Curâ—us maketh mencion of this facte of Alexander Gordius he did cutte it with his sworde if this maÌ„ should say I wyll releaue this matter you beleue Christes body is present in dede really and substaÌ„cially leue out really and substantially and say his body is preseÌ„t in significacion then it may be easely conceyued by reason that Christes body beyng neuer so great may be aswell signifyed by a lytle peece of bread as by a great peece of breade euen as a manne may wryte a great mans name aswell in smallettres shorte as in great letters at lenght And to commende further his diuise vnto vs would percase tell how many absurdities as he thinketh and inconueniences might be auoyded by it This fourth man I speake of makyng him selfe a mediatour vnmete therfore because he hath no participatioÌ„ with fayth yet if our religion and fayth wer mans inuention as that of Numa Pompilius was should not vtter thys his conceyte all idelly For 〈◊〉 speaketh of a ioly easye way without any misterye or meruayle at all But our fayth is of hearyng as hath been preached contynually from the beginnyng grounded vpon the most sure truthe of the worde of God and therfore can not be attempered as man would diuise it to exclude trauayle in carnal reason For then the Sabellians wer to be Sabellians herkened vnto Who by their heresy toke away all the harde and difficile questions in the mistery of the trinitie The Arrians also releued muche mannes Arrians reason in consideration of Christes death deniyng hym to be of the same substaunce with his father whiche was a pestilent heresye Now in the SacrameÌ„t to say Christes bodye is present only by signification as it releueth in some mennes indgementes the absurdities in reason which ought not to be relieued So it condempneth al the true publique fayth testified in the churche from the beginyng hitherto sheweth the lerned holy men to haue wondred in their writynges at that whiche hath no wounder at al to ordeyne one thyng to be the signification of an other which is practised dayly among men But from the beginnyng the mistery of the Sacrament hath been with wounder merueyled at how Christ made bread his body and wyne his bloud and vnder the figure of these visible creatures gaue inuisibly his precious body and bloud presently there tedly S. Augustyne sayth We may not of mens maners esteme the sacramentes they Contra liâ—â—eras â—eti lib. 20. be made by him whose they be but worthely vsed they bryng reward vnworthely handled they bring indgemeÌ„t He that dispenseth the Sacrament worthely and he that vseth it vnworthely be not one but that thyng is one whither it be handeled worthely or vnworthely so as it is neyther better ne worse but life or deathe of them that vse it Thus sayth S. Augustyne and therfore be the receyuer worthy or vnworthy good or euil the substaunce of Christes Sacrament is all one as beyng goddes worke who worketh vniformely and yet is not in all that receyue of like effecte not for any alteracion or diminution in it but for the diuersitie of him that receyueth So as the report made here of the doctrine of the Catholique churche vnder the name of Papistes is a very true reporte and for want of grace reproued by thauctor as no true doctrine And the seconde part of the comparison on thauctors side conteyned vnder we say by them that in hypocrisye preteÌ„d to be truthes frendes conteyneth an vntruth to the simple reader and yet hath a matter of wranglyng to the learned reader because of the worde very which referred to thefecte of eatyng the body of Christ wherby to receyue life may be so spokeÌ„ that none receyue the body of Christe with the very effecte of life but suche as eate the sacrament spirituallye that is to saye with true fayth worthely And yet euill men as Iudas receiue the same very body touchyng the truth of the presence therof that S. Peter did For in the substaunce of the Sacrament whiche is Goddes worke is no variete who ordeyneth all as afore vniformely but in man is the variete amonges whoÌ„ he that receyueth worthely Christes body receyueth life and he that receyueth vnworthely receyueth coÌ„dempnacion There foloweth further They say that good men eate the body of Christ The auctor and drinke his bloud only at that tyme when they receyue the Sacrament we say that they eate drinke and fede of Christ continually so long as they be membres of his body What forehede I pray you is so heatdened The answer that can vtter this among them that know any thing of the learnyng of Christes churche In whiche it is a most coÌ„mon distinction that there is thre maner of eatynges of Christes body and bloud one spiritual only whiche is here affirmed in the seconde parte we say wherein the auctor and his say as the churche sayth Another eatyng is bothe sacramentally spiritually whiche is when men worthely communicate in the supper The thyrd is sacramentally only whiche is by men vnworthy who eate and drynke in the holy
supper to their coÌ„dempnacion only And the learned men in Christes churche say that the ignorauÌ„ce want of obseruacion of these thre maner of eatynges causeth the errour in thunderstandyng of the scriptures suche fathers saiynges as haue written of the Sacrament And when the churche speaketh of these thre maner of eatynges what an impudeÌ„cy is it to say that the church teacheth good meÌ„ only to eat the body of Christ and drinke his bloud when they receyue the Sacrament beyng the truth otherwise and yet a diuersitie there is of eatyng spiritually onely eatyng spiritually sacramentally because in the supper they receyue his very fleshe and very bloud in dede with theffectes of all graces and giftes to suche as receyue it spiritually and worthely where as out of the supper wheÌ„ we eat only spiritually by faith God that worketh without his sacrameÌ„tes as semeth to him doth releaue those that beleue and trust in him suffreth them not to be destitute of that is necessary for them wherof we may not presume but ordenarely seke god wher he hath ordred himself to be sought there to assure our selfe of his couenauntes and promyses whiche be most certaynely annexed to his sacrameÌ„tes wherunto we ought to geue most certayne trust confideÌ„ce wherfore to teache the spirituall manducacioÌ„ to be equal with the spiritual manducation sacramental also that is to dimishe theffecte of the institution of the SacrameÌ„t whiche no Christen man ought to do They say that the body of Christ that is in the The 〈◊〉 SacrameÌ„t hath his owne propre tourme quantitie We say that Christ is there sacramentally and spiritually without fourme or quantitie In this coÌ„parison is both sleight crafte The answer In the first part of it which is that they say there is mention of the body of Christ which is propre of thumanitie of Christ In the seconde parte whiche is of we say there is no mention of Christes body but of Christ who in his diuine nature is vnderstanded present without a body Nowe the Sacrament is institute of Christes body and bloud and because the diuine nature in Christicontinueth the vnitie with the body of Christ we must nedes confesse where the body of Christ is there is whole Christ God man And whe we speake of Christes body we must vnderstande a true body whiche hath both fourme and quantitie and therfore suche as confesse the true Catholique fayth they affirme of Christes body all truth of a naturall body whiche although it hath all those truthes of fourme and quantitie yet they say Christes body is not present after the maner of quantitie nor in a visible fourme as it was conuersaunt in this present life but that there it is truely in the SacrameÌ„t the very true body of Christ which good men beleue vpon the credite of Christ that sayd so knowlege therwith the maner of that preseÌ„ce to be an high mystery and the maner so spirituall as the â—arnall man can not by discourse of reason reache it but in his discourse shal as this auctor doth thinke it a vanitie and folishenesse Whiche folishenesse neuerthelesse ouercommeth the wisdome of the worlde And thus I haue opened what they say on the Catholique parte Now for the other parte wherof this auctor is and with his fayth we saye the wordes seme to imply that Christes humayne body is not in the SacrameÌ„t in that it is sayd Christ to be there sacramentally spirituallye without fourme or quantitie whiche saiyng hath no scripture for it For the scripture speaketh of Christs body which was betrayed for vs to be geuen vs to be eaten Where also Christes diuinitie is present as accompaniyng his humanitie which humanitie is specially spoken of the presence of whiche humanite when it is denyed then is there no text to proue the presence of Christes diuinitie specially that is to say otherwise then it is by his omnipotencye presente euery where And to conclude this piece of comparison this maner of speache was neuer I thinke redde that Christ is present in the SacrameÌ„t without fourme or quantitie And S. Paule speaketh of a fourme in the godhead Qui quum in forma dei esset Who Phil. 2. when he was in the fourme of God So as if Christ be present in the Sacrament without all fourme then is he there neither as God nor man whiche is a straunger teachyng theÌ„ yet hath been heard or redde of but into such absurdities in dede do they fall who entreat irreuerently and vntruely this high misterie This is here worthy a speciall note how by the maner of the speache in the latter parte of this difference the teachyng semeth to be that Christ is spiritually present in the Sacrament because of the worde there which thou reader mayest compare how it agreeth with the rest of this auctors doctrine Let vs go to the next They say that the fathers and Prophetes of the The auctor old testament did not eate the body nor drinke the bloud of Christ We say that they did eat his body and drinke his bloud although he wer not yet borne nor incarnated This comparison of difference is clerkely The answer conceyued as it wer of a ryddle wherin nay yea when they be opened agree consent The fathers did eate Christes body drinke his bloud in truth of promyse whicht was effectual to theÌ„ of redemption to be wrought not in truth of presence as we do for confirmation of redemption already wrought They had a certayne promyse and we a certayne present payment they did eate Christ spiritually beleuing in him that was to come but they did not eate Christes body present in the Sacrament sacramentally and spiritually as we do Their sacramentes were figures of the thynges but out conteyne the very thinges And therfore albeit in a sence to the learned men it may be verefyed that the fathers did eat the body of Christ drink his bloud yet there is no suche forme of wordes in scripture it is more agreable to the simplicitie of scripture to say the fathers before Christes natiuite did not eate the body and bloud of Christ whiche body bloud Christ himselfe truely toke of the body of the virgin Marie For although S. Paule in the tenth to the Corinthians be so vnderstanded of some as the fathers should eat the same spiritual meat drinke the same spiritual drinke that we do to which vnderstaÌ„dyng al do not agree yet folowyng that vnderstaÌ„dyng we may not so presse the words as there should be noÌ„ differeÌ„ce at al this one special differeÌ„ce S. Augustine noteth how their sacramentes conteyned the promyse of that whiche in our sacramentes is geueÌ„ Thus he sayth this is euideÌ„t of it selfe how to vs in the holy supper Christ sayth This is my body that shall be betrayed for you Take eate which was neuer sayd to the fathers although their fayth
in substance agreed with our hauyng al one Christ mediatour whiche they loked for to come we acknowledge to be already coÌ„me Come to come as S. Augustine sayth differeth But Christ is one by whom all was create mans fal repared from whom is all fedyng corporall spirituall in whom al is restored in heauen in earth In this fayth of Christ the fathers were fedde with heauenly spiritual foode whiche was the same with ours in respecte of the restitution by Christ redemption by them hoped whiche is atchieued by the mystery of the body and bloud of Christ by reason wherof I denye not but it may be sayd in a good sence howe they dyd eate the body and bloud of Christ before he was incarnate but as I sayd before scripture speaketh not so and it is no holsome facion of speache at this tyme which furthereth in sounde to the eares of the rude the pestilent heresy wherin Ione of kent obstinately Ione of KeÌ„tes obstinacye dyed that is to say that Christ toke nothyng of the virgyn but brought his body with him froÌ„ aboue beyng a thyng worthy to be noted how the old heresi deniyng the true takyng of the fleshe of Christ in the virgyns woÌ„de at the same tyme to reuiue When the true deliuerance of Christes fleshe in the holy supper be of vs eateÌ„ is also denyed For as it is a mere truth without figure yet an high mistery godsworke in thincarnatioÌ„ of Christ wherin our fleshe was of Christ truly takeÌ„ of the virgyns substance So is it a mere truth without figure yet an high mistery gods worke in the geuyng of the same true fleshe truly to be in the supper eateÌ„ WheÌ„ I exclude figure in the Sacrament I meane not of the visible parte whiche is called a figure of the celestial inuisible parte whiche is truly there without figure wherby to empayre the truth of that preseÌ„ce which I adde to auoyde cauillatioÌ„ And to make an ende of this coÌ„parison this I say that this article declareth waÌ„tones to make a differeÌ„ce in wordes where none is in the sence rightly taken witâ— a noueltie of speache not necessary to be vttred nowe They say that the body of Christ is euery day many The auctor tymes made as often as there be masâ—es sayd and that then and there he is made of breade and wyne we say that Christes body was neuer but ones made and then not of the nature substaunce of bread and wyne but of the substaunce of his blessed mother The body of Christ is by goddes omnipotency The answer who so worketh in his worde made present vnto vs at suche tyme as the churche prayeth it may please him so to do whiche prayour is ordred to be made in the booke of common prayour now set forth Wherin we require of God the creatures of bread and wyne to be sanctified and to be to vs the body and bloud of Christ whiche they can not be onles God worketh it make them so to be In whiche mistery it was neuer taught as this auctor willyngly mysreporteth that Christes most precious body is made of the matter of bread but in that ordre exhibitie made present vnto vs by coÌ„uersion of the substaunce of bread into his precious body not a new body made of a newe matter of bread wyne but a newe presence of the body that is neuer old made preseÌ„t there wher the substaÌ„ce of bread wine was before So as this coÌ„parison of differeÌ„ce is mere wraÌ„glyng so euideÌ„t as it nedeth no further answer but a note â—o how they be not ashamed to trifle in so great a matter without cause by wrong termes to bring the truth in slaunder if it were possible May not this be accompted as a parte of Gods punishement for men of knowlege to wryte to the people such matter seriously as were not tollerable to be by a scoffer diuised in a play to supply when his felowe had forgotten his parte They say that the masse is a sacrifice satisfactory for synne by the deuocion of the priest that offreth The auctor and not by the thyng that is offred But we say that their â—aiyngs a most haynous yea and detestable errour agaynst the glorye of Christ For the satisfaction of our synnes is not the deuotion nor offryng of the priest but thonly host and satisfaction for al the synnes of the world is the death of Christ and thoblation that Christ himselfe offred ones vpon the crosse and neuer but ones nor neuer none but he And therfore that oblation whiche the priestes make dayly in their papisticall masses can not be satisfaction for other mennes synnes by the priestes deuotion but is a mere illusion and subtyll craft of the deuill wherby Antichrist hath many yeres blinded and deceyued the world This comparison is out of the matter of the presence of Christes most precious body The answer in the Sacrament whiche presence this auctor in the first part of his coÌ„parison semeth by implication to graunte when he findeth faulte that the priestes deuotion should be a sacrifice satisfactorie and not the thyng that is offred whiche maner of doctrine I neuer red and I thinke it myselfe it ought to be improued if any such there be to make the deuotioÌ„ of the priest a satisfactioÌ„ For vndoubtedly Christ is our satisfactioÌ„ wholly fully who hath payde our hole debte to god the father for thappesing of his iust wrath against vs and hath caÌ„celled the byll obligatory as S. Paule sayth that was against vs. For further openyng wherof if it be asked howe he satisfyed we aniwere as we be taught by the scriptures by thaccomplishement of the wyl of his father in his innoceÌ„t suffryng his willyng obedieÌ„t suffering the miseryes of this worlde without synne the violent persecution of the worlde euen to the death of the crosse sheddyng of his most precious bloud Wherin was perfited the willyng sacrifice that he made of himselfe to God the father for vs of whom it was writen in the beginnyng of the booke that he should be the body perfyte accoÌ„plishmeÌ„t of al sacrifices as of whom all other sacrifices before were shadowes figures And here is to be coÌ„sidered howe the obedient wyl in Christes sacrifice is specially to be noted who suffred because he would Whiche S. Paule setteth forth in declaratioÌ„ of Christes humilitie And although that willyng obedieÌ„ce was ended perfited on the crosse to the whiche it coÌ„tinued froÌ„ the begining by reasoÌ„ wherof thoblatioÌ„ is in S. Paules speach attribute ther vnto yet as in the sacrifice of abrahaÌ„ wheÌ„ he offred Isaac the ernest wil of offryng was accoÌ„pted for the offryng in dede wherpoÌ„ it is sayd in scripture that AbrahaÌ„ offred Isaac the declaration of the wil of AbrahaÌ„ is called the offryng So the declaration of Christes wil
deuoutly reuerently charitably quietly vse frequent the same without other Innouacions then thordre of the boke prescribeth Now to the last diffreÌ„ce They say that Christ is corporally in many places The auctor at one tyme affirming that his body is corporally really present in as many places as there be hostes consecrated We say that as the sonne corporally is euer in heauen no where els yet by his operation vertue the sonne is here in earth by whose influeÌ„ce vertue all thinges in the world be corporally regene rated encreased grow to their perfite state So likewise our sauiour Christ bodely corporally is in heuen sittyng at the righthande of his father although spirituallye he hath promysed to be present with vs vpoÌ„ yearth vnto the worldes ende And when so euer two or thre be gathered together in his name 〈◊〉 is there in the myddes among them by whose spiritual grace al godly men be first by him spiritually regenerate and after encrease and growe to their spirituall perfection in God spiritually by fayth eatyng his fleshe and drinkyng his bloud although the same corporally be in heauen The true teachyng is that Christes very The answer body is present vnder the forme of bread in as many hoostes as be coÌ„secrate in how many places soeuer the hoostes be coÌ„secrate is there really substancially whiche wordes really substaÌ„cially be implyed wheÌ„ we say truly-preseÌ„t The worde corporally may haue an ambiguite doublenes in respecre relation One is to the truth of the body present so it may be said Christ is corporally preseÌ„t in the Sacrament but if the worde corporally be referred to the maner of the preseÌ„ce then we should say Christes body were present after a corporall maner whiche we say not but in a spirituall maner therfore not locally nor by maner of quantitie but in such a maner as God only knoweth yet doth vs to vnderstand by fayth the truth of the very presence excedyng our capacite to coÌ„prehend the maner howe This is the very true teachyng to affirme the truth of the presence of Christes very body in the SacrameÌ„t euen of the same bodye that suffred in playne simple euident termes wordes suche as can not by cauillatioÌ„ be mystaken construed so nere as possibly maÌ„s infirmitie permitteth suffreth Nowe let vs coÌ„sider in what sorte thauctor his company which he calleth we say do vnderstand the SacrameÌ„t who go about to expresse the same by a similitude of the creature of the sonne whiche sonne this auctor saith is euer corporally in heauen no where els yet by operation vertue is here in year so Christ is corporally in heauen c. In this matter of similitudes it is to be taken for a truth vndoubted that there is no creature by similitude ne any laÌ„guage of man able to expresse God his mysteries For and thinges that be seeÌ„ or herd might throughly expresse Gods inuisible mysteries the nature whereof is that they caÌ„not throughly be expressed they wer no mysteries yet it is true that of thinges visible wherin God worketh wonderfully there may be some resemblaunces some shadowes and as it wer inductions to make a maÌ„ astomed in coÌ„sideracioÌ„ of thinges inuisible when he seeth thynges visible so wonderfully wrought to haue so merueylous effectes And diuers good catholike deuout men haue by diuerse naturall thinges gone about to open vnto vs the mysterye of the trinitie partely by the sonne as this auctor doth in the Sacrament partly by fyre partely by the soule of man by the MusiciaÌ„s science the arte the touche with the players fyngers the sounde of the corde wherin when witte hathe all trauayled the matter yet remayneth darke ne cannot be throughly set forthe by any similitude But to the purpose of this similitude of the soÌ„ne which soÌ„ne this auctor sayth is onely corporally in heaueÌ„ no where els in the yearth the operation vertue of the sonne So as by this auctours supposal the substaunce of the sonne should not be in yearth but only by operacion vertue wherin if this auctor erreth he doth the reader to vnderstand that if he erre in coÌ„sideracion of naturall thinges it is no merueyle though he erre in heauenly thinges For because I wil not of my selfe beginne the coÌ„tencioÌ„ with this auctor of the natural worke of the-sonne I will bryng forthe the saiyng of Martine Bucer nowe resideÌ„t at Cambridge who vehemeÌ„tly for so much truly affirmeth the true real presence of Christes body in the sacrameÌ„t For he sayth Christ sayd not This Bucer is my spirite this is my vertue but this is my body wherfore he saith we must beleue Christes body to be there the same that did hange vpoÌ„ the crosse our lord himself which in som parte to declare he vseth the similitude of the son for his purpose to proue christs body preseÌ„t really substaÌ„cially in the sacrameÌ„t wher this autor vseth the same similitude to proue the body of christ really abseÌ„t I wil write in here as Bucer speketh it in latin expouÌ„dyng the .xxvi. chap. of Mathewe theÌ„ I will put the same in english Bucers wordes be these Vt sol verè vno in loco coeli visibilis circumscriptus Bucerê° est radijs tamen suis presens verè substantialiter exhibetur vbilibet orbis Ita Dominus etiam si circumscribatur vno loco coeli arcani diuini id est gloriae patris verbo tamen suo sacris symbolis verè totus ipse deus homo praesens exhibetur in sacra coena eoque substancialiter quaÌ„ praesentiaÌ„ non minus certo agnoscit mens credeÌ„s verbis hijs DnÌ„i symbolis quam oculi vident habeÌ„t Solem praesentem demonstratum exhibitum sua corporali luce Res ista arcana est noui Testamenti res fidei noÌ„ sunt igitur huc admitteÌ„dae cogitationes de praesentatione cor poris quae constat ratione huius vitae etiaÌ„ im patibilis fluxè Verbo Domini simpliciter inherendum est debet fides sensuum defectui praebere supplementum Whiche is thus much in Englishe As the sonne is truly placed determinately in one place of the visible heauen and yet is truely substantially present by meane of his beames elswhere in the worlde abrode So our Lorde although he be comprehended in one place of the secret and diuine heauen that is to say the glorye of his father yet neuer the lesse by his worde and holy tokens he is exhibite present truly whole God and man therfore in substance in his holy supper whiche presence mannes mynde geuyng credite to his wordes tokeÌ„s with no lesse certaintie acknowlegeth then our eyes see haue the soÌ„ne present exhibite and shewed with his corporal light This is a depe secrete matter of the newe testameÌ„t a matter
of faith and therfore herin thoughtes be not to be receyued of suche a presentation of the body as coÌ„sisteth in the maner of this lyfe traÌ„sitorie and subiecte to suffre We must simply cleaue to the worde of Christ fayth must releue the defaulte of our sences Thus hath Bucer expressed his mynd wher vnto because the similitude of the sonne doth not answer in all partes he noteth wisely in th eÌ„d how this is a matter of faith therfore vpon the foundatioÌ„ of fayth we must speake of it therby to supply where our sences faile For the presence of Christ and hole Christe God and man is true althoughe we can not thinke of the maner howe The chief cause why I bring in Bucer is this to shewe how in his iugement we haue not only in earth the operation vertue of the sonne but also the substaunce of the sonne by meane of the sonne beames which be of the same sustauÌ„ce with the sonne can not be deuyded in substaunce from it therfore we haue in yerth the substaÌ„cial presence of the sonne not onely the operation vertue And howsoeuer the sonne aboue in the distaunce appereth vnto vs of an other sorte yet the beames that touche the yerth be of the same substaunce with it as clerkes say or at the lest as Bucer sayth whom I neuer harde accompted Papist and yet for the reall and substannciall presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament wryteth pythely playnly here encountreth this auctor with his similitude of the soÌ„ne directly whereby may appeare howe muche soeuer Bucer is estemed otherwise he is not with this auctor regarded in the truth of the Sacrament which is one of the highe mysteryes in our religion And this may suâ—â—ice for that pointe of the similitude where this auctor would haue Christ noon otherwise present in the Sacrament thâ—n he promised to be in thassemble of suche as be gathered together in his name it is a plaine abolition of the mysterye of the Sacrament in the woordes wherof Christes humayne body is exhibite made preseÌ„t with his very fleshe to feade vs to that singuler special effecte which in thother presence of Christ in thassemble made in his name is not spokeÌ„ of it hath no apparaunce of lernyng in scriptures to conclude vnder one coÌ„sideratioÌ„ a specialtie a generalitie And therfore it was well answered of him that said If I could tel reasoÌ„ ther wer no faith If I could shewe the like it wer not singuler whiche both be notable in this sacrameÌ„t where coÌ„deÌ„pnyng all reason good men both constantly beleue that Christ sitteth on the right hande of his father very god maÌ„ also without chauÌ„ge of place doth neuerthelesse make himselfe by his power preseÌ„t both God man vnder the forme of bread wyne at the prayor of the churche and by the ministery of the same to geue life to such as with fayth do accordâ—yng to his institutioÌ„ in his holy supper wortâ—hely receyue him to the condemnatioÌ„ of su 〈…〉 s do vnworthely presume to receiue him there For the worthie receiuyng of whoÌ„ we must come endued with christ clothed with him semely in that garment to receyue his moste precious body bloud Christ whole God man whereby he then dwelleth in vs more abundantly confirmyng in vs the effectes of his PassioÌ„ establishyng oure hope of resurrection then to enioye the regeneratioÌ„ of our body with a ful redemption of body soule to lyue with God in glorye for euer Thus I haue perused these differences whiche well considered me thinke sufficient to take away appeace all such difference as might be moued agaynst the Sacrament the faith whereof hath euer preuayled againste suche as haue impugned it And I haue not redde of any that hathe writen againste it but somewhat hathe agaynste his entreprise in his writynges appeared whereby to confirme it or so euident vntruthes affirmed as whereby those that be as indifferent to the truthe as Salamon was in the iudgement of the lyuynge childe May discerne the verye true mother from the other that is to say who playnely entende the true childe to continue aliue and who coulde be content to haue it distroyed by diuision God of his infinite mercy haue pytie on vs and graunt the true fayth of this holy mystery 〈…〉 rmely to be conceyued in our vnderstandynges in one forme of wordes to be vttered and preached which in the booke of common prayor is well termed not distaunt from the Catholique fayth in my iugement These differences ende in the .xlviii. leef in the second columne I entende nowe to touch the further matter of the booke with the maner of the handelyng of it and where an euident vntruth is ther to ioyne an issue and where slayte crafte is ther to note it in the whole The matter of the booke from theÌ„ce vnto the .xlvi. liefe touchyng the beyng of Christ in heauen and not in yerth in out of purpose superflous The article of our Crede that Christ asceÌ„ded to heaueÌ„ sitteth on the right hand of his father hath been is most constantly beleued of true Christen men which the true faith of Christes real presence in the SacrameÌ„t doth not touche or empayre Nor Christ beyng wholy God and man in the Sacrament is therby either out of heauen or to be sayd conuersaunt in yearth because the conuersation is not yearthly but spirituall and godly beyng thascensioÌ„ of Christ thend of his coÌ„uersation in yearth and therfore all that reasonyng of thauctor is clerely voyd to trayuaile to proue that is not denied only for a sleight to make it seme as though it wer denyed After this the auctor occupyeth a great numbre of leaues that is to say from the .lvii. leef vnto the .lxxiiii. to proue Christes wordes This is my body to be a figuratiue speche Sleight shifte is vsed in the matter without any effectuall consecution to him that is lerned First thauctour sayth Christ called bread his body Christ confessed bread his body To this is answered Christes callyng is a makyng as S. Paule sayth Vocat ea quae non Rom. 4. sunt tanq ea quae sint He calleth that be not as they were And so his callyng as Chrisostome and the greke commentaryes say is a making which also the Catechisme teacheth translate by Iustus Ionas in Germany after by this auctor in Englishe Tertullian Tertullianê° aduersus MarcioneÌ„ lib. 4. Cyprianus de ce na domini sayth Christ made bread his body and it is al one speche in Christ beyng God declaring his ordinaunces whither he vse the worde call or make for in his mouthe to call is to make Cyprian sayth accordyng hereunto howe bread is by Gods omnipotencie made fleshe wherupon also this speche bread is fleshe is asmuche to say as made fleshe not that bread beyng bread is fleshe but that was bread
plaine doctrine therof accordyng to the Catholique fayth in the other part passe it ouer with the name of a figure whiche consideracioÌ„ in S. Augustins writinges may be euideÌ„tly gathered for in some place no maÌ„ more plainly openeth the substance of the SacrameÌ„t then he doth speakyng expressely of the very body bloud of Christ conteyned in it yet therwith in other places noteth in those words a figure not therby to coÌ„trary his other playne â—aiyngs doctrin but meanyng by the word figure to signifie a secrete depe mistery hid deÌ„ froÌ„ carnal vnderstaÌ„dyng For auoyding expellyng of whiche carnalitie he geueth this doctrine here of this texte Excepte ye eate c. whiche as I sayd before in the bare litteral sence implyeth to carnal iudgemeÌ„t other carnal circunstances to atteyne the same flesh to be eateÌ„ which in that carnal sence can not be but by wickednes But what is this to the obeiyng of Christes coÌ„maundemet in th institucioÌ„ of his supper when himselfe deliuereth his body bloud in these mysteryes and byddeth Eate drinke there can be no offence to do as Christ biddeth therfore S. Augustins rule perteyneth not to Christes supper wher in when Christ willeth vs to vse our mouth we ought to dare do as he biddeth for that is spirituall vnderstandyng to do as is coÌ„manded without carnall thought or murmuryng in our sensuall diuise howe it can be so And sainct Augustine in the same place speakyng de communicaÌ„do passionibus Christi declareth plainely he meaneth of the Sacrament Tertullian speakyng of there present acioÌ„ Tertul. of Christes very body in which place he termeth it the same body speaketh catholiquely in suche phrase as S. Hierome speaketh and theÌ„ TertulilaÌ„ saith afterwarde as this auctor therin truely bryngeth him forth that Christ made the bred his body which bread was in the mouth of the pphet a figure of his body Wherfore it foloweth by Tertullians coÌ„fession when Christ made the bread his body that Christ ended the figure and made it the truth making now his body that was before the figure of his body For if Christ did no more but make it a figure styl theÌ„ did he not make it his body as Tertullian himself saith he did And Tertullian therfore beyng red thus as appeareth to be most probable that that is to say in Turtullian should be onely referred to the explicacioÌ„ of the first this as when TurtulliaÌ„ had alleged Christs words saiyng this is my body putteth to of his owne that is to say the figure of my body these wordes that is to say should serue to declare the demonstracion this in this wise that is to say this which the prophet called the figure of my body is nowe my body so Tertullian sayd before that Christ had made bread his body which bread was a figure of his body with the prophete nowe endeth in the very truth beyng made his body by conuersioÌ„ as CypriaÌ„ sheweth of the nature of bread into his body Tertullian reasoned against the Marcionistes because a figure in the prophete signifieth a certayne vnfayned truth of that is signified seyng Christes bodye was figured by bread in the prophete Hieremy It appeareth Christ had a true body And that the bread was of Christ approued for a figure he made it nowe his very body And this may be sayd euideÌ„tly to Tertullian who reasonyng against heretiques vseth the commoditie of arguyng and geueth no doctrine of the Sacrament to further this auctors purpose And what aduaÌ„tage should theretiques haue of Tertullian if he should meane that these wordes This is my body had only this sence This is the figure of my body hauing himself sayd before that Christ made bread his body If so plaine speache to make bread his body conteineth no more certaintie in vnderstandyng but the figure of a body why should not they say that a body in Christ should euer be spoken of a body in a figure and so no certaintie of any true body in Christ by Tertullians wordes This place of Tertullian is no secrete poynte of lernyng hath been of Decolampadius other alleged by other catholique men answered vnto it wherof this auctor may not thinke nowe as vpon a wranglyng argument to satisfie a coniecture diuised therby to confirme a newe teachyng Fynally Tertullian termeth it not an onely figure whiche this auctor muste proue or els he doth nothyng Cyprian shal be touched after when we CypriaÌ„ speake of him againe Chrisostome shall open himselfe hereafter Chrysosto Hiero. plainely Saint Hierome speketh here very pithely vsyng the worde represent which signifieth a true real exhibicioÌ„ for sainct Hierome speaketh of the representacion of the truth of Christes body which truth excludeth an only figure For howsoeuer the visible matter of the sacrament be a fignre the inuisible parte is a truth Whiche saincre Hierome sayth is here represented that is to say made preseÌ„t which only signification doth not Sainct Ambrose shall after declare himselfe Ambrosius it is not denyed but thauctors in spekyng of the Sacrament vsed these wordes signe figure similitude tokeÌ„ but those speaches exclude not the veritie truth of the body bloud of Christ for no approued auctor hath this exclusiue to say an onely signe an only tokeÌ„ an only similitude or an only significacion whiche is the issue with this auctor As for Sainct Augustine ad Bonifacium Augustinus thauctor shall perceiue his faulte at Martyn Bucers hand who in his epistel dedicatorye of his enarracions of the gospels reherseth his mynde of Sainct Augustine in this wise Est scribit diuus Augustinus SecunduÌ„ queÌ„dam Bucerê° modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi sacrameÌ„tum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi At secunduÌ„ quem moduÌ„ Vt significet tantum corpus sanguineÌ„ Domini absentia Absit Honorari enim percipi in Symbolis visibilibus corpus sanguineÌ„ Domini ideÌ„ passim scribit These wordes of Bucer may be thus englished Saincte Augustine writeth the Sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certaine maner the body of Christ the SacrameÌ„t of the bloud of Christ the bloud of Christ But after what maner that it should signifie onely the body bloud abseÌ„t Absit In no wise For the same S. Augustin writeth in many places the body and bloud of Christ to be honored to be receiued in those visible tokens Thus sayth Bucer who vnderstandeth not S. Augustine to say the sacrameÌ„t of Christes body to be Christes body after a certaine maner of spech as this auctor doth nor S. Augustine hath no suche wordes but only secundum quendaÌ„ moduÌ„ after a certaine maner whervnto to put of speche is an addition more then truth required of necessite In these words of Bucer may appeare his whole iugemeÌ„t coÌ„cernyng S. Augustin who affirmeth the very true presence of the thing signified in the
so as may appeare by Tertullianes words reported by this auctor before This note that I make nowe of TertuliaÌ„ makethe against this auctors purpose but yet it makethe with the truthe which this auctor should not impugne The seconde note gathered of Tertulian by this auctor is not true for Christ called it his body made it his body as Tertullian sayth And the thirde note of this auctor is in coÌ„trauersy of readyng must be so vnderstaÌ„ded as maye agree with the rest of Tertullians saynges which after my readyng doth euidently proue at the lest dothe not improue the Catholique doctrine of Christes churche vniuersally receiued althoughe it improueth that which this auctor calleth here our Catholique doctrine most impudently and vntruely reportynge the same Origens wordes be verie plaine and meanynge Origenes also whiche speake of manifestation and exhibition whiche be two thynges to be verified thre wayes in our religioÌ„ that is to say in the worde re generatioÌ„ the Sacrament of bread and wyne as this auctor ter 〈…〉 i the it which Origene speaketh not so but â—hus the fleshe of the word of god not meaâ—yng in euerie of these after one sorte but â—fter the truth of Scripture in eche of them Christ in his word is manifested exhibited vnto vs and by faieth that is of hearynge dwelleth in vs spirituallye for so we haue his spirite Of Baptisme S. Paule sayth as manny as be Baptized be clade in Christe Nowe in the SacremeÌ„t of bread wyne by OrigeÌ„s rule Christ shuld be manifestie exhibitie vnto vs after the scriptures So as the SacremeÌ„t of bread wyne should not onely signifie Christ that is to say preach him but also exhibite him seÌ„sible as Origenes words be reaported here to be so as Christes words this is my body should be wordsnot of figure sheuyng but of exhibityng Christes body vnto vs sensibly as this auctor allegeth him whiche should signifie to be receiued with our moueth as christ coÌ„mauÌ„ded wheÌ„ he said take eat c. diuersly froÌ„ thother two waies in whiche by Christes spirite we be made participaunt of the benefit of his passion wroght in his manhode But in this Sacrament we be made participaunt of his Godhode by his humanite exhibite vnto vs for fode so in this mysterie we receyue him man god in thother by meane of his god head be participat of the effect of his passion suffred in his manhead In this Sacrament Christes manhead is represeÌ„ted truely preseÌ„t wher vnto the godhead is moste certainly vnited whereby we receyue a pledge of the regeneratioÌ„ of our fleshe to be in the general resurrection spiritual with oure soule as we haue been in Baptisme made spirituall by regeneration of the soule which in the full redemption of our bodies shal be made perfite And therfore this auctor may not compare Baptisme with the SacrameÌ„t throughly in whiche Baptisme Christes manhode is not really present althoughe the vertue effecte of his most precious bloude be there but the truth of the mysterie of this SacrameÌ„t is to haue Christes body his flesh and bloud exhibited wherevnto eatyng drinkyng is by Christ in his supper appropriate In whiche supper Christ said This is my body which Bucer noteth and that Christ sayd not this is my sprit this is my vertue wherfore after Origens teachyng if Christ be not only manifested but also exhibitie seÌ„sibly in the Sacrament then is he in the SacrameÌ„t in dede that is to say really and then is he there substanetally because the substaunce of the bodye is there and is there corporally al so because the very bodye is there naturallâ— because the natural body is there not vnderstandyng corporally and naturally in the maner of presence nor sensibly nother For then wer the maner of preseÌ„ce with in mans capacitie and that is false and therfore the Catholique teachyng is that the maner of Christes presence in the Sacrament is spiriâ—ual and supernatural not corporal not car 〈…〉 all not naturall not sensible not percepti 〈…〉 le but onely spirituall the howe maner whereof God knoweth and we assured by his worde knowe onely the truthe to be so that it is there in dede and therfore really to be also receyued with our handes and monthes so seÌ„sibly there the body that suffred and therfore his naturall body there the body of very fleshe and therfore his carnal body the body truely and therfore his corporal bodye there But as for the maner of presence that is only spiritual as I sayd before and here in the inculcation of these wordes I am tedious to a lerned reader but yet this auctor enforeth me thervnto who with these wordes carnally corporally grosly sensibly naturally appliyng theÌ„ to the maner of presence dothe craftely carie away the reader from the simplicitie of his fayth and by such absurdities as these wordes grosly vnderstanded importe astonneth the simple reader in consideration of the matter and vseth these words as dust afore their eyes which to wipe away I am enforced to repete thuÌ„derstandyng of these wordes oftener theÌ„ els wer necessarie these thynges wel coÌ„sidered no man dothe more plainely confounde this auctor then this saiyng of Origene as he allegeth it whatsoeuer other sentencies he woulde pyke out of Origene when he vseth libertie of allegories to make him seme to say otherwise and as I haue declared afore to vnderstand Christes wordes spiritually is to vnderstand them as the spirite of God hath taught the churche and to esteme gods mysteries moste true in the substaunce of the thing so to be althoughe the maner excedeth our capacites whiche is a spirituall vnderstandyng of the same and here also this auctor putteth in for spiritually figuratiuely to deceyue the reader As touching CyprtaÌ„ this auctor maketh an exposition of his owne diuise whiche he Cypria nus would haue taken for an answer vnto him Where as Cyprian of all other like as he is ancient within 25. yeres of Christe so did he write very openly in the matter therfore MelaÌ„thon in his Epistle to Occolampadius did those hym for one whose wordes in Melanthon thaffirmation of Christes true preseÌ„ce in the SacrameÌ„t had no ambiguitie And lyke iudgement doth Hippinus in his booke before Hippinê° alleged geue of Cyprianus fayth in the SacrameÌ„t whiche two I allege to contrauaile the iudgement of this auctor who speaketh of his owne head as it liketh him playnge with the wordes grosse and carnal vsyng the worde represent as though it expressed a figure only Hippinus in the sayd booke allegeth Cyprian to saye libro 3. ad quirinum Cyprianus lib. 3. ad Quirinum that the bodye of our lorde is our sacrifice in fleshe meanyng as hippinus sayth Eucharistiam wherin S. Augustine as hippinus sayth further in the prayor for his mother speakynge of the bread and wyne of Eucharistia sayth that in it
deliuerethe vs the same fleshe glorified truely to be communicate with our fleshe wherby as we be naturally in Christ so Christ is naturally in vs and wheÌ„ this is brought to passe theÌ„ is the vnitie betwene Christe and vs perfited for as Christ is naturally in the father of the same essence by the diuine nature and God the father naturally in Christ his sonne very God of the same essence in the diuine nature So we be naturally in Christ by our natural fleshe which he toke in the virgyns wombe and he naturally in vs by the same fleshe in him glorified and geuen to vs and receyued of vs in the Sacrement For Hilarie sayth in plaine wordes howe Christes verye fleshe Hilariê° and Christes very bloud receyued and dronken Accepta hausta bryng this to passe And it is notable howe Hilarie compareth together the truely in Christes takynge of our fleshe in the virgyns wombe with the truely of our takynge of his fleshe In cibo dnÌ„ico in our lordes meate by which words he expresseth the Sacrament after reproueth those that sayd we were onely vnitie by obedience and will of religion to Christe and by him so to the father as though by the Sacrement of fleshe and bloud no proprietie of naturall communion were geuen vnto vs wheras both by the honor geuen vnto vs we be the sonnes of god and by the sonne dwellynge carnally in vs and we beynge corporally and inseparably vnitie in him the mysterie of true and natural vnitie is to be preached These be Hilaries wordes for this latter parte where thou hearest reader the sonne of god to dwel carnally in vs not after mannes grosse imagination for we may not so thinke of godly mysteries but carnally is referred to the truth of Christes fleshe geueÌ„ to vs in this SacrameÌ„t and so is naturally to be vnderstanded that we receyue Christes naturall fleshe for the truthe of it as Christe receyued our naturall fleshe of the virgyn although we receyue Christes fleshe glorified incorruptible verye spirituall and in a spiritual maner deliuered vnto vs. Here is mention made of the worde corporall but I shal speake of that in the discussioÌ„ of Cyril This hilarie was before sainct Augustine and was knowen both of him S. Hierom who called him Tubaâ— latini eloquii against tharriaÌ„s Neuer manne founde fault at this notable place of Hilarie Now let vs consider howe the auctor of this booke forgetteth him selfe to call Christe in vs naturally by his godhead whiche were then to make vs all gods by nature whiche is ouer greatan absurditie and Christe in his diuine nature dwelleth onely in his father naturally and in vs by grace But as we reaceiue him in the Sacrament of his fleshe and bloud if we receyue hym worthely so dwelleth he in vs naturally for the mutuall communication of our nature and his And therfore where this auctor reaporteth Hilarie to make no difference betwene our vnyon to Christe in Baptisme and in the supper let hym truste hym no more that told hym so or if this auctor wil take vpoÌ„ him as of his owne knowlege then I would say if he were another an answere in frenche that I will not expresse And here vpoÌ„ wil I wynne the Issue that in Hilarie the matter is so plaine otherwise An issue then this auctour reherseth as it hath no colour of defence to the contrarye And what Hilarie speaketh of Baptisme and our vnitie therin I haue before touched and this vnitie in fleshe is after treated aparte What shall I saye to this so manifest vntruth but that it confirmeth that I haue in other obserued howe therewas neuer one of theÌ„ that I haue red writynge againste the SacrameÌ„t but hath in his writynges sayd somwhat so euidently in the matter or out of the matter discrepaunte from truthe as might be a certaine marke to iudge the qualitie of his spirite Thauctor saythe suche answere as he made to Hilarie wyll serue for Cyrill and Cyrill in deade to saye truthe it is made after the same sorte and hathe euen suche an error as the other had sauyng it maye be excused by ignoraunce For where thauctor trauayleth â—ere to expouÌ„de the worde corporally which is a sore worde in Cyrill against this auctor and therfore taketh labour to teÌ„pere it with the worde corporaliter in sainct Paule applyed to the dwellynge of the diuinitie in Christ and yet not conteÌ„t therwith maketh further serche and would gladly haue somewhat to coÌ„firme his fausye out of Cyril himselfe and seketh in Cyrill where it is not to be founde and sekech not where it is to be founde For Cyrill telleth hymselfe plainely what he meaneth by the worde corporally whiche place and this auctour had founde he might haue spared a greate many of wordes vttered by diuination but then the truthe of that place hindreth and qualeth in maner all the booke I will at my peril bryng for the Cyrils owne wordes truely vpon the xvij Chaptre of sainct Iohn Corporaliter filius per benedictionis mysticam Cyrillê° in IoaÌ„ Cap 17 nobis vt homo Vnitur spiritualiter autem vt deus Whiche be in Englishe thus much to say The sonne is vnitie as man corporally to vs by the mystical benedictioÌ„ spiritually as God These be Cyrils wordes who nameth the Sacrament of the body bloude of Christe the mysticall benediction and sheweth in this sentence howe hym selfe vnderstaÌ„deth the wordes corporally spiritually That is to saye when Christ vniteth hym selfe to vs as man whiche he dothe he doth geuynge his bodye in this Sacrament to suche as worthely receyue it then he dwelleth in them corporally whiche Christe was before in them spiritually orels they could not worthely receyue him to theffecte of that vnitie corporall and corporall dwellynge by whiche worde corporal is vnderstanded no grosues at all whiche the nature of a mysterie excludeth and yet kepeth truthe still beyng the vnderstandyng onely atteined by faythe But where thauctor of the booke allegeth Cyrill in wordes to deny the eatyng of a man and to affirme the receyuinge in this Sacrament to be only by faith It shall appeare I doubt not vpon further discussion that Cyrill say the not so and the translations of Cyrill into latine after the printe of basil in a booke called Antidoton and of hole Cyrils workes prynted at colen haue not in that place suche sentence So as folowynge the testimonye of those bookes set forthe by publique fayth in two sondrie places I shoulde call thallegation of Cyrill made by this auctour in this poynte vntrue as it is in deade in the matter vntrue And yet because the Originall error procedeth from Oecolampadius it shall serue to good purpose to directe thoriginall faulte to hym as he well deseruethe to be as he is noted gyltie of it whose reputacion deceyued many in the matter of the Sacrament and beynge well noted howe the same Oecolampadius corrupteth Cyrill it maye
nor contrarieth not that other afore them had writen For in the olde churche the truth of this mystery was neuer impugned openly and directly that we rede of before Berengarius .v. C. yeres past and Berengarius Bertrame secretely by one Bertrame before that but onely by the Messalions who sayd the corporal eatyng did neither good nor hurte The Antropomorphites also who sayâ—e the vertue of the mysticall benediction endured not to the next day of whom Cyrill speaketh the Nestorians by consecution of their lernyng that diuide L. Christes flesh from the beiâ—e And where this auctor would haue taken for a true supposall that Basill Bregorie Nazâ—anzene and Nissene should take the Sacrament to be figuratiue onely that is to be denied And likewise it is not true that this auctor teacheth that of the figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spoke of the thyng it selfe And that I will declare thus Of the thyng it selfe that is Christes very body beyng present in dede it maye be sayd adore it worshippe it there which may not be sayd of the figure It may be sayd of the very thyng beyng present there that it is a highe myracle to be there it is aboue nature to be there it is an highe secret mysterie to be there But none of these speaches can be conuenieÌ„tly sayd of thonly figure that it is such a miracle so aboue nature so highe a mysterye to be a figure And therfore it is no true doctrine to teache that we may say the same of the figure that may be sayde of the thyng iâ— selfe And where this auctor speaketh of spiritual eatyng and corporall eatyng he remayneth in his ignoraunce what the worde corporall meaneth whiche I haue opened in discussyng of his answer to Cyrill fayth is required in him that shall eate spiritually and the corporall eatyng institute in Christes supper requireth by the reuereÌ„r of mans mouth to receyue our Lordes meat drinke his owne verye flesh and bloud by his omnipotencie prepated in that supper whiche not spiritually that is to say innocently as S. Augu. In IoaÌ„ tract xxvj Augustine in one place expoundeth spiritually receyued bryngeth iudgement and condempnacion accordyng to Saincte Paules wordes This auctor sayth that Emissen is shortly Emisse answered vnto and so is he if a man care not what he saith as Hilarie was answered and Cyrill But els there can not shorte or longe answere confounde the true playne testymonye of Emissen for the commen true fayth of the church in the SacrameÌ„t Which Emissen hath this sentence That the inuisible Prieast by the secrete powre with his worde turneth the visible creatures into the substaunce of his bodye and bloud saiynge thus This is my body And agayne repetyng the same saÌ„ctificatioÌ„ this is my bloud Wherfore as at the becke of him commaundynge the heightes of heuens the depenes of the flouds and largenes of landes were founded of nothyng by like powre in spirituall Sacramentes where vertue commandeth theffect of the truth serueth These be Emissenes saiynges declaryng his fayth plainely of the Sacrament in suche termes as can not be wrested nor writhed who speaketh of a turnyng couuersion of the visible creatures into the substaunce of Christes body and bloud he sayth not into the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud nor figure of Christes body bloud wherby he should meane a onely sacramentall conuersion as this auctor would haue it but he sayth into the substaunce of Christes body and bloud declaryng the truth of Christes body bloud to be in the Sacrament For the wordes substaunce and truth be of one strenght and shewe a difference from a figure wherin the truth is not in dede present but signified to be absent And because it is a worke supernaturall and a great miracle This Emissen represseth mannes carnall reason and succurreth the weke fayth with remembraunce of like power of God in the creation of the worlde whiche were brought forth out of tyme by Emissen if Christes body were not in substaunce present as Emissens wordes be but in figure only as this auctor teacheth And where this auctor coupleth together the two Sacramentes of Baptisme and of the body and bloud of Christ as though there were no difference in the presence of Christ in either he putteth him selfe in daunger to be reproued of malice or ignoraunce For although these mysteryes be both great and mans regeneracion in baptisme is also a mysterye and the secrete worke of God hath a great maruayle in that effecte yet it diffreth from the mysterye of the Sacrament touchyng the maner of Christes preseÌ„ce and the workyng of theffecte also For in Baptisme our vnion with Christe is wrought without the real presence of Christes humanitie only in the vertue and effect of Christes bloud the whole trinitie there workynge as auctor in whose name the SacrameÌ„t is expressely ministred where our soule is regenerate made spiritual but not our body in dede but in hope onely that for the spirite of Christ dwellyng in vs our mortall bodyes shal be resuscitate and as we haue in Baptisme be buried with Christ so we be assured to be parte takers of his resurrectioÌ„ And so in this SacrameÌ„t we be vnite to Christs maÌ„hode by this diuinite But in the Sacrament of Christes body and bloude we be in nature vnited to Christe as man and by his glorified fleshe made parte takers also of his diuinite whiche mysticall vnioÌ„ representeth vnto vs the high estate of our glorificatioÌ„ wherin body sowle shall in the generall resurrectioÌ„ by a meruaylous regeneratioÌ„ of the body be made both spiritual the speciall pledge whereof we receyue in this SacrameÌ„t therfore it is the sacrameÌ„t as hilarie saith of perfect vnitie And albeit the soule of man be more precious theÌ„ the bodye the nature of the godhead in Christe more excellent theÌ„ the nature of man in hym glorified in Baptisme maâ—nes soule is regenerate in the vertue and effect of Christes passioÌ„ bloud christes godhead preseÌ„t there without the reall presence of his humanitie although for these respects thexelleÌ„ce of Baptisme is great Yet because the mistery of the Sacrament of thaltare where Christ is preseÌ„t both man god in theffectual vnite that is wrought bitwene oure bodyes our soules Christes in the vse of this SacremeÌ„t signifieth the perfect redeÌ„ption of oure bodyes in the general resurrectioÌ„ which shal be th ende coÌ„suÌ„mation of al oure felicitie This Sacrament of perfite vnitie is the mysterye of our perfite astate when body soule shal be all spiritual hath so a degre of exelleÌ„ce for the dignitie that is estemed in euerie ende perfection wherfore the worde spirituall is a necessarie worde in this SacrameÌ„t to call it a spirituall foode as it is in dede for it is to work in our bodies a spiritual effect not only in oure soules Christes body fleshe
coÌ„secration As touchyng the spiritualtie of the meat of Christes bodye I haue spoken before but where this auctor addeth it requireth no corporall presence he speaketh in his dreame beynge oppressed with slepe of ignoraunce and can not tell what corporall meaneth as I haue opened before by thauctorite of Cyrill Nowe let vs se what this auctor sayth to Chrisostome This auctor noteth in Chrisostome Chrisostome two places and bryngeth them forth and in handlyng the first place declareth himselfe to trifle in so great a matter euidently to his owne reproufe For where in the secoÌ„d booke of his worke entretyng transubstanciation he would the same words of Chrisostome by this fourme of speache in the negatiue should not denye precisely And when Chrisostome sayth do not thinke that you by man receiue the body of god but that we should not considre man in the receiuyng of it Here this auctor doth allege those wordes and reasoneth of them as though they were termes of were deny all But I would aske of this auctor this question If Chrisostomes fayth had been that we receyue not the bodye of God in the SacrameÌ„t verely Why should he vse wordes Idelly to entreat of whome we receiued the body of God whiche after this auctors doctrine we receiue not at all but in figure no body at all whiche is of Christes humanitie beyng Christ as this auctor teacheth spiritually that is by his diuine nature in him onely that worthely receyueth and in the verye Sacrament as he concludeth in his booke onely figuratiuely Turne backe reader to the. 36. lâ—ef in the auctors booke and reade it with this and so considre vpon what principle here is made an Ergo I will answere that place whan I speake of transubstanciation whiche shall be after answer to the third and fourth booke as the naturall ordre of the matter requiteth The second place of Chrisostome that this auctor bringeth furth he grauÌ„teth it souÌ„deth much against him fauoreth his aduersaries but with coÌ„ferryng coÌ„sideryng he trusteth to altre it from the true vnderstandyng And not to expound but confouÌ„de the matter he ioyneth in speach the SacrameÌ„t of baptisme with this sacrameÌ„t which shifte this auctor vsed vntruly in Hilarie would now beare in hand that the preseÌ„ce of Christ were none otherwise in this sacrameÌ„t theÌ„ in Baptisme whiche is not so for in this Sacrament Christes humanitie godhead is really preseÌ„t in Baptisme his godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud in whiche we be wasshed not requiring by scripture any real preseÌ„ce for dispeÌ„sation of that mystery as I haue before touched discussyng thanswer of Emissen where as Chrisostome speakyng of Chrisosto de Sacerdo li. 3. this sacrameÌ„t whereof I haue before spokeÌ„ and Melancton allegyng it to Oecolampadius saith thus The great myracle and great beneuolence of Christ is that he sitteth aboue with his father and is the same houre in our handes here to de embrased of vs. and therfore where this auctor would not the woÌ„dre of gods worke in the Sacrament to be wonderfull for the worke and effect in man this is one piece of truth but in the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ the olde fathers wonder at the worke in the SacrameÌ„t how bread is chauÌ„ged into the body of christ how Christ sittyng in heauen God and man is also man and God in the Sacrament and beyng worthly receiued dwelleth in such carnally and naturally as Hilarie sayth and corporally as Cyrill sayth How this can be no man can tell no faythfull maÌ„ should aske and yet it is the true Catholique fayth to be truely so wrought For as Emissene sayth he that is thauctor of it he is the witnesse of it And therfore I wil make it an issue with this An issue So this auctor hath nowe in this worke confessed the traÌ„slacion of the catechisme which one in coÌ„munication would nedes haue made me beleue had been his mannes doyng and not his Heare now reader how plainly Theophilact speaketh vpon the Gospelâ— of Sainct Iohn expounding the .vi. Chapter Take hede that the bread whiche is eaten of vs in the mysteryes is not onely a certaine figuration of the fleshe of our Lorde but the fleshe it selfe of our Lorde for he sayde not The bread whiche I shall geue is the figure of my flesh but it is my fleshe For that bread by the mysticall benediction is transformed by mystical wordes and presence of the holy ghost into the flesh of our Lord. And it should trouble no maÌ„ that the bread is to be beleued fleshe for whiles our Lorde walked in flesh and receiued nurrishmeÌ„t of bread that bread he did eat was chaunged into his body and was made like to his holy fleshe and as it is customably in mans feadyng serued to the sustentacion and encrease of it therfore the bread now also is chaunged into the fleshe of our Lorde And howe is it then that it appeareth not fleshe but bread that we should not loth the eatyng of it for if fleshe did appeare we should be vnplesauntly disposed to the communion of it Nowe our Lorde coÌ„desceÌ„dyng to our infirmitie the mystical meat appeareth suche to vs as those we haue been accustomed vnto Hitherto I haue faithfully expressed Thiophilactes wordes out of Latyn of â—ecolampadins translation without termyng the substanciall poyntes otherwise theÌ„ the wordes purporte in Latyn By which may appeare what was Theophilacts meanyng what doctrine he geueth of the Sacrament and howe his owne wordes vpon S. Marke be to be vnderstanded wheÌ„ he sayth Speciem quidem panis vini seruat in virtutem Theophilact autem carnis sanguinis transelemeÌ„tat in corruptyng of whiche wordes this auctor maketh a great matter when they were not alleged for his but as they be his seruare speciem maye be well translate fourme and apparaunce because vpon Sainct Iohn before alleged he sayth of the bread it appeareth And as for these wordes the vertue of Christes fleshe and bloud must be vnderstaÌ„ded to agre with the playne place of Theophilacte vpon Sainct Iohn and vpoÌ„ marke also to signifie not only vertue but veritie of the fleshe and bloud of Christ For if Theophilacte by that speache mente the vertue of the body of Christ and not the veritie of the very body as this author sayth he did why shoulde Theophilacte bothe vpon Saincte Marke and also vpon Saincte Iohn aske this question why doth not the fleshe appeare if himselfe by those wordes should teache there were onely 〈◊〉 presente the vertue of his fleshe who and he had ment so would not haue asked the question or if he had would haue answerd it thus Accordyngly there is no fleshe in dede but the vertue of the fleshe and that had been a playne answer and such as he would haue made This auctor wylaske then why doth Theophilacte vse this phrase to say chaunged into the vertue of the
bodye of Christ Here vnto I answere that this worde vertue in phrase of speache manny tymes onely filleth the speache and is comprehended in the signification of his genitiue folowyng and therfore as Luke in the .xxij. Chapter sayth à dextris virtutis Dei so in the Actes the same sentence is spoken a dextris Dei both out of one penne and a dextris virtutis Dei is no more to say then à dextris Dei and so is virtutem carnis sanguinis no more to say but in carnem sanguinem whiche sentence the same Theophilacte hath vpon Sainct Iohn before alleged in this sayng The bread is chaunged in â—ofiesh and in marke in this phrase in to the vertue of flesh beyng Like these speaches à dextris Dei à dextris virtutis Dei. Whiche and it had liked this auctor to haue considered he should haue taken Theophilactes speache as Theophilacte vnderstandeth himselfe and sayde the wordes alleged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus were not Theophilactes wordes and then he had sayd for so muche true whiche would do well among and the wordes be not in dede Theophilactes words nor were not alleged for his Nowe when this author sayth they were not Theophilus Alexandrinus wordes that is a large negatiue and wil be hardely proued otherwise then by addition of the auctors knowlege for any thyng that he can fynde and so there shal be no absurdite to grauÌ„te it And thus I retourne to myne Issue with this auctor that Theophilacte himselfe hathe no suche meanynge expressed in wordes as this auctour attributeth vnto him but an euident contrarye meanynge sauyng herein I will agree with this auctour that Theophilacte mente not grossely sensibly and carnally as these wordes sounde in carnarall mennes iudgementes For we maye not so thinke of Gods mysteryes the worke wherof is not carnall nor corporall for the maner of it But the maner spirituall and yet in the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ because Christ is in his very true fleshe present he maye be sayde so carnally present and naturally after Hylary and corporally after Cyrill vnderstandyng the wordes of the truthe of that is present Christes verye body and fleshe and not of the maner of the presence whiche is onely spirituall supernaturall and aboue mannes cappacitie And therfore a highe mysterye a greate myracle a wonderfull worke whiche it is holsome to beleue simplye with a syncere fayth and daungerous to serche and examyne with a curious imaginacion suche as idelines and arrogaunce would tempte a man vnto and by diuisyng of a figure or metaphore bryng it within the compasse of our buysie reason This auctor trauayleth to answer Saint Hierom. Hierome and to make him the easyer for him to deale with he cutteth of that foloweth in the same Saincte Hierome whiche should make the matter open and manifest howe effectually Sainct Hierome speaketh of the SacrameÌ„t of Christes body and bloud Ther is sayth Sainct Hierome as great differeÌ„ce betwene the loues called Panes ê“positiones and the body of Christ as there is betwene the shadowe of a body and the body it selfe and as there is betwene an image and the true thyng it selfe and betwene an example of thynges to come and the thynges that be prefigured by them Therfore as mekenes pacience sobrietie moderation abstinence of gayne hospitalitie also and liberalite should be chiefly in a Byshop and among all laye men an excellencie in them so their should be in him a special chastite and as I should say chastitie that is priestly that he shoulde not onely absteyne from an vncleane worke but also from the caste of his eye and his mynde fre from error of thought that should make the body of Christ These be Sainct HieroÌ„s words in this place By the latter part wherof appeareth playnely how Sainct Hierom meaneth of Christes body in the SacrameÌ„t of whiche the loues that were Panes propositiones were a shadow as Sainct Hierom sayth that bread beyng the image and this the trueth that the example and this that was prefigured So as if Christes body in the Sacrament should be there but figuratiuely as this auctor teacheth then were the bread of proposition figure of a figure and shadowe of a shadowe whiche is ouer great an absurdite in our religion Therfore there cannot be a more playne proufe to shewe that by Saincte Hieroms mynde Christes body is verely in the Sacrament not figuratiuely onely then when he noteth Panes propositiones to be the figure the shadowe of christes body in the Sacrament For as TertulliaÌ„ sayth Figura non esset nisi veritatis Tertullianê° aduersus Marcio libr. 4. esset corpus The other were not to be called a figure if that that answered vnto it were not of truth whiche is the sence of Tertullians wordes And therfore Saincte Hierome could with no other wordes haue expressed his mynde so certainely and playnly as with these to confesse the truth of Christs body in the SacrameÌ„t And therfore regarde not reader what this auctor sayth For S. Hierom affirmeth playnely Christes true body to be in the Sacrament the consecration wherof although Saincte Hierome attributeth to the ministre Yet we must vnderstand him that he taketh God for the auctor and worker not withstandyng by reason of the ministeryâ— in the church the doyng is ascribed to man as ministre because Christ sayde Hoc facite after whiche speache saluation remission of synne and the worke in other Sacramentes is attribute to the ministre beyng neuertheles the same the propre and speciall workes of God And this I adde because some he vninstely offended to hiere that man shoulde make the bodye of Christ and this auctor findeth faulte before at the worde makyng whiche religiously hearde and reuerently spoken shoulde offende no man for man is but a ministre wherein he shoulde not glory and Christ maketh not himselfe of the mattier of bread nor maketh himselfe so ofte of bread a newe body but sittyng in heauen dothe as our inuisible Priest worke in the ministerye of the visible Priesthode of his churche and maketh present by his omnipotencye his glorified body and bloud in this high mistery by conuersion of the visible treatures of bread and wyne as Emissene sayth into the same This auctor of this booke as thou reader maist perceiue applyeth the figure of the breades called Panes propositiones to the body of Christ to coÌ„me where as Saincte Hierome calleth them the figure of Christes body in the Sacrament and therfore dothe fation his argumente in this sence If those breades that were but a figure required so muche clennesse in them that shoulde eate them that they might not eate of them whiche a daye or two before had lien with there wyues what clennesse is required in him that shoulde make the bodye of Christ Wherby thou maist see here this auctor hath reserued this notable place of Saincte Hierome to the latter ende
that thou shouldest in the ende aswell as in the middes see him euideÌ„tly snarled for thy better remembrance Because this auctor who hitherto hathe answered none substanciallye woulde neuertheles be seen to answere all he wyndeth vp sixe of then in one fardel Saincte Augustine Augusti Seduliê° Leo. FulgeÌ„tiê° Cassiodorus Gregor Sedulius Leo Fulgentius Cassiodorus and Gregorius and dispatcheth them all with an vt supra and among them I thynke he woulde haue knytte vp all the rest of the lerned men of all ages amonges whome I knowe none that write as this auctor do the of the Sacrament or impugneth the Catholique fayth as this author doth by the enuyouse name of Papistes Senes Christes tyme there is no memorye more then of sixe that hathe affirmed that doctrine whiche this auctour woulde haue called nowe the Catholique doctrine and yet not writen by them of one sorte neyther receyued in belyefe in publique profession But secretely when it happened begun by conspiration and in the ende euer hitherto extincte and quenched First was Bertrame TheÌ„ BereÌ„garius TheÌ„ Wychefe and in our tyme DecoleÌ„padius Swinglius and Ioaâ—himus Uadianus I will not teken Peter Martyr because suche as knowe him saith he is not lerned nor this auctor because he doth but as it were translate Peter Martyr sauynge he roueth at solutions as liketh his fansye as I haue before declared which matter beynge thus it is a strange title of this booke to call it the true Catholique doctrine Last of al thauctor abuseth himselfe with Damascene and goth about to answere him Damascen by makyng of a summe whiche summe is so wrong accompted that euery man that readeth Damascene may be auditour to coÌ„trole it And this will I saye Damascene writeth so euidently in the matter that Peter Martyr for a shifte is fayne to fynde faulte in his iudgemeÌ„t and age and yet he is vi 〈…〉 C. yeres olde at the lest and I say at the lest because he is rekonned of suÌ„me haulfe as old againe And what so euer his iudgemente were he writeth as Melancton sayth his testimonye of the fayth of the Sacrament as it was in his tyme. I would wryte in here Damascens wordes to compare them with the same collected by this auctor wherby to disproue his particulars playnely but the wordes of Damascen be to be red traÌ„slate alreadie abrode As for the foure substaunces whiche this auctor by accompte numbreth of Christ might haue bene left vnrekened by tale because among them that be faithfull and vnderstand truely whersoeuer the substance of Christes very body is there is also vnderstanded by concomitaunce to be presente the substaunce of his soule as very man and also of the godhed as very God And in the matter of the Sacrament therfore contendyng with him that would haue the substaÌ„ce of bread there it maye be sayd there is in the Sacrament the onely substance of Christes bodye because the worde onely thus placed excludeth other straunge substaunces and not the substaunces whiche without contencion be knowen and coÌ„fessed vnite with Christes body And so a maÌ„ may be said to be alone in his house when he hath no straungers although he hath a numbre of his owne men and Erasmus noteth howe the euangeliste writeth Christ to haue prayed alone yet certayne of his disciples were there And if in a contencioÌ„ raysed whether the father and sonne were both kylled in suche a felde or no I defended the father to haue been onely kylled there and thervpon a wager layd should I lose if by proufe it appeared that not onely the father but also thre or foure of the fathers seruantes were slayue but the sonne escaped And as in this speache the worde onely serued to exclude that was in contencion and not to reduce the numbre to one nomore is it in the speache that this auctour woulde reproue and therfore neded not to haue occupied himselfe in the matter wherin I hearde him ones saye in a good audience himselfe was satisfied In which mynde I would he had continued and hauyng so sclender stuffe as this is and the truth so euident against him not to haue resusc 〈…〉 tate this so often reproued vntruth wherin neuer hitherto any on coulde preuayle ¶ The confutation of the fourth booke THus hauynge pervsed the effecte of the thyrde booke I will likewise peruse the fourth and then shall folowe in directe course to speake of the matter of transubstaÌ„ciacioÌ„ In this fourth boke thauctor entreteth eatyng and drinkyng of Christes body and bloud and in the first parte therof trauaileth to conferme his purpose and in the seconde parte answereth as he can to his aduersaries and so taketh occasion to speake of adoration His chefe purpose is to proue that euel men receyue not the bodye and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament whiche afteâ— this auctours doctrine is a very superfluous matter For if the sacrameÌ„t be onely a figure and the bodye and bloud of Christ be there onely figuratiuely wherto should this auctor dispute of euell mennes eatyng wheÌ„ good men cannot eate Christ in the sacrament because he is not there For by the effecte of this auctours doctrine the Sacrament is but a visible preachyng by the tokens and signes of bread and wyne that in beleuyng and remeÌ„bryng Christs benefites with reuoluyng theÌ„ in our mynde we should in fayth feade vpon christ spiritually beleuyng that as the bread and wyne feadeth and nurrissheth oure bodyes so Christ feadeth and nurrisshed oure soules whiche be good wordes but suche as the wordes in Christes supper do not learne vs and may be well gathered not to limite the mystery of the supper but to be spoken and taught touchyng the beleuyng and remembryng Christes benefites with the reuoluyng of theÌ„ in our mynde theâ—by to lerne vs howe to feade vpon Christe continually without the vse of the visible Sacrament Augusti in sermone domini in moÌ„te iibr 3. beyng that called of S. Augustine the inuisible sacrament wherin by fayth we be nurrished with the worde of God and the vertue of Christes body and bloud whiche the true teachyng of the church calleth spiritual manducation onely without which no man is to be accompted a true membre of the mysticall bodye of Christ And therfore who so feadeth vpon Christ thus spiritually must nedes be a good man for onely good men be â—rewe membres of Christes mysticall bodye whiche spirituall eatynge is so good a frute as it declareth the tree necessariely to be God and therfore it must be and is a certayne conclusion that onely good men do eat and drinke the body bloud of Christ spiritually that is to say effectually to life So as this auctor shall haue of me no aduersarie therein And if this auctour had prouued that to be the true doctrine that Christes very body and bloud is not present in the visible Sacrament then myght he haue left this fourth booke vnwryten For after his doctrine
not preseÌ„t because euel meÌ„ receiue it that shal be no argument for the good seed when it was sowen did fall in the euell grounde and althought christ dwelleth not in the euel man yet he maye be receyued of the euell man to his condempnation because he receyue him not to glorifie him as of God as S. Paule sayth Non dijudicans corpus domini not estemyng our Lordes bodye And to all that euer this auctor bryngeth to proue that euel men eare not the body of christ may be said wortely that spiritually they eate it not besides the sacrameÌ„t in the sacrameÌ„t they eate it not effectually to lyfe but coÌ„deÌ„pnatioÌ„ And that is may be called a not eating As they be said not to heare the worde of God that heare it not proufitably And because the body of Christ of it selfe is ordeyned to be eateÌ„ for lyfe those that vnworthely eate condempnatioÌ„ although they eate in dede maye be said not eate because they eate vnworthely as a thyng not well done may be in speache called not done in respecte of the good effect Wherfore it was chefly ordred to be done And by this rule thou reader mast discusse al that this auctor bryngeth forth for his purpose eyther out of Scriptures or doctours For euell men eate not the bodye of Christe to haue any frute by it as euell men be said not to heare goddes worde to haue any frute by it and yet as they here the worde of spirite and lyfe and neuer theles perishe so euel men eate in the visible SacrameÌ„â— the bodye of Christ yet perishe And as I said thus answerith the Scripture with the particuler saynges of CypriaÌ„ Athanase Basyl hierome and Ambrose As for sainct Augustine whiche this auctor Augusti allegeth De ciuitate dei the same S. Augustine doth playnly say there in the place alleged howe the good and euell receyue the same sacrement and addith but not with like proffite whiche wordes this auctor suppresseth and therfore dealith not syncerely As for sainct Augustin shal be herafter more playnely declared Finally he that receyueth worthely the body and bloud of Christ hath euerlasting life dwelleth in Christ Christ in him he that receyueth vnworthely which can be onelye in the Sacrament receyueth not life but condempnation But to encouÌ„tre directly with this auctor where he opposith by interrogation and would be anuswered whither an vnrepentant synner that receyueth the SacrmeÌ„t hath Christes body with in him or no. Marke reader this question whiche declareth that auctor talkyth of the Sacrament not as himselfe teacheth but as the true teaching is although he mean other wise for els howe could an vnrepeÌ„taÌ„t synner receyue Christ but onely in the sacrameÌ„t vnworthely howe could he receyue him vnworthely he were not there but to anuswere to the questioÌ„ I answere no for it foloueth not he receyued him Ergo he hathe him in him for the vessel being not mete he departed from him because he was a synner in whom he dwelleth not And where this auctor now become a questioniste maketh two questions of Christes bodye and his spirite as tough Christes body might be deuided from his spirite he supposeth other to be as ignorant as himselfe For the lerned man will answere that the euel man by force of gods ordinance in the substance of the Sacrament receyued in deade Christes very body there preseÌ„t hol Christ god and man but he taryed not nor Dwelled not nor fructified not in him nor Christes spirite entred not into that mannes sowle because of the malice and vnworthynes of him that receyued For Christ wil not dwell with Belial nor abide with synners 2. Cor. 6. And what hath this auctor wonne nowe by his forked question wherin he semethe to glorie as though he had embraced an absurdite that he hunted for wherin he sheweth onely his ignoraunce who putteth no difference bytwen thentryag of Christe into an euell man by goddes ordynance in the SacrameÌ„t and the dwellyng of Christes spirite in an euel man whiche by Scripture can not be ne is by any Catholique man affirmed For sainct Paule saythe In him that receyuethe vnworthely remaynethe iudgement and condempnation And yet Sainct Pauls wordes playnelye importe that those did eate the verye bodye of Christe whiche did eate vnworthely and therfore were gyltie of the body and bloud of Christ Now reader 1. Cor. 11 consider what is before wryten and thou shalt easelie see what a fonde cunclusioÌ„ this auctor gathereth in the. 97. leafe as though the teachyng were that the same maÌ„ should be both the temple of God and the temple of the dewel with other termes wherwith it liketh this auctour to refreshe himselfe and fayneth an aduersarye suche as he woulde haue but hath none For no Catholique man teacheth so nor it is not all one to receyue Christ and to haue Christ dwellyng in him And a figure therof was in Christes conuersation vpon earthe whoÌ„ taryed not with all that receyued him in outward apparance And there is noted a difference that summe beleued in Christ and yet Christ committed Ioh. 3. not himselfe to them And the Gospell prayseth them that heare the worde of God and Luce. 11. kepe it signifiyng many to here the worde of God and not to kepe it as they that receyue Christ by his ordinaunce in the Sacrament and yet because thei receyue him not accordyng to th entent of his ordinance worthely they are so much the worse therby through ther owne malyce And therfore to conclude this place with thauctor who soeuer eateth Christes fleshe and drynketh his bloud hathe euerlastynge life with Saincte Paulles exposition if he dothe it worthely or elles by the same Saincte Paule he hathe condempnacion 1. Cor. 11 In the .xcvij. leafe and the seconde coluÌ„ne thauctor begynneth to trauerse the wordes of Sainct Paul to the Corinthians would distincte vnworthy eatyng in the substaunce of the Sacrament receyued whiche cannot be For oure vnworthynes cannot altare the substance of gods Sacramente that is euermore all one howesoeuer we swarue frome worthines to vnworthines And this I wold aske of this auctor why shoulde it be a faulte in the vnworthye not to esteme the Lordes body when he is taught if this auctors doctrine be true that it is not there at al If this bread after this auctors teachyng be but a figure of Christes body it is then but as MaÌ„na was the eatynge wherof vnworthely and vnfaythfully was no gilte of Christes body Erasmus noteth these wordes of Saincte Erasmê° Paul to be gilty of our Lords body to proue the prefence of Christes body there who com pareth suche an offender to the iewes that did shedde Christes bloud maliciouslye as those do prophane it vnprofitably in which sence the greke commentaryes do also expounde it And where this auctor bryngeth in the wordes of Saincte Paule as it were to poynte out the mattiere Let
a man examyne himselfe and so eate of the bread and 1. Cor. 11 drynke of the cuppe for he that eateth vnworthely c. These wordes of examinyng and so eatyng declare the thyng to be one ordred to be eaten and all the care to be vsed on our syde to eate worthely or els Saincte Paule had not sayd and so eate And when Saincte Paule â—ayth eate iudgemente and this auctour wyll remembre himselfe he muste call iudgement the effecte of that is eaten and not the thyng eaten For iudgement is neyther spirituall meate nor corporall but the effecte of the eatynge of Christe in euell men who is saluation to good and iudgement to euel And therfore as good men eatyng Christ haue saluation so euell men eatyng Christ haue condempnation and so for the diuersitie of the eaters of Christes bodye foloweth as they be worthye and vnworthy the effecte of condempnacion or lyfe Christes Sacrament and his worke also in the substance of that Sacrament beyng alwayes one and what so euer this auctor talketh otherwise in this matter is mere trifles And yet he goth about because he will make all thynge clere to answer suche authours as the Papistes he sayth brynge for there Augusti purpose And first he begynneth with sainct Augustine who wryteth as playuelye against this auctours mynde as I would haue diuised it if I had no conscience of truth more then I see sum haue and might with a secrete wishe haue altred S. Augustineas I had liste And therfore here I make a playne issue with this auctour that in the serchyng An issue of Sainct Augustine he hath trusted his maÌ„ or his frende ouer negligentely in so great a matter or he hath willyngly gone aboute to deceyue the reader For in the place of Saint Augustine againste the Donatistes alleged here by this auctour whiche he would with the rest assoyle Sainct Augustine hath these formal wordes in Latyn Corpus Domini Augu. de baptis li. 5. ca. 8. sanguis Domini nihilominus erat etiam illis quibus dicebat Apostolus qui manducat indigne iudicium sibi maÌ„ducat bibit Which wordes be thus much in English It was neuertheles the body of our Lorde the bloud of our Lorde also vnto them to whom thappostel sayde he that eateth vnworthely eateth and drynketh iudgement to himselfe These be Saincte Augustines wordes who writeth notably and euidently that it was neuertheles the body and bloud of Christ to them that receyued vnworthely declaryng that their vnworthynes doth not aultre the substance of that Sacrament and doth vs to vnderstande therwith the substaunce of the sacrameÌ„t to be the body and bloud of Christ and neuerthelesse so though the receyuers be vnworthy wherin this auctor is so ouersene as I thinke there was neuer learned maÌ„ before that durst in a comen welthe where lerned men be publish suche an vntruth as this is to be answered in a tong that men knowe Yet Peter Martyr wrote in Latyn and reioyseth not I thinke to haue his lyes in English I will bryng in here an other place of sainct Augustine to this purpose Illud etiam De verbis dnÌ„i Ser. 11. quod ait qui manducat carnem meam bibit sanguinem meum in me manet ego in illo quomodo intellecturi sumus Nunquid etiam illos sic poterimus accipere de quibus dixit Apostolus quod iudicium sibi manducant bibant quum ipsam carnem manducent ipsum sangninem bibant Nuuquid Iudas Magistri venditor traditor impius quamuis primum ipsum manibus eius confectum sacramentum carnis sanguinis eius cuÌ„ caeteris discipulis sicut apertius Lucas Euange lista declarat manducaret biberet mansit in Christo Aut Christus in eo Multi denique qui vel corde ficto carnem illam manducant sanguinem bibunt vel cum manducauerint biberint apostatae fiunt nunquid manent in Christo aut Christus in eis Sed profecto est quidam modus manducandi illam carnem bibendi illum sanguinem quomodo qui manducauerit biberit in Christo manet Christus in eo Non ergo quocunque modo quisque manducauerit carnem Christi biberit sanguiuem Christi manet in Christo in illo christus Sed certo quodam modo quem modum vtique ipse videbat quando ista dicebat The englisse of these wordes is this That same that he also sayth who eateth my flesh and drynketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him howe shall we vnderstande it May we vnderstande also them of whome the Apostle spake that they did eate to them selfe and drynke iudgement when they did eate the same flesh and drinke the same bloud the fleshe it selfe the bloud it selfe did not Iudas the mycked seller and betrayer of his maister wheÌ„ he did eate and drynke as Lucas the euangeliste declareth the first Sacrament of the flesh and bloud of Christ made with his owne handes dwell in Christe or Christe in him Finally many that with a fayned hearte eate that flesh and drynke the bloud or when they haue eaten and dronken become apostatas do not they dwell in Christ or Christ in them But vndowtedly there is a certayne maner of eatyng that fleshe and drynkyng that bloud after whiche maner who so euer eateth and drynketh dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him Therfore not in what so euer maner any man eateth the fleshe of Christ and drynketh the bloud of Christ he dwelleth in christ and Christ in him but after a certayne maner whiche maner he sawe when he sayde these wordes This is the sence of Saincte Augustines saiynge in Latyn wherby appeareth the fayth of Sainct Augustine to be in the Sacrament to be eaten and dronken very body and bloud of Christ which for the substance of the Sacrament euel men receyue as good men do that is to say as Sainct Augustin doth poynte it out by his wordes the same flesh and the same bloud of Christ with suche an expresse speache as he would exclude all difference that diuise of figure might imagine and therfore sayth ipsam car nem ipsum sanguinem Whiche signifyeth the selfe same in dead not by name onely as the auctor of the booke would haue Saincte Augustine vnderstanded and when that appeareth as it is moost manifeste that Iudas receyued the same beynge wycked that good men do howe the same is before the recept by gods omnipotencye present in the visible Sacrament and so not receyued by the onely instrument of fayth whiche in euell men is not lyuely but by the instrument of the mouthe wherein it entreth with the visible element And yet as Saincte Augustine sayth dwelleth not in him that so vnworthely receiueth because the effect of dwellyng of Christe is not in him that receyueth by suche a maner of eatyng as wycked men vse Wherby S. Augustine teacheth the diuerse effecte
to ensue of the diuersite of the eatyng not of any diuersite of that whiche is eaten whither the good man or euell man recyue the Sacrament If I would here encoÌ„bre the reader I coulde bryng forth many mo places of saincte Augustine to the confusioÌ„ and reproufe of this auctors purpose and yet notwithstandyng to take awaye that he might saye of me that I waye not Saincte Augustine I thynke good to allege bryng forth the iudgement of Martyn Bucer touchyng saincte Augustine who vnderstandeth saincte Augustine clere contrary to this auctor as maye playnely appeare by that the sayde Bucer writeth in fewe wordes in his Epistell dedicatorye of the greate worke he sente abrode of his enarracions of the Gospelles where his iudgement of Sainct Augustine in this poynte he vttereth thus Quoties scribit etiam Iudam ipsum corpus sanguinem Domini sumpsisse Nemo itaque auctoritate S. patrum dicet christum in sacra coena absentem esse The sence in English is this Howe often wryteth he speakyng of Sainct Augustine Iudas also to haue receiued the selfe body and bloud of our Lorde No man therfore by the auctoritie of the fathers can saye Christe to be absente in the holye soupper Thus sayth Bucer who vnderstandeth Saincte Augustine as I haue before alleaged him and gathereth there of a conclusion that no man can by the fathers saiynges proue Christe to be absente in the holye soupper And therfore by Bucers iudgemente the doctrine of this auctour can be in no wise Catholique as dissentynge frome that hathe been before taught and beleued Whither Bucer wyll styl continue in that he hath so solenly published to the world and by me here alleaged I can not tell and whither he do or no it maketh no matter but thus he hathe taught in his latter iudgement with A great protestation that he speaketh without respecte other then to the truthe wherin because he semed to dissent from his freundes he sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whiche wordes haue an imitation of an older sayng and be thus muche to saye Socrates is my frend Truth is my best beloued Socrates and the churche most regarded with this Bucer closith his doctrine of the sacrameÌ„t after he knewe al that zwinglius OecolaÌ„padius could say in the matter And here I wyl leaue to speke of Bucer bring forth Theodoretus a man much extolled by this Theodorâ—â—us in eplam 1. Cor. 2. auctor who sayth playnly in his commentaryes vpon S. Paule howe Christ delyuered to Iudas his precious bodye and bloud and declareth further therwith in that sacrameÌ„t to be the truthe So as this auctor can haue no foundation vpon eyther to maynten his figuratiue speach or the matter of this fourth booke whiche his wordes playnely impugne sainct Hierome in his commentaties Hierome vpon the prophete Malachie hath first this sentence Possumus panem idest corpus christi quando indigni accedimus ad altare sordidi mundum sanguinem bibimus We defile the bread that is to saye the bodye of christ wheÌ„ we cume vnworthely to thalrare and beynge fylthy drinke the cleane bloud Thus sayth S. Hierome who sayth fylthy men drinke the cleane bloud and in an other place after the same Sainct Hierome sayth Polluit christi mysteria indigne accipiens corpus eius sanguineÌ„ He that vnworthly receyueth the body bloud of Christ defyleth the mysteries Can any wordes be more manifest euideÌ„t to declare S. Hieroms mynde howe in the visible sacrameÌ„t men receyue vnworthely whiche be euil men the bodye and bloud of Christ and yet these playne places of auctoritie dissembled of purpose or by ignoraunce passed ouer this auctor as tough This auctor all thynges were by him clearly discussed to his enteÌ„t would by many coÌ„ceytes furnishe further his matters therfore playeth with our ladyes smyling rocking hir child many good mowes so vnsemely for his persoÌ„ that it maketh me almost forget him my selfe also But with such matterhe filleth his leaues forgettyng himselfe maketh meÌ„tioÌ„ of the cathechisme by him traÌ„slate thoriginall wherof coÌ„futeth these two partes of this booke in few words being prynted in germany wherin besides the matter wryteÌ„ is setforth in pictur the maner of the ministring of this sacra meÌ„t where is the altare with caÌ„del light let forth the priest apparelled after the old sort and the man to receiue kneling barehed holdyng vp his handes whiles the priest myuisâ—reth the host to his mouth a matter as clere contrarye to the matter of this booke as is light and darknesse which nowe this auctor would colour with speaches of auctors in a booke wryten to instructe rude childreÌ„ which is as sclendre an excuse as euer was harde none at al when thoriginall is loked on Emissene to stirre vp mens deuotion cumyng Emissen to receyue this Sacrament requireth the roote and foundatioÌ„ therof in the mynde of man as it ought to be therfore exorteth men to take the sacrameÌ„t with thande of the harte drinke with the dranght of the inwarde man whiche men must nedes do that will worthely repare to this feaste And as Emissene speaketh these deuoute wordes of thin warde office of the receyuer so dothe he in declaration of the mystrie shewe howe the Inuisible priest with his secrete power by his worde doth conuert the visible cratures in to the substance of his body and bloud whereof I haue before entrated This auctor vpon these wordes deuontly spoken by Emissene say the there is required no corporall presence of Christes precious bodye in the Sacrament continuynge in his ignoraunce what the worde corporall meaneth But to speake of Emissene if by his fay the the verye bodye and bloud of Christe were not present vpon the altare why dothe he calle it a reuerend altare why to be fed there with spirituall meates and why should fayth be required to lake vpon the bodye and bloud of Christ that is not there on thaltare but as this auctor teacheth onely in heauen and why should he that cummeth to be fede honnor those mysteries there why should Emissene allude to thande of the harte and draught of the inwarde man if the hande of the bodye and draught of thoutwarde man had none office there All this were vayne cloquence and a mere abuse and illusion if the Sacramentall tokens were only a figure if there were no preseÌ„ce but in figure why should not Emissene reather haue folowed the plaine spech of thaÌ„gel to the women that sought Christ Iesum quaeritis non est hic ye seke Iesus he is not here And say as this auctor doth this is onely a figure do no worship here goo vp to heaueÌ„ and downe with thaltare for feare of illusion which Emissene dyd not but called it a reuerend aulter and inuiteth him that should receyue to honnor that foode with such good wordes as before so far descrepauÌ„te froÌ„
this auctors teaching as may be and yet from him he taketh occasion to speake against adoration As touching thadoratioÌ„ of Christes fleshe in the SacrameÌ„t whiche adoration is a true confession of the holemans soule and body if there be opportunite of the truthe of God in his worke is in my indgement well setforth in the booke of coÌ„moÌ„ prayor where the priest is ordred to knele and make a prayor in his owne and the name of all that shall communicate confessyng therin that is prepared there at whiche tyme neuerthelesse that is not adored that the bodelye eie sceth but that whiche fay the knoweth to be there inuisibly preseÌ„t whiche and there be nothyng as this auctor nowe teacheth it were not well I wyll not answere this auctors eloqueÌ„ce but his matter where it might hurte as in the wronge reporte of Saincte Augustine who speakyng of the adoration of Christes fleshe geuen to be eaten doth so fation his speache as it cannot with any violence be drawen to suche an vnderstandyng as though S. Augustine should meane of thadoryng of Christes fleshe in heauen as this auctor woulde haue it S. Augustine speaketh of the geuyng of Christes flesh to vs to eaâ—e and declareth after that he meaneth in the visible Sacrament whiche must be Inuisibly vnderstaÌ„ded and spiritually not as the Capharnaites did vnderstand Christes wordes carnally to eate that body cutte in piaces and therfore there may be no suche imaginations to eate Christes bodye after the maner he walked here nor drinke his bloud as it was shed vpon the crosse but it is a mystery and sacrament that is godly of gods worke supernaturall aboue mannes vnderstandyng and therfore spiritually vnderstanded shall giue life whiche life carnall vnderstandyng must nedes exclude And by these my wordes I thynke I declare trully sainct Augustines meanynge of the truthe of this Sacrament wherin Christ geueth truely his fleshe to be eaten the fleshe he speake of before taken of the virgin For the spirituall vnderstandynge that sainct Augustine speaketh of is not to exclude the truthe of goddes worke in the Sacrament but to extlude carnall imagination from musyng of the maner of the worke whiche is in mysterye suche as a carnall man can not comprehende In whiche matter yf sainct Augustine had had suche a faythe of the visible sacrameÌ„t as this auctor sayth himselfe hath nowe of late and calleth it Catholique sainct Augustine would haue vttered it as an expositor playnely in this place and said ther is but a figure of Christs body Christes bodye and fleshe is in heuen and not in this visible SacrameÌ„t Christes speache that was estemed so hard was but a figuratiue speach and where Christ said This is my bodye he ment onely of the figure of his body whiche maner of saynges sainct Augustine vseth not in this place and yet he coulde speake playnly and so doth he declarynge vs firste the truthe of the fleshe that Christ geueth to be eaten that is to saye the same fleshe that he tooke of the virgen And yet because christ geneth it not in a visible maner nor suche a maner as the Capharnaites thought on nor suche a maner as any carnall man can conceyue beynge also the fleshe geuen in the SacrameÌ„t not a common fleshe but a lyuely godly and spirituall fleshe Therfore sainct Augustine vseth wordes and speache wherby he denieth the gift of that bodye of Christ whiche we did see and of the bloude that was shed so as by affirmation and deniall so nere together of the same to be geuen and the same not to be geuen the mysterye shoulde be thus far opened that for the truthe of the thynge geuen it is the same and touchynge the maner of the geuynge and the qualitie of the fleshe geuen it is not the same And because it is the same Sainct Angustine sayeth before we muste worshippe it and yet because it is nowe an hidden godly mysterye we maye not haue carnall Imaginations of the same but godly spiritually and inuisibly vnderstande it And because sainct Hierome who was of sainct Augustines tyme writeth in his commentaries Hierony mus ad Ephesios 〈◊〉 vpon sainct Paule Ad Ephesios that maye serue for the better openynge hereof I wyll write it in here The wordes be these The bloude and fleshe of Christe is two wayes vnderstanded eyther the spiritually godly of whiche him selfe said my fleshe is verely meat and my bloud is verely drynke and onlesse ye eat my fleshe and drinke my bloud ye shal not haue euerlasting life Or the fleshe whiche was crucified and bloud whiche was shed with the spere Accordyng to this diuisioÌ„ the diuersite of fleshe and bloud is taken in Christes sainctes that there is one fleshe that shall see the salnatioÌ„ of God an other fleshe and bloud that can not possesse the kyngdome of heauen These be S. Iheromes wordes In which thowe seest reader a denyall of that fleshe of Christ to be geuen to be eaten that was crucified but the fleshe geuen to be eaten to be a godly and spirituall fleshe and a distinction made betwene them as is in oure fleshe of whiche it may be sayde that the fleshe we walke in here shall not see God that is to say as it is corruptible accordyng to the text of S. Paul fleshe and bloud shal not possesse heauen and yet not withstanding we muste beleue and hope with Iob truely that the same oure fleshe shal see god in heauen after whiche diuision likewise we receyue not in the Sacrament Christes fleshe that was crucified beyng so a visible and mortall fleshe but Christes fleshe glorified incorruptible impassible a godly and spirituall fleshe And so that is but one in substaunce and alwayes so the same one is neuerthelesse for thalteration in the maner of the beyng of it diuided so called not the same wherin sainct Hierome and saincte Augustine vsed both one maner of speakinge and sainct Hierome resemblinge the diuisioÌ„ that he rehersith of christes flesh to the diuision of oure flesh in the resurrection dothe more plainely open howe the same maye be called not the same because we beleue certainlye the resurrection of the same flesh we walke in and yet it shall be by the garment of incorruptibilite not the same in qualite and so be verified the scriptures that flesh shall not possess heauen and I shall see god in my flesh And here I will note to the reader by the waye sainct Hierome wrireth this distinctioÌ„ of Christs flesh as a matter aggreed on and then in catholique doctrine receyued not of his inuention but in the catholique faythe as aprincipal established whiche declareth the belef to haue ben of that very godly and spirituall fleshe geuen really in the Sacrament For ells to eate onely in fayth is spiritually to remembre Christ flesh as it was visiblie crucified wherin was accoÌ„plished thoblacon for oure sinnes and sainct Poule willeth vs in the supper to shew forth and to professe
sainct Ambrose consonante to those of saincte Augustine and the openinge of S. Augustines wordes as before I truste I haue made manifest howe this auctor trauaileth againste the streame and laborith in vaine to wrieth saincte Augustine to his purpose in this matter The beste is in this auctor that he audeleth saincte Augustine no worse then the reste but all after one sorte because they be all of like sorte againste his newe catholique faith and conferme the olde trew catholique faith or do not improue it For of this highe misterie thauctors write summe more obscurely and decklye then other and vse diuersites of speaches wordes wher with the true doctrine hath been of a very fewe impugned but euer in vayne as I truste in god shal be moste in vaine Hahinge this auctor vttred suche vntruthes with sumoâ—he blynde ignoraunce as this worke wel wayed and consydered that is to saye who made ityn when he made it and of like howe many were or might haue ben and shulde haue ben of counsaile in so greate a matter who if there wrere any e all reprouid in this one worke all suche circumstaunces coÌ„sydered this boke maye do as muche gode to releaue suche perplexite as altercacion hathe engeÌ„dred and so do as god seruice to the trueth as was ment there by to hindre and Impaire it And this shal suffise for an auswere to this fourth booke ¶ The confutation of the seconde booke HAuinge declared how much again all trueth this auctor would beare in hand that the reall presence the corporall presence and substanciall presence of Christes most precyous body and bloud in the Sacrament is not the true Catholique doctrine but a diuise of the Papistes which is a terme wherwith this auctor doth vncharitablye charge the kynges true subiectes amonges whom he knoweth a great many to be of that faith he calleth nowe Papistes But settyng wordes a parte and to cume to the mattier as I haue shewed this auctor to erre partelye by willfulnes partelye by ignoraunce in thunderstandyng of the olde auctors concernyng the true real presence of Christes bodye and bloud in the SacrameÌ„t So I trust to shewe this auctor ouerseen in tharticle of transubstantiacion For entre wherunto first I saye thus that albeit the worde transubstantiacion was first spokeÌ„ of by publique auctorite in that assemble of learned men of Christendome in a generall consayle where the Bysshppe of rome was present yet the true matter signified by that worde was older and beleued before vpon the true vnderstandyng of Christes wordes was in that counsaile confessed not for the auctorite of the Byshop of rome but for thauctorite of trueth beyng tharticle suche as toucheth not the auctorite of the Byshop of rome but the true doctrine of Christes mysteries and therfore in this realme thauctorite of rome câ—ssing was also coÌ„fessed for a truth by all the clergye of this realme in an open coÌ„saile specially discussed and though the hardenes of the law that by parliameÌ„t was established of that and other articles hath been repelled yet that doctrine was neuer hitherto by any publique consaile or any thynge set forth by auctorite empayred that I haue hard wherfore me thinketh this auctor shuld not improue it by the name of the Bishop of rome seynge we rede howe truth was vttred by BalaaÌ„ caiph as also Num. 22 IohaÌ„ 11. S. Paul teacheth the PhilippeÌ„ses that whither it be by coÌ„tencion or enuye so Christ be preached the person shuld not empaire thopâ—ing of truth if it be truth which Luther in deed would not alowe for truth impugning tharticle of transubstaÌ„tiacioÌ„ not meanynge therby as this auctour doth to empayre the truth of the very presence of Christs most precious body in the Sacrament of the aultare as is a for sayd In the discussion of whiche truth of traÌ„substaÌ„tiacioÌ„ I for my part shuld be specially defended by two meanes wherwith to anoyde the enuious name of Papist One is that zuinglius himselfe who was no Papist as is well knoweÌ„ nor god christeÌ„ maÌ„ as sume sayd neyther sayth playâ—ly writing to luther in the matter of the sacrament it must nedes be true that if the body of Christ be really in the sacrament there is of necessite transubstantiacion also Wherfore seing by luthers trauayle who fanâ—red not the bishoppe of Rome neither and also by euidence of the truth moste certaine and manifest it apperith that according to the treue catholique faith Christe is reallye present in the sacrament it is now by Suinglius iudgemeÌ„t a necessary consequeÌ„ce of that trueth to saye there is transubstantiacion also whiche shal be one meane of purgation that I defende not transubstantiacion as dependinge of the bishoppe of Romes determination which was not his absolutely but of a necess 〈…〉 e of the trueth housoeuer it liketh dunâ— or gabriel to write in it whose sayinges this auctor vsith for his pleasure An other defence is that this auctor himselfe saith that it is ouer greate an absurdite to saye that breade insensible with many other termes that he addith shulde be the bodye of Christe and therfore I thinke that the is that is to saye the inwarde nature essence of that Christe deliuered in his supper to be eaten and droÌ„cken was of his body bloud and not of the bread and wyne and therfore canne well agree with this auctor that the bread of wheate is not the body of Christe nor the bodie of Christe made of it as of a matter whiche consideracions will enforce him that beleueth the trueth of the presence of the substaÌ„ce of Christes body as the treue catholique faith teachith to assent to transubstantiacion not as determined by the churche of Rome but as a coÌ„sequeÌ„t of treuth beleued iÌ„ the misterie of the sacrameÌ„t which transubstantiacioÌ„ how this auctor wolde impugne I wil without quarel of eÌ„uious wordes coÌ„sider with true opening of his haÌ„deling the mattier doubte not to make the reader to see that he fighteth against the trueth I will passe ouer the vnreuerent handelinge of Christes wordes This is my body which wordes I harde this auctor if it be the same that is named ones reherse more seriously in a soleÌ„â—â—…e open audience to the conuiction condempnacion as folowid of one that erroncously mainteyned against the sacrameÌ„t the same that this auctor callith now the catholique faith But to the purpose the simplicite of faith in a Christen mans brest doth not so precisely marke stay at the sillables of Christes wordes as this auctor pretendith and knowinge by faith the truth of Christes wordes that as he said he wrought doo not measure goddes secret working after the ê“lacion of our sillables whose worke is in one instauÌ„ce how soeuer speche in vs require a successiue vttrauÌ„ce the maner of haÌ„d linge this auctor vsith to bringe the misticall wordes in coÌ„teÌ„pte wer meater in an Ethinkes mouthe to ieste out all
then to passe the lippes of suche an auctor to plaie whiche the syllables after this sorte for although he maie rede in sum blinde glose that in the instante af the laste syllable gods work is to be accompted wrought beyng a goode lesson to admonishe the ministre to pronouÌ„ce al. Yet it is so but a priuate opinion and reuerently vttred not to putte the vertue in the Laste syllable nor to sâ—orne the Catholique faith after which maner takyng example of this Auctor If an Ethnike iest of Fiat lux at fi was nothynge and then at at was yet nothinge at lu was nothinge but a lytel litell peringe put an x to it and it was sodenly Lux and then light what Christen man would handle eyther place thus and therfore reader let this entre of the matter serue for an argument with what spirite this matter is handled but to answere that this auctor noteth with an exclamacon Oh goode lorde howe would they haue bragged if christ had said this is no bread Here I would questioÌ„ with this auctor whither Christe saide so or no and reason thus Christes body is no materiall breade Christ saide This is my body ergo he saide this is not bread And the firste parte of this reason this auctor affirmeth in the 59 leafe And the seconde parte is Christ wordes and therfore to auoyd this coÌ„clusion thonly waye is to say that Christes speache was but a figure which the catholik doctrine saieth is false and therfore by the catholique doctrine Christes sayinge This is my bodie sayth in effecte This is no breade wherat this auctor sayth they wolde brage if Christe had saide soo In speach is to be consydered that euery yea coÌ„teineth an nayin it naturaly so as whosoeuer saith This is bread sayth it is no wine whosoeuer sayth thys is wine sayth it is no breade If a lapidarie saith this is a diamoÌ„de he saithe it is no glasse he saith it is no crystall he sayth it is no white safyer So Christ saying this is my body faith it is no breade whiche plainnes of speache caused Suinglius to saye plainlye if there be present the substaunce of the bodie of Christe there is transubstantiacion that is to saye not the substaunce of breade and therfore who will plainelye denie transubstantiacion must denie the true presence of the subsâ—ance of Christes bodie as this auctor doth wherein I haue first conuynced him and therfore vse that victorie for his ouerthrowe in transubstantiacion I haue shewed before how Christes wordes were not figuratiue when he saide this is my bodie and yet I will touche here suche testimonie as this anctor bringith oute of Hilarie for the purpose of transubstantiacion in the xxv leefe of this booke in thiese wordes There is a figure saith Hâ—â—arie for bread and wine be out wardly seen there is also a trueth of that figure for the bodye and bloud of Christe be of a trueth inwardelye beleued Thiese be Hilaries wordes as this auctor allegith theÌ„ who was he saith within 350 yeres of christ Nowe I call to thy Iudgment goode reader coulde any maÌ„ diuise more pithiewordes for the proufe of the real presence of Christes body bloud the coÌ„deÌ„pnacioÌ„ of this auctor that wolde haue an onely figure Here in hilaries wordes is a figure coÌ„pared to trueth sight but wardly to belief inwardly Nowe our beliefe is grounded vppoÌ„ goddes worde which is this This is my body in which wordes hilarie testifieth that is inwardly beleued is a trueth the figure is in that is seeÌ„ outwardly I take hilarie here as this auctor allegith him wherby I aske the reader is not this auctor auerthroweÌ„ that christ speache is not figuratiue but true proper beinge inwardly trewe that we byleue Ye will saye vnto me what is this to traÌ„substaÌ„tiacioÌ„ to the reproufe wherof it was brought in because he saith bread wine are seen First I saye that it ouerthroweth this auctor fortruth of the preseÌ„ce of christes body euery ouerthrow therin ouerthroweth this auctor in traÌ„substaÌ„tiacioÌ„ not by auctorite of the churche of Rome but by coÌ„sequence in truth as Suinglius saith who shal serue me to auoyde papistrie If one aske me what say ye theÌ„ne to hilarie that bread wine areseeÌ„ I say they be in dead seeÌ„ for they appere so therfore be callid so as Isaac sayd of Iacob it was his voice yet by his sence of feling denied him Esau which was not Esau Gene. 27. but was Iacob as the voyce froÌ„ within did declare him If ye will aske me howe canne there according to hilaries wordes be in the outwarde visible creatures any figure onles the same be in deade as they appeare bread wine I will answer euen as well as this out ward obiecte of the seÌ„sible hearynes of Iacob reseÌ„blinge Esau was a figure of christes humanite of the ve ry humanite in deade Thus may Hilarie be answered to anoyde hys auctorite from contraryinge traÌ„substaÌ„tion But this auctor shall neuer auoide that him self hath brought out of hilarie which ouerthro weth hiÌ„ in his figuratiue speache consequeÌ„tly in his denyall of traÌ„substantiation also as shal appere in the further handling of this matter Where this auctor in the 18 leaf coÌ„parith these S. Poules wordes The breade that we breake is it not the coÌ„munion of the bodye of christ to be thexpoâ—mdyng of christes wordes This is my body I deny that for christ wordes declared the substance of the sacrameÌ„t wheÌ„ he said This is my body S. Paule declarith the worthie vse of it according to Christes institucion by the words the bread that we breake doth signifie the hole vse of the supper wherin is breakyng blessyng thauckes geuing dispeÌ„sing receiuiÌ„g eatyng So asonely breakyng is not the coÌ„munioÌ„ yet by that parte in a figure of speach S. Paule meaneth all beyng the same as appeareth by the scripture a terme in spech to go breake bread althoughe it be not alwaies so takeÌ„ wherby cosignifie to go celebrate our lordes supper therfore bread in that place may signifie the commen breade as it is adhibite to be consecrate whiche by the secrete power of god turned in to the bodye of Christe so distribute receyued is the coÌ„munioÌ„ of the body of christ as the cuppe is likirise of the bloud of Christ after the benediction whiche benediction was not spoken of in the bread but yet must be vnderstanded As for Christes callynge of bread his bodye is to make it his bodye who as sainct Paule sayth calleth that is not as it were and so makethe it to be Primo Thargumentes this auctor vseth in 19. and. 20. leef of thordre of Christes speaches as the euangelistes reherse them be captious diuises of this auctor in cace he knowethe what sainct Augustine writeth or els ignoraunce if he hathe not red sainct Augustine De doctrina Christiana
And how saye they that our fleshe is not able to receyue gods gifte who is eternal life which flesh is nurrished with the body bloud of Christ These be also Irenes wordes wherby appeareth what he ment by the heauenly thing in Eucharistia whiche is the very presence of Christes body bloud And for the playne testimonye of this faithe this Irene hathe been commeeÌ„y alleaged and specially of Melancton to Decolampadius as one moste ancient and most playnely testifiyng the same So as his very words truely alleaged ouerthrowe this authour in the impugnation of Christes reall presence in the Sacramente and therfore can nothyng helpe this auctors purpose agaynst transubstautiation Is not this a goodly and godly entre of this author in the first two auctorities that he bryngeth in to corrupte them both As for Drigene in Drigene his owne wordes saith the matter of the breade remayneth whiche as I haue before opened it may be granted but yet he termeth it not as this auctour dothe to call in materiall breade Whenne God formed Adam of Gene. 〈◊〉 claye the mattier of the claye remayned in Adam and yet the materiall claye remayned not for it was altred into an other substance whiche I speake not to compare equallye the fourmynge of Adam to the Sacrament but to shewe it not to be all one to saye the materiall breade and the matter of breade For the accidentes of bread maye be called the matter of breade but not the materiall breade as I haue sumwhat spoken thereof before but suche shiftes be vsed in this matter notwithstandynge the importaunce of it Saincte Cypriaus wordes do note impugne Cyprian transubstantiacioÌ„ for they tend onely to shewe that wyne is the creature appoynted to the celebration of this mysterye and therfore water onelye is no due matter accordynge to Christes institution And as the name wyne muste be vsed before the consecration to shewe the trueth of it then so it maye also be vsed for a name of it after to shewe what it was whiche is often vsed And in one place of Cyprian by this author here alleaged it appeareth Sainct Cyprian by the worde wyne signifieth the heauenly wyne of the vineyarde of the Lorde of Saboth callyng it newe wyne and alludynge therin to Dauid And this dothe Cyprian shewe in these wordes he we shall we drinke with Christ newe wine of the creature of the vyne if in the sacrifice of God the father Christ we do not offer wyne Is not here mention of newe wyne of the creature of the vyne what newe wyne can be but the bloud of Christ the very wyne consecrate by gods omnipotencye of the creature of the vyne offred And therfore this one place may geue vs a lesson in Cyprian that as he vseth the worde wyne to signifie the heauenly drinke of the bloud of Christ made by consecration of the creature of wine So wheithe nameth the bread consecrate bread he meaneth the heauenly bread Christ who is the bread of life And so Cyprian can make nothynge by those wordes againue transubstantiacion who wryteth playnely of the chaunge of the bread by gods omnipotencye into the â—â—eâ—he of Christ as shall after appeare where this author goeth about to answere v 〈…〉 him As touchyng Emissene by whose wordes Emissen is expresselye testified the truth of the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament and also the sence of the doctrine of transubstantiacion this auctor maketh himselfe bolde ouer him and so bolde that he dare corrupte him whiche Emissen wryteth nâ—t that man is turned in to the body of the Churche And here I make an issue with this author that Emissene Anissue hath not that worde of turnyng in that place and man to be turned into the body of the Church is no conuenient speache to signifie a change in him that is regenerate by baptisme He in dede that is thruste out of the chauncell for his misdemeanour in seruice tyme maye be sayde tourned into the bodye of the Churche But Emissene speaketh not so here but because the same Emissene declarynge the mysterye of the Sacrament sayth the visible creatures be tourned into the substance of the bodye of Christe thys auctour thought it woulde sounde gaylye well to the confusion of that â—â—ewe doctyne of tournynge to speake in Baptisme of the turnyng of a man in to the body of the Churche And it may be comenly obserued in this authour wheÌ„ he allegeth any auctorite of others he bryngeth forthe the same in suche forme of wordes as he would haue them and not as they be for the most parte or very often and ones of purpose were ouer often in so high a matter as this is And yet in this Emissins authorite afteral the payne taken to reforge him Emissens doctrine play nely confoundeth this authours teachynge This author maketh a note that there is in man baptized nothynge chaunged outwardely and therfore in the SacrameÌ„t neyther and it must be graunted For the doctrine of transubstantiation teacheth not in the Sacrament any outwarde chaunge For the substance of the bread and wyne is an inwarde nature and so is substance of one defined And to speake of the thyng changed then as in man the chaÌ„ge is in the soule which is the substaÌ„ce of man So for the thyng chaÌ„ged in the visible creatures should be also changed and is chaunged the substance of the bread and wyne to answere theirin to the other And we must considre howe this comparison of the two chaunges is made as it were by proportion Wherin eche chaunge hath his special ende and terme whervnto and therfore accordynge to terme and ende hath his worke of chaunge speciall and seuerall both by gods worke Thus I meane The visible creatures hath there ende and terme whervnto the change is made the very body and bloud of Christe whiche body beynge a trut body we must saye is a corporall substance The soule of man hath his ende and terme a spirituall alteration incorporall to be regenerate the sonne of God And then the doctrine of this Emissene is playne this that eche change is of like truth and then it foloweth that if the change of mannes soule in Baptisme be true and not in a figure The chaunge likewise in the Sacrament is also true and not in a figure And if manues soule be the chunge in Baptisme be in deade that is to saye really made the sonne of God then is the substance of the bread whiche is as it were the soule of the bread I am bolde here in speache to vse the worde soule â—o expresse proportion of the comparison but euen so is the inwarde nature of the bread whiche is substance turned and chaunged in to the bodye of Christe beynge the terme and ende of that chaunge And here I saye so not to declare the maner but the truthe of th end that is to saye as really and in dede the chaunge is in the
to brynge in the creatioÌ„ of the worlde wherby to induce mannes fayth in this mystery to the belife of it As for th example Baptisme to shewe the chaunge in mannes soule wherof I haue spoken declaryng Emissene serueth for an induction not toleaue to our owtward seÌ„ces ne to mistrust the great miracle of God in eyther because we see none outwarde experieÌ„ce of it but els it is not necessarie the resemblance shall answere in qualitie otherwise then as I saide afore eche parte answeryng his conuenient proportion and as for there comparison of resemblaunce Baptisme with the Sacrament this auctour in his doctrine specially reproueth in that he can not I thynke denye but man by regeneration of his sowle in Baptisme is the partaker of holines but as for the bread he specially admonisheth it is not par taker of holynes by this consecracion but howe soeuer this auctor in his owne doctrine snarleth himselfe the doctrine of S. Ambrose is playne that before the consecration it is bread and after the coÌ„secration the body of Christ whiche is an vndowbted affirmacion then to be no bread howe so euer the accidentes of bread do remayne In the. 26. leef this auctor bryngeth forth two sayinges of S. Augustine which whau Augustinus this auctor wrot it is lik he neither thought of the thirde or first booke of this worke For these two sayinges declare moste euidently the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in the sacrameÌ„t affirmyng the same to be the sacrifice of the Churche wherby apperith it is no figure onely In the first sayinge of S. Augustine is written thus howe fayth shewith me that brede is the body of Christ nowe what soeuer faithe shewith is a truth and then it foloweth that of a truth it is the body of Christ whiche speache breade is the body of Christ is as muche to say as it is made the body of Christ and made not as of a matter but as Emissen wrote by conuersion of the visible creature in to the substaunce of the body of Christ and as S Austen in the same sentence writeth it is bread before the consecration and after the fleshe of Christ As for the seconde sayinge of saincte Austen howe could it with more playne wordes be wryten then to saye that there is bothe the SacrameÌ„t and the thinge of the SacrameÌ„t whiche is Christs body calling the same sacrifice of the Churche Nowe if Christ is body be there it is trulither iÌ„ dede ther which is real Marke 〈◊〉 reader If ther as for there in a figure wer to say not there in truth and in dede but onely signified to be abseÌ„t which is the nature a of figure in his propre and speciall speache But sainct Austen saith euen as the auctour bringeth hiforth yet he haue his priuy nyppe by the waye thus It is saide of S. Augustine there be two thinges in this sacrifice whiche be conteyued in it wherof it coÌ„sisteth so as the body of Christ is conteyued in this sacrifice by S. Augustines mynde According wherunto sainct Augustine is alleged to saye in the same booke from wheÌ„s the auctour tooke this saynge Also these wordes followynge vnder the kindes of bread and wyne whiche we see we honour thiÌ„ges inuisible that is to saye the flesshe and bloud of Christ nor we do not likewise esteme these two kindes as we did bifore the consecration for we muste faithefully confesse before the consecracion to be bread and wyne that nature formed and after consecracion the fleshe and bloud of Christ which the benediction hath coÌ„secrate Thus saith sainct Augustine as he is alleged owt of that booke which in dede I haue not but he hath the like seÌ„ce in other places and for honoringe of the inuisible heauenly thinges there which declare the true and real presence sainct Augustine hathe like in his booke de Cathechisandis rudibus and in the 98. psalme where he speaketh of adoration This may be notable to the reader howe this author concludeth him selfe in the real preseÌ„ce of Christes bodye by his owne collection of saincte Augustines mynde whiche is as he coÌ„fesseth in his owne wordes notynge sainct Augustine that as the person of Christ consistethe of two natures so the Sacrament consisteth of two natures of thellemeÌ„tes of breade and wyne and of the body and bloude of Christ and therfore both these natures do remayne in the Sacrament Thes be this autours owne wordes who trauaylynge to coÌ„founde transubstantacion confoundeth euideÌ„tly himselfe by his owne wordes towching the reall presence For he saieth the nature of the body and bloud of Christ muste remayne in the Sacrament and as truly as the natures of the maÌ„hode godhode were in Christ for thervpon he argueth And nowelet this auctor chose whether he will saie any of the natures the manhod or the godhode were but figuratiuely in Christ whiche and he do then may he the better saâ—e for the agrement of this doctrine the nature of the body the bloud of Christ is but figuratiuely in the SacrameÌ„t And if he saie as he muste nedes saie that the two natures be in Christes person really naturally substantially then must he graunt by his owne collectioÌ„ the truth of the beyng of the nature of the body and bloud of christ to be like wise in the sacrameÌ„t therby call backe all that he hath writteÌ„ against the real preseÌ„ce of Christes body in the sacrameÌ„t and abandon his diuise of a presence by signification which is in truth a playne absence as himselfe spekith also openly which open speche caÌ„not stande and is improued by this opeÌ„ spech of his owne likewise wher he saith the nature of the body and bloud of Christ remayne in the sacrament the worde remaine being of such signification as it betokenith not onely to be there but to cary there and so there is declared the sacrifice of the Churche whiche misterie of sacrifice is perfited before the perceptioÌ„ so it must be euideÌ„t howe the body of Christ is ther that is to saie on thal tere before we receyue it to which aulter S. Augustine saith we cum to receyue it There was neuer maÌ„ouerturned his owne assertioÌ„s more euideÌ„tly then this authour doth here in this place the like wherof I haue obserued in other that haâ—ue writteÌ„ against this sacrameÌ„t who haue by the waye said sum what for it or they haue brought ther treatise to an ende It will be saide here howsoeuer this auctor doth ouerthrowe hiÌ„self in the real pÌ„â—eÌ„ce of christes very body yet he hathe pulled downe traÌ„substaÌ„tiatioÌ„ â—oas crafty wresteles do falling them self on ther bake to throwe ther felowe ouer theÌ„ But it is not like for as loÌ„ge as the true faith of the reall presence staÌ„dith so loÌ„ge standith traÌ„substaÌ„tiatioÌ„ not by aucthoritie of determinatioÌ„ but by a necessary coÌ„sequeÌ„ce of the truth as I said before as zuinglius defeÌ„deth playnely as
for these places of S. augustine may be answered vnto for they speke of the visible matter elemeÌ„te which remayne truely in ther proprietie of their nature for so much as remayneth so as their is true reall bodely matter of thaccideÌ„tes of breade wyne not in faÌ„sy or imaginatioÌ„ wherby their shuld be illusioÌ„ in the seÌ„ses but so in dede as thexperieÌ„ce doth shewe the chauÌ„ge of substance of the creatures in to a better substaÌ„ce wuld not impayr the truth of that remaineth but that remaineth doth indede remaine which the same natural effects by miracie that it had wheÌ„ the substaÌ„ce was ther which is one maruail 〈◊〉 this mystery as their were diuerse more in maÌ„na the figure of it And then a myracle in gods workinge doth not empayre the truth of the worke And therfore I noted before howe saincte Thomas did towche Christ after his resurrection truely and yet it was by myracle as saincte Grigorie writeth And further we may saye towching the comparison that when a resemblaunce is made of the Sacrament to Christes person or contrarywise of Christes person to declare the Sacrament we may not presse all partes of the resemblance with a through equalitie in consideracion of eche parte by it selfe but onely haue respecte to th ende wherfore the resemblaunce is made In the persone of Christe be ioyned two holl perfite natures inseperably vnite which faith the nestorians impugned and yet vnite witout confusioÌ„ of them which confusion Theutichians in consequeÌ„ce of their of error affirmed and so argumeÌ„tes be brought the Sacrament wher with to conuince both as I shall shewe answeringe to Gelasius But in this place saincte Augustine vseth the truth most certaine of the two natures in Christes person wherby to declare his beliefe in the Sacrament whiche beliefe as Hylarie before is by this auctor alleaged to saye is of that is inwardly For that is owtowardly of the visible creature we see he hath with our bodelye eye and therfore therin is no poynte of faith that shulde nede suche a declaracion as S. Augustine makith And yet making the comparison he reherseth both the truthes on both sides sayng As the persoÌ„ of Christ coÌ„sisteth of God and man so the sacrifice of the Church coÌ„sisteth of two thinges the visible kinde of the elemente and the inuisible fleshe and bloud finishing the conclusion of the similitude that therfore their is in the sacrifice of the Churche both the Sacrament and the thyng of the Sacrament Christes body That is whiche is inuiuisible and therfore required declaracioÌ„ that is by S. Augustine opened in the comparison that is to say the body of Christ to be there truely and their with that neded no declaratioÌ„ that is to saye the visible kinde of the element is spoken of also as being true but not as a thing which was entended to be proued for it neded not any prouf as the other parte did and therfore it is not necessary to presse both partes of the resemblaunce so as because in the nature of Christes humanite thier was no substaunce conuerted in Christ whiche had been contrary to thordre of that mysterye which was to yoyne the holl nature of mane to the godhed in the person of Christ that therfore in this mystery of the Sacrament in the whiche by the rule of our faithe Christes body is not impanate the coÌ„uersion of the substaunce of the visible elemeÌ„tes shuld not therfore be If truth answerith to truth for the proportioÌ„ of the truthe in the mysterie that is sufficieÌ„te For elles the natures be not so vnite in one hipostasic in the mysterie of the sacrameÌ„te as they be in Christes person the fleshe of maÌ„ in Christ by vnioÌ„ of the diuinitie is a diuine spirituall fleshe is called is a liuely fleshe and yet thauctor of this booke is not afrayde to teache the breade in the sacrameÌ„t to haue no participatioÌ„ of holynes wherin I agree not with him but reason aganiste him with his owne doctrine and much I could saye more but this shal suffise The wordes of S. Augustine for the reall presence of Christes body be suche as no mane caÌ„ wreste or writh to an other seÌ„se with their force haue made this auctor ouerthrowe him selfe in his owne wordes But that S. Augustine saith towching the nature of breade and the visible elemeÌ„te of the sacrament wih out wresting or writhing may be agreed in coÌ„uenieÌ„r vnderstaÌ„ding with the doctrine of traÌ„substaÌ„tiation therfore is an authoritie familier with those writers that affirme traÌ„substanciatioÌ„ by expresse wordes owt of whose qui ner this authour hath pulled owt this bolt as it is owt of his boweseÌ„te turneth bake hitteth himselfe on the forhed yet after his fashion by wronge vntrue traÌ„slatioÌ„ he sharpened it somewhat not with out suÌ„ punisshemeÌ„t of god euideÌ„tly by the waye by his owne wordes to ouerthrowe himselfe In the secoÌ„de coluÌ„ne of the 27 leaf the firste of the 28 leaf this auctour maketh a processe in declaration of herises in the person of Christ for coÌ„uictioÌ„ wherof this authr saith the olde fathers vsed argumeÌ„ts of two exaÌ„ples in eyther of which exaÌ„ples were two natures to gyther the one not perishing nor coÌ„founding the other One exaÌ„ple is in the body soule of man An other exaÌ„ple of the sacrameÌ„t in which be two natures as inowarde heuenly an owtwarde earthly as in man their is a body a soule I leaue owt this auctours owne iudgement in that place of the o reader require thyne whither those fathers that did vse both these exaÌ„ples to the coÌ„fusioÌ„ of heretiques did not belief as apperith by the processe of theire reasoning in this poynte did they not I say hele ne that euen as really as truly as the soule of maÌ„ is preseÌ„t in the bodye so really so truely is the body of christ which in the sacrameÌ„t is the inward inuisible thing as the soule is in the body preseÌ„t in the sacrameÌ„t for elles the body of Christ were not as truly really present in the sacrameÌ„t as the soule is in maÌ„nes body that argumeÌ„t of the sacrament had no two thinges preseÌ„t so as thargumeÌ„t of the body soule had wherby to shewe howe two things may be to gether witout coÌ„fusioÌ„ of eyther eche remayning in his nature for if the teaching of this auctour in other partes of this booke wer true theÌ„ were the sacrameÌ„t like a body lyinge in a traunse whose soule for the while were in heueÌ„ had no two thinges but one bare thinge that is to saie breade breade neuer the holyer with significatioÌ„ of an other thig so far abseÌ„t as is heueÌ„ froÌ„ earth therfor to say as I ê“blabli thinke this part of this secoÌ„de booke against transubstantiacion was a collection of this auctour wheÌ„ he mynded to mayntaine luthers opinioÌ„ against traÌ„ substaÌ„ciacioÌ„ onely and to striue for bread
two persons and the Eutichians by confusion of the humaine nature Then cummeth Gelasius to the argument of example from the Sacrament of the bodye and bloude of Christ and noteth the person of Christ to be a principall mysterye and the Sacrament an image and similitude of that mysterye which sence his wordes muste nedes haue because he calleth Christe the principall mysterye and as in one place he sayth the image and similitude of the bodye and bloud of Christe so by and by he calleth the Sacramente the image of Christe And here the wordes image and similitude expresse the maner of presence of the truth of the thinges represented to be vnderstanded onely by faith as inuisibly present And Saincte Ambrose by this worde mage signifieth thexhibition of truth to man in this life And to shewe the Sacrament to be suche an image as conteyneth the verye truthe of the thinge whereof it is the image Gelasius declareth in framynge his argumente in these wordes As breade and wyne go into the diuine substaunce the holy gooste bringyng it to passe and yet remayne in the proprietie of there nature so that principall mysterye those natures remayninge whereof it is declared vnto vs true and hole Christ to continue In these wordes of Gelasius where he saith the breade and wyne go into the diuine substaunce is playnely declared the presence of the diuine substaunce and this diuine substaunce can signifie none other substaunce but of the body and bloude of Christe of whiche heauenly nature and earthely nature of the breade and wyne consisteth this Sacrament the image of the principall mysterye of Christes person And therfore as in the image be two diuers natures and different remayninge in there proprietie So likewise in the person of Christ whiche is the conclusion of Gelasius argumente should remayne two natures And here were a greate daunger if we shoulde saye that Christes body whiche is the celestiall nature in the Sacramente were there present but in a figure for it shoulde then implye that in Christes personne the principall mysterye it were also but in a figure And therfore as in the mysterye of Christes personne ordened to redeme vs beynge the principal mistery there is no figure but truth in consideracion of the presens of the two natures wherof Christ is So in the SacrameÌ„t beyng a misterye ordred to feade vs the image of that principal mistery ther is not an onely figure but truth of the presens of the natures earthely celestiall I speake of the truth of presence and meane suche an integritie of the natures present as by the rules of our faith is consonante and agreable to that mistery that is to say in the person of Christ perfit God perfit maÌ„ perfite God to be incarnate perfit man to be deitate as Gregory Nazianzene termeth it In the SacrameÌ„t the visible matter of the earthely creature in his proprietie of nature for the vse of significacioÌ„ is necessariely required also according to the truth of Christ his wordes his very body bloud to be inuisibly with integrite present which Gelasius calleth the diuine substaunce And I thinke it worthy to be noted that Gelasius speking of the bread wyne reciteth not precisely the substaÌ„ce to remaine but saith the substaÌ„ce or nature which nature he calleth after proprietie the disiuÌ„ctiue may be verified in the last it is not necessary thexaÌ„ples to be in al partes equal as rusticus diacomâ—s handleth it very lernedly coÌ„tra Acephalos And Gelasius in opening the mystery of the Sacrament speaketh of traÌ„sitioÌ„ of the bread wyne into the godly substaÌ„ce whiche worde transition is mete to expresse transubstantiacioÌ„ therfore S. Thomas expressed traÌ„substantiacioÌ„ with the same word transire writyng Dogma datur Christianis quod in carneÌ„ traÌ„sit panis vinuÌ„ in sanguineÌ„ But in the mysterie of Christes person there is no traÌ„sition of the deitie into the humanite or humanite into the deitie but onely assumption of the humanite with adunacioÌ„ of those two natures of two perfit natures so differeÌ„t one person one Christ who is God incarnate man deitate as Gregory Nazianzene saith withoutmutation coÌ„uetsion trausitioÌ„ transelementation or transubstantiation whiche wordes be propre special to expresse howe Eucharistia is coÌ„stitute of two distreÌ„t natures an heauenly earthly nature a mystery institute after the exaÌ„ple of the principal mysterie wherwith to feade vs with the substaÌ„ce of the same glorious body that hath redemed vs. And because in the coÌ„stitution of this mysterie of the sacrameÌ„t there is a traÌ„sitioÌ„ of the earthly creature into the diuine substaÌ„ce as Gelasius S. Thomas terme it mutacion as Cyprian Ambrose teache it which Theophilactus expresseth by the worde traÌ„selemeÌ„tacion Emissen by the conuersion all these wordes reduced into there one propre sence expressed in one worde of transubstantiacion it cannot be coÌ„uenient where the maner of the constitution of two mysteries be so different there to require a like remayning of the two natures whereof the mysteryes be In the mysterye of Christes person because there was not of any of the two different natures eythex mutation transition conuersioÌ„ or trauselementation but onely assumption of the humanitie and adunation in the virgyns wombe we cannot say the godhed to haue suffred in that mysterye which were an absurditie but to haue wrought the assumption and adunation of mans nature with it nor mans nature by that assumption and adunation diminished and therfore professe truly Christ to be hole God and whole man and God in that mysterye to be made man and man God where as in the Sacrament because of transition mutation and conuersion of there earthely creatures wrought by the holy goost which declareth those earthly creatures to suffer in this conuersion mutation and transition we knowledge no assumption of those creatures or adunation with the heauthly nature and therfore saye not as we do in the principal mysterye that eche nature is holly the other and as we professe God incarnate so the bodye of Christe breaded and as man is deitate so the bread is corporate whiche we should say if the rules of our fayth could permitte the constitution of eche mysterye to be taught a lyke which the truth of gods morde doth not suffre Wherfore although Gelasius and other argue froÌ„ the Sacrament to declare the mysterye of Christes person yet we maye not presse the argument to distroy orcoÌ„founde the proprietie of eche mysterye and so violate the rules of our fayth and in the authours not presse the wordes otherwise then they maye agree with the Catholique teachynge as those did in the wordes of Cyrill when he speake of nature and subsistence whereof I made mention before to be remembred here in Gelasius that we presse not the worde substance and nature in him but as maye agree with the transition he speaketh of by which word other expresse
all beynge and adnihilacion is a defection of the creature from God and yet Christes bodye is not augmeÌ„ted by the substaÌ„ce of bread in which body it endeth by coÌ„nersioÌ„ as in the better without adnihilatioÌ„ which is a changyng by miracle And when this auctor knoweth this or shoulde haue known it or hath forgotten it he wryteth like one that were ignoraunt and had red no thing in the matter as it were to make himselfe populer to ioyne himselfe in ignoraunce with the rude vnlerned people A thirde reason this auctor frameth himselfe werby to take occasion to afferme howe the .vi. chaptre of sainct Iohn shuld not apperteyne to the SacrameÌ„tal maÌ„ducation the contrary wher of apperith aswell by the wordes of Christ in that .vi. chaptre saing I will gyue not I do gyue which promise was fullfilled in the supper as also hy the catholique wryters and specially by Cyril and therfore I will not Ioh. 6. further stryue with this auctour in that matter but see howe he can assoyle thauctorites wherunto he entreth with greate coÌ„fidence First in Cyprian who speketh playnelie in the matter this auctor fyndetha fault that he is not holly alleged wherupon this auctor bryngeth in the sentence followinge not necessary Cyprianus to be rehersed for the matter of transubstantiacioÌ„ and hansom to be rehersed for the ouerthrowe of the rest of this auctours newe catholique faith whither that nowe shall be added was materiall in the matter of transubstanciacion I require the Iudgement of the o reader The first wordes of Cyprian be these This breade whiche our lorde gaue to his disciples chaunged in nature but not in outwarde forme is by the oÌ„mnipotencye of gods worde De câ—â—na dnÌ„i made fleshe These be Cyprianus wordes then folowe thies As in the person of Christ the humanite was seen the diuinite hiddeÌ„ euen so the diuinite ineffably infused it selfe in to the visible Sacrament Thus saith Cyprian as I can englishe hym to expresse the worde infudit by latin englishe not liking theÌ„ glishe worde shed because in our englishe tonge it resembleth spillyng and euacuation of the hole and much lesse I can agree to vse the worde powrynge although infunde in laten maye in the vse of earthly thynges signifie so because powring noteth a successiue workyng wheras gods worke is in an instant and for that respecte neuer sheddynge But this auctor had a faÌ„sye to vse the sounde of the worde powryng to serue in stede of an argumeÌ„t to improue transubstantiacion meanyng the hearer or reader in the conceyuyng of the sence of Cypryan thus termed should fansye the bread in the visible Sacrament to be like a soppe wherupon lyquor were powred which is a kynde of deprauation as thou reader by consideration of Cyprians wordes meanyng may est perceyue which CypriaÌ„ hath sheued howe the bread is made fleshe by the omnipoteÌ„cie of gods worde and made by chaÌ„ge TheÌ„ because this mysterie of the SacrameÌ„t in coÌ„sideration of the two natures celestial earthly resembleth the principal misterie of Christes persoÌ„ne S CypriaÌ„ saith in seÌ„ce that as in the persoÌ„ of Christ the humanite was seen the diuinite hidden so likewise in this SacrameÌ„t visible is also the diuine nature hidden This is the seÌ„ce where for declaracioÌ„ of the worke of god presetyng his diuine nature there is vsed the verbe infudit in latyn by whiche worde the motion of the diuine nature is spokeÌ„ of in scriptures not because it is a liquide substaÌ„ce to be poured as thauctor of this booke englishethit signifiyng a successiue operation but rather as a worde if we should scanne it as this auctor would signifiyng the coÌ„tinuaÌ„ce of the terme feoÌ„ whence to the terme whervnto with out leauyng the one by motion to the other for there is in the godly nature no local motion therfor we say christ not leauing his father desceÌ„ded froÌ„ heaueÌ„ being in earth was also in heueÌ„ which coÌ„fusioÌ„ in sum parte reseÌ„bleth but maÌ„s words caÌ„ not expresse gods diuine operacioÌ„s To the purpose the first word of CypriaÌ„ shewe the maner of the coÌ„stitucion of this sacrameÌ„t to be by muracioÌ„ of the earthly creatures in to the body blod of christ And the by the wordes folowing sheueth the truth of the substaÌ„ce of the sacrameÌ„t to thinteÌ„t we might vse our repayre to it and frame our deuotioÌ„ according to the dignite of it este ming as S. Paule saith our lordes body for the more euident declaratioÌ„ wherof S. CypriaÌ„ by example of the mysterye in Christes person sheueth Christes humanite and diuinite present in the visible sacrameÌ„t of which diuinite there is speciall mencion againste such whiche fansied the flesh of Christ to begyuen to be eaten as diuided from the diuine nature whiche was the heresie of the NestoriaÌ„s and such other denying therby the perfite vnite of the two natures in Christ which the holy Sinode of Ephesus did specially coÌ„dempne as other fathers in there wrytinge did specially preueÌ„te with distincte wryting against that errour and therfore sainct Cyprian not content to shew the presence of Christes fleshe by mutacon of the bread doth after make speciall mencion of Christes diuinite not correcting that he had said before but further openynge it And so vtterby condempneth the teachynge of thauctor of this booke towching the presence of Christ to be onely figura tiuely Cyprian saith that in the sacrament is the truth and then there is present the true fleshe of Christ and the godhed truly whiche deuotion should knowelege as for transubstaÌ„ciation according to the first wordes of sainct CypriaÌ„ the bread is chaunged not informe but in nature whiche is not in the proprietes of nature nor in the operacion of nature neither in quantite or qualite of nature and therfore in the inwarde nature whiche is properly substaunce This is the playne directe vnderstandynge not by way of addition as this auttor of his ymaginatioÌ„ diuiseth who vseth the worde spirituall as a stop and opposition to the catholique teaching whiche is not so and clerelye without earnyng compareth with this Sacrament the water of Baptisme of whiche we reade not wryten that it is chaunged as we reade of the breade and therfore the resemblaunce of water in Baptisme is vsed onely to blinde the rude reader and serueth for a shifte of talke to wynde out of that matter that cannot be answered and as euill debters shake of there creditours with a by communicacion so this auctor conueyeth himselfe awaye at a backe dore by water not doynge first as he promised to answere so as he would auoyde Cyprian directly by laude Answerynge to Chrisostome this auctor Chryso complayneth as he did in Cyprian of malicyous leauyng out of that whiche when it is brought in doth nothing empayre that went before Chrisostome woulde we shoulde consider the secrete truth of this mysterie where Christe is the Inuisible Prieste and ministreth in
the accideÌ„tes be by miracle without substaÌ„ce as they be in the visible ê‘t of the sacrameÌ„t theÌ„ the same accideÌ„tes to be brokeÌ„ cateÌ„ droÌ„keÌ„ with al thaditioÌ„s this auctor for his pleasur maketh theriÌ„ is no miracle or meruaile as for absur dite no poiÌ„t at al for by quaÌ„tite which remaineth is al diuisioÌ„ we ought to coÌ„fesse good christen men do professe the mysterye of the SacrameÌ„t to be supernatural and aboue the ordre of nature therfore it is a trauayle in vayne to frame the consideratioÌ„ of it to agree with the termes of philosophye But where this auctor saith that nothyng can be answered to be brokeÌ„ but the accideÌ„tes yes verely for in tyme of conteÌ„cioÌ„ as this is to him that would aske what is brokeÌ„ I would in other termes answere thus That thou seest is broken And theÌ„ if he would aske further what that is I would tell him the visible matter of the Sacrament vnder whiche is present Inuisibly the substance of the most precious body of Christ if he will aske yet further Is that bodye of Christ broken I will say no. For I am lerned in fayth that that glorious body nowe impassible can not be broken or diuided and therfore it is holy in euery parte of that is broken as the substaunce of bread is in comen bread in euery parte that is broken accordyng wherunto it is in the booke of comen prayour setforth howe in eche part of that is broken is the hole body of our sauiour Christ If this questioner be further curious and saye is not that that is broken breade I woulde answere as a beleuynge man by fayth truely no For in fayth I must call it because it is truely so the bodye of Christe inuisibly there and the breakynge to be not in it but in the visible signe Yea ye will call it so sayth this questioner but yet it is bread Nay quod I my sayth is a most certaine truth and beleueth thinges as they verily be for Christes worde is of strenght not onely to shewe and declare as other mens wordes do but therwith effectual to make it so to be as it is by him called And this I write because howsoeuer clerkes soberly entreate the matter such as mynde well I meane to consider accideÌ„tes and substaÌ„ce whiche termes the rude vnderstaÌ„de not it is not necessarye therfore in those termes to make answere to suche as be coÌ„tentiously curious who labour with questioÌ„s to dissolue the truth of the misterie in declaracioÌ„ wherof we as men stumble and terme it otherwise then we shuld that is no IncoÌ„uenieÌ„ce in the misterie but an imparfection in vs that be not able to expresse it not hauinge such giftes of god as other haue nor studyinge to atteyne lernyng as other haue done And whatsoeuer in scoles with a deuoute mynde to aus were al captious questions hath for thexercitation of mennes senses bene moued soberly and by way of argument obiected that is nowe picked out by this auctor and brought to the comen peoples cares in which it might sounde euill they not beinge able to make answere theruÌ„to wherby they might be snarled and intaÌ„gled with vayne fanses against that truth which before without curiosite of questions they truely and coÌ„stantly beleued Finally the doctrine of the sacrament is simple and playne to haue the visible fourmes of breade and wyne for significatioÌ„ the thing wherof in the verye bodye bloud of Christ which beyng the truth of the hole it is no absurdite to coÌ„fesse truely the partes as they be if occasioÌ„ require howesoeuer it soundeth to the Ethnike or carualic mannes eares for whose satisfaction there is no cause why the truth should be altred into alye wherwith to make melody to ther vnderstaÌ„dinges For howsoeuer carnall reason be offended with spiritual truth it forceth not but against the hole consent of the auncient doctors no doctrine caÌ„ be instified with whose restimonie howe the fayth of the church in the sacrameÌ„t nowe agreeth it is manifest howsoeuer it liketh this auctor to reaporte the contrarye Secondly these TransubstaÌ„tiators do say contrarye to all lernynge that accidentes of bread and The auctor wyne do hange alone in th aire without any substance wherin they may be stayed and what may be sayd more folyshelye The maister of the sentences she winge diuers meÌ„s sayinges in discussioÌ„ as they can The answer sententia 〈◊〉 di 〈…〉 t. 9. q. 10. of this mysterie telleth what sume say that had reather saye sum what then nothinge which this auctor rehersith as a determinacion of the church that in dede maketh no doctrine of that pointe so but acknowlegith the misterie to excede our capacite And as for the accidentes to be stayed that is to saye to remayne without there natural substance is without difficultie beleued of men that haue sayth consideryng thalmightie power of Christ whose diuine body is there present And shall that be accompted for an inconuenience in the misterie that any one man saith whose sayinge is not as a full determinacioÌ„ approued If that man should encontre with this auctor if he were a lyue so to do I thinke he would saye it were more tollerable in him of a zeale to agree with the true doctrine to vtter his coÌ„seyte foÌ„dly then of a malice to disseÌ„t froÌ„ the true doctrine this auctor so fondly to improwe his sayinge But if he should oppose this auctor in lernynge and aske him howe he wyll vnderstand Fiat lux in the creatioÌ„ of the world where the light stayed that was then create But I will procede to peruse the other absurdities Thirdly that the substance of Christes body is there The auctor really corporally and naturally present without any accidentes of the same And so the papistes make accidentes to be with out substance and substance without accidentes Howe Christes bodye in circuÌ„staÌ„ce preseÌ„t The answer no man caÌ„ define but that it is truely preseÌ„t therfore really preseÌ„t corporally also but yet supper naturally with relation to the truth of the body preseÌ„t not to the maner of preseÌ„ts which is spiritual excedyng our capacitâ— therfore therin with out drawyng awaye accideÌ„tes or adding we byleue simplie the 〈◊〉 howsoeuer it liketh this auctor with out the booke to 〈◊〉 it at his pleasur to speke of substaÌ„ce without accideÌ„tes accideÌ„tes without substaunce whiche perplexite in wordes cannot ieste out the truth of the catholique bilyefe And this is on thauctours part nothinge but iestinge with a wroÌ„ge surmise and supposall as though men had inuiÌ„ted and ymagined that whiche by force and truth of the scripture all good men haue and must byleue that is to saye the true presence of the substance of the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament accordinge to the wordes of Christ This is my body whiche exclude the substance of breade declaringe the substance of the body of
slenderly as it were but figuratyuely And if the Catholique fayth had not bene then certenly taught and constaÌ„tly beleued without variaunce Christes very fleshe to be in dede eaten in that mistery it would haue bene answered of the heretiques it had bene but a figure but that appeareth nor and the other appeareth whiche is a testymonye to the truth of matter in dede Hilarie reasonynge Hilarius 8. libro de â—â—tim of the naturall coniuction betwene vs and Christ by meane of this Sacrament expresseth the same to com to passe by the receyuynge truely the verie fleshe of our lorde in our lordes meate and therupon argueth against the ArriaÌ„s whiche Arrians if it had not bene so really in dede but all was spiritually so as there was no suche naturall and corporall coÌ„munion in dede as Hilarie supposed but as this auctor teacheth a figure it had bene the Catholike doctrine so that argumeÌ„t of Hilarie had bene of no force S. Chrisostom Belasius and Theodorete argue of the truth of this misterie to conuince the Appollinaristes and Eutichians which were noon argument if Christes verie body were not as really present in the SacrameÌ„t for the truth of presence as the godhed in the person of Christ beynge theffect of thargument this that as the presence of Christes body in this misterie doth not altre the properties of the visible natures no more doth the godhode in the person of Christ extinguishe his humanite whiche againste those heretiques serued for an argument to exclud confusion of natures in Christ and had bene a daungerous argument to be embrased of the Nestorians who woulde hereby haue furdred ther heresie to proue the distinction of natures in Christ without any vnion for they woulde haue said As the earthly heaueÌ„ly natures be so distincte in the SacrameÌ„t as the one is not spoken of the other so be the natures of the humanite godhod not vnited in Christ whiche is false and in the comparynge we may not loke that all should answere in equalite but onely for the point it is made for that is as in the Sacrament the visible clement is not extinguished by the presence of Christes most precious body no more is Christes humanite by his godhode and yet we may not say that as in the SacrameÌ„t be but onely accideÌ„tes of the visible earthly matter that therfore in the person of Christ be onely accideÌ„tes of the humanite For that misterye requireth the hole truth of mannes nature and therfore Christe toke vppon him the hole man bodie and soule The mysterye of the Sacrament requirethe the truthe of the accidentes onelye beynge the substaunce of the visible creatures conuerted into the body bloude of Christ And this I write to preuent suche cauillations as some would serch fore But to retourne to our matter all these argumeÌ„tes were vayne if there were not in the Sacrament the true presence of Christes very bodye as the celestiall parte of the SacrameÌ„t beynge the visible formes therthly thyng Which earthly thyng remaineth in the former proprietie with the verye presence of the celestial thyng And this suffiseth concernyng the first marke An other certaine token is the wondryng and great meruelyng that the olde auctours make howe the substance of this Sacrament is wrought by goddes omnipotencie Baptisme is merueled at for the wonderfull effecte that is in man by it howe man is regenerat not howe the water or the holy ghoost is there But the wondre in this Sacrament is specially directed to the worke of God in the visible creatures howe they be so changed into the body and bloud of Christ which is a worke of god wrought before we receyue the Sacrament Whiche worke Cyprian sayth is inestable that is to say not speakable whiche is not so Cyprian de coena dnÌ„i if it be but a figure for then it may easely be spoken as this auctour speaketh it with ease I thynke he speaketh it so often Of a preseÌ„ce by signification if it may so be called euery man maye speake and tell howe but of the verye presence in dede and therfore the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament no creature can tell howe it maye be that Christ ascended into heauen with his humaine body and therwith coutinually reignying there should make present in the Sacrament the same body in dede whiche Christ in dede worketh beynge neuerthelesse then at the same houre present in heauen as S. Chrisosostom doth with a maruayle say If the maruayle were onely of godes worke in man in theffect of the Sacrament as it is in Baptisme it were an other matter but I said before the wrondre is in the worke of God in the substaunce of the Sacrament before it be receyued which declareth tholde auctours that so wondre to vnderstande the reall presence of Christes verye bodye and not an onelye signification whiche hathe no wondre at all And therfore seyng S. Cyprian wondreth at it and calleth the worke inestable S. Chrisostom wondreth at it S. Ambrose wondreth at it Emissen wondreth at it Cyrill wondreth at it What should we nowe doubt whether their fayth were of a signification onely as this auctour woulde haue it which is no wondre at all or of the reall presence whiche is in dede a wonderfull worke Wherfore where this manifest token and certaine marke appeareth in the olde fathers their can no constructioÌ„ of sillables or words dissuade or peruerte the truth thus testified A third token their is by declaration of figures as for example S. Hierom when he declareth vpon thepistel Ad Titum so aduisedly at lenght howe Panes prepositiones were the figure of the bodie of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t that processe declareth the mynds of that auctor to be that in the Sacrament is present the verie truth of Christes body not in a figure again to ioyne one shadowe to an other but euen the very truth to answere the figure and therfore no particuler wordes in S. Hierome can haue any vnderstandynge contrarye to his mynde declared in this processe Fourthly an other certaine marke is where the olde auctours wryte of the addration of this Sacrament whiche can not be but to the thynges godly really present And therfore S. Augustine wrytynge in his booke de Catechizandis rudibus howe the Inuisible thynges be honored in this SacrameÌ„t meanyng the bodie and bloud of Christ and in the. 98. Psalme speaketh of adoratioÌ„ Theodoretus also spekyng specially of adoration of this SacrameÌ„t These auctours by Theodoretus Dialogo 3. this marke that is most certaine take awaye all suche ambiguite as men might by suspitions diuination gather sumtyme of their seuerall wordes and declare by this marke of adoratioÌ„ playnely their faith to haue bene and also their doctrine vnderstanded as they ment of the reall presence of Christes verye bodye and bloud in the Sacrament and Christ himselfe God and man to be their present to whose diuine nature and the humanite
Christ as maye be in particularitie shewed wherof I make also an issue with the auctor An issue For the other poynte in that thauctor approued the iudgement of Petrus Lombardus in the matter what shoulde I more do but wryte in the wordes of Petrus Lombardus as he hath them which be these in the fourth booke the .xij. Chapter alleaged by thauctor Post haec quaeritur si quod gerit sacerdos pro prie dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio si Christus quotidie immoletur vel semel tantum immolatus sit Ad hoc breuiter dici potest illud quod offertur coÌ„secratur à sacerdote vocari sacrificium oblationem quia memoria est representatio veri sacrificij sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis semel Christus mortuus in cruce est ibique immolatus est in semetipso quotidie auteÌ„ immo latur in sacramento quia in sacramento recor datio fit illius quod factuÌ„ est semel vnde Augustinus Certum habemus quia Christus resurgens ex mortuis iaÌ„ non moritur c. tamen ne obliuiscamur quod semel factuÌ„ est in memoria nostra omni anno fit scilicet quando pascha celebratur Nunqnid totiens Christus occiditur sed tantum anniuersaria recordatio repraesentat quod olim factum est sic nos facit moueri tanq videamus Dominum in eruce Item semel immolatus est Christus in semetipso tameÌ„ quotidie immolatur in sacramento Quod sic intelligendum est quia in manifestatione corporis distinctione meÌ„ brorum semel tantum in cruce pependit offerens se Deo patri hostiam redemptionis efficacem eorum scilicet quos praedestinauit Item Ambrosius In Christo semel oblata est hostia ad salutem potens quid ergo nos NoÌ„ne per singulos dies offerimus Et si quotidie offeramus ad recordationeÌ„ eius mortis fit vna est hostia non multae quomodovna noÌ„ multae quia semel immolatus est christus hoc autem sacrificium exempluÌ„ est illius idipsum semperidipsum offertur proinde hoc ideÌ„ est sacrificiuÌ„ alioquin dicetur quoniaÌ„ in multis locis offertur multi sunt Christi noÌ„ sed vnus vbique est Christus hîe plenus existeÌ„s illic plenus sicut quod vbique offertur vnuÌ„ est corpus ita vnuÌ„ sacrificiuÌ„ Christus hostiam obtulit ipsam offerimus nuÌ„c sed quod nos agimus recordatio eÌ„st sacrificij Nec causa suae infirmitatis reperitur quia perficit hominem sed nostrae quia quotidie peccamus Exhis colligitur esse sacrificiuÌ„ dici quod agitur in altari ChristuÌ„ semel oblatuÌ„ quotidie offerri sed aliter tuÌ„c aliter nuÌ„c etiaÌ„ quae sitvirtus huius sacramenti ostenditur scilicet remissio peccatoruÌ„ venalium perfectiovirtutis The Englishe hereof is this After this it is asked whether that the priest doth maye be sayde properlie a sacrifice or immolacioÌ„ whether christ be daily iÌ„molate or only ones WheruÌ„to it may be shortly answered that which is offred coÌ„secrate of the priest is called a sacrifice oblacioÌ„ because it is a memorie represeÌ„tacion of the true sacrifice holy immolation done in thalter of the crosse And Christ was ones dede on the Crosse ther was offered in him selfe but he is dayly immolate in the sacrameÌ„t because in the sacrameÌ„t ther is made a memory of that is ones done wherupoÌ„ S. Augustine we ar assured that Christ rysing froÌ„ Rom. 6. death dieth not now c. Yet lest we shuld for get that is ones done iÌ„ our memory euery yere is done viz as ofteÌ„ as the pascha is celebrate is Christ as ofteÌ„ killed only a yerly remeÌ„braÌ„ce repreâ—eÌ„teth that was ones done causeth vs to be moued as though we saue our Lorde on the crosse Also Christ was ones offred in him selfe yet is offred daily iÌ„ the sacrameÌ„t which is thus to be vnderstaÌ„ded that in opeÌ„ shewiÌ„g of his body distinctioÌ„ of his meÌ„bres he dede haÌ„ge only ones vpoÌ„ the crosse offring himself to god the father an host of redeÌ„ptioÌ„ effectual for theÌ„ whoÌ„ he hath predestinate also S. Ambrose in christ the host was ones offred being of power to helth what do we theÌ„ do we not The same wordes hath Chrisostome homel 17. ad hebr offre eueri day if we offre eueri day it is done in the remeÌ„braÌ„ce of the death of him the host is one not many how one not many because christ is ones offred This sacrifice is thexeÌ„ple of that the same alwaies the same is offred therfor this is the same sacrifice or els it may be sayd because it is offered in manye places ther be manye Christes whiche is not so but one Christ is eche where here full and their ful so as that which is offered euery where is one body so also one Sacrifice Christ hath offred the host we do offre the same also now But that we do is a remembraunce of the sacrifice Nor their is no cause fouÌ„d of the owne inuaiy ditie because it perâ—teth the man but of vs because we daylie sinne Hereof it is gathered that to be a sacrifice and to be so called that is done in thaltare and Christ to be ones offered daylie offered but otherwise then otherwise nowe also it is shewed what is the vertue of this SacrameÌ„t that is to saye remissioÌ„ of verâ—al synne perfectioÌ„ of vertue This wryteth Petrus Lombardus whose iudgement because this auctor alloweth he must grant that the visible church hath Priestes in ministery that offre dayly Christs most precius body bloud in mysterie then must it be graunted that Christ so offered him selfe in his supper For otherwise then he did cannot nowe be done And by the iudgement of Petrus Lombardus the same most precious body bloud is offered daylye that ones suffered and was ones 〈…〉 ede And also by the same Petrus iudgment which he confirmeth with the saynges of other this daylie offryng by the priest is daylie offred for synne not for eny imperfectioÌ„ in the first offring but because we dailie fall And by Petrus iudgemeÌ„t appeareth also howe the priest hath a speciall function to make this offerynge by whose mouth god is praied vnto as hesithius saith to make this sacrifice which Emissene notech Homâ—l de cowore et SaÌ„guine domini to be wrought by the power of the inuisible priest By Petrus LoÌ„bardus also if his iudgemeÌ„t be true as it is in dede and thauctor coÌ„fesseth it so to be that is done in th aulter is not onlie called a sacrifice but also is so the same that is offered ones and dailie to be the same but otherwise then offerid otherwise nowe But to the purpose if thauctor will stande to the iudgemeÌ„t of Petrus
And S. Cyrill who for his doctrine was in Epistola ad Nestor greate auctoritie with the counsell Ephesme wryteth the very body and bloud of Christ to be the liuely and vnbloudy Sacrifice of the churche as likewise in tholde churche other commenly termed the same and among other Chrisostome whō thauctor would now haue 1◠hom ad Heb. seme to vse it but for a maner of speach which in dede Chrisostome doth not but doth truly open thunderstanding of that is done in the church wherin by this sacrifice done after the ordre of Melchisedech Christes death is not iterate but a memorie daylie renewed of that death so as Christes offerynge on the Crosse ones done cōsummate to finish all sacrifices after thordre of Aaron is now only remembred accordyng to Christes instituciō but in such wise as the same bodie is offred dailie on thalter that was ones offred on thalter of the Crosse but the same maner of offeryng is not daylie that was on th aulter of the crosse for the dayly offeryng is without bloudshed is termed so to signifie that bloud sheding ones done to be sufficiēt And as Chryyostome openeth it by declaracion of what maner our sacrifice is that is to say this daylie offering to be a remēbrāce of the other maner of sacrifice ones done therfore sayth rather we make a remēbrance of it This sayng of Chrysostome doth not empayre his former words wher he saith the host is the same offred on the crosse and on thalter therfore by him the body of Christ that dyed but ones is daylie present in dede as the Concel of Nice saith sacrificed not after the maner of other Sacrifices as Chrisostom saith offred but the death of that preciouse body onely dayly remēbred not againe iterate And wher thauctor saith thold fathers callyng the supper of our Lorde a sacrifice ment a Sacrifice of laude thākes geuyng Hippinus of Hambrough no Papist in his boke dedicate to the kynges Maiestye that now is saith otherwise and noteth how the olde fathers called it a Sacrifice propiciatorye for the very presence of Christes moost precious body ther thus saith he which presence all Christen men muste saye requireth on oure parte laudes and thankes geuynge whiche maye be and is called in Scripture by the name of Sacrifice but that Sacrifice of our laudes and thankes geuynge cannot be a Sacrifice geuyng life as it is noted by Cyril the sacrifice of the church to do when he saith it is viuificū which can be onely sayde of the verye bodye and bloud of Christ Nor oure Sacrifice of laudes and thankes geuynge cannot be sayde a pure and cleane Sacrifice wherby to fulfill the prophecie of Malachie Malac. 3. and therfore the same prophecie was in the begynning of the Churche vnderstanded to be spoken of the daylye offeryng of the bodye and bloud of Christ for the memorye of Christes death accordyng to Christes ordinaunce in his supper as maye at more lenght be opened declared Thinkyng to theffecte of this booke sufficient to haue encountred the chefe poyntes of thauctors doctrine with such contradiction to them as the Catholique doctrine doth of necessitie require the more particulare confutacion of that is vntrue of thaduersarie parte and confirm aciō of that is true in the Catholique doctrine requiryng more time and ley sure then I haue nowe and therfore offerynge my selfe readye by mouth or wryte to say further in this matter as inalbe required I shall here ende for this tyme with prayour to almightye God to graunte his truth to be acknowledged confessed and vnisormely to be preached and beleued of al so as all contencion for vnderstandyng of religion auoyded whiche hyndreth Charitie we maye geue suche light abrode as men may see our good workes and glorifie our father who is in heauē with the sonne and holy gost in one vnitie of godhed reignyng without ende Amen
vs to be so boulde in so high a mysterie to begynne to discusse Christes intent what should moue vs to thinke that Christ would vse so many wordes without effectuall and reall significacion as be rehersed touchyng the mysterie of this Sacrament First in the .vi. of Iohn whan Christ had taught of the eatyng of him beyng the bread descended from heauen and declaring that eating to signify beleuing wherat was no murmuryng that then he should entre to speake of geuyng of his fleshe to be eaten and his bloud to be dronken and to say he would geue a bread that is his fleshe whiche he would geue for the life of the worlde In whiche wordes Christ maketh mention of two giftes and therfore as he is truth must needes intend to fulfill them both And therfore as we beleue the gift of his fleshe to the Iewes to bee crucified So we must beleue the gift of his fleshe to be eaten of that gift lyuerie and seisme as we say to be made of him that is in his ê“mises faithful as Christ is to be made in both And therfore whan he sayd in his supper Take eat This is my bodie he must nedes intend plainely as his wordes of promise required these woordes in his supper purport to geue as really then his bodie to be eaten of vs as he gaue his bodie in dede to be crucified for vs aptely neuerthelesse and conueniently for eche effect and therfore in maner of geuyng diuersely but in the substaunce of the same geuen to be as his wordes beare wytnes the same and therfore sayd This is my bodie that shal be berrayed for you expressyng also the vse wheÌ„ he sayd Take eat which wordes in deliueryng of materiall bread had been superfluous For what should men do with bread when they take it but eat it specially when it is broken But as Cyrill saith Christe opened there vnto theÌ„ the practise of that doctrine he spake of in the .vi. of Sainct Iohn because he sayd he would geue his fleshe for foode whiche he would geue for the life of the worlde he for fulfillyng of his promise sayd Take eate this is my bodie whiche wordes haue been taught beleued to be of effecte and operatorie and Christe vnder the forme of bread to haue been his verie bodie Accordyng wherunto S. Paule noreth the receauer to be giltie when he doth not esteme it our Lordes bodie wherwith it pleaseth Christ to fede such as be in him regenerate to thintente that as man was redemed by Christ sufferyng in the nature of his humanitie so to purchace for man the kingdome of heauen ioste by Adams fall Euen likewise in the nature of the same humanitic giuyng it to be eaten to norishe man make him strong to walke and continue his iorney to emoye that kingdome And therfore to set forth liuely vnto vs the communication of the substance of Christes most precious bodie in the Sacrament and the same to be in dede deliuered Christ vsed plaine wordes testified by the EuaÌ„gelistes S. Paule also rehersed the same wordes in the same plain termes in the .xi. to the Corinthians and in the tenth geuyng as it were an exposion of theffecte vseth the same propre wordes declaryng theffecte to be the coÌ„municatioÌ„ of Christes bodie and bloud And one thing is notable touching the scripture that in suche notable speaches vttered by Christ as might haue an ambiguitie the Euangelistes by some circumstaunce declared it or some tyme opened it by plaine interpretacion as when Christ sayd he would dissolue the temple and within three daies buylde it againe The EuaÌ„gtlistes by and by addeth for interpretacioÌ„ This he said of the temple of his bodie And when Christe sayd he is Helias and I am the true vine the circumstaunce of the text openeth the ambiguitie But to shew that Christ should not meane of his verie bodie when he so spake Neither S. Paule after ne the EuaÌ„gtlistes in the place adde any wordes or circumstauÌ„ces wherby to take away the propre significacion of the wordes bodie and bloud so as the same might same not in dede geueÌ„ as the Catholique faith reacheth but in significacion as thauctor would haue it For as for the wordes of Christ The spirit geueth life the fleshe profiteth nothing be to declare the two natures in Christ eche in their propertie apart considered but not as they be in Christes persoÌ„ vnited the mysterie of which vnioÌ„ suche as beleued not Christ to be God could not consider and yet to insinuate that vnto them Christ made mention of his descension from heauen and after of his ascension thither againe wherby they might vnderstand him verie God whose fleshe taken in the virgyns wombe and so geuen spiritually to be eaten of vs as I haue before opened viuisike and geueth life And this shall suffice here to shew how Christes inteÌ„t was to geue verely as he did in dede his precious bodie and bloud to be eaten and drunken accordyng as he taught theÌ„ to be verely meat and drinke and yet gaue and geueth them so vnder fourme of visible creatures to vs as we may conueniently and without horror of our nature receaue theÌ„ Christ therin condiscendyng to our infirmitie As for such other wranglyng as is made in the vnderstandyng of the wordes of Christ shall after be spoken of by further occasion The auctor vttereth a great meny wordes from the .viii. to the .xvii. chapter of the first booke declaryng spirituall hungre and thurst and the releuyng of the same by spirituall feadyng in Christ and of Christ as we constantly beleue in him to the confirmacioÌ„ of which beleif the auctor would haue the Sacramentes of Baptisme and of the bodie and bloud of Christ to be adminicles as it were and that we by them be preched vnto as in water bread and wyne and by them all our sences as it were spoken vnto or proprely touched whiche matter in the grosse although ther be some wordes by the way not tollerable yet if those wordes set apart the same were in the summe graunted to be good teachyng and holesome exhorcacion it conteyneth so no more but good matter not well applyed For the Catholique churche that professeth the truth of the presence of Christes bodie in the Sacrament would therewith vse that declaration of hungre of Christ and that spirituall refreshyng in Christe with the effect of Christes passion and death and the same to be thonely meane of mans regeneracion and feadyng also with the differences of that feadyng froÌ„ bodiely feadyng for continuyng this yearthly life But this toucheth not the principal point that should be entreated Whether Christ so ordered to fede suche as be regenerate in him to geue to them in the Sacrament the same his bodie that he gaue to be crucified for vs. The good man is fedde by faith and by the merites of Christes passion beyng the meane of the gift of that faith other giftes also and by
as I sayd before good men do not eate Christes bodye in the Sacrament vnder the visible signes for because it is not there and then much lesse should euel men reache it In the Catholique teachyng all the doctrine of eatyng of Christ is concluded in two maner of eatynges one in the visible Sacrament Sacramentall another spirituall without the Sacrament And because in the eatynge of the visible Sacrament Sainct Paule speaketh of vnworthy the same true teachynge to open the matter more clerely accordyng to Scripture noteth vnto vs thre maner of eatynges one spirituall onely whiche onely good men do feadyng in fayth without the visible Sacrament Another is bothe spirituall and Sacramentall whiche also good men onely do receiuyng the visible Sacrament with a true sincere charitable fayth The third maner of eatyng is Sacramentall onely whiche after sainct Paule euel men do vnworthely and therfore haue iudgement and condempnation and be gylty of our lordes bodye not estemynge our lordes bodye there And here arristeth the knot of conteÌ„tion with this auctor who sayeth euel men eate but the Sacramental bread whervnto I replie no more do good men neyther if this auctors doctrine of the Sacrament be trewe seyng he will haue it but a figure If this auctor wil say theffecte is other in good men then in euell men I will not stryue therin But to discusse this matter euidently we must righely open the truth and then must considre the visible Sacramentes as they be of gods ordinaunce who directeth vs where to seke for his giftes and howe whose workyng albeit it be not restrayned by his Sacramentes and therfore God maye and dothe inuisibly sanctifie and salue as it pleasith him yet he teacheth vs of his ordinarye workyng in the visible Sacramentes and ordereth vs to seke his giftes of helthe and life there wherupon sainct Augustin noteth howe Baptisme among the Augu. de peccatis meri et remiss libro 4. Cap. â—4 Christen men of Aphrike was verye well called helth and the Sacrament of Christes body called lyfe as in whiche God geueth helthe and lefe if we worthely vse them Thordinance of these sacraments is goddes worke the verye author of them who as he is himselfe vniforme as sainct Iames Iacob 1. sayth without alteration so as Dauid sayth his workes be true whiche is asmuch as vniforme for truth and vniforme answerith together As God is all goodnes so all his workes be good So as consideryng the substaunce of goddes workes and ordinauces as they be themselfe they be always vniforme certain and true in ther substaÌ„ce as God ordred them Among men for whom they be wrought and ordred ther is variete good men euell men worthy vnworthy but as sainct Paule sayeth there is but one Ephe. 4 lorde one fayth one Baptisme And the parable of the sower whiche Christe declared Mat. 5. himselfe sheweth a dyuersite of the groundes where the seed dyd fall but the sede was all one that dyd fall in the good grownde and that did fal in the noughty grownde but yt fructified onely in the good grownde whiche seede Christe calleth his worde And in the sixt of sainct Iohn sayeth Ioan. 6. his worde is spirite and lyfe so as by the teachyng of Christ spirite and lyfe maye fal vpon noughty men although for theire malice it carieth not nor fructifieth not in them And sainct Augustine accordyng hereunto In IoaÌ„ tract 27 noteth howe Christes wordes be spirite and life although thou dost carnally vnderstand them and hast no frute of them yet so they be spirite and life but not to the wherby appeareth the substaunce of gods ordynaunce to be one though we in the vsyng of it vary The promyses of God can not be disapointed by mannes infidelite as S. Paule saith which place Luther allegeth Rom. 3. to shewe the vnitie in the substaÌ„ce of Baptisme whither it be ministred to good or euell But S. Paule to the CorinthiaÌ„s declareth it 2. Cor. 2 notably in these wordes We be the good sauor of Christ in theÌ„ that be salued them that perishe Here S. Paule noteth the sauor good and one to diuerse men but after the diuersite in men of diuerse effectes in them that is to saye the sauor of life and the sauor of deathe whiche sayng of S. Paule the greke scolies gathered by Occumenius open and declare with similitudes in nature very aptely The dowe they say and the betel shall feade both vpon one oyntemeÌ„â— and the betel dye of it and the done strenghthened by it The diuersite in theffecte folouing of the diuersite of them that eate and not of that is â—aten whiche is alway one Accordyng herevnto S. Augustine againste the Donatistes geueth for a rule the sacrameÌ„tes to be one in all although they be not one that receiue vse them And therfore to knytte vp this matter for the purpose I entende and wryte it For wemust considre the substance of the visible SacrameÌ„t of Christes body and bloud to be always as of it selfe it is by Christes ordinaunce in the vnderstandyng whereof this auctor maketh variauÌ„ce and wold haue it by Christes ordinauÌ„ce but a figure which he hath not proued but and he had prowed it then is it in substaunce but a figure and but a figure to good men For it must be in substaunce one to good and bad and so neyther to good nor bad this SacrameÌ„t is otherwise dispensed then it is truely taught to be by preachyng Wherfore if it be more then a figure as it is in deade if by Christes ordynance it hath preseÌ„t vnder the forme of those visible sygnes of the fourme of bread and wyne the very body and bloud of Christ as hath been truly taught hitherto Then is the substaunce of the Sacrament one always as the oyntement was whether doues eate of it or betels And this Issue I ioyne with this An issue auctor that he shall not be able by any learnyng to make any diuersite in the substaunce of this sacrament what soeuer diuersite folowe in theffect For the diuersite of theffect is occasioned in them that receyue as before is proued And theÌ„ to anuswere this auctor I say that onely good men eate and drinke the body and bloud of Christ spiritually as I haue declared but al good euel receiue the visible Sacrament of that substaunce God hath ordeyned it whiche in it hathe no variance but is all one to good and euel And as for the Scriptures and doctours which this auctor allegeth to proue that onely good men receyne the body and bloud of Christ I grant it without contention speakyng of spitituall manducation and with lyuely faythe without the Sacrament But in the visible Sacrament euell men receyue the same that good men do for the substance of the Sacrament is by good ordinance all one And if this auctor would vse for a proufe that in the Sacrament Christes verye bodye is