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
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
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
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
one nature and that to be the nature of God into which the nature of maÌ„ was after there fansye transfused so confounded whervppon by implication a man might gather the nature of the humanitie not to remayne in Christ after the adunation in the virgines wombe Gelasius detestinge both Eutiches and Nestorius in his processe vtterith a catholique meaninge against theÌ„ both but he directith speciall argumentes of the two natures in man and of the two natures in the sacrament chefely againste the Eutichians to proue the nature of man to continue in Christ after the adunatioÌ„ being no absurditie for two different natures to coÌ„stitute one the same remayning two in ther proprietie and the natures to be aliud and aliud whiche signifieth different and yet in that not to be alius and alius in person whiche the Eutichians abhorred and catholiquely for so much against the Nestorians who by reason of two natures wolde haue two persons and because those Nestorians fansied the person of Christ patible to suffer all aparte therfore they denyed Christ conceyued God or borne God for thabolitioÌ„ of which parte of there herisie and to set forth the vnitie of Christes person The blessed virgin was callid deipara 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 godes mother whiche the Nestorians deluded by an exposition grauntinge she might so be callid because her sonne they sayd was afterward God and so she might be called goddes mother as an other woman may be called a bisshopps mother if her sonne be made a bisshoppe afterward although he departed no bishoppe from here And hereof I writte thusmuche because it shoulde appeare that Gelasius by his argumentes of the sacrament and of the two natures in man wente not aboute to proue that the godhed remayned in Christ after his incarnacion as thauctour of this booke wolde haue it for the Nestorian sayde the godhed was an accession to Christ afterward by merite and therfore with theÌ„ there was no talke of remaynynge when they estemed Christes nature in his conception singuler and onely by goddes power conceyued but onely man And again theutichiane so affirmed the coÌ„tinuaunce of the diuine nature in Christ after the adunation as Gelasius had no cause to proue that was graunted that is to saye the remayne of the diuine nature but one the other side to proue the remayne of the humaine nature in christ whiche by the Eutichians was by implicacion rather denyed Nestorius deuided God and man and graunted alwayes bothe to be in Christ continually but as two persons and the person of Christ beynge God dwellynge within the person of Christe beynge man and as Christ man encreased so Christ God dignified him and so diuided one Christ in twopersons because of the two natures so different whiche was againste the rules of oure faith and distroyed thereby the misterie of oure redemption And the Eutithians affirmynge catholiquely to be but one person in Christe did perniciously saye ther was therfore but one nature in Christ accomptynge by implication the humaine nature transfused in to the diuine nature and so confounded And to shewe the narrowe passage vigilius speake of Cyrillus a catholique auctour because writynge of the vnitie of Christes personne he expressed his meanynge by the worde nature signifyinge the holl of any one constitution whiche more properly the worde persone doth expresse Theutichians wolde by that worde after gather that he fauoured there parte so takynge the worde at a vauntage And because the same Cyrillus vsed the worde subsistence to signifie substaunce and therfore sayde in Christe there were two subsistences meanynge the diuine substaunce and humane substaunce forasmuche as the worde subsistence is vsed to expresse the personne that is to saye hypostasie There were that of that worde fâ—owardely vnderstanded wolde gather he shoulde saye that there were two personnes in Christ whiche was the nestoriaÌ„s herisie that he impugned Suche captiousnesse was there in wordes when arrogant men cared not by what meane to maintayne there errour these were both pernitious herises and yet subtill and eche had a maruaylous pretence of the defence of the glorie of God euen as is nowe pretended againste the sacrament And either parte abused many scriptures and had notable apparaunces for that they sayde so as he that were not well exercised in scriptures and the rules of oure faith might be easely circumuented Nestorius was the great Archibishoppe of Constantinoble vnto whom cyrill that condempnith his herisie writeth that seyng he sclauÌ„derith the holl Churche with his herisie he must resiste him although he be a father bycause Christ saith he that louith his father Mat. 10. aboue me is not worthy me But Nestorius as appeareth althowgh he vsed it ilfauerdly had muche learnynge and cloked his herisie craftely denying the grosse matter that they imputed to him to teache two Christes and other specialities layde to his charge and yet condempnynge the doctrine of Cyrill professyng his owne faith in his owne termes coulde not hide his herisie so but it appereth to be and conteyne in effecte that he was charged with and therfore an admonishment was geuen by a catholique writer Beleue not Nestorius thowgh he saye he teache but one Christ If one should here aske what is this to the purpose to talke so muche of these sectes I Answer this knowledge shall generallye serue to note the maner of them that goo a boute to deceyue the worlde with false doctrine whiche is good to learne An other speciall seruice is to declare howe the auctour of this booke eyther doth not knowe the state of the matter in these herises he speaketh of or elles misreporteth them of purpose And the arguynge of Gelasius in this matter wel opened shall geue light of the truth of the mysterie of the Sacrament Who against the Eutichians vseth two argumentes of examples one of the two different natures to remayne in one person of man and yet the Eutichians diffamed that coniunction with remayning of two different natures and called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 double nature and Gelasius to encontre that terme sayth they will with there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one nature reserue not one Christ and hole Christ And if two differeÌ„t natures that is to saye soule and body make but one man why not so in Christ For where scripture speaketh of the outwarde man and inwarde man that is to shewe Gelasius saith two diuerse qualities in the same man and not to deuide the same man into two men and so inteÌ„deth to shewe there owght to be no scruple to graunte two differente natures to remayne in there propriete for feare that euery diuerse nature should make a diuerse person and so in Christ deuide the vnitie concluding that the integritie of Christe cannot be but both the natures different remayning in ther propertie Carual imagination troubled the Eutichians to haue one person of two suche differeÌ„t natures remayning in ther properte which the Nestorians releued with deuise of
transubstaÌ„tiacioÌ„ And against theutichians for to improue ther confusion it suffiseth to shewe two different natures to be in the Sacrament and to remaine in there proprietie and the diuine nature not to confounde the earthely nature nor as it were to swalow it whiche was the dreme of the Eutichians And we muste forbere to presse all partes of thexample in the other argument from the personne of man beynge one of bodye and soule whiche the Churche dothe professe in symbole Athanasij of all receyued For Christ is one personne of two perfitte natures whereof the one was before the other in perfection creator of the other the one impassible the other passible Man is of the soule and bodye one two different natures but suche as for there perfection requyred that vnitie whereof none was before other perfit of Christ we saye he is consubstantiall to his father by the substaunce of his godhed and consubstantiall to man by the substance of his manhod but we may not so say man is consubstantial by his soule to angels and consubstantiall in his body to bestes because then we should deduce also Christ by meane of vs to be consubstantial to beastes thus I writ to shewe that we may not presse thexample in euery parte of it as thauctor of this booke vpon Gelatius who ouerturneth his doctrine of the figure And if that I haue Here sayde be well considered there maye appeare the greate ignoraunci of this author in the alleginge of Theodorete the applinge of him and speakynge of Nestorius in the ende For as the Eutichians reasonynge as Saincte Augustine saith to coÌ„fonude the NestoriaÌ„s fel in to an absurditie in the coÌ„fusioÌ„ of the two natures in christ so Theodoretus reasonyng against the EutichiaÌ„s fel in a vehemeÌ„t suspicioÌ„ to be a nestoriaÌ„ like as S. Augustine reasonyng against the maniches for defence of fre will semed to speke that the PellagiaÌ„s would alowe and reasoning against Pelagians semed to say that the manachees woulde allowe such a daunger it is to reduce extremities to the meane wherin Saincte Augustine was better purged then Theodorete was althowgh Theodorete was reconciled But for example of that I haue sayde this argumente of Theodoretus againste the Eutichians to auoyde confusion of natures in Christe sheweth howe in the sacremeÌ„t where the truth of the mysterye of the two natures in Christ may be as it were in a similitude lerned the presence of the bodye of Christe there in the Sacrament doth not altre nature that is to saye the proprietie of the visible creatures This sayinge was that the Nestoryans woulde drawe for there purpose to proue distincre persons againste whome Cyril trauayled to shewe that in the Sacrament the fleshe of Christ that was geuen to be eaten was geuen not as the fleshe of a comen man but as the fleshe of Godde wherby appeared the vnitie of the godhed to the manhode in Christe in one person and yet no confusion as Theodoretus doth by his argument Declare But whither the prynters negligence or this auctours ouersight hath confunded or confused this matter in the vtterynge of it I can not tell For the auctour of this booke concludeth solemly thus by induction of the premisses that euen so the bodye of Christe was after thascension Chaunged in to the godly substaunce I wene the printer left out a not and shoulde haue sayde not chaunged in the Godlye Substaunce for so the sence shoulde be as Peter Martyr reaporteth Theodorete And yet the triumphe this auctore makethe againste them he calleth for his pleasure Papistes with his forked dylemma maketh me Doubte whither he wiste what he sayde or no because he bryngeth in Nestorius so out of purpose sayinge the Papistes muste eyther graunt the Substance of breade and wyne to remaylie orelles to be of Nestorius heresie that the nature of Godhed remayned not This auctoure of the booke for the name of Nestorius shoulde haue put Entiches and then sayde for conclusion the nature of manhode remayned not in Christe And althoughe in Theodorete the substaÌ„ce of bread is spoken of â—o remayne yet because he doch after expounde himselfe to speake of that is seen and feit he femeth to speake of Substaunce after the comen capacitie and not as it is truely in learnynge vnderstanded an inwarde inuisible and not palpable nature but onely perceyued by vnderstandynge so as this outwarde nature that Theodorete speaketh of maye accordynge to his wordes trewly remayne not with standynge trausubstantiaction This auctoure Declareth playnely his iguoraunce not to perceyue whither the argumente of Theodorete and Gelasius tendeth whiche is properly againste the Eutichians rather then the Nestorians For and no propertye of breade remayne it proueth not the Godhed in Christe not to remayne but the humanitie onely to be as it were swalowed vp of the diuinite whiche the Eutichians entended and specially after Christes resurrection againste whom the argument by Theodorere is specially brought howesoeuer this auctor confounbeth the Nestoryans and Eutichians names and taketh one for an other whiche in so highe a matter is no smale faulte and yet no great fault among so many other howger and greter as be in this booke committed wherin this auctor not seynge howe lytell he hath done concludeth yet as constantly as though he had throwen all downe afore him entendyng to shewe that the doctrine of transubstantiacion dependeth onely of anctorite whiche is not so vsyng the sayinges of duns and Gabriel as he reporteth them for his purpuse because they as he saith bost them selfe what they coulde do if the determina cion of the consaille were not and thus euery idle speache maye haue estimacion with this auctor against the receyued truth And from this poynte of the matter the auctour of this booke maketh a passage with a litell sporte at theÌ„ he fansieth or liketh to cal so Englishe Papistes by the waye entreprise to answere all suche as he supposeth reasons for transubstanciation and auctorites also First he findeth himselfe myrth in deuisynge as he calleth them the Papistes to saye that Christe is made a newe whiche fansye if it were so is againste the reall prefence aswell as transubstantiacion In whiche wordes because euery wise reader may ese howe this auctor playeth I will saye no more but this Christe is not made a newe nor made of the substaunce of bread as of a matter and that to be the Catholique doctrine this auctor if he be right named knoweth welynough and yet spendeth two leanes in it The solution to the seconde reason is allmost as foundely handled alludynge from impanatioÌ„ to Inaquation although it was neuer sayde in Scripture this water is the holy ghoost but in baptisme to be water and the holy goost also of the dowe is not sayd this is the holy ghoost but the holy ghost descended as in the resemblaÌ„ce of a dowe The substance of bread is not adnihilate because goddes worke is no adnihilation who geueth
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
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
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
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
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
a figuratiue speache but such as expresseth the common plaine vnderstandyng and then the common vse of the figure causeth it to be taken as a common propre speache As these speches drinke vp this cup or eate this dishe is in dede a figuratiue speche but by custume made so common that it is reputed the plaine spech because it hath but one only vnderstaÌ„dyng commonly receyued And when Christ sayd This cuppe is the newe testament the propre speche therof in lettre hath an absurdite in reason fayth also But wheÌ„ Christ sayd This is my body although the truth of the litteral sence hath an absurditie in carnall reason yet hath it no absurditie in humilite of fayth nor repugneth not to any other truthe of scripture And seyng it is a singuler miracle of Christ wherby to exercise vs in the fayth vnderstaÌ„ded as the plaine wordes signifie in their propre sence there can no reasonyng be made of other figuratiue speches to make this to be their felowe and like vnto them No man denyeth the vse of figuratiue speaches in Christes supper but suche as be equal with plaine propre spech or be expouÌ„ded by other Euangelistes in plaine speche In the .lxxiiii. leef this auctor goth about to geue a general solution to all that may be said of Christes beyng in yearth in heaueÌ„ or the. Sacrament and geueth instructioÌ„s how these wordes of Christes diuine nature figuratiuely spiritually really carnally corpoporally may be placed and thus he sayth Christ in his diuine nature may be sayd to be in the earth figuratiuely in the sacrameÌ„t spiritually in the man that receiueth but really carnally corporally only in heaueÌ„ Let vs coÌ„sider the placyng of these termes When we say christis in his diuine nature euery wher is he not also really euery where accordyng to the true esseÌ„ce of his godhed in dede euery where that is to say not in fansye nor imagination but verely truely therfore really as we beleue so in dede euery where And when Christe is spiritually in good men by grace is not Christe in them really by grace but in fansye and imagination And therfore whatsoeuer this auctor sayth the worde really may not haue such restraint to be referred only to heaueÌ„ onles the auctor would deny the substaunce of the godhed which as it coÌ„prehendeth all beyng incoÌ„prehensible is euery wher without limitatioÌ„ of place so as it is truly it is in dede is therfore really is therfore of Christ must be sayd whersouer he is in his diuine nature by powre or grace he is ther really whither we speake of heaueÌ„ or yearth As for the termes carnally corporaly as this auctor semeth to vse theÌ„ in other places of his booke to expresse the maner of presence of the humayne nature in Christ I meruayle by what scripture he wil proue that Christes body is so carnally and corporally in heauen we be assured by fayth grounded vpon the scriptures of the truth of the beyng of Christes fleshe and body there and the same to be a true fleshe and a true bodye but yet in suche sence as this auctor useth the termes carnai and corporal against the Sacrament to implie a grossenes he can not so attribute those termes to Christes body in heauen S. Augustine after the grosse Augu. de ciui tate dei Grego NaziaÌ„zenê° de baptismo sence of carnally sayth Christ reigneth not carnally in heauen And Gregorie NaziaÌ„zen sayth Although Christ shall come in the last day to iudge so as he shal be seen yet there is in him no grossenes he sayth And referreth the maner of his beyng to his knowlege only And our resurrection sainct Augustine sayth althoughe it shal be of our true fleshe yet it shall not be carnally And when this auctour hath diffamed as it were the termes carnally and corporally as termes of grossenes to whom he vsed alwaies to put as an aduersatiue the terme spiritually as thought carnally and spiritually might not agre in one Nowe he would for al that place them in heauen where is no carnalitie but all the maner of beyng spirituall where is noo grossenes at all the secrecie of the maner of whiche life is hidden from us and suche as eye hath not seen or eare herd or ascended in to the heart and thought of man I knowe these termes carnally and corporally maye haue a good vnderstandyng out of the mouth of him that had not diffamed them with grossenes or made them aduersaryes to spirituall and a man may saye Christ is corporally in heauen because the truth of his bodye is there and carnally in heauen because his fleshe is truely there but in this vnderstandyng both the wordes carnally and corporally may be copled with the worde spiritually which is against this auctors teaching who appointeth the worde spiritually to be spokeÌ„ of Christes preseÌ„ce in the maÌ„ that receiued the sacrameÌ„t worthely which speech I do not disalowe but as Christ is spiritually in the man that dothe receyue worthely the Sacrament So is he in him spiritually before hereceyue orels he can not receiue worthely as I haue before sayd And by this appereth howe this auctor to frame his general solution hath vsed neither of the termes really carnally corporally or spiritually in a conuenient ordre but hath in his distribution mysused them notably For Christe in his diuine nature is really euerye where and in his humayne nature is carnally and corporally as these wordes signifie substaunce of fleshe and bodye continually in heauen to the daye of iudgement neuerthelesse after that signification preseÌ„t in the SacrameÌ„t also And in those termes in that signification the fathers haue spoken of the Sacrament as in the particuler solutions to 〈…〉 tours hereafter shal appeare Mary as touchyng the vse of the worde figuratiuely to saye that Christe is figuratiuely in the bread and wyne is a saiyng whiche this aucroâ—â— hath not proued at all but is a doctrine before this diuerse tymes reproued nowe by this auctour in England renewed Let vs nowe consider what particuler answers this auctor diuiseth to make to the fathers of the church and first what he saith to sainct Elementes Epistel his handelyng wherof is worthie to be noted First he sayth the Epistel is not Clementes but fayned as he sayth many other thynges Clement be for their purpose he sayth whiche solution is shorte and may be sone learned of noughty men and noughtly applied further as they liste But this I may say if this Epistel wer fayned of the Bapistes then do they shewe themselfe fooles that could fayne no better but so as this auctor mighte of their fayned Epistell gather thre notes againste them This auctors notes be these First that the bread in the sacrameÌ„t is called the Lords body and that the brokeÌ„ bread be called the peces and fragmentes of the Lordes body Marke well reader this note that speaketh so muche of bread where the
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
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
where he geuteh a rule of recapitulatioÌ„ as he calleth it when that is tolde after that was done afore and therfore we maye not argue so firmely vpon the ordre of the tellynge in the speche S. Augustine bryngeth an example Augustinus de doctrina 〈◊〉 libro 3. Cap. 36. that by ordre of tellyng Adam was in paradise or any tree was brought forth for feadyng with diuerse other wherewith I will not encoÌ„bre the reader Theuangeliste reherseth what Christ said and did simplye and truely whiche story we must so place in vnderstandyng as we tryfle not the mysterie at stayng and stoppyng of lettres and syllables And therfore though the worde take eate goo before the wordes This is my bodye we may not argue that they tooke it and eate it afore christ had tolde them what he gaue them and all these often rehersalles of bread with he toke bread he brake bread and blessed bread and if ye will adde helde bread all this induce no consequence that he therfore gaue bread For he gaue that he had consecrate and gaue that he made of breade If Christe when he was tempted to make stones breade had taken the stones and blessed them and delyuered them saiynge This is bread had he then delyuered stones or rather that he made of stones bread Such maner of reasonyng vseth Peter Martyr as this auctor doth whose foly I may well say he sawe not to eschwe it but as appeareth rather to folowe it And yet not content to vse this fonde reasonyng this auctor calleth Papists to witnesse that they might lawgh at it because the EuaÌ„geliste telleth the story so as Christ sayde drincke and then could after what it was this auctor fansieth that the Apostels should be so hasty to drinke ere Christ had tolde them what he gaue whiche they had I thinke he woulde haue stayed the cuppe with his hande or byd them rary whiles he had tolde them more I wil no further trauayle with this resonyng which it is pitie to heare in suche a matter of grauite of such coÌ„sequence as it is both in body soule We maye not tryfle with Christes wordes after this sorte When S. Paul sayth we be partakers of one bread he speaketh not of materiall breade but of Christes bodye oure heauenly bread which to all is one cannot be consumed but able to fead all the worlde and if this auctor geueth credite to Theodoretus whom he calleth an holy man theÌ„ shal he neuer fynde the Sacrament called bread after the sanctificacion but the bread of life the like whereof shoulde be in an Epistell of Chrysostome as Peter Martyr allegeth not yet prynted by whose auctorices if they haue any as in there place this auctor maketh muche of them al these argumentes be al tryfles for all the namynge of bread by Christ and Sainct Paule and all other must be vnderstanded before the sanctificacion and not after And if thou reader lokest after vpon Theodoretus and that Epistell Thou shalt fynde true that I saye wherby all this questyoning with Papistes is onely a dalyinge for this auctour pleasure againste his owne auctors and all learnynge In the thirde Chapter wryten in the .xxi. leafe it troubleth this auctour that the doctrine of transubstantiacion is in his Iudgement againste naturall reason and naturall operacion in the entrye of whiche matter he graunteth wisely that they shoulde not preuayle against gods worde and yet he saith when they be ioyned with gods worde they be of a great moment to coÌ„ferme any trueth wherin if he meaneth to coÌ„firme gods worde by reason or gods mysteryes by natural operacion myne vnderstandynge cannot reache that doctrine and is more strange to me then this auctor maketh transubstantiacion to be to him As for the reason of vacuum declareth a vacuum that nature abhorreth not And if we speake after the rules of nature quantite filleth the place rather then substance And shortely to answer this auctor it is not sayd in the doctrine of transubstautiat ioÌ„ that there remayneth nothyng for in the visible forme of bread remayneth the propre obiecâ—e of euery sence truly that is seen with the bodely eye is truely seen that is felt is truly felt that is sauered is truely sauered those thinges corrupte putrifie nurrisne and consume after the trueth of the former nature God so ordryng it that create al vsing singulerly that creature of breade not to vnitie it vnto him as he did mannes nature to be in bread impanate and breaded as he was in fleshe incarnate And as for reason in place of seruice as beyng inferior to fayth will agree with the fayth of Transubstantiacion welynoughe For if our fayth of the true presence of Christes very body he true as it is moste true grounded vppon the wordes of Christ This is my body Then reason yeldyng in that truth wyl not stryue with transubstaÌ„tiacioÌ„ but plainly affirme that by here Iudgement if it be the bodye of Christ it is not bread For in the rule of comeÌ„ reason the graunte of one substance is the denyal of an other therfore reason hathe these coÌ„clusioÌ„s througly what soeuer is breade is no wyne what soeuer is wyne is no milke so forth And therfore beynge ones beleued this to be the body of Christ reason sayth by and by it is not breade by the rule aforesayde wherby appeareth howe reason doth not stryue with transubstantiacion beynge ones conquered with fayth of the true presence qf Christes body whiche is most euident and no whitte darkened by any thynge this auctour hath brought As for naturall operation is not in all mens Iudgementes as this auctour taketh it who semeth to repute it for an inconuenience to saye that the accidentes of wyne do sowre and waxe vinegre But Wlpian a man of notable learnynge is not afrayde to wrytte in the lawe In venditionibus de contrahenda emptione in the pandectes that of wine and vinegre there is prope eadem vsia in maner one substance wherin he sheweth him selfe far against this auctors skil which I put for an example to shewe that naturall operations haue had in naturall mennes iudgementes diuerse consideracioÌ„s one sumtime repugnante to an other and yet the auctors of both opinions called Philosophers all Amonge whiche sum thought for exaÌ„ple they spake wisely that estemed all thinge to altre as swiftelye as the water runneth in the streame and thought therfore no man coulde vttre a worde beyng the same man in th ende of a worde that he was when he beganne to speake and vsed a similitude Like as a man standing in one place cannot touche the same one water twise in a runnynge streame no more can a man be touched the same man twise but he altreth as swiftely as doth the streame These were laughed to skorne yet they thought themselfe wise in naturall speculation Aristotel that is muche estemed and worthely fansyed a first matter in all things to be one
in whiche consideracion he semeth to be as extreme in a staye as the other fonde Philosophers were in mouynge By whiche two extremites I condempne not naturall speculation wherwith I thinke God pleased for man to meruayle in coÌ„teÌ„placion of his inferiour workes and to tame his rashe witin the inexplicable variete of it but to vse it so as to make it an open aduersary to relligion it is me semeth without all purpose The doctrine of transubstantiacion doth not teache no earthly thynge to remayne in the Sacrament but contrary wise that the visible forme of bread and wyne is there as the visible sygne of the Sacramente and to be the same in greatnes in thicknes in waight in sauor taste in propriete also to corrupte putrifie and nurrish as it did before and yet the substaunce of those visible creatures to be conuerted into the substance as Emissene sayth of the bodye of Christ And here will reason do seruice to fayth to saye if there be a conuersion in deade as faith teacheth and none of the accidentes be conuerted then the substaunce is conuerted for in euery thynge all is substaunce and accidentes but the accidentes be not chaunhed and yet a chaunge there is it muste nedes be then that substance is chaunged Whiche deduction reason wil make and so agree with transubstantiacion inconuenient due seruice And thus I haue gotten reasons good will whatsoeuer this auctor sayth and from the grounde of faith haue by reason deduced suche a conclusion to proue transubstantiacion as onles he destroy the true faith of the presence of Christes very body which he cannot must nedes be allowed And as for naturall operacion of putrifiynge engenbryng worâ—es burnyng suche experiences whiche beynge the substance of bread absent this auctor thincketh caÌ„not be so when he hath thought througly he can of his thought conclude it onely to be meruayle and it be so as againste the comen rules of philosophie wherin as me semeth it were a nerer waye as we be admonished to leaue serchyng of howe of the worke of god in the mysterie of Christes presence beynge that the celestiall parte of the Sacrament so not to serche howe in thexperience of thope racion of nature of the visible earthely parte of the Sacrament When God sent MaÌ„na in deserte the people sawe many meruayles in it besides the comeÌ„ operacion of nature and yet they neuer troubled them selfe with howe 's And as one very well Wryteth it is consonante that as there is a great myracle in the worke of god to make there present the substaunce of the bodye of Christ so likewise to knowlege the myracle in the absence of the substaunce of bread and both the heauenly and earthely parte of the Sacrament to be myraculouse so many myracles to be ioyned together in one agreeth with the xcellencie of the Sacrament As for thobiectioÌ„s this auctor maketh in this matter be such as he findeth in those scolasticall wryters that discusse as they maye or laboure theraboute wherwith to satisfie idle imaginacions and to make learned men prompt and readye to say sumwhat to these tryfles whose argumentes this auctor taketh for his principall fondacion For playne resolution and auoydyng wherof if I would nowe for my parte brynge for the there solutions and answers there were a parte of scole Theologie so brought into English to no great prayse of eyther of our lernings but our vayne labour to set abrode other mens trauayles to trouble rude wittes with matter not necessary by such â–ª vnreuerent disputynge and altercacioÌ„ to hynder the truth Finally all that this auctor reherseth of absurditie repugneth in his estimacion onelye to the conclusion of philosophie which should nothyng moue the humble simplicite of faith in a christeÌ„ maÌ„ who merueyleth at goddes workes and reputeth can not comprehend the wayes and meanes of them As in ansvveryng to the thirde Chapittre I haue shewed howe reason receyued in to faythe 's seruice dothe not striue with traÌ„substaÌ„tiatioÌ„ but agreeth well with it so I truste to shewe howe mannes sences whiche this auctor calleth the fiue wittes be no such directe aduersaries to traÌ„substanciation as a matter wherof they can no skyll And therfore to a question this auctor asketh in th end of the second columne 〈◊〉 the. 22. sect whiche is this If we beleue our sences in thaccidentes why may we not do the like of the substaÌ„ce I answere thus that the sences can no skyll of substance as lerned men speake of substance nor this auctor neither if a man should iudge him by this question For and a sensuall man one that folowith his rude sences would say Tume hither master scoler I here muche talkyng in this worlde of substance and accidence and if he were of a mery nature would say his litel boye had lerned his accidence but himselfe woâ—teth not perfitely what substaunce meaneth as clerkes terme it and bringyng forth a piece of bread an other of chese a pot of ale would desyre the scoler to lerne him the substaunce of them and shewe it with his finger and shewe him also what difference betwene the substaunce of bread chese and ale I thinke the scoler with thaduise of all at Cambredge and Oxforde also coulde not do it and the more the scoler should trauaile with such a rude man so sensuall in the matter I thincke he shoulde be the further of onles the sensuall man would set a parte his rude wittes and lerne of the scoler sume reasonable vnderstandyng whiche is that the substaÌ„ce is the inwarde nature wherin those that be accidentes do naturally staye the quantite immediatly and the rest by meane of quantite in whiche the rest may be said to staye whiche wordes were new diuinite to this man who touchinge the bread woulde aske the scoler rowndely Tallest thowe not this substaÌ„ce this goode rownde thicke piece that I handle The scoler wold answere syr as I shall answere yone you wil say I play the sophister for I must speake lernynge to yowe that yowe caÌ„ no skil of be not angry though I tel yowe so for ye were lerned ye would not aske me this questioÌ„ for substaÌ„ce as it is properly vnderstaÌ„ded to be of this or that thing is properly neither sene by it selfe or felt yet by reason coÌ„prehended truely to be in that we fele see neuerthelesse in comeÌ„ speach in the speache of such as for the purpose speake after the comâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worde 〈…〉 is vsed to signifie that is 〈◊〉 or felt so ye may say ye see the substance or feale the substaÌ„ce of bread yet yet ye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see but the colour by it the largenesse and feale the heate or coldenes moysture or drynes weight or lightnes hardenes or softnes thicknes and thynnes If ye will learne what substaÌ„ce is ye must leue your outwarde seÌ„ces coÌ„sidre in your vnderstaÌ„dyng howe in euery thynge that is there
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
onely which not with stonding the newe enterprise of this authour to denye the reall preseÌ„ce is so ferce vehement as it ouerthroueth his newe purpose or he cumith in his ordre in his booke to entreat of it For there can no demonstracion be made more euidente for the catholique faith of the real preseÌ„ce of Christs body in the SacrameÌ„t then that the truth of it was so certaynly byleued as they toke Christes very body as verely in the sacrameÌ„t euen as the soule is present in the body of maÌ„ S. Chrisostomes wordes in deade if this Chrisostomus auctour had had them eyther truly translate unto him or had taken the paynes to haue truly traÌ„slate them himselfe whiche as peter martyrsaieth be not in printe but were founde in florence a copy wherof remayneth in tharche deacon or Archebisshoh of Caunterburies handes or els if this authour had reaported the wordes as they be ttanslate in to englishe owt of peter martyrs booke wherin in sum pointe the translator in Englishe semeth to haue attayned by gesse the seÌ„se more perfitely theÌ„ peter martyr vttereth it hiself if eyther of this had beeÌ„ done the mater shuld haue semed for somuch the more playne But what is this to make foundacion of an argumeÌ„te vpoÌ„ a secrete copye of an epistell vttred at one tyme iÌ„ diuerse seÌ„ses I shall to wch one speciall point peter martyr saith in lateÌ„ whoÌ„ the translator in englishe therin followeth that the bread is reputed worthy the name of the lordes body This authour englishyng the same place turnith it exalted to the name of the lordes body which wordes of exalting cum nerer to the purpose of this auctour to haue the bread but a figure ther with neuer the holyer of it selfe But a figure caÌ„ne neuer be accompted worthy the name of our lordes body the very thing of the Sacramente onles there were the thing in dede as there is by coÌ„uersion as the Church truely teacheth Is not here reader a meruelouse diuersitie in reporte and the same so setforth as thowe that cannest but reade englishe maiste euideÌ„tly see it God ordringe it so as such varieties and contradictions shuld so manyfestely appeare where the truth is impugned Againe this auctor makith Chrisostome to speake straÌ„gely in th ende of this auctoritie that the diuine nature restith in the body of Christ as thowgh the nature of man were the staye to the diuine nature wheir as in that vnion the rest is an ineffable mysterie the two natures in Christ to haue one subsistence called termed an hypostasie therfore he that hath translate peter martyr in to englishe doth traÌ„slate it thus The diuine coÌ„stitutioÌ„ the nature of the body adyoyned thiese two both to gyther make one sonne and one person Thow reader maiste compare the bookes that be a brode of Peter martyr in laten peter martyr in englishe and this auctours booke with that I write and so deme whither I saye true or no. But to the purpose of sainct Chrisostomes wordes if they be his wordes he directeth his argument to shewe by the my sterie of the SacrameÌ„t that as that as in it there is no confuâ—ion of natures but eche remayneth in his proprietie So likewise in Christ the nature of his hodheade doth not confounde the nature of his manhode If the visible creatures were in the Sacrament by the presence of Christes body the râ— truly present beinge inuisible also as that body is impalpable also as that is incorruptiptible also as that is then were the visivisible nature altred and as it were confounded whiche Chrisostom saieth is not so for the nature of the bread remayneth by which worde of nature is conueniently signified the propriete of nature For prouf wherof to shewe remayninge of the proprietie with out alteracion Chrisostom maketh onely the resemblance and before I haue shewed howe nature signifieth the proprietie of nature and may signifie the owtward part of nature that is to say thaccideÌ„tes beyng substaunce in his propre significatioÌ„ the inward nature of the thing of the conuersion wherof is specially vnderstanded transubstantiation Nowe foloweth to answere to Belasius who abhorrynge bothe the herises of Eutiches Gelasius and Nestorius in his treatise againste the EutichiaÌ„s forgetteth not to coÌ„pare with there errour in extremitie one the one side thextreme errour of the Nestorians one the other side but it principally entendeth the confusion of the Eutichians with whome he was specially troubled These two herises were not so grosse as thauctour of this boke reporteth them wherin I will writte what Uigilius saith Inter Nestorii ergo quondaÌ„ Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae non rectoris Uigilius diaio 4. sed dissipatoris non pastoris sed praedatoris sacrilegum dogma Eutichetis nefariam detestabilem sectam ita serpeÌ„tinae grassationis sese calliditas temperauit vt vtrumque sine vtriusque periculo plerique vitare non possint dum si quis Nestorii perfidiam damnat Euchicetis putatur errori succumbere rursum dum Eutichianae haeresis impietateÌ„ destruit Nestorii arguitur dogma erigere These be vigilius wordes in his first booke whiche be thus much in Englishe Betwene thabominable teaching of Nestorius sumtyme not ruler but waster not past oÌ„r but pray sercher of the church of coÌ„staÌ„tinople the wicked detestable secte of Eutiches the crafte of the deuels spoyling so facioned it self that meÌ„ could not auoyde any of the sectes without dauÌ„ger of thother So as whiles any maÌ„ rdeÌ„pneth the falsenes of the nestoriaÌ„ he maye be though fallen to the errour of the Eutichian and whiles he distroyeth the wickednesse of the eutichianes herisie he may be chaleÌ„ged to realeue the teachinge of the Nestorian This is the senteÌ„ce of vigilius By whiche appereth howe these herisies were both subtely conueyed without so playne contradiction as this auctor either by ignoraunce or of purpose fayneth ashthowh the nestoriaÌ„ should saye Christ was a perfit man but not God and the Eutichian clene contrary very God but not man For if the herisies had bene suche vigilius had had no cause to speake of any suche ambiguitie as he notith that a maÌ„ shoulde hardely speake againste the one but he might be suspected to fauour the other And yet I graunte that the Nestorians sayinges might implie christ not to be God because they wolde two distincte different natures to make also two distincte persons and so as it were two Christes the one onely man and the other onely God so as by there teachinge God was neither incarnate nor as Gregorie Nazianzene saith maÌ„ deitate for so he is termed to saye The Eutichians as Sainct Augustine saith reasoninge against the Nestoriaus becam heritiques themselfe and because we coÌ„fesse truly by faith but one Christ the sonne of God very God The Eutichians saye although there were in the virgins wombe before thadunation two natures yet after thadunation in that mystery of Christes incarnacion there is but
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
the visible churche by his visible minister the visible Prieste whereof Chrisostome woulde by his wordes put vs in remeÌ„brance not deniyng therby the visible ministerye no more then he doth in his other wordes denye the visible forme of bread and yet woulde we should not loke onely vpon that but whither fayth directeth vs that is to saye vpon the very bodye of Christ there inuisiblye present whiche fayth knoweth and knoweth it to be there the very bodye and there therfore to be no breade which breade this true confession of Christes body present by fayth excludeth But touchyng the Priest Sainct Chrisostomes words do by no meane teach vs that there is no visible Prieste but to thinke that the bodye of Christe is delyuered of Christes handes which excludeth not in like sorte the ministre visible as fayth doth the substaunce inuisible of bread in the Sacrament The one saiynge of Chrisostome is a godlye exhortacion accordynge to the truth the other is a doctrine of fayth in the truth we be not taught that the Prieste is Christ but we be taught that the substaunce of the breade is made Christes body And then the questioÌ„ in the wordes of Chrisostome Seest thou breade is as muche to saye as remembrest thy fayth as beynge one of the faythfull that knowe whiche terme Saincte Augustine vsed And then Chrisostome to conferme oure fayth in so high a mysterye declareth howe we shoulde thinke Christe to delyuer his bodye himselfe as a thynge farre excedynge mannes power to do it And with other heauenlye wordes setteth forthe the greatenesse of that mysterye with wordes of godlye and good meditacion conueniente for so high a matter to adourne it accordynglye whiche because they be holsome and mete allegoryes wherwith to drawe and lifte vp our myndes to celestiall thoughtes we maye not therby esteme the substaunce of that mysterye to be but in allegorye here in flede of a solution the auctor fylieth thre whole leaues with proâ—fe of thaâ— is not necessarye howe a deniall by comparison is not vtterlye a deniall whiche is in dede true and as one was answeâ—ed aâ— Cambridge when he pressed the responâ—all what saye ye to myne argumente whiche was not in dede of his owne makynge The responsall lesâ—e his Latyn and toulde the opp 〈…〉 before all his countrye frindes in playne Englishe It is a good argumente syr quod he but no thynge to the purpose and so is of this matrier the entreatynge of deniall by comparison good but nothynge to the purpose here and it is an obseruacion that requireth good iudgemente or elles maye therby be induced many absurdities Chrysostome as I sayde before speakynge to the Christen man semeth to aske whither he vseth his fayth or no For if he seeth breade he seeth not with faith whiche seeth the bodye of Christ there presence and so no breade If the Christen man thinke of passage throughe him of the celestiall fode he hathe therein no spirituall thoughte suche as fayth engendreth and therfore sayth Chrysostome absit here in these wordes of Chrisostome is no denyall with comparison and therfore this auctour mighte haue spared his treatise in these thre leaues For in those wordes when Chrisostome saith Thinke not thou receyuest the bodye of Christe by a man c. There this auctour so neglecteth his owne rule as in his thirde booke he maketh a solemne argument that by those Chrisostomes wordes we receyue not the bodye of Christ at all seyng Chrisostome sayth we may not thinke we receyue it by man So lytell substancially is this matter handled as a man might saye here were many accidentall wordes withoute a substaunce or myracle howe strange so euer the same seme to this auctor otherwise Nowe let vs here what this auctor will saye to Saincte Ambrose He reherseth him at good lenght but translateth him for aduantage As among other in one place where Saincte Ambrose sayth This Sacramente whiche thou receyuest is made by the worde of Christ this auctor translateth is done by the worde of Christ because makynge muste be vnderstanded in the substaunce of the Sacrament chiefly before it is receyued and doynge maye be referred to the effecte chieflye for whiche purpose it shoulde seme thauctor of this booke cannot awaye with the worde made where at it pleaseth him in an other place of this booke to be merye as at an absurditie in the Papistes when in dede both Saincte Ambrose here Saincte Cyprian and Sainct Hierome also in there places vse the same worde speakynge of this Sacrament and of the wonderfull worke of God in ordenyng the substance of it by such a conuersion as breade is made the bodye of Christe But as touchynge thanswere of this auctor to Sainct Ambrose it is diuerse For first he doth trauerse thauctoritie of the booke whiche allegation hath been by other here to fore made and answered vnto in such wise as the booke remayneth Saincte Ambroses still and MelaÌ„cton saith it semeth not to him vnlike his and therfore allegeth this verye place out of him against Oecolampadius This auctor will not sticke in that allegation but for answere sayth that Saincte Ambrose saith not that the substaunce of the breade and wyne is gone and that is true he sayth not so in syllables but he sayth so in sence because he speaketh of a chaunge so playnelye in the breade into that it was not wherunto this auctor for declaration of change sayth the breade and wyne be changed into an higher astate nature and condition whiche thre wordes of astate nature and condition be good wordes to expresse the chaunge of the breade into the bodye of Christe whiche bodye is of an other nature an other state and condition then the substaunce of the breade without coÌ„parison hygher But then this auctor addeth to be taken as holye meates and drinkes wherein if he meaneth to be taken so but not to be so as his teachynge in other places of this boke is the breade to be neuer the holyer But to signifie an holy thynge then is the chaunge nothynge in dede touchynge nature but onelye as a cowarde maye be channged in apparell to playe Hercules or Sampsons parte in a playe himselfe therby made neuer the hardyer man at all but onelye appoynted to signifie an hardye man of whiche mannes chaunge althoughe his astate and condition might in speache be called chaunged for the tyme of the playe yet no man woulde terme it thus to saye his nature were changed whither he mente by the worde nature the substaunce of the mannes nature or propertie for in these two poyntes he were still the same man in Hercules coote that he was before the playe in his owne so as if there be nothynge but a figure in the bread then for so much this auctors other teaching in this booke where he sayth the breade is neuer the holyer is a doctrine better then this to teache a chaunge of the breade to an higher nature when it
is onelye appoynted to signifie an holye thynge And therfore this auctours answere garnished with these there gaye wordes of astate nature and condicion is diuised but for a shifte suche as agreeth not with other places of this booke nor in it selfe neyther And where Saincte Ambrose merueyleth at goddes worke in the substaunce of the Sacrament this auctour shifteth that also to the effecte in him that receyueth whiche is also meruelous in deade but the substaunce of the Sacramente is by Saincte Ambrose spiritually merueyled at howe breade is made the bodye of Christ the visible matter outwardely remayninge and onelye by an inwarde chaunge whiche is of the inwarde nature called properlye substaunce in learnynge and a substaunce in dede but perceyued onely by inwarde vnderstandynge as the substaunce present of Christes moste precious body is a very substance in dede of the bodye inuisiblye presente but present in dede and onelye vnderstanded by moste true and certen knowledge of fayth And although this auctor noteth howe in the examples of mutacion brought in by Sainct Ambrose the substaunces neuer the lesse remayned the same that skilleth not for the wonder of those meruelles serue for an induction to releaue the weake fayth of man in this miracle of the Sacramente and to represse the arrogancie of reason presumynge to serche suche knowledge in goddes secrete workes whereof if there might be a reason geuen it neded no fayth And where there is a like there is no singularite as this miracle in the Sacramente in notablye singuler and therfore none other founde like vnto it The Sacramentall mutation which this auctor newly so termeth is a mere shifte to auoyde amonge suche as be not lerned the truthe of goddes miracle in this chaunge whiche is in dede suche as Sainct Ambrose speaketh of that of bread is made the bodye of Christe whiche Sainct Ambrose in an other place termeth it the grace of the body of Christe and all is one for it is a greate grace to haue the bodye of Christ for our foode present there And out of Christes mouth callynge the bodye of Christe is makynge the bodye of Christe whiche wordes callyng signifiynge namynge vsed in sainct Ambrose wrytynges do not limite Christes wordes and restrayne them to anonely callyng an only signifiyng or an only naming but geue an vnderstaÌ„dyng agreable to other of Sainrt Ambrose wordes that shewe the breade after consecracion to be the bodye of Christ the callyng to be vnderstanded a real callynge of the thynge that so is made and likewise a reall signifiynge of the thynge in dede present and a reall namynge as the thynge is in dede As Christe was named Iesus because he is the sauiour of his people in dede And thus perusynge this auctors answers I trust I haue noted to the reader with howe small substaunce of matter this auctor impugneth transubstanciation and howe slenderly he goeth about to answere suche auctors as by their seueral writynges conferme the same besides the consent of ChristeÌ„dom vniuersally receyuyng the same And howe in the meane waye this auctor hath by his owne handes pulled downe the same vntrue doctrine of the figuratiue speache that himselfe so lately hath diuised or rather because this matter in his book goeth before he hath in this seconde booke marred his frame or euer he cummeth to the thirde booke to set it vp In the seconde volume of the. 43. leef the auctor goeth about to note 6. absurdites in the doctrine of transubstantiation whiche I entende also to peruse This first is this First if the Papistes be demanded what thyng it The auctor is that is broken what is eaten and what is chawed with the teath lippes mouth in this SacrameÌ„t they haue nothynge to answere but thaccidentes For as they say bread and wyne be not the visible elementes in this Sacrament but onely ther accidentes and so they be forsed to saye that accidentes be broken eaten Dronken chawed and swalowed without any substaunce at all whiche is not onely againste all reason but also againste the doctrine of all auncient auctors This is accompted by this auctor the The anâ—wer first absurdire inconuenience whiche is by him rhetorically setforth with uppes and mouth and chawynge not substanciall termes to the matter but accidentall For opeuynge of whiche matrer I will repete sum parte agayne of that I haue wryten before when I made the scoler answere the rude man in declaration of substaunce whiche is that albeit that sensible thynge whiche in speache vttered after the capacite of comen vnderstandyng is called substaunce be comprehended of oure sences yet the inwarde nature of euery thyng whiche is in lernynge properly called substance is not so distinctly knowen of vs as we be able to shewe it to the sences or by wordes of difference to distincte in diuers kyndes of thynges one substaunce from another And herin as Basill Basilius homil 1. Hâ—x a He 〈…〉 eron sayth if we should go about by separation of all the accidentes to discerâ—e the substance by it selfe alone we should in the experience fayle of our purpose and ende in nothyng in dede There is a natural consideration of the abstractes that can not be practised in experience And to me if it were asked of comen bread when me breeke it whether we breke the substaunce or onely the accidentes first I must lernedly say if the substaunce be broken it is by meane of the accident in quantite and then if it like me to take my pleasour without lernyng in philosophie as this auctor doth in diuinite against the catholike fayth to say in diuision we breke not the substaÌ„ce of bred at all the heresie in philosophie were not of suche absurdite as this auctor maynteyneth in diuinite For I haue some probable matter to say for me wher he hath none For my straÌ„ge answere I would saye that albeit a natural thing as bread coÌ„sisting of matter essencial forme whiche quaÌ„tite therby other accidentes cleauyng annexed may be wel said to be in the hole broken as we see by experience it is yet speakyng of the substaÌ„ce of it alone if one shold aske whether that be broken it should be answered yee theÌ„ should the substaÌ„ce appeare brokeÌ„ hole al at one tyme seyng in euery broken piece of breade a hole substance of bread wher the piece of bread brokeÌ„ is so lytell a crumme as can no more in dede be deuided we say neuerthelesse the same to be one substaunce verie bread for want of coÌ„uenieÌ„t quaÌ„tite bread in diuisible thus I write to shewe that such an answer to say the accideÌ„ts be brokeÌ„ hath no such clere absurdite as this auctor would haue it seme But leauynge of the matter of philosophie to the scoles I wil grauÌ„t that accideÌ„tes to be without substaÌ„ce is against the comeÌ„ course of natural thiÌ„ges thefore theriÌ„ is a special miracle of god But wheÌ„
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