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
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
whiche this auctor nowe calleth representyng but is also spiritually geueÌ„ in the table as these words sounde to me But whither this auctor will say very Christ himselfe is geuen spiritually in the meat or by the meat or with the meat what scripture hath he toê“ue that he saith if the words of christ be only a figuratiue spech the bread only signifie Christs body For if the wordes of the institucioÌ„ be but in figure maÌ„ caÌ„not adde of his diuise anyother substaÌ„ce or effect theÌ„ the words of christ purport so this supper after this auctors teachyng in other places of his boke wher hewould haue it but a significatioÌ„ shal be a bare memorie of christsdeath signifie oniy such coÌ„municacioÌ„ of Christ as we haue otherwise by faith in that benefite of his passioÌ„ without any special coÌ„munication of the substance of his flesh in this Sacrament beyng the same only a figure if it were true that this auctor would persuade in the conclusion of this booke although by the waye he sayth otherwise for fear percase treÌ„bling that he coÌ„ceiueth eueÌ„ of an Epistle which him self sayth is fayned This auctor sayth he passeth ouer Ignatiê° Ignatiê° Ireneê° ireneus why because thei make nothing he sayth for the papists purposed with the word papist thauctor plaieth at his pleasure But it shal be euideÌ„t that Irene doth plainly coÌ„fouÌ„de this auctors purpose in the denial of the true preseÌ„ce of Christs very flesh in the sa crameÌ„t who although he vse not the wordes real substaÌ„cial yet he doth effectually coÌ„pre heÌ„d in his speach of the sacrameÌ„t the vertue sireÌ„ght of those words And for the truth of the sacrameÌ„t is Ireneus specially alleged in so much as Melanghton wheÌ„ he writeth to â—ip 〈…〉 ict OccolaÌ„padius that he will allege none but such as speake plainly he allegeth Ireneus for one as appereth by his said Epistle to OecolaÌ„padius And OecolaÌ„padius him self is not trubled somuch with answeryng any other to shape any maner of euasioÌ„ as to answer Ireneus in whoÌ„ he notably stuÌ„bleth And Peter Martyr in his worke graunteth Irene to be specially alleged to whoÌ„ wheÌ„ he goeth about to answer a maÌ„ may euideÌ„tly see how he masketh him self And this auctor bryngeth in ClemeÌ„ts epistel of which no great count is made although it be not coÌ„teÌ„pned passeth ouer ireneus that speaketh euidently in the matter was as old as ClemeÌ„t or not much yoÌ„ger And because Ignatiê° was of that age is alleged by Theodorete to haue writeÌ„ iÌ„ his Epistle ad Theodorete Dialogo .iij. SmirneÌ„ses wherof may appere his faith of the mistery of the SacrameÌ„t it shal serue to good purpose towrite iÌ„ the words of the same ignatius hervpoÌ„ the credite of the said Theodorer whoÌ„ this auctor so much coÌ„meÌ„deth the words of ignatius be these Eucharistias oblationes noÌ„ admittuÌ„t ê™ noÌ„ confiteaÌ„tur eucharistiaÌ„ esse carneÌ„ seruatoris nostri Iesu Christi qÌ„ pro peccatis nostris passa est quam pater sua benignitate suscitauit Which words be thus much iÌ„ English They do not admit Eucharistias oblatioÌ„s be cause they do not coÌ„fesse EucharistiaÌ„ to be the flesh of our sauiour iesu Christ which flesh sufred for our sines which flesh the the father by his beniguitie hath stirred vp These be Ignatiue words which I haue not throughly englished because the word Eucharistia caÌ„ not be wel Englished beyng a word of mistery and as Ireneus openeth both the partes of the sacrameÌ„t heueÌ„ly earthly visible inuisible But in that ignatius openeth his fayth thus as he taketh Eucharistia to be the flesh of our sauior Christ that suffred for vs he declareth the sence of Christs wordes this is my body not to be figuratiue only but to expresse the truth of the very flesh there geuen therfore Ignatius sayth Eucharistia is the fleshe of our sauior Christ the same that suffred the same that rose agayn which words of Ignatius so pithely opeÌ„ the matter as they declare therwith that fayth also of Theodorete that doth allege him so as if this auctor would make so absolute a worke as to peruscal the fathers saiynges he shuld not thus lepe ouer Ignatiê° nor Irene neither as I haue before declared But this is a color of Rhethorike called reiectioÌ„ of that is hard to answer is her a pretie shift or slaight wherby thou reader maist consider how this matter is handled As touching Dionisius a wise reader may Dionysius without any note of mine se how this auctor is troubled in him calleth for ayde the help of him that made the greke coÌ„mentaries vpoÌ„ dionisius pledeth therwith the forme of the words really corporally seÌ„sibly naturally wherof two that is to say really seÌ„sibly the olde auctors in sillables vsed not for somuch as I haue red but corporally naturaly they vsed spekyng of this sacrameÌ„t This dionise spake of this mystery after the dignitie of it not contendyng with any other for the truth of it as we do nowe but extollynge it as a merueilous high misterie which if the bread be neuer the holier and were only a signification as this auctor teacheth were no high mistery at all As for the thynges of the Sacrament to be in heauen the church teacheth so and yet the same thynges be in dede present in the SacrameÌ„t also which is a misterie so deape and darke from mannes natural capacitie as is onely to be beleued supernaturally without askyng of the question how whereof S. Chrisostome makethe an Chrysostomus de Sacerdo li. 3. exclamation in this wise O greate bene volence of God towardes vs he that sitteth aboue with the father at the same houre is holdeÌ„ here with the haÌ„des of all men and geueth himselfe to them that will clapse and embrace him Thus sayth Chrisostome coÌ„fessyng to be aboue and here the same thynges at ones not onely in mens brestes but haÌ„des also to declare the inward worke of God in the substaunce of the visible Sacrament wherby Christ is present in the middes of our sences and so may be called sensibly present although mannes seÌ„ces can not comprehende and feale or taste of him in theyr propre nature But as for this dionise doth without argument declare his fayth in thadoration he maketh of this Sacrament whiche is openly testified in his workes so as we nedde not doubte what his fayth was As for this auctors notes be descaunt voluntarie without the tenor parte beyng be lyke asshamed to allege the text it self leâ—t his .iii. notes might seme fayned without grounde as before in Sainct Clementes epistel and therfore I wyllnot truble the reader with them Of Tertullian I haue spoken before and Terâ—ullian so hath this auctor also and forgotten here one notable thyng in TertulliaÌ„ where TertulliaÌ„ saiâ—th that Christ made the bread his bodye not onely called it
the accideÌ„tes be by miracle without substaÌ„ce as they be in the visible ê‘t of the sacrameÌ„t theÌ„ the same accideÌ„tes to be brokeÌ„ cateÌ„ droÌ„keÌ„ with al thaditioÌ„s this auctor for his pleasur maketh theriÌ„ is no miracle or meruaile as for absur dite no poiÌ„t at al for by quaÌ„tite which remaineth is al diuisioÌ„ we ought to coÌ„fesse good christen men do professe the mysterye of the SacrameÌ„t to be supernatural and aboue the ordre of nature therfore it is a trauayle in vayne to frame the consideratioÌ„ of it to agree with the termes of philosophye But where this auctor saith that nothyng can be answered to be brokeÌ„ but the accideÌ„tes yes verely for in tyme of conteÌ„cioÌ„ as this is to him that would aske what is brokeÌ„ I would in other termes answere thus That thou seest is broken And theÌ„ if he would aske further what that is I would tell him the visible matter of the Sacrament vnder whiche is present Inuisibly the substance of the most precious body of Christ if he will aske yet further Is that bodye of Christ broken I will say no. For I am lerned in fayth that that glorious body nowe impassible can not be broken or diuided and therfore it is holy in euery parte of that is broken as the substaunce of bread is in comen bread in euery parte that is broken accordyng wherunto it is in the booke of comen prayour setforth howe in eche part of that is broken is the hole body of our sauiour Christ If this questioner be further curious and saye is not that that is broken breade I woulde answere as a beleuynge man by fayth truely no For in fayth I must call it because it is truely so the bodye of Christe inuisibly there and the breakynge to be not in it but in the visible signe Yea ye will call it so sayth this questioner but yet it is bread Nay quod I my sayth is a most certaine truth and beleueth thinges as they verily be for Christes worde is of strenght not onely to shewe and declare as other mens wordes do but therwith effectual to make it so to be as it is by him called And this I write because howsoeuer clerkes soberly entreate the matter such as mynde well I meane to consider accideÌ„tes and substaÌ„ce whiche termes the rude vnderstaÌ„de not it is not necessarye therfore in those termes to make answere to suche as be coÌ„tentiously curious who labour with questioÌ„s to dissolue the truth of the misterie in declaracioÌ„ wherof we as men stumble and terme it otherwise then we shuld that is no IncoÌ„uenieÌ„ce in the misterie but an imparfection in vs that be not able to expresse it not hauinge such giftes of god as other haue nor studyinge to atteyne lernyng as other haue done And whatsoeuer in scoles with a deuoute mynde to aus were al captious questions hath for thexercitation of mennes senses bene moued soberly and by way of argument obiected that is nowe picked out by this auctor and brought to the comen peoples cares in which it might sounde euill they not beinge able to make answere theruÌ„to wherby they might be snarled and intaÌ„gled with vayne fanses against that truth which before without curiosite of questions they truely and coÌ„stantly beleued Finally the doctrine of the sacrament is simple and playne to haue the visible fourmes of breade and wyne for significatioÌ„ the thing wherof in the verye bodye bloud of Christ which beyng the truth of the hole it is no absurdite to coÌ„fesse truely the partes as they be if occasioÌ„ require howesoeuer it soundeth to the Ethnike or carualic mannes eares for whose satisfaction there is no cause why the truth should be altred into alye wherwith to make melody to ther vnderstaÌ„dinges For howsoeuer carnall reason be offended with spiritual truth it forceth not but against the hole consent of the auncient doctors no doctrine caÌ„ be instified with whose restimonie howe the fayth of the church in the sacrameÌ„t nowe agreeth it is manifest howsoeuer it liketh this auctor to reaporte the contrarye Secondly these TransubstaÌ„tiators do say contrarye to all lernynge that accidentes of bread and The auctor wyne do hange alone in th aire without any substance wherin they may be stayed and what may be sayd more folyshelye The maister of the sentences she winge diuers meÌ„s sayinges in discussioÌ„ as they can The answer sententia 〈◊〉 di 〈…〉 t. 9. q. 10. of this mysterie telleth what sume say that had reather saye sum what then nothinge which this auctor rehersith as a determinacion of the church that in dede maketh no doctrine of that pointe so but acknowlegith the misterie to excede our capacite And as for the accidentes to be stayed that is to saye to remayne without there natural substance is without difficultie beleued of men that haue sayth consideryng thalmightie power of Christ whose diuine body is there present And shall that be accompted for an inconuenience in the misterie that any one man saith whose sayinge is not as a full determinacioÌ„ approued If that man should encontre with this auctor if he were a lyue so to do I thinke he would saye it were more tollerable in him of a zeale to agree with the true doctrine to vtter his coÌ„seyte foÌ„dly then of a malice to disseÌ„t froÌ„ the true doctrine this auctor so fondly to improwe his sayinge But if he should oppose this auctor in lernynge and aske him howe he wyll vnderstand Fiat lux in the creatioÌ„ of the world where the light stayed that was then create But I will procede to peruse the other absurdities Thirdly that the substance of Christes body is there The auctor really corporally and naturally present without any accidentes of the same And so the papistes make accidentes to be with out substance and substance without accidentes Howe Christes bodye in circuÌ„staÌ„ce preseÌ„t The answer no man caÌ„ define but that it is truely preseÌ„t therfore really preseÌ„t corporally also but yet supper naturally with relation to the truth of the body preseÌ„t not to the maner of preseÌ„ts which is spiritual excedyng our capacitâ— therfore therin with out drawyng awaye accideÌ„tes or adding we byleue simplie the 〈◊〉 howsoeuer it liketh this auctor with out the booke to 〈◊〉 it at his pleasur to speke of substaÌ„ce without accideÌ„tes accideÌ„tes without substaunce whiche perplexite in wordes cannot ieste out the truth of the catholique bilyefe And this is on thauctours part nothinge but iestinge with a wroÌ„ge surmise and supposall as though men had inuiÌ„ted and ymagined that whiche by force and truth of the scripture all good men haue and must byleue that is to saye the true presence of the substance of the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament accordinge to the wordes of Christ This is my body whiche exclude the substance of breade declaringe the substance of the body of
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