¶ An explicatioÌ„ and assertion of the true Catholique fayth touchyng the moost blessed Sacrament of the aulter with confutacion of a booke written agaynst the same Made by Steuen Byshop of Wynchester and exhibited by his owne hande for his defence to the kynges maiesties Commissioners at Lambeth Anno. 1551. ¶ Certayne faultes escaped in the prentyng The rest thou mayst geÌ„tle reader easely correcte thy selfe Leafe Pag. Thelyne â—o 2. 2. pag. Lin. 15. for yet it shuld read yet if it shuld 7 1 penul for to purpose read to the purpose 21 1 30 for accasion reade occasion 25 2 29 for dimishe reade diminishe 52 1 25 for shepe reade slepe 42 1 23 for coÌ„municaÌ„do read coÌ„municandis 54 1 13 for manifestye reade manifested 54 1 14 for exhibetie reade exhibited 55 1 19 for enforeth reade enforceth 59 1 20 for Tubax reade Tuba 62 1 13 for fram reade â—rame 81 1 3 for cunclusion reade conclusion 81 2 20 for pretens reade presence 81 1 30 for freundes reade frendes 81 1 31 for possumus reade polluimus 88 1 22 for cratures reade creatures 88 1 24 for entrated reade intreated 88 2 3 for lake read loke 88 2 6 for fede read fed 90 2 6 for speake read spake 91 2 30 for andeleth read handeleth 92 1 8 for hahing read hauyng 92 1 10 for sumuch read so muche 92 1 12 for ityn read it 92 1 15 for wrere read were 92 1 15 for â—e read be 94 1 1 for Ethinkes read Ethnikes 94 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for af read of 96 1 〈◊〉 for 〈…〉 se read likewise 96 2 â—4 〈◊〉 read geueth 97 2 10 for extlude read exclude 105 1 1 for auctors read auctor 106 2 16 for this read these 107 1 3 for commency read commenly 110 1 6 for hatue read hath 119 1 31 for deipara 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deipara 121 2 26 for mage read image 126 2 18 for dowe read doue 131 2 10 for ther read thre 131 2 22 for we read me 134 1 4 for which read with 134 2 5 for obdy read body 136 1 11 for improw read improue 136 1 21 for circuÌ„staÌ„ce pÌ„seÌ„t read circuÌ„staÌ„ce is pÌ„seÌ„t 136 1 23 for supernaturally read naturally 137 1 4 for endureth read abhorâ—ith 138 2 1 for disorowe read improue 142 1 14 for godhod read godhed 143 2 2 for propositiones read ê“positionis 145 2 29 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 145 2 vlt. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 146 1 2 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 146 1 5 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 148 1 19 for saue read sawe 151 2 9 for Ephesine read Ephesin Finis Tabulae ¶ The preface FOr asmuch as amoÌ„ges other mine allegations for defence of my selfe in this matter moued agà ynst me by occasion of my Sermon made before the kynges moost excellent Maiestye touchyng partely the. Catholique faith of the moost precious sacrameÌ„t of thaltare which I see now impugned by a booke set furth vnder the name of my lord of Cauntorburies grace I haue thought expedieÌ„t for the better opening of the matter coÌ„sideryng I am by name touched in the sayde boke the rather to vtter partely that I haue to say by confutatioÌ„ of that boke wherein I thinke neuerthlesse noâ— requisite to directe any speache by speciall name to the person of him that is entitled autor because it may possible be that his name is abused wherwith to set furth the matter beyng him selfe of such dignitie auctorite in the coÌ„men welth as for that respect should be inuiolable For which coÌ„sideracion I shal in my speache of suche reproufe as the vntruth of the matter necessariely requireth omitting the speciall title of the auctor of the boke speake onely of thauctor in generall beyng a thing to me greatly to be me 〈…〉 ed at that such matter shuld nowe be published out of my lord of CaÌ„torburies penne but because he is a man I wil not wondre because he is such a maÌ„ I will reuereÌ„rly vse him forbearyng further to name him talke onely of the auctor by that generall name The confutation of the first booke THis auctor denieth the real preseÌ„ce of Christes most precious bodie bloud in the SacrameÌ„t This auctor denieth Transubstanciation This auctor denieth euil men to eat drinke the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament These thre denials only impugne tende to distroy that faith whiche this auctor termeth the popishe to erre in callyng nowe all popishe that beleue either of these thre articles by him denied the truth whereof shall hereafter be opened Nowe because fayth affirmeth some certaintee if we aske this auctor what is his fayth which he calleth true and catholique it is only this as we may lerne by his boke that in our Lordes supper be coÌ„secrate bread and wyne and deliuered as tokens onely to signify Christes bodie and bloud he calleth them holye tokens but yet noteth that the bread and wyne be neuer the holyer he saith neuerthelesse they be not bare tokeÌ„s and yet concludeth Christ not to be spiritually present in them but onely as a thing is present in that which signifieth it whiche is the nature of a bare token saiyng in another place ther is nothyng to be worshipped for ther is nothing present but in figure and in a signe whiche who so euer sayth calleth the thyng in dede absente And yet the auctor sayth Christe is in the man that worthely receaueth spiritually preseÌ„t who eateth of Christes fleshe and his bloud reignyng in heaueÌ„ whether the good beleuyng man ascendeth by his faith And as oure bodie is norished with the bread wyne receiued in the supper so the true beleuyng man is fedde with the bodie bloud of Christ And this is the summe of the doctrine of that faith whiche this auctor calleth the true catholique faith Nowe a catholique faith is an vniuersall faith taught and preached through all and so receaued and beleued agreablie and consonant to the scriptures testified by such as by all ages haue in their writynges geuen knowlege therof which be the tokens and markes of a true Catholique faith wherof no one can be founde in the faith this auctor calleth catholique Firste there is no scripture that in lettre mainteineth the doctrin of this auctorsboke For Christ saith not that the bread doth only signify his bodie absent nor sainct Paul sayth not so in any place ne any other canonical scripture declareth Christes wordes so As for the sence vnderstaÌ„dyng of Christes wordes there hath not been in any age any one approued and knowen learned maÌ„ that hath so declared expounded Christes wordes in his supper that the bread did onely signify Christes bodie the wyne his bloud as thynges absent And to the intent euery notable
disagrement from the truth may the more euidently appeare I will here in this place as I will hereafter likewise when the case occurreth ioyne as it were an issue with An issue this auctor that is to saye to make a staye with him in this poynte triable as they say by euidence sone tried For in this point the scriptures be alreadie by thauctor brought forth the leterwherof proueth not his faith And albeit he traueyleth and bryngeth forth the saiyng of many approued writers yet is there no one of them that writeth in expresse woordes the doctrine of that fayth which this auctor calleth the faith catholike And to make the issue plaine and to ioyne it directly thus I say No auctor knowen and approued that is to say Ignatius Policarpe Iustine Irene Tertullian Cyprian Chrisostome Hilarie Gregorie Nazianzen Basill Emissen Ambrose Cyril Hierome Augustine DamasceÌ„ Theophilacte none of these hath this doctrine in plaine termes that the bread onely signifieth Christes bodie absent nor this sentence that the bread and wyne be neuer the holier after consecration nor that Christes bodie is none otherwise present in the Sacrament but in a signification nor this sentence that the Sacrament is not to be worshipped because there is nothing present but in a signe And herein what the truth is may soone appeare as it shal by their workes neuer appeare to haue been taught and preached receaued and beleued vniuersally and therfore can be called no Catholique fayth that is to say allowed in the whol through and in outwarde teaching preached and beleued If this auctor settyng apart the word Catholique would of his owne wytte go aboute to proue howsoeuer scripture hath been vnderstanded hitherto yet it should be vnderstanded in dede as he nowe teacheth he hath herein diuers disauaÌ„tages and hynderaunces worthy consideracions whiche I will particularly note Firste the preiudice and sentence geuen as it were by his owne mouthe against him selfe now in the boke called the Catechisme in his name set forth Secondly that about .vij. C. yere ago one Bertrame if the booke set forth in his name be his entreprised secretly the like as appereth by the said booke yet preuayled not Thirdely Berengarius beyng in dede but an Archedeacon about .v. C. yeres past after he had openly attempted to set forth suche like doctrine recanted and so fayled in his purpose Fourthely Wykclif not muche aboue an hundreth yeres past enterprised the same whose teachyng God prospered not Fyftely how Luther in his workes handeled theÌ„ that would haue in our tyme raysed vp the same doctrine in Germany it is manifest by his and their writynges wherby appeareth the enterprise that hath had so many ouerthrowes so many rebukes so often reprofes to be desperate and suche as God hath not prospered and fauored to be receiued at any tyme openly as his true teachyng Herein whether I say true or no let the stories trye me and it is matter worthy to be noted because Gamaliels obseruacion writen in the Actes of the Apostels is allowed Actes 5. to marke howe they prospere go forward in their doctrine that be auctors of any new teachyng But all this set aparte and puttyng a side al testimonies of tholde churche and resortyng onely to the letter of the scripture there to serche out an vnderstandyng And in doyng therof to forget what hath been taught hitherto How shall this auctor establishe vpoÌ„ scripture that he would haue beleued What other text is therin scripture that encountreth with these wordes of scripture This is my body Wherby to altre the signification of them There is no scripture sayth Christ did not geue his bodie but the figure of his bodie nor the geuyng of Christes bodie in his supper verely and really so vnderstaÌ„ded doth not necessaritly impugne and contrarie any other speache or doyng of Christ expressed in scripture For the great power and omnipotencie of God excludeth that repugnaunce whiche mannes reason would deame of Christes departyng from this worlde and placyng his humanitie in the glorie of his father Iâ— this auctor without force of necessitie would induce it by the like speaches as when Christ sayd I am the dore I am the â—yne he is Helias and suche other and because it is a figuratiue speache in them it may be so here whiche maketh no kinde of profe that it is so here But yet if by way of reasonyng I would yelde to him therin and cal it a figuratiue speache as he doth What other poynte of fayth is there then in the matter but to beleue the storie that Christ did institute suche a supper wherin he gaue bread and wyne for a token of his bodie and bloud whiche is nowe after this vnderstandyng no secrete mysterie at all or any ordinaunce aboue reasoÌ„ For commenly men vse to ordaine in sensible thinges remembraunces of them selfe whan they dye or departe the countrie So as in thordinaunce of this supper after this vnderstandyng Christ shewed not his omnipotencie but onely beneuolence that he loued vs and would be remembred of vs. For Christ did not say whosoeuer eateth this token eateth my bodie or eateth my fleshe or shal haue any profite of it in speciall but doo this in remembraunce of me And albeit this auctor would not haue them bare tokens yet and they be onely tokens they haue no warrant signed by scripture for any apparell at all For the sixt of John speaketh not of any promise made to the eatyng of a token of Christes fleshe but to the eatyng of Christes verie fleshe wherof the bread as this auctor would haue it is but a figure in Christes wordes when he sayd This is my body And if it be but a figure in Christes wordes it is but a figure in sainct Paules wordes when he sayd The bread whiche wee breake is it not the communicacion of Christes bodie that is to say a figure of the communicacioÌ„ of Christes bodie if this auctors doctrine be true and not the communicacion in dede Wherfore if the verie bodie of Christ be not in the supper deliuered in dede the eatyng there hath no speciall promise but onely commaundement to do it in remembraunce After whiche doctrine why should it be noted absolutely for a Sacrament and speciall mysterie that hath nothyng hidden in it but a plaine oâ—en ordinaunce of a token for a remembraunce to the catyng of whiche token is annexed no promyse expressely ne any holynes to be accompted to be in the bread or wyne as this auctor teacheth but to be called holie because they be deputed to an holy vse If I aske the vse he declareth to signify If I should aske what to signifye There muste be a sorte of good wordes framed without scripture For scripture expresseth no matter of significacion of speciall effecte And therfore like as the teachyng is new to say it is an onely figure or onely signifieth so the matter of signification must be newly diuised
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
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
and new wyne haue new bottelles and be throughly new after .xv. C. l. yeres in the verie yere of Iubile as they were wount to call it to be newly erected and builded in Englishe mens heartes Whiche new teachyng whether it procedeth from the spirite of truth or no shall more plainely appeare by suche matter as this auctor vttereth wherewith to impugne the true faith taught hitherto For among many other profes whereby trueth after much trauaile in contencion at the last preuayleth and hath victorie there is none more notable then when the verie aduersaries of truth who pretend neuertheles to be truthes frendes do by some euident vntruth bewray themself According wherunto whē the two women contended before kyng Salomon for the childe yet aliue Salomon descerned 3. Reg. 3. the true naturall mother from the other by their speaches and saiynges Which in the verie true mother were euer conformable to nature and in the other at the last euidently against nature The verie true mother speake alwaies like her selfe and neuer disagreed from the truth of nature but rather then the childe should be killed as Salomon threatened whē he called for asword required rather it to be geuen whole aliue to the other woman The other woman that was not the true mother cared more for victorie then for the childe and therfore spake that was in nature an euidence that she lied callyng her selfe mother and saiyng let it be deuided whiche no true naturall mother could say of her owne childe wherupon proceded Salomons most wise iudgmēt which hath this lesson in it euer where contention is on that parte to be the truth where all saiynges and doynges appeare vniformely consonante to the truth pretended and on what side a notable lye appeareth the rest may be iudged to be after the same sorte for truth nedeth no ayde of lyes craft or slayte wherwith to be supported and maynteined So as in the intreatyng of the truth of this high and ineffable mysterie of the Sacrament on what parte thou reader seest traft slayte shift obliquitie or in any one pointe an open manifest lye there thou maist consider whatsoeuer pretence be made of truth yet the victorie of truth not to be there intended whiche loueth simplicitie plainenes directe speache without admixcion of shift or coloure And that thou reader mightest by these markes iudge of that is here intreated by thauctor against the most blessed Sacratment I shall note certaine euident and manifest vntruthes whiche this auctor is not affrayed to vtter a matter wounderfull consideryng his dignitie if he that is named be the auctor in dede whiche should be a great stay of contradiction if any thyng wer to be regarded against the truth First I will note vnto the reader howe this auctor termeth the fayth of the real and substanciall presence of Christes bodie and bloud in the Sacramēt to be the fayth of the Papistes whiche saiyng what foundaciō it hath thou maiest consider of that foloweth Luther that professed openly to abhore al that might be noted Papish defēded stoutly the presence of Christes bodie in the Sacrament and to be present really and substancially euen with the same wordes and termes Bucer that is here in Englād in a solēpne worke that he wryreth vpon the Gospels professeth the same fayth of the real and substāciall presence of Christes bodie in the Sacrament whiche he affermeth to haue been beleued of all the churche of Christ from the beginnyng hitherto Iustus Ionas hath trāslate a Catechisme out of Douch into Latin taught in the citie of Noremberge in Germanye where Hosiander is cheife preacher in whiche Catechisme they be accompted for no true Christian men that denye the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament The wordes really and substancially be not expressed as they be in Bucer but the worde truely is there and as Bucer sayth that is substancially Which Catechisme was translate into Englishe in this auctors name about two yeres paste Philipp Melancton no Papist nor priest writeth a verie wise Epistle in this matter to Oecolāpadius and signifiyng soberly his beleif of the presence of Christes verie bodie in the Sacrament and to proue the same to haue been the faith of the olde churche from the begīnyng allegeth the saynges of Irene Cyprian Chrisostome Hilarie Cyrill Ambrose and Theophilacte whiche auctors he estemeth both worthy credite and to affirme the presence of Christes bodie in the Sacramēt plainly without ambiguitie He answereth to certaine places of S. Augustine and sayth all Oecolampadius enterprise to depend vpon coniectures and argumentes applausible to Idle wittes with muche more wise matter as that Epistle doth purporte whiche is set out in a booke of a good volume amonge the other Epistles of Oecolampadius so as no man may suspect any thyng counterfecte in the matter One Hippinus or Oepinus of Hamborough greatly estemed among the Lutherians hath written a booke to the kinges maiesty that now is publisshed abrode in prynt wherin muche inueiyng against the churche of Rome doth in the matter of the Sacrament write as foloweth Eucharistia is called by it selfe a sacrifice because it is a remēbraunce of the true sacrifice offered vpō the crosse and that in it is dispēsed the true bodie and true bloud of Christ whiche is plainely the same in essence that is to say substaunce and the same bloud in essēce signifiyng though the maner of presence be spirituall yet the substaunce of that is present is the same with that in heauen Erasmus noted a man that durst and did speake of all abuses in the church liberally taken for no Papist and among vs so muche estemed as his Paraphrases of the gospell is ordred to be had in euery church of this Realme declareth in diuers of his workes most manifestly his faith of the presence of Christes bodie in the Sacrament and by his Epistles recommendeth to the worlde the worke of Algerus in that matter of the Sacrament whom he noteth well exercised in the scriptures and the olde doctors Cypriā Hilarie Ambrose Hierome Augustine Basil Chrysostom And for Erasmus own iugemēt he sayth we haue an inuiolable foundacion of Christes owne woordes This is my body rehersed agayn by S. Paule he sayth further the bodie of Christ is hidden vnder those signes and sheweth also vpon what occasions mē haue erred in readyng the olde fathers and wysheth that they which haue folowed Berengarius in error would also folowe him in repētaunce I will not reader encombre the with mo wordes of Erasmus Peter Martyr of Oxforde taken for no Papist in a treatyse he made of late of the Sacrament whiche is now translated into English sheweth how as touchyng the real presence of Christes bodie it is not onely the sentence of the Papistes but of other also whom the sayd Peter neuerthelesse doth with as many shyftes lyes as he may impugne for that poynte aswell as he doth the Papistes for transubstanciation but yet he doth not as
called Eucharistia hauyng the visible forme of bread wyne coÌ„teinyng inuisibly the verie body bloud of our sauiour Christ which was not wont to be reserued other wise but to be ready for such as in danger of death call for it the same so loÌ„g as it may be vsed is still the same sacrameÌ„t which only tyme altereth not wherof Cyril wrote to this sence Cyrillê° ad Calo syriuÌ„ epi scopum Hesichiê° in leuit li. 2. ca. 8 many hundred yeres past Hesichius also what ought to be done when by negligeÌ„ce of the ministre it wer reserued ouerlong Mary where it liketh thauctor of these differeÌ„ces to saye the church teacheth Christ to flye vp froÌ„ the receauer vnto heaueÌ„ so sone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or chaunged it rite stomake this maner of speache implyeth as though Christ lefte the seate of his maiestie in heauen to be present in the Sacrament which is most vntrue The churche acknowledgeth beleueth and teacheth truely that Christ sytteth on the right haÌ„de of his father in glory from whence he shall come to iudge the world also teacheth Christes very body bloud Christ himselfe God man to be present in the Sacrament not by shifryng of place but by the determinatioÌ„ of his will declared in scriptures beleued of the Catholique church which articles be to reason impossible but possible to God omnipotent So as beyng taught of his wil we should huÌ„bly submitte al our sences reason to the faith of his wil worke declared in his scriptures In the beleif of which mysteries is great benefit consolacion in the vnreuerent serche curious discussioÌ„ of theÌ„ presumptuous boldnes wicked temerite I knowe by fayth Christ to be present but the particularite how he is present more then I am assured he is truely present therfore in substaunce present I caÌ„not tell but present he is truely is verely is and so in dede that is to say really is and vnfaynedly is and therfore in substaunce is and as we terme it substancially is present For all these aduerbes really substancially with the rest be conteyned in the one worde is spoken out of his mouthe that speaketh as he meaneth truely certaynely as Christ did saiyng This is my body that shal be betrayed for you who then caryed himselfe in his handes after a certayne maner as sainet Augustine sayth whiche neuer man besides August Psal 33. him could do who in that his last super gaue himselfe to be eaten without coÌ„sumyng The wayes meanes wherof no man can tell but humble spirites as they be taught must constantly beleue it without thinkyng or talkyng of fliyng or sliyng of Christ agayne vnto heauen where Christ is in the glory of his father continually and is neuerthelesse because he will so be present in the SacrameÌ„t whole God and man and dwelleth corporally in him that receyueth him worthely Wherfore reader when thou shalt agayne well consider this coÌ„parison thou shalt finde true howe the first parte is disguised with vntrue reporte of the commen teachynge of the churche howsoeuer some glose or some priuate teacher might speake of it and the secoÌ„d part suche as hath been euer so taught One thyng I thinke good to admonishe the reader that whatsoeuer I affirme or precisely denye I meane within the compasse of my knowlege which I speake not because I am in any suspicioÌ„ or dout of that I affirme or deny but to auoyde the temerite of deniyng as neuer or affirmyng as euer which he extremities And I mean also of publike doctrin by consent receyued so taught beleued and not that any one man might blindely write as vtteryng his fansye as this auctor dothe for his pleasure There foloweth in the auctor thus They say that in the Sacrament the corporall The auctor membres of Christ be not distante in place on from an other but that whersoeuer the hede is there be the feeâ—e whersoeuer the armes be ther be the legges so that in euery parte of the bread and wyne is all together whole hede whole feete whole fleshe whole bloud whole hearte whole longes whole breaste whole backe and al togither whole confused and mixte without distinction or diuersite O what a folishe and an abhominable inuentioÌ„ is this to make of the most pure and persite bodye of Christ suche a confuse and monstrouse bodye And yet can the Papistes imagyne nothyng so folishe but al christeÌ„ people must receyue the same as an oracle of God as a most certayne article of theyr fayth without whisperyng to the contrarye This is merueylous Rhetorique suche The answer as thauctor hath ouersene himselfe in the vtteraunce of it coÌ„fesseth himself pretely abused to the latter ende of his yeres to haue beleued that he now calleth so folishe But to the purpose In the booke of commen prayor now at this tyme set forthe in this realme At is ordred to teache the people that in eche parte of the bread consecrate broken is the hole body of our sauior Christ which is agreable to the Catholique doctrine UpoÌ„ accasioÌ„ hereof it liketh this auctor to multiply language by enumeracioÌ„ of partes and because reason without fay the directeth the bodely eye to so litle a visible quaÌ„titie in the hooste This auctor beareth in hand the Catholique churche to say and teache al that fonde reason diuiseth where as the churche in the doctrine of this mistery denyeth al that reason without fayth diuiseth And therfore when we acknowledge by faythe Christes body present although we say it is preseÌ„t truely really substancially yet we say our senses be not priuy to that presence ne the maner of it but by instruction of fayth and therfore we saye Christes body to be not locally present not by maner of quantite but inuisibly and in no sensible maner but meruelously in a SacrameÌ„t and mistery truely and in suche a spiritual maner as we can not defyne and determyne yet by faith we know his body present the partes of whiche be in them self distincte one froÌ„ an other in their swne substance but not by circumscription of seuerall places to be comprehended of our capacitie which partes we can not by demonstracion place nor by imaginacioÌ„ displace diminishe altre or coÌ„found as this auctor for his pleasure reporteth who writeth moÌ„st rously in so high a mistery impudeÌ„tly beareth in hand the Catholique churche to teache that he lysteth to beare in haÌ„d may by wanton reasoÌ„ be deduced of their teachyng wher as altrue christiaÌ„ men beleue simply Christes wordes trouble not their heades with suche consequeÌ„ces as seme to stryue with reasoÌ„ This is in th auctor no whisperyng but plainly raylyng wherin if he had remembred himselfe wel he would not haue spokeÌ„ of all christian men in the receypt of that he enteÌ„deth to disproue And if he would say he
deliuerethe vs the same fleshe glorified truely to be communicate with our fleshe wherby as we be naturally in Christ so Christ is naturally in vs and wheÌ„ this is brought to passe theÌ„ is the vnitie betwene Christe and vs perfited for as Christ is naturally in the father of the same essence by the diuine nature and God the father naturally in Christ his sonne very God of the same essence in the diuine nature So we be naturally in Christ by our natural fleshe which he toke in the virgyns wombe and he naturally in vs by the same fleshe in him glorified and geuen to vs and receyued of vs in the Sacrement For Hilarie sayth in plaine wordes howe Christes verye fleshe Hilariê° and Christes very bloud receyued and dronken Accepta hausta bryng this to passe And it is notable howe Hilarie compareth together the truely in Christes takynge of our fleshe in the virgyns wombe with the truely of our takynge of his fleshe In cibo dnÌ„ico in our lordes meate by which words he expresseth the Sacrament after reproueth those that sayd we were onely vnitie by obedience and will of religion to Christe and by him so to the father as though by the Sacrement of fleshe and bloud no proprietie of naturall communion were geuen vnto vs wheras both by the honor geuen vnto vs we be the sonnes of god and by the sonne dwellynge carnally in vs and we beynge corporally and inseparably vnitie in him the mysterie of true and natural vnitie is to be preached These be Hilaries wordes for this latter parte where thou hearest reader the sonne of god to dwel carnally in vs not after mannes grosse imagination for we may not so thinke of godly mysteries but carnally is referred to the truth of Christes fleshe geueÌ„ to vs in this SacrameÌ„t and so is naturally to be vnderstanded that we receyue Christes naturall fleshe for the truthe of it as Christe receyued our naturall fleshe of the virgyn although we receyue Christes fleshe glorified incorruptible verye spirituall and in a spiritual maner deliuered vnto vs. Here is mention made of the worde corporall but I shal speake of that in the discussioÌ„ of Cyril This hilarie was before sainct Augustine and was knowen both of him S. Hierom who called him Tubaâ— latini eloquii against tharriaÌ„s Neuer manne founde fault at this notable place of Hilarie Now let vs consider howe the auctor of this booke forgetteth him selfe to call Christe in vs naturally by his godhead whiche were then to make vs all gods by nature whiche is ouer greatan absurditie and Christe in his diuine nature dwelleth onely in his father naturally and in vs by grace But as we reaceiue him in the Sacrament of his fleshe and bloud if we receyue hym worthely so dwelleth he in vs naturally for the mutuall communication of our nature and his And therfore where this auctor reaporteth Hilarie to make no difference betwene our vnyon to Christe in Baptisme and in the supper let hym truste hym no more that told hym so or if this auctor wil take vpoÌ„ him as of his owne knowlege then I would say if he were another an answere in frenche that I will not expresse And here vpoÌ„ wil I wynne the Issue that in Hilarie the matter is so plaine otherwise An issue then this auctour reherseth as it hath no colour of defence to the contrarye And what Hilarie speaketh of Baptisme and our vnitie therin I haue before touched and this vnitie in fleshe is after treated aparte What shall I saye to this so manifest vntruth but that it confirmeth that I haue in other obserued howe therewas neuer one of theÌ„ that I haue red writynge againste the SacrameÌ„t but hath in his writynges sayd somwhat so euidently in the matter or out of the matter discrepaunte from truthe as might be a certaine marke to iudge the qualitie of his spirite Thauctor saythe suche answere as he made to Hilarie wyll serue for Cyrill and Cyrill in deade to saye truthe it is made after the same sorte and hathe euen suche an error as the other had sauyng it maye be excused by ignoraunce For where thauctor trauayleth â—ere to expouÌ„de the worde corporally which is a sore worde in Cyrill against this auctor and therfore taketh labour to teÌ„pere it with the worde corporaliter in sainct Paule applyed to the dwellynge of the diuinitie in Christ and yet not conteÌ„t therwith maketh further serche and would gladly haue somewhat to coÌ„firme his fausye out of Cyril himselfe and seketh in Cyrill where it is not to be founde and sekech not where it is to be founde For Cyrill telleth hymselfe plainely what he meaneth by the worde corporally whiche place and this auctour had founde he might haue spared a greate many of wordes vttered by diuination but then the truthe of that place hindreth and qualeth in maner all the booke I will at my peril bryng for the Cyrils owne wordes truely vpon the xvij Chaptre of sainct Iohn Corporaliter filius per benedictionis mysticam Cyrillê° in IoaÌ„ Cap 17 nobis vt homo Vnitur spiritualiter autem vt deus Whiche be in Englishe thus much to say The sonne is vnitie as man corporally to vs by the mystical benedictioÌ„ spiritually as God These be Cyrils wordes who nameth the Sacrament of the body bloude of Christe the mysticall benediction and sheweth in this sentence howe hym selfe vnderstaÌ„deth the wordes corporally spiritually That is to saye when Christ vniteth hym selfe to vs as man whiche he dothe he doth geuynge his bodye in this Sacrament to suche as worthely receyue it then he dwelleth in them corporally whiche Christe was before in them spiritually orels they could not worthely receyue him to theffecte of that vnitie corporall and corporall dwellynge by whiche worde corporal is vnderstanded no grosues at all whiche the nature of a mysterie excludeth and yet kepeth truthe still beyng the vnderstandyng onely atteined by faythe But where thauctor of the booke allegeth Cyrill in wordes to deny the eatyng of a man and to affirme the receyuinge in this Sacrament to be only by faith It shall appeare I doubt not vpon further discussion that Cyrill say the not so and the translations of Cyrill into latine after the printe of basil in a booke called Antidoton and of hole Cyrils workes prynted at colen haue not in that place suche sentence So as folowynge the testimonye of those bookes set forthe by publique fayth in two sondrie places I shoulde call thallegation of Cyrill made by this auctour in this poynte vntrue as it is in deade in the matter vntrue And yet because the Originall error procedeth from Oecolampadius it shall serue to good purpose to directe thoriginall faulte to hym as he well deseruethe to be as he is noted gyltie of it whose reputacion deceyued many in the matter of the Sacrament and beynge well noted howe the same Oecolampadius corrupteth Cyrill it maye
yet a true body very fleshe And it is present in this sacrameÌ„t after a spiritual maner graunted taught of all true teachers whiche we should receiue also spiritually whiche is by hauyng Christ before spiritually in vs to receiue it so worthely Wherfore lyke as in the inuisible substance of the SacrameÌ„t there is nothyng carnal but al spirituall takyng the word carnal as it signifieth grossely in maÌ„s carnal iudgemeÌ„t So where the receyuers of that foode bryng carnal lustes or desirs carnall fansies or imaginatioÌ„s with them they receyue the same precious foode vnworthely to their iudgement and condempnation For they iudge not truely after the simplicitie of a true Christen fayth of the very presence of Christes bodye And this suffiseth to wype out that this auctor hath spoken of Emissene againste the truthe As touchyng S. Ambrose this auctor taketh a great entreprise to wrestel with him whose plaine euident wordes must nedes be a rule to trie his othere wordes by if any might be writhed What caÌ„ be more plainly spoken then S. Ambrose speketh when he sayth these words It is bread before the coÌ„secration but after it is the bodye of Christe By the worde consecration is signified as it is here placed gods omnipoteÌ„t worke wherfore in this place it coÌ„prehendeth asmuch as Emissen said in these wordes he conuerteth by the secrete powre of his word God is the worker so consecratioÌ„ signifith the whole action of his omnipotencie in workynge the substaunce of this high mysterie and therfore the definition of the worde consecratioÌ„ as it is generally taken cannot be a rule to thunderstandyng of it in this high mysterie wher it is vsed to expresse a singuler worke as the circumstaunce of S. Ambrose writyng doth declare For as philip MelaÌ„ctoÌ„ writeth Melancton to OecolaÌ„padius S. Ambrose would neuer haue trauailed to accumulate so many miracles as he doth speaking of this matter to declare gods omnipoteÌ„cie he had not thought the nature of bread to be chaunged in this mysterie These be melanctons very wordes Nowe to answer the questioÌ„ as it were at the worde chaunge this auctor shall come with a sacrameÌ„ral change whiche is a diuise in termes to blind the rude reader S. Ambrose doth expresse plainly what the change is wheÌ„ he writeth the wordes before rehersed It is bread before the consecration but after it is the body of christ CaÌ„ a change be more plainly declared The nerer way for this auctor had ben to haue ioyned Ambrose with ClemeÌ„t called him fained by the Papistes rather then after theffect of consecration so opened by sainct Ambrose himselfe to trauayll to proue what it maye signifie if it were in an other matter And then to admonishe the reader howe the bread and wyne haue no holines whiche forme of speach not vnderstanded of the people engendreth some scruple that nedeth not being no souÌ„de fourme of doctrine for S. Paule speaketh teacheth 1. Ti. 4. thus that the creatures be saÌ„ctified by the worde of God prayour And S. Augustine Augu. de peccatis morta et remiss libro 2. Cap. 26. Cyprian de cena domini writeth of saÌ„ctified bread to be geuen to them that be catechised before they be baptized And this auctor himselfe expoundeth S. Cyprian in the. â—5 leef of his booke howe the diuinitie is poured in to the bread SacrameÌ„tally whiche is a strange phrase not expressynge there Cyprians mynde and farre discrepaunt from the doctrine here And in an other place this auctor sayth Fo. 85. Pagi 2. that as hotte burnyng yron is yron still yet hath the force of fier so the bread wyne be turned in to the vertue of Christes fleshe and bloud By whiche similitude bread may conceyue vertue as yron couceyueth fyere theÌ„ as we call yron burnyng fireye so we may call bread vertuous and holy onies the auctor woulde againe resemble bread to a whetstone that may make sharpe haue no sharpenes in it at al. Which matter I declare thus to shewe that as this auctor dissenteth from truth in other so he disseÌ„teth from that he vttereth for truth him selfe walketh in a maze impugnynge the verye truth in this SacrameÌ„t would haue that takeÌ„ for a Catholique doctrine that is not one the same doctrine through his hole booke so far of is it from the hole of Christen teachynge But nowe let vs considre what speaches of S. Ambrose this auctor bryngeth furth wherewith to altre the truth of the very plain propre speache of S. Ambrose saiyng it is bread before the consecration but after it is the body of Christ Sainct Ambrose as this auctor sayth in an other place sayth thus Before the bene dictioÌ„ of the heueÌ„ly wordes it is called another kynde of thyng but after the consecration is signified the body bloud of Christ And another speache thus Before the consecration it is called an other thyng but after the coÌ„secration it is named the bloud of Christ yet a third speach where the word cal is vsed before and after both as thou reader mayst se in this auctors booke in the. 82 leef Nowe good reader was thereeuer man so ouerseen as this auctor is who seeth not S. Ambrose in these thre latter speaches to speake as plainly as in the first For in the last speache S. ambrose saith it is called bread before the CoÌ„secratioÌ„ called the body of Christ after the coÌ„secration And I wolde Demaunde of this auctor doth not this word call signifie the truth that is bread in dede before the consecration whiche if it be so why shall not the same worde call signifie also the very truth added to the wordes of the bodye of Christe after the coÌ„secratioÌ„ likewise wheÌ„ he saith speakyng of the bodye of Christe the worde signified or named whiche is asmuche as call Thee body of Christ is signified there for Christ sayd This is my bodye c. vsyng the outwarde signes of the visible creatures to signifie the body bloud present not abseÌ„t Was not Christ the true soÌ„ne of God because thangel sayd he shal be called the soÌ„ne of God But in these places of S. Ambrose Luc. 2. to expresse plainly what he ment by calling he putteth that worde Call to the bread before the consecratioÌ„ aswell as to the body of Christ after the coÌ„secratioÌ„ therby to declare howe in his vnderstaÌ„dyng this worde Call signifieth asmuch truth in the thyng where vnto it is added after consecratioÌ„ as before and therfore as it is by sainct Ambrose called bread before consecration signifiyng it was so in dede so it is called signified or named whiche thre thus plated be all one in effect the body of Christ after the consecration and is so in dede agreable to the plaine speache of sainct Ambrose where he sayth It is bread before the consecration and it is the body of Christ after the
to ensue of the diuersite of the eatyng not of any diuersite of that whiche is eaten whither the good man or euell man recyue the Sacrament If I would here encoÌ„bre the reader I coulde bryng forth many mo places of saincte Augustine to the confusioÌ„ and reproufe of this auctors purpose and yet notwithstandyng to take awaye that he might saye of me that I waye not Saincte Augustine I thynke good to allege bryng forth the iudgement of Martyn Bucer touchyng saincte Augustine who vnderstandeth saincte Augustine clere contrary to this auctor as maye playnely appeare by that the sayde Bucer writeth in fewe wordes in his Epistell dedicatorye of the greate worke he sente abrode of his enarracions of the Gospelles where his iudgement of Sainct Augustine in this poynte he vttereth thus Quoties scribit etiam Iudam ipsum corpus sanguinem Domini sumpsisse Nemo itaque auctoritate S. patrum dicet christum in sacra coena absentem esse The sence in English is this Howe often wryteth he speakyng of Sainct Augustine Iudas also to haue receiued the selfe body and bloud of our Lorde No man therfore by the auctoritie of the fathers can saye Christe to be absente in the holye soupper Thus sayth Bucer who vnderstandeth Saincte Augustine as I haue before alleaged him and gathereth there of a conclusion that no man can by the fathers saiynges proue Christe to be absente in the holye soupper And therfore by Bucers iudgemente the doctrine of this auctour can be in no wise Catholique as dissentynge frome that hathe been before taught and beleued Whither Bucer wyll styl continue in that he hath so solenly published to the world and by me here alleaged I can not tell and whither he do or no it maketh no matter but thus he hathe taught in his latter iudgement with A great protestation that he speaketh without respecte other then to the truthe wherin because he semed to dissent from his freundes he sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whiche wordes haue an imitation of an older sayng and be thus muche to saye Socrates is my frend Truth is my best beloued Socrates and the churche most regarded with this Bucer closith his doctrine of the sacrameÌ„t after he knewe al that zwinglius OecolaÌ„padius could say in the matter And here I wyl leaue to speke of Bucer bring forth Theodoretus a man much extolled by this Theodorâ—â—us in eplam 1. Cor. 2. auctor who sayth playnly in his commentaryes vpon S. Paule howe Christ delyuered to Iudas his precious bodye and bloud and declareth further therwith in that sacrameÌ„t to be the truthe So as this auctor can haue no foundation vpon eyther to maynten his figuratiue speach or the matter of this fourth booke whiche his wordes playnely impugne sainct Hierome in his commentaties Hierome vpon the prophete Malachie hath first this sentence Possumus panem idest corpus christi quando indigni accedimus ad altare sordidi mundum sanguinem bibimus We defile the bread that is to saye the bodye of christ wheÌ„ we cume vnworthely to thalrare and beynge fylthy drinke the cleane bloud Thus sayth S. Hierome who sayth fylthy men drinke the cleane bloud and in an other place after the same Sainct Hierome sayth Polluit christi mysteria indigne accipiens corpus eius sanguineÌ„ He that vnworthly receyueth the body bloud of Christ defyleth the mysteries Can any wordes be more manifest euideÌ„t to declare S. Hieroms mynde howe in the visible sacrameÌ„t men receyue vnworthely whiche be euil men the bodye and bloud of Christ and yet these playne places of auctoritie dissembled of purpose or by ignoraunce passed ouer this auctor as tough This auctor all thynges were by him clearly discussed to his enteÌ„t would by many coÌ„ceytes furnishe further his matters therfore playeth with our ladyes smyling rocking hir child many good mowes so vnsemely for his persoÌ„ that it maketh me almost forget him my selfe also But with such matterhe filleth his leaues forgettyng himselfe maketh meÌ„tioÌ„ of the cathechisme by him traÌ„slate thoriginall wherof coÌ„futeth these two partes of this booke in few words being prynted in germany wherin besides the matter wryteÌ„ is setforth in pictur the maner of the ministring of this sacra meÌ„t where is the altare with caÌ„del light let forth the priest apparelled after the old sort and the man to receiue kneling barehed holdyng vp his handes whiles the priest myuisâ—reth the host to his mouth a matter as clere contrarye to the matter of this booke as is light and darknesse which nowe this auctor would colour with speaches of auctors in a booke wryten to instructe rude childreÌ„ which is as sclendre an excuse as euer was harde none at al when thoriginall is loked on Emissene to stirre vp mens deuotion cumyng Emissen to receyue this Sacrament requireth the roote and foundatioÌ„ therof in the mynde of man as it ought to be therfore exorteth men to take the sacrameÌ„t with thande of the harte drinke with the dranght of the inwarde man whiche men must nedes do that will worthely repare to this feaste And as Emissene speaketh these deuoute wordes of thin warde office of the receyuer so dothe he in declaration of the mystrie shewe howe the Inuisible priest with his secrete power by his worde doth conuert the visible cratures in to the substance of his body and bloud whereof I haue before entrated This auctor vpon these wordes deuontly spoken by Emissene say the there is required no corporall presence of Christes precious bodye in the Sacrament continuynge in his ignoraunce what the worde corporall meaneth But to speake of Emissene if by his fay the the verye bodye and bloud of Christe were not present vpon the altare why dothe he calle it a reuerend altare why to be fed there with spirituall meates and why should fayth be required to lake vpon the bodye and bloud of Christ that is not there on thaltare but as this auctor teacheth onely in heauen and why should he that cummeth to be fede honnor those mysteries there why should Emissene allude to thande of the harte and draught of the inwarde man if the hande of the bodye and draught of thoutwarde man had none office there All this were vayne cloquence and a mere abuse and illusion if the Sacramentall tokens were only a figure if there were no preseÌ„ce but in figure why should not Emissene reather haue folowed the plaine spech of thaÌ„gel to the women that sought Christ Iesum quaeritis non est hic ye seke Iesus he is not here And say as this auctor doth this is onely a figure do no worship here goo vp to heaueÌ„ and downe with thaltare for feare of illusion which Emissene dyd not but called it a reuerend aulter and inuiteth him that should receyue to honnor that foode with such good wordes as before so far descrepauÌ„te froÌ„
called it wherin also remaynethe true sauor and taste withe true propriete to corrupte or putrifie and also nurrishe God for ordrynge fayth of the true manhode in Chrâ—ste is truely byleued by true preachinge ther of and by the scriptures not by the outwarde senses of mene which al togither we must confesse coulde be no certaine ineuiâ—able prouf ther of And therfore Christe appearinge to his disciples goinge in to EmaÌ„s opened the scriptures to them for the prouf of his deathe that he suffred as very man and yet he vsed also in some parte to preache to there senses with sensible exhibition of himself vnto theÌ„ and so all Christes doinges which were moste true do beare testimonie to the trueth but in there degree of testimonie and the fealinge of sainct Thomas beinge as sainct Gregorie saithe miraculeuse serueth for prouf of an other thinge that goddes workein miracle dothe not empaire the truth of the thinge wrought and so sainct Thomas touched then Christ as truely by miracle after his resurrection in his bodye glorified as if he had touched his bodye before glorificacion Fynally in Christes actes or his ordinaunces be no illusions all is truth and perfite trueth and our senses in the visible formes of bread and wine be not illuded but haue there proper obiectes in those accidentes and reason in carnall vnderstandinge brought and subdued in obsequie to fayth doth in the estimacion of the hoste coÌ„secrate yelde to faith accordinge wheâ—unto we confeâ—â—ruely the same to be the body of Christe Where this auctors woulde al the Papistes to laye their heades together c. I knowe no suche Papistes but this I saye without further counsaile whiche this auctor with al his counsaile shall not auoyde We beleue most certainely the resurrection of our flesh and be persuaded by Catholique teachyng that the same flesh by participation of Christes godly flesh in the Sacrament shal be made incorruptible Ioan. 6. yet not after the iudgemeÌ„t of our senses conclusions gathered of them consideryng the maner of the continuall consumptioÌ„ of the sayd bodies wherof sum philosophers haue at lenght after their reasoÌ„ declared their mynde whom Christen men coÌ„temâ—e withal thexperieÌ„ce of senses which they allege being vehemeÌ„t in that matter we reade in scripture of the fedyng of Angels wheÌ„â—oth receyued Gen. 18. them I will spend no mo wordes herein but hauyng auoyded this authors reasonyng against traÌ„substantiacioÌ„ Now let vs examine his authorities First he begynneth with Iustine the Martyr Whose words be not truly by this authour here reported which be these truely translate out of the greke When the Iustinê° Prieast hath ended his thankes geuyng and prayours all the people hath sayde Amen they whom we cal deacons geue to euery one then present a parte of the breade and of the wyne and water consecrated and cary parte to those that be absente this is that foode whâ—che is amonge vs called Eucharistia wherof it is lawfull for no man to be partaker except he be persuaded those thinges to be true that be taught vs and be baptized in the water of regeneracion in remissioÌ„ of synnes and ordreth his lifâ— after the maner whiche Christ hath taught For we do not take these for commen breade or dryncke but like as Iesus Christe our Sauyour incarnate by the worde of God had fleshe and bloud for our saluacion euen so we be taught the fode wherwith our fleshe and bloud be nourrisshed by alteracion when it is consecrate by the prayour of his worde to be the flesh and bloude of the same Iesus incarnate For the Apostelles in those there workes whiche be called Gospelles teache that Iesus dyd so commande them and after he had taken the breade and ended his geuyng tankes sayd do this in my remembraunce This is my body And like wise takyng the cuppe after he had geuen thankes sayde This is my bloud and dyd geue them to his Apostels onelye And here I make an issue with this author An issue that he wittyngly corrupteth Iustine in the allegacion of him who wryteth not in such forme of wordes as this authour allegeth owt of his seconde Appologie nor hath any suche speache The bread vvater and vvyne in this Sacrament ar meates ordeyned purposely to geue thankes to God and therfore be called Eucharistia nor hath not these wordes they be called the body and bloud of Christ but hath in playue wordes that we be taught this foode consecrate by gods worde to be the flesh and bloud of Christ as Christ in his incarnatioÌ„ toke flesh and bloud nor hath not this forme of wordes placed to haue that vnderstandyng hovve the same meate and drinke is chaunged into our fleshe and bloud for the wordes in Iustine speakyng of alteracion of the fode haue an vnderstandyng of the fobe as it is before the couse cracion shewyng how Christ vsed those creatures in this mysterie whiche by alteracion nurrish our flesh and bloud For the body of Christ which is the verye celestiall substauce of the hoste consecrate is not chaunged but without al alteracion spiritually nurrisheth the bodyes soules of them that worthely receyue the same to immortalite wherby appeareth this authors coÌ„clusion that bread vvyne remayne stil vvhich is turned into our flesh bloud is not deduced vpoÌ„ Iustines wordes truly vnderstanded but is a glose inuented by this auctor a peruertyng of Iustines words there true meaninges Whervpon I may saye conclude euen as this au ctor erreth in his reasonyng of mother wytte against transubstaÌ„tiacion eueÌ„ so erreth he in the first allegatioÌ„ of his auctorites by plaine mysceportynge let it be further named or thought on as the thinge deserueth Next Iustine is Iren in thallegatioÌ„ of whoÌ„ this auctor maketh also an vntrue report who hathe not this forme of wordes in the fourth boke contra ValeÌ„tinu that the bread wherin we geue thaÌ„kes vnto God although it be of the earth yet when the name of God is called vpon it is not then commen bread but the bread of thankes geuyng hauynge two thinges in it one earthely and the other heauenly This is Irene alleged by this auctor who I saye wryteth not in suche forme of wordes For his wordes be these Like as the bread which is of the earth receyuing the calling of God is now no commen bread but Eucharistia consistynge of two thynges earthely and heauenly so oure bodyes receyuynge Eucharistia be no more corrupâ—â—bâ—e This be Irenes wordes where Irene doth not call the bread receyuinge the callynge of God the bread of thankes geuyng but Eucharistia and in this Eucharistia he sheweth how that that he calleth the heauely thing is the body and bloud of Christ and therfore sayth in his first booke when the chalice mixt and the breade broken receyue the worde of God it is made Eucharistia of the body and bloud of Christ of whiche the substaunce of our fleshe is stayed and encreased
to brynge in the creatioÌ„ of the worlde wherby to induce mannes fayth in this mystery to the belife of it As for th example Baptisme to shewe the chaunge in mannes soule wherof I haue spoken declaryng Emissene serueth for an induction not toleaue to our owtward seÌ„ces ne to mistrust the great miracle of God in eyther because we see none outwarde experieÌ„ce of it but els it is not necessarie the resemblance shall answere in qualitie otherwise then as I saide afore eche parte answeryng his conuenient proportion and as for there comparison of resemblaunce Baptisme with the Sacrament this auctour in his doctrine specially reproueth in that he can not I thynke denye but man by regeneration of his sowle in Baptisme is the partaker of holines but as for the bread he specially admonisheth it is not par taker of holynes by this consecracion but howe soeuer this auctor in his owne doctrine snarleth himselfe the doctrine of S. Ambrose is playne that before the consecration it is bread and after the coÌ„secration the body of Christ whiche is an vndowbted affirmacion then to be no bread howe so euer the accidentes of bread do remayne In the. 26. leef this auctor bryngeth forth two sayinges of S. Augustine which whau Augustinus this auctor wrot it is lik he neither thought of the thirde or first booke of this worke For these two sayinges declare moste euidently the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in the sacrameÌ„t affirmyng the same to be the sacrifice of the Churche wherby apperith it is no figure onely In the first sayinge of S. Augustine is written thus howe fayth shewith me that brede is the body of Christ nowe what soeuer faithe shewith is a truth and then it foloweth that of a truth it is the body of Christ whiche speache breade is the body of Christ is as muche to say as it is made the body of Christ and made not as of a matter but as Emissen wrote by conuersion of the visible creature in to the substaunce of the body of Christ and as S Austen in the same sentence writeth it is bread before the consecration and after the fleshe of Christ As for the seconde sayinge of saincte Austen howe could it with more playne wordes be wryten then to saye that there is bothe the SacrameÌ„t and the thinge of the SacrameÌ„t whiche is Christs body calling the same sacrifice of the Churche Nowe if Christ is body be there it is trulither iÌ„ dede ther which is real Marke 〈◊〉 reader If ther as for there in a figure wer to say not there in truth and in dede but onely signified to be abseÌ„t which is the nature a of figure in his propre and speciall speache But sainct Austen saith euen as the auctour bringeth hiforth yet he haue his priuy nyppe by the waye thus It is saide of S. Augustine there be two thinges in this sacrifice whiche be conteyued in it wherof it coÌ„sisteth so as the body of Christ is conteyued in this sacrifice by S. Augustines mynde According wherunto sainct Augustine is alleged to saye in the same booke from wheÌ„s the auctour tooke this saynge Also these wordes followynge vnder the kindes of bread and wyne whiche we see we honour thiÌ„ges inuisible that is to saye the flesshe and bloud of Christ nor we do not likewise esteme these two kindes as we did bifore the consecration for we muste faithefully confesse before the consecracion to be bread and wyne that nature formed and after consecracion the fleshe and bloud of Christ which the benediction hath coÌ„secrate Thus saith sainct Augustine as he is alleged owt of that booke which in dede I haue not but he hath the like seÌ„ce in other places and for honoringe of the inuisible heauenly thinges there which declare the true and real presence sainct Augustine hathe like in his booke de Cathechisandis rudibus and in the 98. psalme where he speaketh of adoration This may be notable to the reader howe this author concludeth him selfe in the real preseÌ„ce of Christes bodye by his owne collection of saincte Augustines mynde whiche is as he coÌ„fesseth in his owne wordes notynge sainct Augustine that as the person of Christ consistethe of two natures so the Sacrament consisteth of two natures of thellemeÌ„tes of breade and wyne and of the body and bloude of Christ and therfore both these natures do remayne in the Sacrament Thes be this autours owne wordes who trauaylynge to coÌ„founde transubstantacion confoundeth euideÌ„tly himselfe by his owne wordes towching the reall presence For he saieth the nature of the body and bloud of Christ muste remayne in the Sacrament and as truly as the natures of the maÌ„hode godhode were in Christ for thervpon he argueth And nowelet this auctor chose whether he will saie any of the natures the manhod or the godhode were but figuratiuely in Christ whiche and he do then may he the better saâ—e for the agrement of this doctrine the nature of the body the bloud of Christ is but figuratiuely in the SacrameÌ„t And if he saie as he muste nedes saie that the two natures be in Christes person really naturally substantially then must he graunt by his owne collectioÌ„ the truth of the beyng of the nature of the body and bloud of christ to be like wise in the sacrameÌ„t therby call backe all that he hath writteÌ„ against the real preseÌ„ce of Christes body in the sacrameÌ„t and abandon his diuise of a presence by signification which is in truth a playne absence as himselfe spekith also openly which open speche caÌ„not stande and is improued by this opeÌ„ spech of his owne likewise wher he saith the nature of the body and bloud of Christ remayne in the sacrament the worde remaine being of such signification as it betokenith not onely to be there but to cary there and so there is declared the sacrifice of the Churche whiche misterie of sacrifice is perfited before the perceptioÌ„ so it must be euideÌ„t howe the body of Christ is ther that is to saie on thal tere before we receyue it to which aulter S. Augustine saith we cum to receyue it There was neuer maÌ„ouerturned his owne assertioÌ„s more euideÌ„tly then this authour doth here in this place the like wherof I haue obserued in other that haâ—ue writteÌ„ against this sacrameÌ„t who haue by the waye said sum what for it or they haue brought ther treatise to an ende It will be saide here howsoeuer this auctor doth ouerthrowe hiÌ„self in the real pÌ„â—eÌ„ce of christes very body yet he hathe pulled downe traÌ„substaÌ„tiatioÌ„ â—oas crafty wresteles do falling them self on ther bake to throwe ther felowe ouer theÌ„ But it is not like for as loÌ„ge as the true faith of the reall presence staÌ„dith so loÌ„ge standith traÌ„substaÌ„tiatioÌ„ not by aucthoritie of determinatioÌ„ but by a necessary coÌ„sequeÌ„ce of the truth as I said before as zuinglius defeÌ„deth playnely as
for these places of S. augustine may be answered vnto for they speke of the visible matter elemeÌ„te which remayne truely in ther proprietie of their nature for so much as remayneth so as their is true reall bodely matter of thaccideÌ„tes of breade wyne not in faÌ„sy or imaginatioÌ„ wherby their shuld be illusioÌ„ in the seÌ„ses but so in dede as thexperieÌ„ce doth shewe the chauÌ„ge of substance of the creatures in to a better substaÌ„ce wuld not impayr the truth of that remaineth but that remaineth doth indede remaine which the same natural effects by miracie that it had wheÌ„ the substaÌ„ce was ther which is one maruail 〈◊〉 this mystery as their were diuerse more in maÌ„na the figure of it And then a myracle in gods workinge doth not empayre the truth of the worke And therfore I noted before howe saincte Thomas did towche Christ after his resurrection truely and yet it was by myracle as saincte Grigorie writeth And further we may saye towching the comparison that when a resemblaunce is made of the Sacrament to Christes person or contrarywise of Christes person to declare the Sacrament we may not presse all partes of the resemblance with a through equalitie in consideracion of eche parte by it selfe but onely haue respecte to th ende wherfore the resemblaunce is made In the persone of Christe be ioyned two holl perfite natures inseperably vnite which faith the nestorians impugned and yet vnite witout confusioÌ„ of them which confusion Theutichians in consequeÌ„ce of their of error affirmed and so argumeÌ„tes be brought the Sacrament wher with to conuince both as I shall shewe answeringe to Gelasius But in this place saincte Augustine vseth the truth most certaine of the two natures in Christes person wherby to declare his beliefe in the Sacrament whiche beliefe as Hylarie before is by this auctor alleaged to saye is of that is inwardly For that is owtowardly of the visible creature we see he hath with our bodelye eye and therfore therin is no poynte of faith that shulde nede suche a declaracion as S. Augustine makith And yet making the comparison he reherseth both the truthes on both sides sayng As the persoÌ„ of Christ coÌ„sisteth of God and man so the sacrifice of the Church coÌ„sisteth of two thinges the visible kinde of the elemente and the inuisible fleshe and bloud finishing the conclusion of the similitude that therfore their is in the sacrifice of the Churche both the Sacrament and the thyng of the Sacrament Christes body That is whiche is inuiuisible and therfore required declaracioÌ„ that is by S. Augustine opened in the comparison that is to say the body of Christ to be there truely and their with that neded no declaratioÌ„ that is to saye the visible kinde of the element is spoken of also as being true but not as a thing which was entended to be proued for it neded not any prouf as the other parte did and therfore it is not necessary to presse both partes of the resemblaunce so as because in the nature of Christes humanite thier was no substaunce conuerted in Christ whiche had been contrary to thordre of that mysterye which was to yoyne the holl nature of mane to the godhed in the person of Christ that therfore in this mystery of the Sacrament in the whiche by the rule of our faithe Christes body is not impanate the coÌ„uersion of the substaunce of the visible elemeÌ„tes shuld not therfore be If truth answerith to truth for the proportioÌ„ of the truthe in the mysterie that is sufficieÌ„te For elles the natures be not so vnite in one hipostasic in the mysterie of the sacrameÌ„te as they be in Christes person the fleshe of maÌ„ in Christ by vnioÌ„ of the diuinitie is a diuine spirituall fleshe is called is a liuely fleshe and yet thauctor of this booke is not afrayde to teache the breade in the sacrameÌ„t to haue no participatioÌ„ of holynes wherin I agree not with him but reason aganiste him with his owne doctrine and much I could saye more but this shal suffise The wordes of S. Augustine for the reall presence of Christes body be suche as no mane caÌ„ wreste or writh to an other seÌ„se with their force haue made this auctor ouerthrowe him selfe in his owne wordes But that S. Augustine saith towching the nature of breade and the visible elemeÌ„te of the sacrament wih out wresting or writhing may be agreed in coÌ„uenieÌ„r vnderstaÌ„ding with the doctrine of traÌ„substaÌ„tiation therfore is an authoritie familier with those writers that affirme traÌ„substanciatioÌ„ by expresse wordes owt of whose qui ner this authour hath pulled owt this bolt as it is owt of his boweseÌ„te turneth bake hitteth himselfe on the forhed yet after his fashion by wronge vntrue traÌ„slatioÌ„ he sharpened it somewhat not with out suÌ„ punisshemeÌ„t of god euideÌ„tly by the waye by his owne wordes to ouerthrowe himselfe In the secoÌ„de coluÌ„ne of the 27 leaf the firste of the 28 leaf this auctour maketh a processe in declaration of herises in the person of Christ for coÌ„uictioÌ„ wherof this authr saith the olde fathers vsed argumeÌ„ts of two exaÌ„ples in eyther of which exaÌ„ples were two natures to gyther the one not perishing nor coÌ„founding the other One exaÌ„ple is in the body soule of man An other exaÌ„ple of the sacrameÌ„t in which be two natures as inowarde heuenly an owtwarde earthly as in man their is a body a soule I leaue owt this auctours owne iudgement in that place of the o reader require thyne whither those fathers that did vse both these exaÌ„ples to the coÌ„fusioÌ„ of heretiques did not belief as apperith by the processe of theire reasoning in this poynte did they not I say hele ne that euen as really as truly as the soule of maÌ„ is preseÌ„t in the bodye so really so truely is the body of christ which in the sacrameÌ„t is the inward inuisible thing as the soule is in the body preseÌ„t in the sacrameÌ„t for elles the body of Christ were not as truly really present in the sacrameÌ„t as the soule is in maÌ„nes body that argumeÌ„t of the sacrament had no two thinges preseÌ„t so as thargumeÌ„t of the body soule had wherby to shewe howe two things may be to gether witout coÌ„fusioÌ„ of eyther eche remayning in his nature for if the teaching of this auctour in other partes of this booke wer true theÌ„ were the sacrameÌ„t like a body lyinge in a traunse whose soule for the while were in heueÌ„ had no two thinges but one bare thinge that is to saie breade breade neuer the holyer with significatioÌ„ of an other thig so far abseÌ„t as is heueÌ„ froÌ„ earth therfor to say as I ê“blabli thinke this part of this secoÌ„de booke against transubstantiacion was a collection of this auctour wheÌ„ he mynded to mayntaine luthers opinioÌ„ against traÌ„ substaÌ„ciacioÌ„ onely and to striue for bread
And S. Cyrill who for his doctrine was in Epistola ad Nestor greate auctoritie with the counsell Ephesme wryteth the very body and bloud of Christ to be the liuely and vnbloudy Sacrifice of the churche as likewise in tholde churche other commenly termed the same and among other Chrisostome whō thauctor would now haue 1◠hom ad Heb. seme to vse it but for a maner of speach which in dede Chrisostome doth not but doth truly open thunderstanding of that is done in the church wherin by this sacrifice done after the ordre of Melchisedech Christes death is not iterate but a memorie daylie renewed of that death so as Christes offerynge on the Crosse ones done cōsummate to finish all sacrifices after thordre of Aaron is now only remembred accordyng to Christes instituciō but in such wise as the same bodie is offred dailie on thalter that was ones offred on thalter of the Crosse but the same maner of offeryng is not daylie that was on th aulter of the crosse for the dayly offeryng is without bloudshed is termed so to signifie that bloud sheding ones done to be sufficiēt And as Chryyostome openeth it by declaracion of what maner our sacrifice is that is to say this daylie offering to be a remēbrāce of the other maner of sacrifice ones done therfore sayth rather we make a remēbrance of it This sayng of Chrysostome doth not empayre his former words wher he saith the host is the same offred on the crosse and on thalter therfore by him the body of Christ that dyed but ones is daylie present in dede as the Concel of Nice saith sacrificed not after the maner of other Sacrifices as Chrisostom saith offred but the death of that preciouse body onely dayly remēbred not againe iterate And wher thauctor saith thold fathers callyng the supper of our Lorde a sacrifice ment a Sacrifice of laude thākes geuyng Hippinus of Hambrough no Papist in his boke dedicate to the kynges Maiestye that now is saith otherwise and noteth how the olde fathers called it a Sacrifice propiciatorye for the very presence of Christes moost precious body ther thus saith he which presence all Christen men muste saye requireth on oure parte laudes and thankes geuynge whiche maye be and is called in Scripture by the name of Sacrifice but that Sacrifice of our laudes and thankes geuynge cannot be a Sacrifice geuyng life as it is noted by Cyril the sacrifice of the church to do when he saith it is viuificū which can be onely sayde of the verye bodye and bloud of Christ Nor oure Sacrifice of laudes and thankes geuynge cannot be sayde a pure and cleane Sacrifice wherby to fulfill the prophecie of Malachie Malac. 3. and therfore the same prophecie was in the begynning of the Churche vnderstanded to be spoken of the daylye offeryng of the bodye and bloud of Christ for the memorye of Christes death accordyng to Christes ordinaunce in his supper as maye at more lenght be opened declared Thinkyng to theffecte of this booke sufficient to haue encountred the chefe poyntes of thauctors doctrine with such contradiction to them as the Catholique doctrine doth of necessitie require the more particulare confutacion of that is vntrue of thaduersarie parte and confirm aciō of that is true in the Catholique doctrine requiryng more time and ley sure then I haue nowe and therfore offerynge my selfe readye by mouth or wryte to say further in this matter as inalbe required I shall here ende for this tyme with prayour to almightye God to graunte his truth to be acknowledged confessed and vnisormely to be preached and beleued of al so as all contencion for vnderstandyng of religion auoyded whiche hyndreth Charitie we maye geue suche light abrode as men may see our good workes and glorifie our father who is in heauē with the sonne and holy gost in one vnitie of godhed reignyng without ende Amen
chayne is broken the lynkes sparkle abroade and all is brought in daungier to be scattered and scambled at Truthes haue been abused but yet they be true as they were before For no man can make that is true false abuse is mannes faulte not the thynges Scripture in speache geueth to man as gods ministre the name of that actiō which God specially worketh in that ministery So it pleaseth God to honor the ministery of man in his churche by whom it also pleaseth him to worke effectually And Christ sayd they that beleue in me shall do the workes that I do and greater When all this honour is geuen to man as spiritually to regenerate when the ministre sayth I Baptize the and to remitte synne to suche as fall after to be also a ministre in consecration of Christes most precious body wyth the ministration of other sacramentes benedictions prayour If man should then waxe proude glorye as of himselfe and extolle his owne deuotion in these ministeries suche men should bewraye their owne noughtie hypocrisye yet therby empayre not the very dignitie of the ministery ne the very true frute effecte therof And therfore when the church by the ministre prayeth that the creatures of bread and wyne set on thaultare as the booke of commen prayour in this realme hath ordred may be vnto vs the body bloud of our sauior Christ we require then the celebration of the same supper whiche Christ made to his Apostels for to be the continual memory of his death with all frute and effecte suche as the same had in the first institutiō Wherfore when the ministre pronounseth Christes wordes as spoken of his mouth it is to be beleued that Christ doth nowe as he did then And it is to be noted that although in the sacramēt of baptisme the ministre saith I baptize the yet in the celebratiō of this supper the wordes be spoken in Christs person as saiyng himselfe This is my body that is broken for you which is not to vs only a memory but an effectuall memory with the very presence of Christes body bloud our very sacrifice who doyng now as he did then offreth himselfe to his father as he did thē not to renewe that offryng as though it wer imperfite but continually to refreshe vs that dayly fall and decay And as S. Iohn sayth Christ is our aduocate entreateth for vs or 1. Ioā 2. pleadeth for vs not to supplye any wante on gods behalfe but to releaue our wantes in edificatiō wherin the ministery of the church trauayleth to brynge manne to perfection in Christ whiche Christ himselfe dothe assiste and absolutely perfourme in his churche his mystical body Nowe whē we haue Christes body thus presente in the celebration of the holy supper and by Christes mouth present vnto vs saying This is my body whiche is betrayed for you Then haue we Christs body recommended vnto vs as oure sacrifice and a sacrifice propiciatory for al the synnes of the worlde beynge the onely sacrifice of Christes church the pure and cleane sacrifice whereof the prophete Malachie spake and Malach. wherof the fathers in Christes churche haue synce the beginnyng contynually writen the very true presence wherof most constantely beleued hath encreased from tyme to tyme suche ceremonyes as haue been vsed in the celebration of that supper in which by Christes owne mouth we be ascertayned of his most glorious death and passion and the selfe same body that suffred deliuered vnto vs in mysterye to be eaten of vs therfore so to be worshipped acknowledged of vs as our very only sacrifice in whom by whom and for whom our other priuate giftes sacrifices be acceptable and none otherwise And therfore as Christ declareth in the supper himselfe an offryng sacrifice for our synne offryng himself to his father as our mediatour so therwith recommendeth to his father the church his body for which he suffreth so the churche at the same supper in their offryng of laudes and thankes with suche other giftes as they haue receyued frō God ioyne thē selfe with their head Christ presentyng offryng him as one by whom for whom in whom all that by gods grace man can do wel is auaylable acceptable without whom nothing by vs done can be pleasaunce in the sight of God wherupon this persuasion hath been truely conceyued whiche is also in the booke of commen prayour in the celebration of the holy supper retayned that it is very profitable at that tyme when the memory of Christs death is solempnized to remēbre with prayour all astates of the church to recommende thē to God which S. Paule to Timothe semeth 1. Tim. 2. to require At whiche tyme as Christ signifyeth vnto vs the certayntie of his death geueth vs to be eaten as it were in pledge the same his precious body that suffred So we for declaratiō of our cōstdēce in that death sacrifice do kindely remembre with thākes his special giftes charitably remembre the rest of the membres of Christes churche with prayour as we are able shoulde with our bodely goods remēbre at that tyme specially to releaue such as haue nede by pouertie And agayne as Christ putteth vs in remēbraunce of his great benefite so we should throughly remēbre him for our parte with the true confessiō of this mystery wherin is recapitulate a memorial of al giftes misteryes that God in Christ hath wrought for vs. In the cōside ratiō estimatiō wherof as there hath been a faulte in the securite of suche as so their names wer remēbred in this holy time of memory they cared not how muche they forgat themselfe so there may be a faulte in such as neglectyng it care not whither they be remēbred there at al therfore would haue it nothyng but a plaine eatyng drinkyng How much the remēbrance in prayour may auayle no mā mā prescribe but that it auayleth euery christē mā must cōfesse Mā may nothing and gate to his deuotiō But s Iames sayd truly Iaco. 5. multum valet oratio iusti assidua It is to be abhorred to haue hypocrites that counterfecte deuotion but true deuotion is to be wisshed of God and prayed for whiche is Gods gifte not to obscure his glorye but to set it forth not that we should then trust in mens merites prayers but laud glorify God in thē Qui talem potestatem dedit hominibus one to be iudged able to releue an other with his prayour referryng all to procede from God by the mediation of our sauiour redemer Iesus Christ I haue taryed long in this matter to declare that for theffect of al celestial or worldly giftes to be obteined of God in the celebratiō of Christs holy supper whē we call it the cōmunion is now prayed for to be present is present with Gods fauour shal be obteyned if we
deuoutly reuerently charitably quietly vse frequent the same without other Innouacions then thordre of the boke prescribeth Now to the last diffreÌ„ce They say that Christ is corporally in many places The auctor at one tyme affirming that his body is corporally really present in as many places as there be hostes consecrated We say that as the sonne corporally is euer in heauen no where els yet by his operation vertue the sonne is here in earth by whose influeÌ„ce vertue all thinges in the world be corporally regene rated encreased grow to their perfite state So likewise our sauiour Christ bodely corporally is in heuen sittyng at the righthande of his father although spirituallye he hath promysed to be present with vs vpoÌ„ yearth vnto the worldes ende And when so euer two or thre be gathered together in his name 〈◊〉 is there in the myddes among them by whose spiritual grace al godly men be first by him spiritually regenerate and after encrease and growe to their spirituall perfection in God spiritually by fayth eatyng his fleshe and drinkyng his bloud although the same corporally be in heauen The true teachyng is that Christes very The answer body is present vnder the forme of bread in as many hoostes as be coÌ„secrate in how many places soeuer the hoostes be coÌ„secrate is there really substancially whiche wordes really substaÌ„cially be implyed wheÌ„ we say truly-preseÌ„t The worde corporally may haue an ambiguite doublenes in respecre relation One is to the truth of the body present so it may be said Christ is corporally preseÌ„t in the Sacrament but if the worde corporally be referred to the maner of the preseÌ„ce then we should say Christes body were present after a corporall maner whiche we say not but in a spirituall maner therfore not locally nor by maner of quantitie but in such a maner as God only knoweth yet doth vs to vnderstand by fayth the truth of the very presence excedyng our capacite to coÌ„prehend the maner howe This is the very true teachyng to affirme the truth of the presence of Christes very body in the SacrameÌ„t euen of the same bodye that suffred in playne simple euident termes wordes suche as can not by cauillatioÌ„ be mystaken construed so nere as possibly maÌ„s infirmitie permitteth suffreth Nowe let vs coÌ„sider in what sorte thauctor his company which he calleth we say do vnderstand the SacrameÌ„t who go about to expresse the same by a similitude of the creature of the sonne whiche sonne this auctor saith is euer corporally in heauen no where els yet by operation vertue is here in year so Christ is corporally in heauen c. In this matter of similitudes it is to be taken for a truth vndoubted that there is no creature by similitude ne any laÌ„guage of man able to expresse God his mysteries For and thinges that be seeÌ„ or herd might throughly expresse Gods inuisible mysteries the nature whereof is that they caÌ„not throughly be expressed they wer no mysteries yet it is true that of thinges visible wherin God worketh wonderfully there may be some resemblaunces some shadowes and as it wer inductions to make a maÌ„ astomed in coÌ„sideracioÌ„ of thinges inuisible when he seeth thynges visible so wonderfully wrought to haue so merueylous effectes And diuers good catholike deuout men haue by diuerse naturall thinges gone about to open vnto vs the mysterye of the trinitie partely by the sonne as this auctor doth in the Sacrament partly by fyre partely by the soule of man by the MusiciaÌ„s science the arte the touche with the players fyngers the sounde of the corde wherin when witte hathe all trauayled the matter yet remayneth darke ne cannot be throughly set forthe by any similitude But to the purpose of this similitude of the soÌ„ne which soÌ„ne this auctor sayth is onely corporally in heaueÌ„ no where els in the yearth the operation vertue of the sonne So as by this auctours supposal the substaunce of the sonne should not be in yearth but only by operacion vertue wherin if this auctor erreth he doth the reader to vnderstand that if he erre in coÌ„sideracion of naturall thinges it is no merueyle though he erre in heauenly thinges For because I wil not of my selfe beginne the coÌ„tencioÌ„ with this auctor of the natural worke of the-sonne I will bryng forthe the saiyng of Martine Bucer nowe resideÌ„t at Cambridge who vehemeÌ„tly for so much truly affirmeth the true real presence of Christes body in the sacrameÌ„t For he sayth Christ sayd not This Bucer is my spirite this is my vertue but this is my body wherfore he saith we must beleue Christes body to be there the same that did hange vpoÌ„ the crosse our lord himself which in som parte to declare he vseth the similitude of the son for his purpose to proue christs body preseÌ„t really substaÌ„cially in the sacrameÌ„t wher this autor vseth the same similitude to proue the body of christ really abseÌ„t I wil write in here as Bucer speketh it in latin expouÌ„dyng the .xxvi. chap. of Mathewe theÌ„ I will put the same in english Bucers wordes be these Vt sol verè vno in loco coeli visibilis circumscriptus Bucerê° est radijs tamen suis presens verè substantialiter exhibetur vbilibet orbis Ita Dominus etiam si circumscribatur vno loco coeli arcani diuini id est gloriae patris verbo tamen suo sacris symbolis verè totus ipse deus homo praesens exhibetur in sacra coena eoque substancialiter quaÌ„ praesentiaÌ„ non minus certo agnoscit mens credeÌ„s verbis hijs DnÌ„i symbolis quam oculi vident habeÌ„t Solem praesentem demonstratum exhibitum sua corporali luce Res ista arcana est noui Testamenti res fidei noÌ„ sunt igitur huc admitteÌ„dae cogitationes de praesentatione cor poris quae constat ratione huius vitae etiaÌ„ im patibilis fluxè Verbo Domini simpliciter inherendum est debet fides sensuum defectui praebere supplementum Whiche is thus much in Englishe As the sonne is truly placed determinately in one place of the visible heauen and yet is truely substantially present by meane of his beames elswhere in the worlde abrode So our Lorde although he be comprehended in one place of the secret and diuine heauen that is to say the glorye of his father yet neuer the lesse by his worde and holy tokens he is exhibite present truly whole God and man therfore in substance in his holy supper whiche presence mannes mynde geuyng credite to his wordes tokeÌ„s with no lesse certaintie acknowlegeth then our eyes see haue the soÌ„ne present exhibite and shewed with his corporal light This is a depe secrete matter of the newe testameÌ„t a matter