the visible churche by his visible minister the visible Prieste whereof Chrisostome woulde by his wordes put vs in remeÌ„brance not deniyng therby the visible ministerye no more then he doth in his other wordes denye the visible forme of bread and yet woulde we should not loke onely vpon that but whither fayth directeth vs that is to saye vpon the very bodye of Christ there inuisiblye present whiche fayth knoweth and knoweth it to be there the very bodye and there therfore to be no breade which breade this true confession of Christes body present by fayth excludeth But touchyng the Priest Sainct Chrisostomes words do by no meane teach vs that there is no visible Prieste but to thinke that the bodye of Christe is delyuered of Christes handes which excludeth not in like sorte the ministre visible as fayth doth the substaunce inuisible of bread in the Sacrament The one saiynge of Chrisostome is a godlye exhortacion accordynge to the truth the other is a doctrine of fayth in the truth we be not taught that the Prieste is Christ but we be taught that the substaunce of the breade is made Christes body And then the questioÌ„ in the wordes of Chrisostome Seest thou breade is as muche to saye as remembrest thy fayth as beynge one of the faythfull that knowe whiche terme Saincte Augustine vsed And then Chrisostome to conferme oure fayth in so high a mysterye declareth howe we shoulde thinke Christe to delyuer his bodye himselfe as a thynge farre excedynge mannes power to do it And with other heauenlye wordes setteth forthe the greatenesse of that mysterye with wordes of godlye and good meditacion conueniente for so high a matter to adourne it accordynglye whiche because they be holsome and mete allegoryes wherwith to drawe and lifte vp our myndes to celestiall thoughtes we maye not therby esteme the substaunce of that mysterye to be but in allegorye here in flede of a solution the auctor fylieth thre whole leaues with proâ—fe of thaâ— is not necessarye howe a deniall by comparison is not vtterlye a deniall whiche is in dede true and as one was answeâ—ed aâ— Cambridge when he pressed the responâ—all what saye ye to myne argumente whiche was not in dede of his owne makynge The responsall lesâ—e his Latyn and toulde the opp 〈…〉 before all his countrye frindes in playne Englishe It is a good argumente syr quod he but no thynge to the purpose and so is of this matrier the entreatynge of deniall by comparison good but nothynge to the purpose here and it is an obseruacion that requireth good iudgemente or elles maye therby be induced many absurdities Chrysostome as I sayde before speakynge to the Christen man semeth to aske whither he vseth his fayth or no For if he seeth breade he seeth not with faith whiche seeth the bodye of Christ there presence and so no breade If the Christen man thinke of passage throughe him of the celestiall fode he hathe therein no spirituall thoughte suche as fayth engendreth and therfore sayth Chrysostome absit here in these wordes of Chrisostome is no denyall with comparison and therfore this auctour mighte haue spared his treatise in these thre leaues For in those wordes when Chrisostome saith Thinke not thou receyuest the bodye of Christe by a man c. There this auctour so neglecteth his owne rule as in his thirde booke he maketh a solemne argument that by those Chrisostomes wordes we receyue not the bodye of Christ at all seyng Chrisostome sayth we may not thinke we receyue it by man So lytell substancially is this matter handled as a man might saye here were many accidentall wordes withoute a substaunce or myracle howe strange so euer the same seme to this auctor otherwise Nowe let vs here what this auctor will saye to Saincte Ambrose He reherseth him at good lenght but translateth him for aduantage As among other in one place where Saincte Ambrose sayth This Sacramente whiche thou receyuest is made by the worde of Christ this auctor translateth is done by the worde of Christ because makynge muste be vnderstanded in the substaunce of the Sacrament chiefly before it is receyued and doynge maye be referred to the effecte chieflye for whiche purpose it shoulde seme thauctor of this booke cannot awaye with the worde made where at it pleaseth him in an other place of this booke to be merye as at an absurditie in the Papistes when in dede both Saincte Ambrose here Saincte Cyprian and Sainct Hierome also in there places vse the same worde speakynge of this Sacrament and of the wonderfull worke of God in ordenyng the substance of it by such a conuersion as breade is made the bodye of Christe But as touchynge thanswere of this auctor to Sainct Ambrose it is diuerse For first he doth trauerse thauctoritie of the booke whiche allegation hath been by other here to fore made and answered vnto in such wise as the booke remayneth Saincte Ambroses still and MelaÌ„cton saith it semeth not to him vnlike his and therfore allegeth this verye place out of him against Oecolampadius This auctor will not sticke in that allegation but for answere sayth that Saincte Ambrose saith not that the substaunce of the breade and wyne is gone and that is true he sayth not so in syllables but he sayth so in sence because he speaketh of a chaunge so playnelye in the breade into that it was not wherunto this auctor for declaration of change sayth the breade and wyne be changed into an higher astate nature and condition whiche thre wordes of astate nature and condition be good wordes to expresse the chaunge of the breade into the bodye of Christe whiche bodye is of an other nature an other state and condition then the substaunce of the breade without coÌ„parison hygher But then this auctor addeth to be taken as holye meates and drinkes wherein if he meaneth to be taken so but not to be so as his teachynge in other places of this boke is the breade to be neuer the holyer But to signifie an holy thynge then is the chaunge nothynge in dede touchynge nature but onelye as a cowarde maye be channged in apparell to playe Hercules or Sampsons parte in a playe himselfe therby made neuer the hardyer man at all but onelye appoynted to signifie an hardye man of whiche mannes chaunge althoughe his astate and condition might in speache be called chaunged for the tyme of the playe yet no man woulde terme it thus to saye his nature were changed whither he mente by the worde nature the substaunce of the mannes nature or propertie for in these two poyntes he were still the same man in Hercules coote that he was before the playe in his owne so as if there be nothynge but a figure in the bread then for so much this auctors other teaching in this booke where he sayth the breade is neuer the holyer is a doctrine better then this to teache a chaunge of the breade to an higher nature when it
coÌ„secration As touchyng the spiritualtie of the meat of Christes bodye I haue spoken before but where this auctor addeth it requireth no corporall presence he speaketh in his dreame beynge oppressed with slepe of ignoraunce and can not tell what corporall meaneth as I haue opened before by thauctorite of Cyrill Nowe let vs se what this auctor sayth to Chrisostome This auctor noteth in Chrisostome Chrisostome two places and bryngeth them forth and in handlyng the first place declareth himselfe to trifle in so great a matter euidently to his owne reproufe For where in the secoÌ„d booke of his worke entretyng transubstanciation he would the same words of Chrisostome by this fourme of speache in the negatiue should not denye precisely And when Chrisostome sayth do not thinke that you by man receiue the body of god but that we should not considre man in the receiuyng of it Here this auctor doth allege those wordes and reasoneth of them as though they were termes of were deny all But I would aske of this auctor this question If Chrisostomes fayth had been that we receyue not the bodye of God in the SacrameÌ„t verely Why should he vse wordes Idelly to entreat of whome we receiued the body of God whiche after this auctors doctrine we receiue not at all but in figure no body at all whiche is of Christes humanitie beyng Christ as this auctor teacheth spiritually that is by his diuine nature in him onely that worthely receyueth and in the verye Sacrament as he concludeth in his booke onely figuratiuely Turne backe reader to the. 36. lâ—ef in the auctors booke and reade it with this and so considre vpon what principle here is made an Ergo I will answere that place whan I speake of transubstanciation whiche shall be after answer to the third and fourth booke as the naturall ordre of the matter requiteth The second place of Chrisostome that this auctor bringeth furth he grauÌ„teth it souÌ„deth much against him fauoreth his aduersaries but with coÌ„ferryng coÌ„sideryng he trusteth to altre it from the true vnderstandyng And not to expound but confouÌ„de the matter he ioyneth in speach the SacrameÌ„t of baptisme with this sacrameÌ„t which shifte this auctor vsed vntruly in Hilarie would now beare in hand that the preseÌ„ce of Christ were none otherwise in this sacrameÌ„t theÌ„ in Baptisme whiche is not so for in this Sacrament Christes humanitie godhead is really preseÌ„t in Baptisme his godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud in whiche we be wasshed not requiring by scripture any real preseÌ„ce for dispeÌ„sation of that mystery as I haue before touched discussyng thanswer of Emissen where as Chrisostome speakyng of Chrisosto de Sacerdo li. 3. this sacrameÌ„t whereof I haue before spokeÌ„ and Melancton allegyng it to Oecolampadius saith thus The great myracle and great beneuolence of Christ is that he sitteth aboue with his father and is the same houre in our handes here to de embrased of vs. and therfore where this auctor would not the woÌ„dre of gods worke in the Sacrament to be wonderfull for the worke and effect in man this is one piece of truth but in the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ the olde fathers wonder at the worke in the SacrameÌ„t how bread is chauÌ„ged into the body of christ how Christ sittyng in heauen God and man is also man and God in the Sacrament and beyng worthly receiued dwelleth in such carnally and naturally as Hilarie sayth and corporally as Cyrill sayth How this can be no man can tell no faythfull maÌ„ should aske and yet it is the true Catholique fayth to be truely so wrought For as Emissene sayth he that is thauctor of it he is the witnesse of it And therfore I wil make it an issue with this An issue So this auctor hath nowe in this worke confessed the traÌ„slacion of the catechisme which one in coÌ„munication would nedes haue made me beleue had been his mannes doyng and not his Heare now reader how plainly Theophilact speaketh vpon the Gospelâ— of Sainct Iohn expounding the .vi. Chapter Take hede that the bread whiche is eaten of vs in the mysteryes is not onely a certaine figuration of the fleshe of our Lorde but the fleshe it selfe of our Lorde for he sayde not The bread whiche I shall geue is the figure of my flesh but it is my fleshe For that bread by the mysticall benediction is transformed by mystical wordes and presence of the holy ghost into the flesh of our Lord. And it should trouble no maÌ„ that the bread is to be beleued fleshe for whiles our Lorde walked in flesh and receiued nurrishmeÌ„t of bread that bread he did eat was chaunged into his body and was made like to his holy fleshe and as it is customably in mans feadyng serued to the sustentacion and encrease of it therfore the bread now also is chaunged into the fleshe of our Lorde And howe is it then that it appeareth not fleshe but bread that we should not loth the eatyng of it for if fleshe did appeare we should be vnplesauntly disposed to the communion of it Nowe our Lorde coÌ„desceÌ„dyng to our infirmitie the mystical meat appeareth suche to vs as those we haue been accustomed vnto Hitherto I haue faithfully expressed Thiophilactes wordes out of Latyn of â—ecolampadins translation without termyng the substanciall poyntes otherwise theÌ„ the wordes purporte in Latyn By which may appeare what was Theophilacts meanyng what doctrine he geueth of the Sacrament and howe his owne wordes vpon S. Marke be to be vnderstanded wheÌ„ he sayth Speciem quidem panis vini seruat in virtutem Theophilact autem carnis sanguinis transelemeÌ„tat in corruptyng of whiche wordes this auctor maketh a great matter when they were not alleged for his but as they be his seruare speciem maye be well translate fourme and apparaunce because vpon Sainct Iohn before alleged he sayth of the bread it appeareth And as for these wordes the vertue of Christes fleshe and bloud must be vnderstaÌ„ded to agre with the playne place of Theophilacte vpon Sainct Iohn and vpoÌ„ marke also to signifie not only vertue but veritie of the fleshe and bloud of Christ For if Theophilacte by that speache mente the vertue of the body of Christ and not the veritie of the very body as this author sayth he did why shoulde Theophilacte bothe vpon Saincte Marke and also vpon Saincte Iohn aske this question why doth not the fleshe appeare if himselfe by those wordes should teache there were onely 〈◊〉 presente the vertue of his fleshe who and he had ment so would not haue asked the question or if he had would haue answerd it thus Accordyngly there is no fleshe in dede but the vertue of the fleshe and that had been a playne answer and such as he would haue made This auctor wylaske then why doth Theophilacte vse this phrase to say chaunged into the vertue of the
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
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
is onelye appoynted to signifie an holye thynge And therfore this auctours answere garnished with these there gaye wordes of astate nature and condicion is diuised but for a shifte suche as agreeth not with other places of this booke nor in it selfe neyther And where Saincte Ambrose merueyleth at goddes worke in the substaunce of the Sacrament this auctour shifteth that also to the effecte in him that receyueth whiche is also meruelous in deade but the substaunce of the Sacramente is by Saincte Ambrose spiritually merueyled at howe breade is made the bodye of Christ the visible matter outwardely remayninge and onelye by an inwarde chaunge whiche is of the inwarde nature called properlye substaunce in learnynge and a substaunce in dede but perceyued onely by inwarde vnderstandynge as the substaunce present of Christes moste precious body is a very substance in dede of the bodye inuisiblye presente but present in dede and onelye vnderstanded by moste true and certen knowledge of fayth And although this auctor noteth howe in the examples of mutacion brought in by Sainct Ambrose the substaunces neuer the lesse remayned the same that skilleth not for the wonder of those meruelles serue for an induction to releaue the weake fayth of man in this miracle of the Sacramente and to represse the arrogancie of reason presumynge to serche suche knowledge in goddes secrete workes whereof if there might be a reason geuen it neded no fayth And where there is a like there is no singularite as this miracle in the Sacramente in notablye singuler and therfore none other founde like vnto it The Sacramentall mutation which this auctor newly so termeth is a mere shifte to auoyde amonge suche as be not lerned the truthe of goddes miracle in this chaunge whiche is in dede suche as Sainct Ambrose speaketh of that of bread is made the bodye of Christe whiche Sainct Ambrose in an other place termeth it the grace of the body of Christe and all is one for it is a greate grace to haue the bodye of Christ for our foode present there And out of Christes mouth callynge the bodye of Christe is makynge the bodye of Christe whiche wordes callyng signifiynge namynge vsed in sainct Ambrose wrytynges do not limite Christes wordes and restrayne them to anonely callyng an only signifiyng or an only naming but geue an vnderstaÌ„dyng agreable to other of Sainrt Ambrose wordes that shewe the breade after consecracion to be the bodye of Christ the callyng to be vnderstanded a real callynge of the thynge that so is made and likewise a reall signifiynge of the thynge in dede present and a reall namynge as the thynge is in dede As Christe was named Iesus because he is the sauiour of his people in dede And thus perusynge this auctors answers I trust I haue noted to the reader with howe small substaunce of matter this auctor impugneth transubstanciation and howe slenderly he goeth about to answere suche auctors as by their seueral writynges conferme the same besides the consent of ChristeÌ„dom vniuersally receyuyng the same And howe in the meane waye this auctor hath by his owne handes pulled downe the same vntrue doctrine of the figuratiue speache that himselfe so lately hath diuised or rather because this matter in his book goeth before he hath in this seconde booke marred his frame or euer he cummeth to the thirde booke to set it vp In the seconde volume of the. 43. leef the auctor goeth about to note 6. absurdites in the doctrine of transubstantiation whiche I entende also to peruse This first is this First if the Papistes be demanded what thyng it The auctor is that is broken what is eaten and what is chawed with the teath lippes mouth in this SacrameÌ„t they haue nothynge to answere but thaccidentes For as they say bread and wyne be not the visible elementes in this Sacrament but onely ther accidentes and so they be forsed to saye that accidentes be broken eaten Dronken chawed and swalowed without any substaunce at all whiche is not onely againste all reason but also againste the doctrine of all auncient auctors This is accompted by this auctor the The anâ—wer first absurdire inconuenience whiche is by him rhetorically setforth with uppes and mouth and chawynge not substanciall termes to the matter but accidentall For opeuynge of whiche matrer I will repete sum parte agayne of that I haue wryten before when I made the scoler answere the rude man in declaration of substaunce whiche is that albeit that sensible thynge whiche in speache vttered after the capacite of comen vnderstandyng is called substaunce be comprehended of oure sences yet the inwarde nature of euery thyng whiche is in lernynge properly called substance is not so distinctly knowen of vs as we be able to shewe it to the sences or by wordes of difference to distincte in diuers kyndes of thynges one substaunce from another And herin as Basill Basilius homil 1. Hâ—x a He 〈…〉 eron sayth if we should go about by separation of all the accidentes to discerâ—e the substance by it selfe alone we should in the experience fayle of our purpose and ende in nothyng in dede There is a natural consideration of the abstractes that can not be practised in experience And to me if it were asked of comen bread when me breeke it whether we breke the substaunce or onely the accidentes first I must lernedly say if the substaunce be broken it is by meane of the accident in quantite and then if it like me to take my pleasour without lernyng in philosophie as this auctor doth in diuinite against the catholike fayth to say in diuision we breke not the substaÌ„ce of bred at all the heresie in philosophie were not of suche absurdite as this auctor maynteyneth in diuinite For I haue some probable matter to say for me wher he hath none For my straÌ„ge answere I would saye that albeit a natural thing as bread coÌ„sisting of matter essencial forme whiche quaÌ„tite therby other accidentes cleauyng annexed may be wel said to be in the hole broken as we see by experience it is yet speakyng of the substaÌ„ce of it alone if one shold aske whether that be broken it should be answered yee theÌ„ should the substaÌ„ce appeare brokeÌ„ hole al at one tyme seyng in euery broken piece of breade a hole substance of bread wher the piece of bread brokeÌ„ is so lytell a crumme as can no more in dede be deuided we say neuerthelesse the same to be one substaunce verie bread for want of coÌ„uenieÌ„t quaÌ„tite bread in diuisible thus I write to shewe that such an answer to say the accideÌ„ts be brokeÌ„ hath no such clere absurdite as this auctor would haue it seme But leauynge of the matter of philosophie to the scoles I wil grauÌ„t that accideÌ„tes to be without substaÌ„ce is against the comeÌ„ course of natural thiÌ„ges thefore theriÌ„ is a special miracle of god But wheÌ„
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
that point So much is he contrarie to him selfe in this worke and here in this place not caryng what he sayth reporteth suche a teachyng in the first parte of this difference as I haue not hearde of before There was neuer man of learnyng that I haue red termed the matter so that Christ goeth into the stomoke of the maÌ„ that receaueth and no further For that is writteÌ„ contra Stercoronistas is nothyng to this teachyng nor the speache of any glose if there be any such were herein to be regarded The Catholique doctrine is that by the holy coniunction in the Sacrament we be ioyned to Christ really because we receaue in the holy supper the most precious substaunce of his glorious body whiche is a fleshe geuyng life And that is not digested into our fleshe but worketh in vs and attempereth by heauenly nurrttor our body and soule beyng partakers of his passyon to be conformable to his will and by suche spiritual foode to be made more spirituall In the receauyng of whiche foode in the most blessed Sacrament our body and soule in them that duelie coÌ„municate worketh together in due ordre without other discussyon of the mysterie then God hath ordred that is to say the soule to beleue as it is taught and the body to do as God hath ordred knowyng that gloryous fleshe by our eatyng can not be consumed or suffre but to be most profitable vnto such as do accustonie worthely to receiue the same But to say that the churche teacheth how we receaue Christ at our mouth and he goeth into our stomoke and no further is a reporte which by the iust iudgemente of God is suffred to come out of the mouthe of them that fyght against the truth in this most high mysterie Now where this auctor in the secoÌ„de part by an aduersiteue with a But to make the comparison telleth what he and his say he telleth in effect that which euery Catholique man must nedes and doth confesse For such as receaue Christes most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament worthly they haue Christ dwellyng in theÌ„ who conforteth both body and soule whiche the church hath euer taught most plainely so as this comparison of differeÌ„ce in his two parties is made of one open vntruth a truth disguised as though it were now first opened by this auctor and his whiche maner of handelyng declareth what sleyght and shift is vsed in the matter They say that Christ is receyued in the mouth The auctor entreth in with the bread and wyne We say that he is receyued in the heart and entreth in by faith Here is a pretie slaight in this coÌ„parison The answer where both partes of the comparison may be vnderstanded on bothe sydes and therfore here is by thauctor in this coÌ„parison no issue ioyned For the worthy receauyng of Christs body and bloud in the Sacramente is both with mouth heart both in facte faith After whiche sorte S. Peter in the last supper receaued Christes body wheras in the same supper Iudas receaued it with mouth in fact only wherof S. Augustin speketh in this wise Non dicunt ista nisi qui de meÌ„sa domini August contra li teras pe til lib. 2 cap. 47. vitaÌ„sumunt Sicut Petrus non iudicium sicut Iudas et tamen ipsa vtrique fuit vna sed non vtrique valuit ad vnum quia ipsi noÌ„ erant vnuÌ„ Whiche wordes be thus muche to say That they say not so as was before entreated but suche as receaue life of our Lordes table as Peter did not iudgment as Iudas and yet the table was all one to them both but it was not to all one effect in theÌ„ both because they were not one Here S. Augustine noteth the difference in the receauer not in the Sacrament receaued whiche beyng receaued with the mouth onely and Christ entryng in mysterie only doth not sanctify vs but is the stone of stumblyng and our iudgement and condempnacion but if he be receaued with mouthe and body with hearte and fayth to such he bryngeth life and nurrishemeÌ„t wherfore in this comparison thauctor hath made no difference but with diuers termes the catholique teachyng is deuided into two membres with a But facioned neuertheles in an other phrase of speache then the church hath vsed whiche is so commen in this auctor that I will not hereafter note it any more for a faulte Let vs go further They say that Christ is really in the SacrameÌ„tall The auctor bread beyng reserued an whole yere so long as the forme of bread remaineth but after the receauyng therof he flieth vp they say from the receyuer vnto heauen as sone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or chaunged in the stomoke But we say that Christ remayneth in the man that worthely receaueth it so long as the man remayneth a membre of Christ This comparison is like the other before The answer wherof the first parte is garnished and emblossed with vntruth and the second parte that the church hath euer taught most truly that al must beleue and therfore that pece hath no vntruth in the matter but in the maner only beyng spokeÌ„ as though it diffred froÌ„ the continuall open reachyng of the churche which is not so wherfor in the maner of it in vtteraunce signifieth an vntruth whiche in the matter it selfe is neuerthelesse most true For vndoutedly Christ remaineth in the maÌ„ that worthely receiueth the sacrameÌ„t so loÌ„g as that man remayneth a membre of Christ In this first part there is a fault in the matter of the speache for explicacion wherof I wil examin it particularly This auctor saith they say that Christ is really in the SacrameÌ„tal bread beyng reserued an hole yere c. The church geuyng faith to Christes worde wheÌ„ he sayd This is my body c. techeth the body of Christ to be present in the SacrameÌ„t vnder the forme of bread vnto which words wheÌ„ we put the worde really it serueth only to expresse that truth in open wordes which was afore to be vnderstaÌ„ded in sence For in Christ who was the body of al the shadowes figures of the law who did exhibit geue in his sacrameÌ„tes of the new law the things promised in his sacramentes of tholde lawe We must vnderstaÌ„d his wordes in the institucion of his sacraments without figure in the substance of the celestial thyng of theÌ„ therfore when he ordred his most precious bodye bloud to be eateÌ„ drunken of vs vnder the formes of bread wyne we professe beleue that truely he gaue vs his most precious body in the SacrameÌ„t for a celestial foode to coÌ„fort strength vs in this miserable life And for the certayntie of the truth of his worke therin we ê“fesse he geueth vs his body realy that is to say in ded his body the thing it self Which is the heauenly part of the SacrameÌ„t