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
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
that thou shouldest in the ende aswell as in the middes see him euideÌ„tly snarled for thy better remembrance Because this auctor who hitherto hathe answered none substanciallye woulde neuertheles be seen to answere all he wyndeth vp sixe of then in one fardel Saincte Augustine Augusti Seduliê° Leo. FulgeÌ„tiê° Cassiodorus Gregor Sedulius Leo Fulgentius Cassiodorus and Gregorius and dispatcheth them all with an vt supra and among them I thynke he woulde haue knytte vp all the rest of the lerned men of all ages amonges whome I knowe none that write as this auctor do the of the Sacrament or impugneth the Catholique fayth as this author doth by the enuyouse name of Papistes Senes Christes tyme there is no memorye more then of sixe that hathe affirmed that doctrine whiche this auctour woulde haue called nowe the Catholique doctrine and yet not writen by them of one sorte neyther receyued in belyefe in publique profession But secretely when it happened begun by conspiration and in the ende euer hitherto extincte and quenched First was Bertrame TheÌ„ BereÌ„garius TheÌ„ Wychefe and in our tyme DecoleÌ„padius Swinglius and Ioaâ—himus Uadianus I will not teken Peter Martyr because suche as knowe him saith he is not lerned nor this auctor because he doth but as it were translate Peter Martyr sauynge he roueth at solutions as liketh his fansye as I haue before declared which matter beynge thus it is a strange title of this booke to call it the true Catholique doctrine Last of al thauctor abuseth himselfe with Damascene and goth about to answere him Damascen by makyng of a summe whiche summe is so wrong accompted that euery man that readeth Damascene may be auditour to coÌ„trole it And this will I saye Damascene writeth so euidently in the matter that Peter Martyr for a shifte is fayne to fynde faulte in his iudgemeÌ„t and age and yet he is vi 〈…〉 C. yeres olde at the lest and I say at the lest because he is rekonned of suÌ„me haulfe as old againe And what so euer his iudgemente were he writeth as Melancton sayth his testimonye of the fayth of the Sacrament as it was in his tyme. I would wryte in here Damascens wordes to compare them with the same collected by this auctor wherby to disproue his particulars playnely but the wordes of Damascen be to be red traÌ„slate alreadie abrode As for the foure substaunces whiche this auctor by accompte numbreth of Christ might haue bene left vnrekened by tale because among them that be faithfull and vnderstand truely whersoeuer the substance of Christes very body is there is also vnderstanded by concomitaunce to be presente the substaunce of his soule as very man and also of the godhed as very God And in the matter of the Sacrament therfore contendyng with him that would haue the substaÌ„ce of bread there it maye be sayd there is in the Sacrament the onely substance of Christes bodye because the worde onely thus placed excludeth other straunge substaunces and not the substaunces whiche without contencion be knowen and coÌ„fessed vnite with Christes body And so a maÌ„ may be said to be alone in his house when he hath no straungers although he hath a numbre of his owne men and Erasmus noteth howe the euangeliste writeth Christ to haue prayed alone yet certayne of his disciples were there And if in a contencioÌ„ raysed whether the father and sonne were both kylled in suche a felde or no I defended the father to haue been onely kylled there and thervpon a wager layd should I lose if by proufe it appeared that not onely the father but also thre or foure of the fathers seruantes were slayue but the sonne escaped And as in this speache the worde onely serued to exclude that was in contencion and not to reduce the numbre to one nomore is it in the speache that this auctour woulde reproue and therfore neded not to haue occupied himselfe in the matter wherin I hearde him ones saye in a good audience himselfe was satisfied In which mynde I would he had continued and hauyng so sclender stuffe as this is and the truth so euident against him not to haue resusc 〈…〉 tate this so often reproued vntruth wherin neuer hitherto any on coulde preuayle ¶ The confutation of the fourth booke THus hauynge pervsed the effecte of the thyrde booke I will likewise peruse the fourth and then shall folowe in directe course to speake of the matter of transubstaÌ„ciacioÌ„ In this fourth boke thauctor entreteth eatyng and drinkyng of Christes body and bloud and in the first parte therof trauaileth to conferme his purpose and in the seconde parte answereth as he can to his aduersaries and so taketh occasion to speake of adoration His chefe purpose is to proue that euel men receyue not the bodye and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament whiche afteâ— this auctours doctrine is a very superfluous matter For if the sacrameÌ„t be onely a figure and the bodye and bloud of Christ be there onely figuratiuely wherto should this auctor dispute of euell mennes eatyng wheÌ„ good men cannot eate Christ in the sacrament because he is not there For by the effecte of this auctours doctrine the Sacrament is but a visible preachyng by the tokens and signes of bread and wyne that in beleuyng and remeÌ„bryng Christs benefites with reuoluyng theÌ„ in our mynde we should in fayth feade vpon christ spiritually beleuyng that as the bread and wyne feadeth and nurrissheth oure bodyes so Christ feadeth and nurrisshed oure soules whiche be good wordes but suche as the wordes in Christes supper do not learne vs and may be well gathered not to limite the mystery of the supper but to be spoken and taught touchyng the beleuyng and remembryng Christes benefites with the reuoluyng of theÌ„ in our mynde theâ—by to lerne vs howe to feade vpon Christe continually without the vse of the visible Sacrament Augusti in sermone domini in moÌ„te iibr 3. beyng that called of S. Augustine the inuisible sacrament wherin by fayth we be nurrished with the worde of God and the vertue of Christes body and bloud whiche the true teachyng of the church calleth spiritual manducation onely without which no man is to be accompted a true membre of the mysticall bodye of Christ And therfore who so feadeth vpon Christ thus spiritually must nedes be a good man for onely good men be â—rewe membres of Christes mysticall bodye whiche spirituall eatynge is so good a frute as it declareth the tree necessariely to be God and therfore it must be and is a certayne conclusion that onely good men do eat and drinke the body bloud of Christ spiritually that is to say effectually to life So as this auctor shall haue of me no aduersarie therein And if this auctour had prouued that to be the true doctrine that Christes very body and bloud is not present in the visible Sacrament then myght he haue left this fourth booke vnwryten For after his doctrine
then to passe the lippes of suche an auctor to plaie whiche the syllables after this sorte for although he maie rede in sum blinde glose that in the instante af the laste syllable gods work is to be accompted wrought beyng a goode lesson to admonishe the ministre to pronouÌ„ce al. Yet it is so but a priuate opinion and reuerently vttred not to putte the vertue in the Laste syllable nor to sâ—orne the Catholique faith after which maner takyng example of this Auctor If an Ethnike iest of Fiat lux at fi was nothynge and then at at was yet nothinge at lu was nothinge but a lytel litell peringe put an x to it and it was sodenly Lux and then light what Christen man would handle eyther place thus and therfore reader let this entre of the matter serue for an argument with what spirite this matter is handled but to answere that this auctor noteth with an exclamacon Oh goode lorde howe would they haue bragged if christ had said this is no bread Here I would questioÌ„ with this auctor whither Christe saide so or no and reason thus Christes body is no materiall breade Christ saide This is my body ergo he saide this is not bread And the firste parte of this reason this auctor affirmeth in the 59 leafe And the seconde parte is Christ wordes and therfore to auoyd this coÌ„clusion thonly waye is to say that Christes speache was but a figure which the catholik doctrine saieth is false and therfore by the catholique doctrine Christes sayinge This is my bodie sayth in effecte This is no breade wherat this auctor sayth they wolde brage if Christe had saide soo In speach is to be consydered that euery yea coÌ„teineth an nayin it naturaly so as whosoeuer saith This is bread sayth it is no wine whosoeuer sayth thys is wine sayth it is no breade If a lapidarie saith this is a diamoÌ„de he saithe it is no glasse he saith it is no crystall he sayth it is no white safyer So Christ saying this is my body faith it is no breade whiche plainnes of speache caused Suinglius to saye plainlye if there be present the substaunce of the bodie of Christe there is transubstantiacion that is to saye not the substaunce of breade and therfore who will plainelye denie transubstantiacion must denie the true presence of the subsâ—ance of Christes bodie as this auctor doth wherein I haue first conuynced him and therfore vse that victorie for his ouerthrowe in transubstantiacion I haue shewed before how Christes wordes were not figuratiue when he saide this is my bodie and yet I will touche here suche testimonie as this anctor bringith oute of Hilarie for the purpose of transubstantiacion in the xxv leefe of this booke in thiese wordes There is a figure saith Hâ—â—arie for bread and wine be out wardly seen there is also a trueth of that figure for the bodye and bloud of Christe be of a trueth inwardelye beleued Thiese be Hilaries wordes as this auctor allegith theÌ„ who was he saith within 350 yeres of christ Nowe I call to thy Iudgment goode reader coulde any maÌ„ diuise more pithiewordes for the proufe of the real presence of Christes body bloud the coÌ„deÌ„pnacioÌ„ of this auctor that wolde haue an onely figure Here in hilaries wordes is a figure coÌ„pared to trueth sight but wardly to belief inwardly Nowe our beliefe is grounded vppoÌ„ goddes worde which is this This is my body in which wordes hilarie testifieth that is inwardly beleued is a trueth the figure is in that is seeÌ„ outwardly I take hilarie here as this auctor allegith him wherby I aske the reader is not this auctor auerthroweÌ„ that christ speache is not figuratiue but true proper beinge inwardly trewe that we byleue Ye will saye vnto me what is this to traÌ„substaÌ„tiacioÌ„ to the reproufe wherof it was brought in because he saith bread wine are seen First I saye that it ouerthroweth this auctor fortruth of the preseÌ„ce of christes body euery ouerthrow therin ouerthroweth this auctor in traÌ„substaÌ„tiacioÌ„ not by auctorite of the churche of Rome but by coÌ„sequence in truth as Suinglius saith who shal serue me to auoyde papistrie If one aske me what say ye theÌ„ne to hilarie that bread wine areseeÌ„ I say they be in dead seeÌ„ for they appere so therfore be callid so as Isaac sayd of Iacob it was his voice yet by his sence of feling denied him Esau which was not Esau Gene. 27. but was Iacob as the voyce froÌ„ within did declare him If ye will aske me howe canne there according to hilaries wordes be in the outwarde visible creatures any figure onles the same be in deade as they appeare bread wine I will answer euen as well as this out ward obiecte of the seÌ„sible hearynes of Iacob reseÌ„blinge Esau was a figure of christes humanite of the ve ry humanite in deade Thus may Hilarie be answered to anoyde hys auctorite from contraryinge traÌ„substaÌ„tion But this auctor shall neuer auoide that him self hath brought out of hilarie which ouerthro weth hiÌ„ in his figuratiue speache consequeÌ„tly in his denyall of traÌ„substantiation also as shal appere in the further handling of this matter Where this auctor in the 18 leaf coÌ„parith these S. Poules wordes The breade that we breake is it not the coÌ„munion of the bodye of christ to be thexpoâ—mdyng of christes wordes This is my body I deny that for christ wordes declared the substance of the sacrameÌ„t wheÌ„ he said This is my body S. Paule declarith the worthie vse of it according to Christes institucion by the words the bread that we breake doth signifie the hole vse of the supper wherin is breakyng blessyng thauckes geuing dispeÌ„sing receiuiÌ„g eatyng So asonely breakyng is not the coÌ„munioÌ„ yet by that parte in a figure of speach S. Paule meaneth all beyng the same as appeareth by the scripture a terme in spech to go breake bread althoughe it be not alwaies so takeÌ„ wherby cosignifie to go celebrate our lordes supper therfore bread in that place may signifie the commen breade as it is adhibite to be consecrate whiche by the secrete power of god turned in to the bodye of Christe so distribute receyued is the coÌ„munioÌ„ of the body of christ as the cuppe is likirise of the bloud of Christ after the benediction whiche benediction was not spoken of in the bread but yet must be vnderstanded As for Christes callynge of bread his bodye is to make it his bodye who as sainct Paule sayth calleth that is not as it were and so makethe it to be Primo Thargumentes this auctor vseth in 19. and. 20. leef of thordre of Christes speaches as the euangelistes reherse them be captious diuises of this auctor in cace he knowethe what sainct Augustine writeth or els ignoraunce if he hathe not red sainct Augustine De doctrina Christiana
supper to their coÌ„dempnacion only And the learned men in Christes churche say that the ignorauÌ„ce want of obseruacion of these thre maner of eatynges causeth the errour in thunderstandyng of the scriptures suche fathers saiynges as haue written of the Sacrament And when the churche speaketh of these thre maner of eatynges what an impudeÌ„cy is it to say that the church teacheth good meÌ„ only to eat the body of Christ and drinke his bloud when they receyue the Sacrament beyng the truth otherwise and yet a diuersitie there is of eatyng spiritually onely eatyng spiritually sacramentally because in the supper they receyue his very fleshe and very bloud in dede with theffectes of all graces and giftes to suche as receyue it spiritually and worthely where as out of the supper wheÌ„ we eat only spiritually by faith God that worketh without his sacrameÌ„tes as semeth to him doth releaue those that beleue and trust in him suffreth them not to be destitute of that is necessary for them wherof we may not presume but ordenarely seke god wher he hath ordred himself to be sought there to assure our selfe of his couenauntes and promyses whiche be most certaynely annexed to his sacrameÌ„tes wherunto we ought to geue most certayne trust confideÌ„ce wherfore to teache the spirituall manducacioÌ„ to be equal with the spiritual manducation sacramental also that is to dimishe theffecte of the institution of the SacrameÌ„t whiche no Christen man ought to do They say that the body of Christ that is in the The 〈◊〉 SacrameÌ„t hath his owne propre tourme quantitie We say that Christ is there sacramentally and spiritually without fourme or quantitie In this coÌ„parison is both sleight crafte The answer In the first part of it which is that they say there is mention of the body of Christ which is propre of thumanitie of Christ In the seconde parte whiche is of we say there is no mention of Christes body but of Christ who in his diuine nature is vnderstanded present without a body Nowe the Sacrament is institute of Christes body and bloud and because the diuine nature in Christicontinueth the vnitie with the body of Christ we must nedes confesse where the body of Christ is there is whole Christ God man And whe we speake of Christes body we must vnderstande a true body whiche hath both fourme and quantitie and therfore suche as confesse the true Catholique fayth they affirme of Christes body all truth of a naturall body whiche although it hath all those truthes of fourme and quantitie yet they say Christes body is not present after the maner of quantitie nor in a visible fourme as it was conuersaunt in this present life but that there it is truely in the SacrameÌ„t the very true body of Christ which good men beleue vpon the credite of Christ that sayd so knowlege therwith the maner of that preseÌ„ce to be an high mystery and the maner so spirituall as the â—arnall man can not by discourse of reason reache it but in his discourse shal as this auctor doth thinke it a vanitie and folishenesse Whiche folishenesse neuerthelesse ouercommeth the wisdome of the worlde And thus I haue opened what they say on the Catholique parte Now for the other parte wherof this auctor is and with his fayth we saye the wordes seme to imply that Christes humayne body is not in the SacrameÌ„t in that it is sayd Christ to be there sacramentally spirituallye without fourme or quantitie whiche saiyng hath no scripture for it For the scripture speaketh of Christs body which was betrayed for vs to be geuen vs to be eaten Where also Christes diuinitie is present as accompaniyng his humanitie which humanitie is specially spoken of the presence of whiche humanite when it is denyed then is there no text to proue the presence of Christes diuinitie specially that is to say otherwise then it is by his omnipotencye presente euery where And to conclude this piece of comparison this maner of speache was neuer I thinke redde that Christ is present in the SacrameÌ„t without fourme or quantitie And S. Paule speaketh of a fourme in the godhead Qui quum in forma dei esset Who Phil. 2. when he was in the fourme of God So as if Christ be present in the Sacrament without all fourme then is he there neither as God nor man whiche is a straunger teachyng theÌ„ yet hath been heard or redde of but into such absurdities in dede do they fall who entreat irreuerently and vntruely this high misterie This is here worthy a speciall note how by the maner of the speache in the latter parte of this difference the teachyng semeth to be that Christ is spiritually present in the Sacrament because of the worde there which thou reader mayest compare how it agreeth with the rest of this auctors doctrine Let vs go to the next They say that the fathers and Prophetes of the The auctor old testament did not eate the body nor drinke the bloud of Christ We say that they did eat his body and drinke his bloud although he wer not yet borne nor incarnated This comparison of difference is clerkely The answer conceyued as it wer of a ryddle wherin nay yea when they be opened agree consent The fathers did eate Christes body drinke his bloud in truth of promyse whicht was effectual to theÌ„ of redemption to be wrought not in truth of presence as we do for confirmation of redemption already wrought They had a certayne promyse and we a certayne present payment they did eate Christ spiritually beleuing in him that was to come but they did not eate Christes body present in the Sacrament sacramentally and spiritually as we do Their sacramentes were figures of the thynges but out conteyne the very thinges And therfore albeit in a sence to the learned men it may be verefyed that the fathers did eat the body of Christ drink his bloud yet there is no suche forme of wordes in scripture it is more agreable to the simplicitie of scripture to say the fathers before Christes natiuite did not eate the body and bloud of Christ whiche body bloud Christ himselfe truely toke of the body of the virgin Marie For although S. Paule in the tenth to the Corinthians be so vnderstanded of some as the fathers should eat the same spiritual meat drinke the same spiritual drinke that we do to which vnderstaÌ„dyng al do not agree yet folowyng that vnderstaÌ„dyng we may not so presse the words as there should be noÌ„ differeÌ„ce at al this one special differeÌ„ce S. Augustine noteth how their sacramentes conteyned the promyse of that whiche in our sacramentes is geueÌ„ Thus he sayth this is euideÌ„t of it selfe how to vs in the holy supper Christ sayth This is my body that shall be betrayed for you Take eate which was neuer sayd to the fathers although their fayth
in substance agreed with our hauyng al one Christ mediatour whiche they loked for to come we acknowledge to be already coÌ„me Come to come as S. Augustine sayth differeth But Christ is one by whom all was create mans fal repared from whom is all fedyng corporall spirituall in whom al is restored in heauen in earth In this fayth of Christ the fathers were fedde with heauenly spiritual foode whiche was the same with ours in respecte of the restitution by Christ redemption by them hoped whiche is atchieued by the mystery of the body and bloud of Christ by reason wherof I denye not but it may be sayd in a good sence howe they dyd eate the body and bloud of Christ before he was incarnate but as I sayd before scripture speaketh not so and it is no holsome facion of speache at this tyme which furthereth in sounde to the eares of the rude the pestilent heresy wherin Ione of kent obstinately Ione of KeÌ„tes obstinacye dyed that is to say that Christ toke nothyng of the virgyn but brought his body with him froÌ„ aboue beyng a thyng worthy to be noted how the old heresi deniyng the true takyng of the fleshe of Christ in the virgyns woÌ„de at the same tyme to reuiue When the true deliuerance of Christes fleshe in the holy supper be of vs eateÌ„ is also denyed For as it is a mere truth without figure yet an high mistery godsworke in thincarnatioÌ„ of Christ wherin our fleshe was of Christ truly takeÌ„ of the virgyns substance So is it a mere truth without figure yet an high mistery gods worke in the geuyng of the same true fleshe truly to be in the supper eateÌ„ WheÌ„ I exclude figure in the Sacrament I meane not of the visible parte whiche is called a figure of the celestial inuisible parte whiche is truly there without figure wherby to empayre the truth of that preseÌ„ce which I adde to auoyde cauillatioÌ„ And to make an ende of this coÌ„parison this I say that this article declareth waÌ„tones to make a differeÌ„ce in wordes where none is in the sence rightly taken witâ— a noueltie of speache not necessary to be vttred nowe They say that the body of Christ is euery day many The auctor tymes made as often as there be masâ—es sayd and that then and there he is made of breade and wyne we say that Christes body was neuer but ones made and then not of the nature substaunce of bread and wyne but of the substaunce of his blessed mother The body of Christ is by goddes omnipotency The answer who so worketh in his worde made present vnto vs at suche tyme as the churche prayeth it may please him so to do whiche prayour is ordred to be made in the booke of common prayour now set forth Wherin we require of God the creatures of bread and wyne to be sanctified and to be to vs the body and bloud of Christ whiche they can not be onles God worketh it make them so to be In whiche mistery it was neuer taught as this auctor willyngly mysreporteth that Christes most precious body is made of the matter of bread but in that ordre exhibitie made present vnto vs by coÌ„uersion of the substaunce of bread into his precious body not a new body made of a newe matter of bread wyne but a newe presence of the body that is neuer old made preseÌ„t there wher the substaÌ„ce of bread wine was before So as this coÌ„parison of differeÌ„ce is mere wraÌ„glyng so euideÌ„t as it nedeth no further answer but a note â—o how they be not ashamed to trifle in so great a matter without cause by wrong termes to bring the truth in slaunder if it were possible May not this be accompted as a parte of Gods punishement for men of knowlege to wryte to the people such matter seriously as were not tollerable to be by a scoffer diuised in a play to supply when his felowe had forgotten his parte They say that the masse is a sacrifice satisfactory for synne by the deuocion of the priest that offreth The auctor and not by the thyng that is offred But we say that their â—aiyngs a most haynous yea and detestable errour agaynst the glorye of Christ For the satisfaction of our synnes is not the deuotion nor offryng of the priest but thonly host and satisfaction for al the synnes of the world is the death of Christ and thoblation that Christ himselfe offred ones vpon the crosse and neuer but ones nor neuer none but he And therfore that oblation whiche the priestes make dayly in their papisticall masses can not be satisfaction for other mennes synnes by the priestes deuotion but is a mere illusion and subtyll craft of the deuill wherby Antichrist hath many yeres blinded and deceyued the world This comparison is out of the matter of the presence of Christes most precious body The answer in the Sacrament whiche presence this auctor in the first part of his coÌ„parison semeth by implication to graunte when he findeth faulte that the priestes deuotion should be a sacrifice satisfactorie and not the thyng that is offred whiche maner of doctrine I neuer red and I thinke it myselfe it ought to be improued if any such there be to make the deuotioÌ„ of the priest a satisfactioÌ„ For vndoubtedly Christ is our satisfactioÌ„ wholly fully who hath payde our hole debte to god the father for thappesing of his iust wrath against vs and hath caÌ„celled the byll obligatory as S. Paule sayth that was against vs. For further openyng wherof if it be asked howe he satisfyed we aniwere as we be taught by the scriptures by thaccomplishement of the wyl of his father in his innoceÌ„t suffryng his willyng obedieÌ„t suffering the miseryes of this worlde without synne the violent persecution of the worlde euen to the death of the crosse sheddyng of his most precious bloud Wherin was perfited the willyng sacrifice that he made of himselfe to God the father for vs of whom it was writen in the beginnyng of the booke that he should be the body perfyte accoÌ„plishmeÌ„t of al sacrifices as of whom all other sacrifices before were shadowes figures And here is to be coÌ„sidered howe the obedient wyl in Christes sacrifice is specially to be noted who suffred because he would Whiche S. Paule setteth forth in declaratioÌ„ of Christes humilitie And although that willyng obedieÌ„ce was ended perfited on the crosse to the whiche it coÌ„tinued froÌ„ the begining by reasoÌ„ wherof thoblatioÌ„ is in S. Paules speach attribute ther vnto yet as in the sacrifice of abrahaÌ„ wheÌ„ he offred Isaac the ernest wil of offryng was accoÌ„pted for the offryng in dede wherpoÌ„ it is sayd in scripture that AbrahaÌ„ offred Isaac the declaration of the wil of AbrahaÌ„ is called the offryng So the declaration of Christes wil
And how saye they that our fleshe is not able to receyue gods gifte who is eternal life which flesh is nurrished with the body bloud of Christ These be also Irenes wordes wherby appeareth what he ment by the heauenly thing in Eucharistia whiche is the very presence of Christes body bloud And for the playne testimonye of this faithe this Irene hathe been commeeÌ„y alleaged and specially of Melancton to Decolampadius as one moste ancient and most playnely testifiyng the same So as his very words truely alleaged ouerthrowe this authour in the impugnation of Christes reall presence in the Sacramente and therfore can nothyng helpe this auctors purpose agaynst transubstautiation Is not this a goodly and godly entre of this author in the first two auctorities that he bryngeth in to corrupte them both As for Drigene in Drigene his owne wordes saith the matter of the breade remayneth whiche as I haue before opened it may be granted but yet he termeth it not as this auctour dothe to call in materiall breade Whenne God formed Adam of Gene. 〈◊〉 claye the mattier of the claye remayned in Adam and yet the materiall claye remayned not for it was altred into an other substance whiche I speake not to compare equallye the fourmynge of Adam to the Sacrament but to shewe it not to be all one to saye the materiall breade and the matter of breade For the accidentes of bread maye be called the matter of breade but not the materiall breade as I haue sumwhat spoken thereof before but suche shiftes be vsed in this matter notwithstandynge the importaunce of it Saincte Cypriaus wordes do note impugne Cyprian transubstantiacioÌ„ for they tend onely to shewe that wyne is the creature appoynted to the celebration of this mysterye and therfore water onelye is no due matter accordynge to Christes institution And as the name wyne muste be vsed before the consecration to shewe the trueth of it then so it maye also be vsed for a name of it after to shewe what it was whiche is often vsed And in one place of Cyprian by this author here alleaged it appeareth Sainct Cyprian by the worde wyne signifieth the heauenly wyne of the vineyarde of the Lorde of Saboth callyng it newe wyne and alludynge therin to Dauid And this dothe Cyprian shewe in these wordes he we shall we drinke with Christ newe wine of the creature of the vyne if in the sacrifice of God the father Christ we do not offer wyne Is not here mention of newe wyne of the creature of the vyne what newe wyne can be but the bloud of Christ the very wyne consecrate by gods omnipotencye of the creature of the vyne offred And therfore this one place may geue vs a lesson in Cyprian that as he vseth the worde wyne to signifie the heauenly drinke of the bloud of Christ made by consecration of the creature of wine So wheithe nameth the bread consecrate bread he meaneth the heauenly bread Christ who is the bread of life And so Cyprian can make nothynge by those wordes againue transubstantiacion who wryteth playnely of the chaunge of the bread by gods omnipotencye into the â—â—eâ—he of Christ as shall after appeare where this author goeth about to answere v 〈…〉 him As touchyng Emissene by whose wordes Emissen is expresselye testified the truth of the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament and also the sence of the doctrine of transubstantiacion this auctor maketh himselfe bolde ouer him and so bolde that he dare corrupte him whiche Emissen wryteth nâ—t that man is turned in to the body of the Churche And here I make an issue with this author that Emissene Anissue hath not that worde of turnyng in that place and man to be turned into the body of the Church is no conuenient speache to signifie a change in him that is regenerate by baptisme He in dede that is thruste out of the chauncell for his misdemeanour in seruice tyme maye be sayde tourned into the bodye of the Churche But Emissene speaketh not so here but because the same Emissene declarynge the mysterye of the Sacrament sayth the visible creatures be tourned into the substance of the bodye of Christe thys auctour thought it woulde sounde gaylye well to the confusion of that â—â—ewe doctyne of tournynge to speake in Baptisme of the turnyng of a man in to the body of the Churche And it may be comenly obserued in this authour wheÌ„ he allegeth any auctorite of others he bryngeth forthe the same in suche forme of wordes as he would haue them and not as they be for the most parte or very often and ones of purpose were ouer often in so high a matter as this is And yet in this Emissins authorite afteral the payne taken to reforge him Emissens doctrine play nely confoundeth this authours teachynge This author maketh a note that there is in man baptized nothynge chaunged outwardely and therfore in the SacrameÌ„t neyther and it must be graunted For the doctrine of transubstantiation teacheth not in the Sacrament any outwarde chaunge For the substance of the bread and wyne is an inwarde nature and so is substance of one defined And to speake of the thyng changed then as in man the chaÌ„ge is in the soule which is the substaÌ„ce of man So for the thyng chaÌ„ged in the visible creatures should be also changed and is chaunged the substance of the bread and wyne to answere theirin to the other And we must considre howe this comparison of the two chaunges is made as it were by proportion Wherin eche chaunge hath his special ende and terme whervnto and therfore accordynge to terme and ende hath his worke of chaunge speciall and seuerall both by gods worke Thus I meane The visible creatures hath there ende and terme whervnto the change is made the very body and bloud of Christe whiche body beynge a trut body we must saye is a corporall substance The soule of man hath his ende and terme a spirituall alteration incorporall to be regenerate the sonne of God And then the doctrine of this Emissene is playne this that eche change is of like truth and then it foloweth that if the change of mannes soule in Baptisme be true and not in a figure The chaunge likewise in the Sacrament is also true and not in a figure And if manues soule be the chunge in Baptisme be in deade that is to saye really made the sonne of God then is the substance of the bread whiche is as it were the soule of the bread I am bolde here in speache to vse the worde soule â—o expresse proportion of the comparison but euen so is the inwarde nature of the bread whiche is substance turned and chaunged in to the bodye of Christe beynge the terme and ende of that chaunge And here I saye so not to declare the maner but the truthe of th end that is to saye as really and in dede the chaunge is in the
to brynge in the creatioÌ„ of the worlde wherby to induce mannes fayth in this mystery to the belife of it As for th example Baptisme to shewe the chaunge in mannes soule wherof I haue spoken declaryng Emissene serueth for an induction not toleaue to our owtward seÌ„ces ne to mistrust the great miracle of God in eyther because we see none outwarde experieÌ„ce of it but els it is not necessarie the resemblance shall answere in qualitie otherwise then as I saide afore eche parte answeryng his conuenient proportion and as for there comparison of resemblaunce Baptisme with the Sacrament this auctour in his doctrine specially reproueth in that he can not I thynke denye but man by regeneration of his sowle in Baptisme is the partaker of holines but as for the bread he specially admonisheth it is not par taker of holynes by this consecracion but howe soeuer this auctor in his owne doctrine snarleth himselfe the doctrine of S. Ambrose is playne that before the consecration it is bread and after the coÌ„secration the body of Christ whiche is an vndowbted affirmacion then to be no bread howe so euer the accidentes of bread do remayne In the. 26. leef this auctor bryngeth forth two sayinges of S. Augustine which whau Augustinus this auctor wrot it is lik he neither thought of the thirde or first booke of this worke For these two sayinges declare moste euidently the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in the sacrameÌ„t affirmyng the same to be the sacrifice of the Churche wherby apperith it is no figure onely In the first sayinge of S. Augustine is written thus howe fayth shewith me that brede is the body of Christ nowe what soeuer faithe shewith is a truth and then it foloweth that of a truth it is the body of Christ whiche speache breade is the body of Christ is as muche to say as it is made the body of Christ and made not as of a matter but as Emissen wrote by conuersion of the visible creature in to the substaunce of the body of Christ and as S Austen in the same sentence writeth it is bread before the consecration and after the fleshe of Christ As for the seconde sayinge of saincte Austen howe could it with more playne wordes be wryten then to saye that there is bothe the SacrameÌ„t and the thinge of the SacrameÌ„t whiche is Christs body calling the same sacrifice of the Churche Nowe if Christ is body be there it is trulither iÌ„ dede ther which is real Marke 〈◊〉 reader If ther as for there in a figure wer to say not there in truth and in dede but onely signified to be abseÌ„t which is the nature a of figure in his propre and speciall speache But sainct Austen saith euen as the auctour bringeth hiforth yet he haue his priuy nyppe by the waye thus It is saide of S. Augustine there be two thinges in this sacrifice whiche be conteyued in it wherof it coÌ„sisteth so as the body of Christ is conteyued in this sacrifice by S. Augustines mynde According wherunto sainct Augustine is alleged to saye in the same booke from wheÌ„s the auctour tooke this saynge Also these wordes followynge vnder the kindes of bread and wyne whiche we see we honour thiÌ„ges inuisible that is to saye the flesshe and bloud of Christ nor we do not likewise esteme these two kindes as we did bifore the consecration for we muste faithefully confesse before the consecracion to be bread and wyne that nature formed and after consecracion the fleshe and bloud of Christ which the benediction hath coÌ„secrate Thus saith sainct Augustine as he is alleged owt of that booke which in dede I haue not but he hath the like seÌ„ce in other places and for honoringe of the inuisible heauenly thinges there which declare the true and real presence sainct Augustine hathe like in his booke de Cathechisandis rudibus and in the 98. psalme where he speaketh of adoration This may be notable to the reader howe this author concludeth him selfe in the real preseÌ„ce of Christes bodye by his owne collection of saincte Augustines mynde whiche is as he coÌ„fesseth in his owne wordes notynge sainct Augustine that as the person of Christ consistethe of two natures so the Sacrament consisteth of two natures of thellemeÌ„tes of breade and wyne and of the body and bloude of Christ and therfore both these natures do remayne in the Sacrament Thes be this autours owne wordes who trauaylynge to coÌ„founde transubstantacion confoundeth euideÌ„tly himselfe by his owne wordes towching the reall presence For he saieth the nature of the body and bloud of Christ muste remayne in the Sacrament and as truly as the natures of the maÌ„hode godhode were in Christ for thervpon he argueth And nowelet this auctor chose whether he will saie any of the natures the manhod or the godhode were but figuratiuely in Christ whiche and he do then may he the better saâ—e for the agrement of this doctrine the nature of the body the bloud of Christ is but figuratiuely in the SacrameÌ„t And if he saie as he muste nedes saie that the two natures be in Christes person really naturally substantially then must he graunt by his owne collectioÌ„ the truth of the beyng of the nature of the body and bloud of christ to be like wise in the sacrameÌ„t therby call backe all that he hath writteÌ„ against the real preseÌ„ce of Christes body in the sacrameÌ„t and abandon his diuise of a presence by signification which is in truth a playne absence as himselfe spekith also openly which open speche caÌ„not stande and is improued by this opeÌ„ spech of his owne likewise wher he saith the nature of the body and bloud of Christ remayne in the sacrament the worde remaine being of such signification as it betokenith not onely to be there but to cary there and so there is declared the sacrifice of the Churche whiche misterie of sacrifice is perfited before the perceptioÌ„ so it must be euideÌ„t howe the body of Christ is ther that is to saie on thal tere before we receyue it to which aulter S. Augustine saith we cum to receyue it There was neuer maÌ„ouerturned his owne assertioÌ„s more euideÌ„tly then this authour doth here in this place the like wherof I haue obserued in other that haâ—ue writteÌ„ against this sacrameÌ„t who haue by the waye said sum what for it or they haue brought ther treatise to an ende It will be saide here howsoeuer this auctor doth ouerthrowe hiÌ„self in the real pÌ„â—eÌ„ce of christes very body yet he hathe pulled downe traÌ„substaÌ„tiatioÌ„ â—oas crafty wresteles do falling them self on ther bake to throwe ther felowe ouer theÌ„ But it is not like for as loÌ„ge as the true faith of the reall presence staÌ„dith so loÌ„ge standith traÌ„substaÌ„tiatioÌ„ not by aucthoritie of determinatioÌ„ but by a necessary coÌ„sequeÌ„ce of the truth as I said before as zuinglius defeÌ„deth playnely as
transubstaÌ„tiacioÌ„ And against theutichians for to improue ther confusion it suffiseth to shewe two different natures to be in the Sacrament and to remaine in there proprietie and the diuine nature not to confounde the earthely nature nor as it were to swalow it whiche was the dreme of the Eutichians And we muste forbere to presse all partes of thexample in the other argument from the personne of man beynge one of bodye and soule whiche the Churche dothe professe in symbole Athanasij of all receyued For Christ is one personne of two perfitte natures whereof the one was before the other in perfection creator of the other the one impassible the other passible Man is of the soule and bodye one two different natures but suche as for there perfection requyred that vnitie whereof none was before other perfit of Christ we saye he is consubstantiall to his father by the substaunce of his godhed and consubstantiall to man by the substance of his manhod but we may not so say man is consubstantial by his soule to angels and consubstantiall in his body to bestes because then we should deduce also Christ by meane of vs to be consubstantial to beastes thus I writ to shewe that we may not presse thexample in euery parte of it as thauctor of this booke vpon Gelatius who ouerturneth his doctrine of the figure And if that I haue Here sayde be well considered there maye appeare the greate ignoraunci of this author in the alleginge of Theodorete the applinge of him and speakynge of Nestorius in the ende For as the Eutichians reasonynge as Saincte Augustine saith to coÌ„fonude the NestoriaÌ„s fel in to an absurditie in the coÌ„fusioÌ„ of the two natures in christ so Theodoretus reasonyng against the EutichiaÌ„s fel in a vehemeÌ„t suspicioÌ„ to be a nestoriaÌ„ like as S. Augustine reasonyng against the maniches for defence of fre will semed to speke that the PellagiaÌ„s would alowe and reasoning against Pelagians semed to say that the manachees woulde allowe such a daunger it is to reduce extremities to the meane wherin Saincte Augustine was better purged then Theodorete was althowgh Theodorete was reconciled But for example of that I haue sayde this argumente of Theodoretus againste the Eutichians to auoyde confusion of natures in Christe sheweth howe in the sacremeÌ„t where the truth of the mysterye of the two natures in Christ may be as it were in a similitude lerned the presence of the bodye of Christe there in the Sacrament doth not altre nature that is to saye the proprietie of the visible creatures This sayinge was that the Nestoryans woulde drawe for there purpose to proue distincre persons againste whome Cyril trauayled to shewe that in the Sacrament the fleshe of Christ that was geuen to be eaten was geuen not as the fleshe of a comen man but as the fleshe of Godde wherby appeared the vnitie of the godhed to the manhode in Christe in one person and yet no confusion as Theodoretus doth by his argument Declare But whither the prynters negligence or this auctours ouersight hath confunded or confused this matter in the vtterynge of it I can not tell For the auctour of this booke concludeth solemly thus by induction of the premisses that euen so the bodye of Christe was after thascension Chaunged in to the godly substaunce I wene the printer left out a not and shoulde haue sayde not chaunged in the Godlye Substaunce for so the sence shoulde be as Peter Martyr reaporteth Theodorete And yet the triumphe this auctore makethe againste them he calleth for his pleasure Papistes with his forked dylemma maketh me Doubte whither he wiste what he sayde or no because he bryngeth in Nestorius so out of purpose sayinge the Papistes muste eyther graunt the Substance of breade and wyne to remaylie orelles to be of Nestorius heresie that the nature of Godhed remayned not This auctoure of the booke for the name of Nestorius shoulde haue put Entiches and then sayde for conclusion the nature of manhode remayned not in Christe And althoughe in Theodorete the substaÌ„ce of bread is spoken of â—o remayne yet because he doch after expounde himselfe to speake of that is seen and feit he femeth to speake of Substaunce after the comen capacitie and not as it is truely in learnynge vnderstanded an inwarde inuisible and not palpable nature but onely perceyued by vnderstandynge so as this outwarde nature that Theodorete speaketh of maye accordynge to his wordes trewly remayne not with standynge trausubstantiaction This auctoure Declareth playnely his iguoraunce not to perceyue whither the argumente of Theodorete and Gelasius tendeth whiche is properly againste the Eutichians rather then the Nestorians For and no propertye of breade remayne it proueth not the Godhed in Christe not to remayne but the humanitie onely to be as it were swalowed vp of the diuinite whiche the Eutichians entended and specially after Christes resurrection againste whom the argument by Theodorere is specially brought howesoeuer this auctor confounbeth the Nestoryans and Eutichians names and taketh one for an other whiche in so highe a matter is no smale faulte and yet no great fault among so many other howger and greter as be in this booke committed wherin this auctor not seynge howe lytell he hath done concludeth yet as constantly as though he had throwen all downe afore him entendyng to shewe that the doctrine of transubstantiacion dependeth onely of anctorite whiche is not so vsyng the sayinges of duns and Gabriel as he reporteth them for his purpuse because they as he saith bost them selfe what they coulde do if the determina cion of the consaille were not and thus euery idle speache maye haue estimacion with this auctor against the receyued truth And from this poynte of the matter the auctour of this booke maketh a passage with a litell sporte at theÌ„ he fansieth or liketh to cal so Englishe Papistes by the waye entreprise to answere all suche as he supposeth reasons for transubstanciation and auctorites also First he findeth himselfe myrth in deuisynge as he calleth them the Papistes to saye that Christe is made a newe whiche fansye if it were so is againste the reall prefence aswell as transubstantiacion In whiche wordes because euery wise reader may ese howe this auctor playeth I will saye no more but this Christe is not made a newe nor made of the substaunce of bread as of a matter and that to be the Catholique doctrine this auctor if he be right named knoweth welynough and yet spendeth two leanes in it The solution to the seconde reason is allmost as foundely handled alludynge from impanatioÌ„ to Inaquation although it was neuer sayde in Scripture this water is the holy ghoost but in baptisme to be water and the holy goost also of the dowe is not sayd this is the holy ghoost but the holy ghost descended as in the resemblaÌ„ce of a dowe The substance of bread is not adnihilate because goddes worke is no adnihilation who geueth
an others learnynge with wordes none controlleth an others lyuing with better dedes Let all endeuoure themselfe to do that God commauÌ„deth and the good occupation thereof shall exclude all suche idelnesse as is cause and occasion of this vayne and noysome curiosite And nowe to retourne to this auctour whiles he seath a more in an other mannes eye he fealeth not a beame in his owne Who recommendeth vnto vs specially Theodorete whom he calleth an holly Bishop and with him doth bringe forth a peace of an Epistle of Saincte Chrisostome The doctrine of whiche two ioyned with the doctrine of this auctor in suche sence as this auctour woulde haue all vnderstanded to be called Catholique touchynge the faith of the Sacrament hath suche an absurdite in it as was neuer hearde of in religion For this auctour teacheth for his parte that the body of Christe is onely reallye in heauen and not in dede in the Sacrament according wherunto this auctor also teacheth the bread to be very bread still which doctrine if it be true as this auctour will nedes haue it then ioyne vnto it the doctrine of the secrete Epistle of Chrysostome Theodorete whose doctrine is that after the consecracion that is consecrate shal be called no more bred but the oâ—dy of christ By these two doctrines ioyned together it shall appeare that we must call that is consecrate by a name of that we be learned by this auctour it is not and may not by the doctrine of Theodorete call it by the name of that which this auctor teacheth vs in dede it is As thus It is in dede bread quod this auctor but call it not so quod this Theodorete It is not in dede the body of Christ quod this auctor but yet in anywise cal it so quod Theodorete Here is playne simulacion and dissimulacion both together For by forberynge the name of breade accordynge to Theodoretes teachynge we dissemble hide that it is by this auctors teachinge and by vsinge the name of our Lordes body accordyng to Theodoretes teachyng we fayne it to be that it is not by this auctors teachynge whiche sayth there is only a figure and by this meanes in so high a mysterye we shoulde vse vntruthes on both sides in simulacion and dissimulacioÌ„ which is a meruelous teachyng I denye not but thinges signifiyng may haue the name of that they signifie by a figure of speache but we reade not in any doctrine geuen that the thynge signifiynge shoulde haue the name by figure and be deliuered from the name of that it is in dede And yet this is nowe the teaching of this auctour in defence of his newe Catholique fayth ioyned with the teachynge of Theodorete and the secrete Epistel of S. Chrisostome as this auctor would haue theÌ„ vnderstanded But those men Theodorete Chrisostome in the sence they mente as I vnderstand theÌ„ taught a true doctrine For they take the name of the body of Christ in the sacrament to be a reall namynge of the body of Christe there presente in dede and therfore a true perfite name which as S. Chrisostomes secrete Epistel saith the thyng is worthy to haue declaryng by that worthynes the thing named to be their in dede And likewise I vnderstande the other name of bread worthely done awaye because the substaunce Wherupon in reason the name was grounded is chaunged accordynge to the true doctrine of transubstantiacion therfore that name of bread in there doctrine is truely layde away although Theodorete wryteth the visible matter of bread and wyne to be seen and felt as they were before and therfore saith there substance which there signifieth the outward nature is seen and felt to remayne which termes with conuenient vnderstandynge maye thus agree with the Catholique teachyng of traÌ„substantiacion and so in the SacrameÌ„t on euery part both in the heaueÌ„ly earthely part to be a ful hole perfit truth as the high mistery beyng the sacrameÌ„t of our perfit vnite in bodye and soule with Christe doth require Wherby in my Iudgement as this auctour hath against his owne determinacion in this enterprise vttred that confermeth the truth of the reall presence of Christs most precious body in the Sacrament which he doth in speciall entreatyng the worâ—es of Saincte Augustine in the .xxvij. leafe of his booke besides that in diuers other places he dothe the like so bringynge vs forth this Theodorete and his secret Epistle of Saincte Chrysostome he hathe brought forth that maye serue to conuince him in transubstantiacion Howbeit as for transubstantiacion Suinglius taketh it truely for a necessary consequeÌ„ce of the truth if there be in the Sacrament the real presence of Christes bodye as there is in dede For as a carnall man not instructe by fayth aswel after consecracion as before as he is of the earth speaketh and calleth it breade and askynge him what it is wyll neuer answere otherwise and if one asked him whither it were the bodye of Christ woulde thinke the questioner mocked him so the faythfull spirituall man answeryng to that questioÌ„ what it is woulde after consecracion accordyng to fayth answere the bodye of Christe and thinke himselfe mocked if he were asked is it not breade onles he had been taught Christ to haue sayde it had been both his bodye and bread As for callyng it by the name of bread which it was he wold not greatly sâ—ike one thyng may haue many names but one thing is but one substaunce wherby to answere to the question what it is sauynge onely in the person of Christe wherin we knowe vnited the two substaÌ„ces of god and man And this matter I repete and sumaryly touch againe to leaue in the readers brest the principall pointe of our biliefe of this misterye to be of the reall preseÌ„ce that is to say vnfayned substantial preceÌ„ce and therfore the true preseÌ„ce of Christes most precious body in the SacrameÌ„t whiche hath bene in all ages taught bene as it is the Catholique faith of Christendom as appeareth by the testimonie of the olde auctors in all ages in whose particuler wordes although there maye be sum tyme cau 〈…〉 lacions yet I wyll note vnto the reader fouer markes and tokens emprinted raither in those old auctors dedes theÌ„ words which be certaine testimonies to the truth of there fayth of real presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament The first marke is in the processe of arguyng vsed by them to the conuiction of heretiques by the truth of this SacrameÌ„t wherin I note not their particuler sentences whiche somtyme be dangerous speaches but their hole doinges As Irene who was in the begynnynge of the churche argueth agaynst the valentinians that denyed the resurrection of our fleshe whom Irene reproueth by the feadynge of our soules and bodies with the diuine glorified flesh of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t whiche flesh it be their but a figure then it shoulde haue proued the resurrection of oure fleshe
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
is flesh by Gods omnipotency so this auctor entreatyng this matter as he doth hath partly opened the faith of traÌ„substanciation For in dede bread beyng bread is not Christes body but that was bread is now Christes bodâ—e because bread is made Christes bodye because Christ called bread his bodye whiche was in Christ to make bread his body When Christ made water wyne the spech is very propre to say water is made wyne For after like maner of spech we say Christ iustifyeth a wicked manne Christ saueth synners and the physitioÌ„ hath made the sicke man whole and suche dyet will make an whole man sycke All these speches be propre and playne so as construction but not made captious and Sophistical to ioyne that was to that nowe is forgettyng the meane worke When Christe sayd This is my body there is no necessitie that the demonstratioÌ„ this should be referred to the outwarde visible matter but may be referred to the inuisible substaunce As in the speche of God the father vpon Christ in Baptisme This is my sonne And here when this auctor taketh his recreatioÌ„ to speake of the fainyng of the papistes I shal ioyne this Issue in this place that he vnderstaÌ„deth not An issue what he sayth if his knowlege be no better then is vttered here in the penne to be in this poynte clerely coÌ„deÌ„pned of ignoraunce In the .lx. leef thauctor entreateth whither it be a plaine spech of christ to say Eate drinke speakyng of his body and bloud I answer the spech of it selfe is propre coÌ„mauÌ„dyng them preseÌ„t to eate and drinke that is proponed for theÌ„ yet it is not requisite that the nature of maÌ„ shuld with like comon effect worke in eatyng drinkyng that heauenly meate drinke as it doth in earthely carnali meates In this mysterye man doth as Christ ordeyned that is to say receyue with his mouth that is ordred to be receiued with his mouth grauÌ„tyng it neuerthelesse of that dignitie estimation that Christes wordes affirme whither he so doth or no Christes ordinaunce is as it is in the substaunce of it self alone wherof no good man iudgeth carnally or grossely ne discusseth the vnfaythfall questioÌ„ how which he can not coÌ„ceyue but leueth the depenes thereof doth as he is bidden This misterye receyueth no mans thoughtes Christes institution hath a propertie in it whiche can not be discussed by mans sensual reasoÌ„ Christes wordes be spirite life which this auctour wresteth with his owne glose to exclud the truth of the eatyng of Christes flesh in his supper And yet for a shifte if a man would ioyne issue with him putteth to this spech the wordes grossely carnally which wordes in suche a rude vnderstandyng be termes meter to expresse howe dogges deuoure paunches then to be inculked in speakyng of this high mysterye Wherin I wil make the issue with this auctour An issue that no Catholique teaching is so fourmed with suche termes as though we should eate Christes moste precious bodye grossely carnaly ioynyng those wordes so together For els carnally alone may haue a good signification as Hilarye vseth it but contrarywise spekyng in the Catholique teachyng of the maner of Christes presence they call it a spiritual maner of presence and yet there is present by gods powre the very true natural body bloud of Christ hole God man without leuyng his place in heauen in the holy supper meÌ„ vse their mouthes and teathe followyng Christes commaundement in the receiuyng of that holy Sacrament beyng in fayth sufficiently instructe that they do not ne can not teare consume or violate that moste precious body and bloud but vnworthely receiuyng it are cause of theyr owne iugement and condempnation Nowe I wil touche shortely what maye bee sayd to the particuler auctorities brought in by this auctor Origen is noted among other writers Origenes of the churche to drawe the texte to allegories who doth not therby meane to destroye the truth of the lettre therfore wheÌ„ he speketh of a figure sayth not there is a only figure whiche exclusiue only beyng away as it is not found by any auctor Catholike taught that the spech of Christ of the eatyng of his fleshe to be only a figure This auctor hath nothyng auaunced his purpose As for spiritual vnderstandyng meaneth not any destruction of the lettre where the same may stande with the rule of our fayth All Christes wordes be life and spirite containyng in the lettre many tymes that is aboue our capacite as specially in this place of the eatyng of his flesh to discusse the particularities of howe and yet we must beleue to be true that Christ sayth although we can not tell howe For wheÌ„ we go about to discusse of gods misterye howe then we fall from fayth and waxe carnall men and would haue Gods wayes like ours Sainete Chrisostome declareth himselfe Chrisosto howe mysteries must be considered with inwarde eyes whiche is a spirituall vnderstandyng wherby the truth of the mysterye is not as it were by a figuratiue spech empayred but with an humilitie of vnderstandyng in a certaine fayth of the truth merueyled at And here thauetor of the boke vseth a sleight to ioyn figuratiuely to spiritually as though they were alwayes all one whiche is not so Sainct Augustine accordyng to his rules Augustinus of a figuratiue and propre speche taketh this speche Excepte ye eate c. for a figuratiue speche because it semeth to commande in the lettre carnally vnderstaÌ„ded an heynous and a wicked thyng to eate the fleshe of a man as mans carnall imaginacion conceyueth it as appeared by the Capharnites who murmured at it And therfore because only faithfull men can by fayth vnderstande this mysterye of the eatyng of Christes fleshe in the Sacrament in whiche we eate not the carnal fleshe of a commen man as the lettre soundeth but the very spiritual flesh of Christ God man as fayth teacheth It is in that respecte well noted for a figuratiue speche for that it hath suche a sence in the lettre as is hidden froÌ„ the vnfaithfull So as the same lettre beyng to faithful meÌ„ spirite life who in humilitie of fayth vnderstand the same is to the vnfaithful a figure as conteinyng such a mystery as by the outward barke of the lettre they vnderstand not vpon which consideracioÌ„ it semeth probable that the other fathers also signifiyng a great secrecie in this mysterye of the sacrameÌ„t wherin is a worke of god ineffable suche as the Ethnike eares could not abide theitermed it a figure not therby to diminish the truth of the misterye as the propre special name of a figure doth but by the name of a figure reuerently to couer so great a secrecie apte only to be vnderstaÌ„ded of men beleuyng therfore the said fathers in some part of their workes in plaine wordes expresse declare the truth of the mysterye the
plaine doctrine therof accordyng to the Catholique fayth in the other part passe it ouer with the name of a figure whiche consideracioÌ„ in S. Augustins writinges may be euideÌ„tly gathered for in some place no maÌ„ more plainly openeth the substance of the SacrameÌ„t then he doth speakyng expressely of the very body bloud of Christ conteyned in it yet therwith in other places noteth in those words a figure not therby to coÌ„trary his other playne â—aiyngs doctrin but meanyng by the word figure to signifie a secrete depe mistery hid deÌ„ froÌ„ carnal vnderstaÌ„dyng For auoyding expellyng of whiche carnalitie he geueth this doctrine here of this texte Excepte ye eate c. whiche as I sayd before in the bare litteral sence implyeth to carnal iudgemeÌ„t other carnal circunstances to atteyne the same flesh to be eateÌ„ which in that carnal sence can not be but by wickednes But what is this to the obeiyng of Christes coÌ„maundemet in th institucioÌ„ of his supper when himselfe deliuereth his body bloud in these mysteryes and byddeth Eate drinke there can be no offence to do as Christ biddeth therfore S. Augustins rule perteyneth not to Christes supper wher in when Christ willeth vs to vse our mouth we ought to dare do as he biddeth for that is spirituall vnderstandyng to do as is coÌ„manded without carnall thought or murmuryng in our sensuall diuise howe it can be so And sainct Augustine in the same place speakyng de communicaÌ„do passionibus Christi declareth plainely he meaneth of the Sacrament Tertullian speakyng of there present acioÌ„ Tertul. of Christes very body in which place he termeth it the same body speaketh catholiquely in suche phrase as S. Hierome speaketh and theÌ„ TertulilaÌ„ saith afterwarde as this auctor therin truely bryngeth him forth that Christ made the bred his body which bread was in the mouth of the pphet a figure of his body Wherfore it foloweth by Tertullians coÌ„fession when Christ made the bread his body that Christ ended the figure and made it the truth making now his body that was before the figure of his body For if Christ did no more but make it a figure styl theÌ„ did he not make it his body as Tertullian himself saith he did And Tertullian therfore beyng red thus as appeareth to be most probable that that is to say in Turtullian should be onely referred to the explicacioÌ„ of the first this as when TurtulliaÌ„ had alleged Christs words saiyng this is my body putteth to of his owne that is to say the figure of my body these wordes that is to say should serue to declare the demonstracion this in this wise that is to say this which the prophet called the figure of my body is nowe my body so Tertullian sayd before that Christ had made bread his body which bread was a figure of his body with the prophete nowe endeth in the very truth beyng made his body by conuersioÌ„ as CypriaÌ„ sheweth of the nature of bread into his body Tertullian reasoned against the Marcionistes because a figure in the prophete signifieth a certayne vnfayned truth of that is signified seyng Christes bodye was figured by bread in the prophete Hieremy It appeareth Christ had a true body And that the bread was of Christ approued for a figure he made it nowe his very body And this may be sayd euideÌ„tly to Tertullian who reasonyng against heretiques vseth the commoditie of arguyng and geueth no doctrine of the Sacrament to further this auctors purpose And what aduaÌ„tage should theretiques haue of Tertullian if he should meane that these wordes This is my body had only this sence This is the figure of my body hauing himself sayd before that Christ made bread his body If so plaine speache to make bread his body conteineth no more certaintie in vnderstandyng but the figure of a body why should not they say that a body in Christ should euer be spoken of a body in a figure and so no certaintie of any true body in Christ by Tertullians wordes This place of Tertullian is no secrete poynte of lernyng hath been of Decolampadius other alleged by other catholique men answered vnto it wherof this auctor may not thinke nowe as vpon a wranglyng argument to satisfie a coniecture diuised therby to confirme a newe teachyng Fynally Tertullian termeth it not an onely figure whiche this auctor muste proue or els he doth nothyng Cyprian shal be touched after when we CypriaÌ„ speake of him againe Chrisostome shall open himselfe hereafter Chrysosto Hiero. plainely Saint Hierome speketh here very pithely vsyng the worde represent which signifieth a true real exhibicioÌ„ for sainct Hierome speaketh of the representacion of the truth of Christes body which truth excludeth an only figure For howsoeuer the visible matter of the sacrament be a fignre the inuisible parte is a truth Whiche saincre Hierome sayth is here represented that is to say made preseÌ„t which only signification doth not Sainct Ambrose shall after declare himselfe Ambrosius it is not denyed but thauctors in spekyng of the Sacrament vsed these wordes signe figure similitude tokeÌ„ but those speaches exclude not the veritie truth of the body bloud of Christ for no approued auctor hath this exclusiue to say an onely signe an only tokeÌ„ an only similitude or an only significacion whiche is the issue with this auctor As for Sainct Augustine ad Bonifacium Augustinus thauctor shall perceiue his faulte at Martyn Bucers hand who in his epistel dedicatorye of his enarracions of the gospels reherseth his mynde of Sainct Augustine in this wise Est scribit diuus Augustinus SecunduÌ„ queÌ„dam Bucerê° modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi sacrameÌ„tum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi At secunduÌ„ quem moduÌ„ Vt significet tantum corpus sanguineÌ„ Domini absentia Absit Honorari enim percipi in Symbolis visibilibus corpus sanguineÌ„ Domini ideÌ„ passim scribit These wordes of Bucer may be thus englished Saincte Augustine writeth the Sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certaine maner the body of Christ the SacrameÌ„t of the bloud of Christ the bloud of Christ But after what maner that it should signifie onely the body bloud abseÌ„t Absit In no wise For the same S. Augustin writeth in many places the body and bloud of Christ to be honored to be receiued in those visible tokens Thus sayth Bucer who vnderstandeth not S. Augustine to say the sacrameÌ„t of Christes body to be Christes body after a certaine maner of spech as this auctor doth nor S. Augustine hath no suche wordes but only secundum quendaÌ„ moduÌ„ after a certaine maner whervnto to put of speche is an addition more then truth required of necessite In these words of Bucer may appeare his whole iugemeÌ„t coÌ„cernyng S. Augustin who affirmeth the very true presence of the thing signified in the