this auctor doth impute that fayth of the real presence of Christes bodie and bloud to thonly Papistes Wherupon reader here I ioyne with thauctor an issue that the fayth of the real and substantiall An issue presence of Christes bodie and bloud in the Sacrament is not the diuise of Papistes or their fayth onely as this auctor doth consideratly slander it to bee and desire therfore that accordyng to Salomons iudgemēt this may serue for an note and marke for to geue sentence for the true mother of the childe For what should this meane so without shame openly and vntruly to call this fayth papishe but onely with the enuyous worde of Papist to ouermatche the truth It shal be now to purpose to considre the scriptures touchyng the matter of the Sacrament which thauctor pretēdyng to bring forth faithfully as the maiestie therof requireth in the rehersal of the wordes of Christ out of the gospel of saint Iohn he begynneth a litle to lowe and passeth ouer that perteyneth to the matter and therfore should haue begon a litle hygher at this clause And the bread whiche I shall geue you is my fleshe whiche I wyll geue for the life of the world The Iewes therfore striued betwene theim self saiyng How can this mā geue his fleshe to be eaten Iesus therfore sayd vnto them Uerely verely I say vnto you except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud ye haue no life in you Who so eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life I wyl rayse him vp at the last day For my fleshe is verie meat and my bloud verie drinke He that eateth my flesh drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me I in him As the liuyng father hath sent me and I liue by the father Euen so he that eateth me shal liue by me This is the bread which came doune frō heauen Not as your fathers did eat Manna and are dead He that eateth this bread shall lyue for euer Here is also a faulte in the translacion of the texte whiche should be thus in one place For my fleshe is verely meat and my bloud is verely drinke In whiche speache the verbe that cuppleth the wordes fleshe and meat together knitteth them together in their propre significacion so as the fleshe of Christ is verelymeat as thauctor would persuade And in these words of Christ may appere plainly how Christ taught the mysterie of the fode of his humanitie whiche he promised to geue for foode euen the same fleshe that he said he would geue for the life of the worlde and so expresseth the first sentence of this scripture here by me holly brought forth that is to say And the bread whiche I shall geue you is my fleshe whiche I shall geue for the life of the worlde And so it is plaine that Christ spake of fleshe in the same sence that Sainct Ihon speaketh in saiyng The worde was made fleshe signifiyng by fleshe the hole humanitie And so did Cyrill agre to Nestorius when he vpon these textes reasoned howe this eatyng is to be vnderstanded of Christes humanitie to whiche nature in Christes person is properly attribute to be eaten as meate spiritually to norishe man dispensed and geuen in the Sacrament And betwene Nestorius and Cyrill was this diuersitie in vnderstandyng the mysterie that Nestorius estemyng of eche nature in Christe a seuerall personne as it was obiected to him and so dissoluyng the ineffable vnitie did so repute the bodie of Christe to be eaten as the bodie of a man seperate Cyrill maynteyned the bodie of Christ to be eaten as a bodie inseperable vnited to the godhed and for the ineffable mysterie of that vnion the same to be a fleshe that geueth life And then as Christ sayth if wee eate not the fleshe of the sonne of man we haue not life in vs because Christ hath ordered the Sacrament of his most precious bodie and bloud to norishe suche as be by his holy spirite regenerate And as in Baptisme we receaue the spirite of Christ for the renewyng of our life so do we in this Sacrament of Christes moost precious bodie and bloud receaue Christes verie fleshe drynke his verie bloud to continus and preserue increase and augment the life receaued And therfore in the same forme of wordes Christ spake to Nycodemus of Baptisme that he speaketh here of the eatyng of his bodie and drinkyng of his bloud and in both the Sacramentes geueth dispenseth and exhibiteth in dede those celestial gyftes in sensible elementes as Chrisostome sayth And because the true faithfull beleuyng men do onely by fayth know the sonne of man to be in vnitie of person the sonne of God so as for the vnitie of the two natures in Christ in one person the fleshe of the sonne of man is the propre fleshe of the soone of God Saincte Augustine sayd well when he noted these wordes of Christ verely verely onlesse ye eat the fleshe of the sonne of man c. to be a figuratiue speache because after the bare lettre it semeth vnprofitable consideryng that flesh profiteth nothyng in it selfe estemed in thowne nature alone but as the same fleshe in Christ is vnited to the diuine nature so is it as Christ sayd after Cyrilles exposition spirite and life not chaunged into the diuine nature of the spirite but for the ineffable vnion in the person of Christ therunto it is viuificatrix as Cyrill sayd and as the holy Ephesine councel decreed a fleshe geuyng life accordyng to Christes wordes who eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life and I will raise him vp at the latter day And then to declare vnto vs how in geuyng this life to vs Christ vseth the instrumēt of his verie humaine bodie it foloweth For my fleshe is verely meat and my bloud verely drinke So like as Christ sanctifieth by his godlye spirite so doth he sanctifye vs by his godlie fleshe and therfore repeteth againe to inculcate the celestial thing of this mysterie and sayth he that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him whiche is the natural and corporal vnion betwene vs and Christ Wherupō foloweth that as Christ is naturally in his father and his father in him so he that eateth verely the fleshe of Christ he is by nature in Christ and Christ is naturally in him and the worthy receauer hath life encreased augmented and confirmed by the participacion of the fleshe of Christe And because of thin effable vnion of the two natures Christ sayd This is the foode that came doune frō heauen because God whose proper fleshe it is came downe from heauen and hath an other vertue then Manna had because this geueth life to them that worthely receaue it whiche Manna beyng but a figure therof did not but beyng in this foode Christes verie fleshe inseperably vnite to the godhed the same is of suche efficacie as he that worthely eateth of it shall
vs to be so boulde in so high a mysterie to begynne to discusse Christes intent what should moue vs to thinke that Christ would vse so many wordes without effectuall and reall significacion as be rehersed touchyng the mysterie of this Sacrament First in the .vi. of Iohn whan Christ had taught of the eatyng of him beyng the bread descended from heauen and declaring that eating to signify beleuing wherat was no murmuryng that then he should entre to speake of geuyng of his fleshe to be eaten and his bloud to be dronken and to say he would geue a bread that is his fleshe whiche he would geue for the life of the worlde In whiche wordes Christ maketh mention of two giftes and therfore as he is truth must needes intend to fulfill them both And therfore as we beleue the gift of his fleshe to the Iewes to bee crucified So we must beleue the gift of his fleshe to be eaten of that gift lyuerie and seisme as we say to be made of him that is in his ê“mises faithful as Christ is to be made in both And therfore whan he sayd in his supper Take eat This is my bodie he must nedes intend plainely as his wordes of promise required these woordes in his supper purport to geue as really then his bodie to be eaten of vs as he gaue his bodie in dede to be crucified for vs aptely neuerthelesse and conueniently for eche effect and therfore in maner of geuyng diuersely but in the substaunce of the same geuen to be as his wordes beare wytnes the same and therfore sayd This is my bodie that shal be berrayed for you expressyng also the vse wheÌ„ he sayd Take eat which wordes in deliueryng of materiall bread had been superfluous For what should men do with bread when they take it but eat it specially when it is broken But as Cyrill saith Christe opened there vnto theÌ„ the practise of that doctrine he spake of in the .vi. of Sainct Iohn because he sayd he would geue his fleshe for foode whiche he would geue for the life of the worlde he for fulfillyng of his promise sayd Take eate this is my bodie whiche wordes haue been taught beleued to be of effecte and operatorie and Christe vnder the forme of bread to haue been his verie bodie Accordyng wherunto S. Paule noreth the receauer to be giltie when he doth not esteme it our Lordes bodie wherwith it pleaseth Christ to fede such as be in him regenerate to thintente that as man was redemed by Christ sufferyng in the nature of his humanitie so to purchace for man the kingdome of heauen ioste by Adams fall Euen likewise in the nature of the same humanitic giuyng it to be eaten to norishe man make him strong to walke and continue his iorney to emoye that kingdome And therfore to set forth liuely vnto vs the communication of the substance of Christes most precious bodie in the Sacrament and the same to be in dede deliuered Christ vsed plaine wordes testified by the EuaÌ„gelistes S. Paule also rehersed the same wordes in the same plain termes in the .xi. to the Corinthians and in the tenth geuyng as it were an exposion of theffecte vseth the same propre wordes declaryng theffecte to be the coÌ„municatioÌ„ of Christes bodie and bloud And one thing is notable touching the scripture that in suche notable speaches vttered by Christ as might haue an ambiguitie the Euangelistes by some circumstaunce declared it or some tyme opened it by plaine interpretacion as when Christ sayd he would dissolue the temple and within three daies buylde it againe The EuaÌ„gtlistes by and by addeth for interpretacioÌ„ This he said of the temple of his bodie And when Christe sayd he is Helias and I am the true vine the circumstaunce of the text openeth the ambiguitie But to shew that Christ should not meane of his verie bodie when he so spake Neither S. Paule after ne the EuaÌ„gtlistes in the place adde any wordes or circumstauÌ„ces wherby to take away the propre significacion of the wordes bodie and bloud so as the same might same not in dede geueÌ„ as the Catholique faith reacheth but in significacion as thauctor would haue it For as for the wordes of Christ The spirit geueth life the fleshe profiteth nothing be to declare the two natures in Christ eche in their propertie apart considered but not as they be in Christes persoÌ„ vnited the mysterie of which vnioÌ„ suche as beleued not Christ to be God could not consider and yet to insinuate that vnto them Christ made mention of his descension from heauen and after of his ascension thither againe wherby they might vnderstand him verie God whose fleshe taken in the virgyns wombe and so geuen spiritually to be eaten of vs as I haue before opened viuisike and geueth life And this shall suffice here to shew how Christes inteÌ„t was to geue verely as he did in dede his precious bodie and bloud to be eaten and drunken accordyng as he taught theÌ„ to be verely meat and drinke and yet gaue and geueth them so vnder fourme of visible creatures to vs as we may conueniently and without horror of our nature receaue theÌ„ Christ therin condiscendyng to our infirmitie As for such other wranglyng as is made in the vnderstandyng of the wordes of Christ shall after be spoken of by further occasion The auctor vttereth a great meny wordes from the .viii. to the .xvii. chapter of the first booke declaryng spirituall hungre and thurst and the releuyng of the same by spirituall feadyng in Christ and of Christ as we constantly beleue in him to the confirmacioÌ„ of which beleif the auctor would haue the Sacramentes of Baptisme and of the bodie and bloud of Christ to be adminicles as it were and that we by them be preched vnto as in water bread and wyne and by them all our sences as it were spoken vnto or proprely touched whiche matter in the grosse although ther be some wordes by the way not tollerable yet if those wordes set apart the same were in the summe graunted to be good teachyng and holesome exhorcacion it conteyneth so no more but good matter not well applyed For the Catholique churche that professeth the truth of the presence of Christes bodie in the Sacrament would therewith vse that declaration of hungre of Christ and that spirituall refreshyng in Christe with the effect of Christes passion and death and the same to be thonely meane of mans regeneracion and feadyng also with the differences of that feadyng froÌ„ bodiely feadyng for continuyng this yearthly life But this toucheth not the principal point that should be entreated Whether Christ so ordered to fede suche as be regenerate in him to geue to them in the Sacrament the same his bodie that he gaue to be crucified for vs. The good man is fedde by faith and by the merites of Christes passion beyng the meane of the gift of that faith other giftes also and by
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
of faith and therfore herin thoughtes be not to be receyued of suche a presentation of the body as coÌ„sisteth in the maner of this lyfe traÌ„sitorie and subiecte to suffre We must simply cleaue to the worde of Christ fayth must releue the defaulte of our sences Thus hath Bucer expressed his mynd wher vnto because the similitude of the sonne doth not answer in all partes he noteth wisely in th eÌ„d how this is a matter of faith therfore vpon the foundatioÌ„ of fayth we must speake of it therby to supply where our sences faile For the presence of Christ and hole Christe God and man is true althoughe we can not thinke of the maner howe The chief cause why I bring in Bucer is this to shewe how in his iugement we haue not only in earth the operation vertue of the sonne but also the substaunce of the sonne by meane of the sonne beames which be of the same sustauÌ„ce with the sonne can not be deuyded in substaunce from it therfore we haue in yerth the substaÌ„cial presence of the sonne not onely the operation vertue And howsoeuer the sonne aboue in the distaunce appereth vnto vs of an other sorte yet the beames that touche the yerth be of the same substaunce with it as clerkes say or at the lest as Bucer sayth whom I neuer harde accompted Papist and yet for the reall and substannciall presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament wryteth pythely playnly here encountreth this auctor with his similitude of the soÌ„ne directly whereby may appeare howe muche soeuer Bucer is estemed otherwise he is not with this auctor regarded in the truth of the Sacrament which is one of the highe mysteryes in our religion And this may suâ—â—ice for that pointe of the similitude where this auctor would haue Christ noon otherwise present in the Sacrament thâ—n he promised to be in thassemble of suche as be gathered together in his name it is a plaine abolition of the mysterye of the Sacrament in the woordes wherof Christes humayne body is exhibite made preseÌ„t with his very fleshe to feade vs to that singuler special effecte which in thother presence of Christ in thassemble made in his name is not spokeÌ„ of it hath no apparaunce of lernyng in scriptures to conclude vnder one coÌ„sideratioÌ„ a specialtie a generalitie And therfore it was well answered of him that said If I could tel reasoÌ„ ther wer no faith If I could shewe the like it wer not singuler whiche both be notable in this sacrameÌ„t where coÌ„deÌ„pnyng all reason good men both constantly beleue that Christ sitteth on the right hande of his father very god maÌ„ also without chauÌ„ge of place doth neuerthelesse make himselfe by his power preseÌ„t both God man vnder the forme of bread wyne at the prayor of the churche and by the ministery of the same to geue life to such as with fayth do accordâ—yng to his institutioÌ„ in his holy supper wortâ—hely receyue him to the condemnatioÌ„ of su 〈…〉 s do vnworthely presume to receiue him there For the worthie receiuyng of whoÌ„ we must come endued with christ clothed with him semely in that garment to receyue his moste precious body bloud Christ whole God man whereby he then dwelleth in vs more abundantly confirmyng in vs the effectes of his PassioÌ„ establishyng oure hope of resurrection then to enioye the regeneratioÌ„ of our body with a ful redemption of body soule to lyue with God in glorye for euer Thus I haue perused these differences whiche well considered me thinke sufficient to take away appeace all such difference as might be moued agaynst the Sacrament the faith whereof hath euer preuayled againste suche as haue impugned it And I haue not redde of any that hathe writen againste it but somewhat hathe agaynste his entreprise in his writynges appeared whereby to confirme it or so euident vntruthes affirmed as whereby those that be as indifferent to the truthe as Salamon was in the iudgement of the lyuynge childe May discerne the verye true mother from the other that is to say who playnely entende the true childe to continue aliue and who coulde be content to haue it distroyed by diuision God of his infinite mercy haue pytie on vs and graunt the true fayth of this holy mystery 〈…〉 rmely to be conceyued in our vnderstandynges in one forme of wordes to be vttered and preached which in the booke of common prayor is well termed not distaunt from the Catholique fayth in my iugement These differences ende in the .xlviii. leef in the second columne I entende nowe to touch the further matter of the booke with the maner of the handelyng of it and where an euident vntruth is ther to ioyne an issue and where slayte crafte is ther to note it in the whole The matter of the booke from theÌ„ce vnto the .xlvi. liefe touchyng the beyng of Christ in heauen and not in yerth in out of purpose superflous The article of our Crede that Christ asceÌ„ded to heaueÌ„ sitteth on the right hand of his father hath been is most constantly beleued of true Christen men which the true faith of Christes real presence in the SacrameÌ„t doth not touche or empayre Nor Christ beyng wholy God and man in the Sacrament is therby either out of heauen or to be sayd conuersaunt in yearth because the conuersation is not yearthly but spirituall and godly beyng thascensioÌ„ of Christ thend of his coÌ„uersation in yearth and therfore all that reasonyng of thauctor is clerely voyd to trayuaile to proue that is not denied only for a sleight to make it seme as though it wer denyed After this the auctor occupyeth a great numbre of leaues that is to say from the .lvii. leef vnto the .lxxiiii. to proue Christes wordes This is my body to be a figuratiue speche Sleight shifte is vsed in the matter without any effectuall consecution to him that is lerned First thauctour sayth Christ called bread his body Christ confessed bread his body To this is answered Christes callyng is a makyng as S. Paule sayth Vocat ea quae non Rom. 4. sunt tanq ea quae sint He calleth that be not as they were And so his callyng as Chrisostome and the greke commentaryes say is a making which also the Catechisme teacheth translate by Iustus Ionas in Germany after by this auctor in Englishe Tertullian Tertullianê° aduersus MarcioneÌ„ lib. 4. Cyprianus de ce na domini sayth Christ made bread his body and it is al one speche in Christ beyng God declaring his ordinaunces whither he vse the worde call or make for in his mouthe to call is to make Cyprian sayth accordyng hereunto howe bread is by Gods omnipotencie made fleshe wherupon also this speche bread is fleshe is asmuche to say as made fleshe not that bread beyng bread is fleshe but that was bread
where he geuteh a rule of recapitulatioÌ„ as he calleth it when that is tolde after that was done afore and therfore we maye not argue so firmely vpon the ordre of the tellynge in the speche S. Augustine bryngeth an example Augustinus de doctrina 〈◊〉 libro 3. Cap. 36. that by ordre of tellyng Adam was in paradise or any tree was brought forth for feadyng with diuerse other wherewith I will not encoÌ„bre the reader Theuangeliste reherseth what Christ said and did simplye and truely whiche story we must so place in vnderstandyng as we tryfle not the mysterie at stayng and stoppyng of lettres and syllables And therfore though the worde take eate goo before the wordes This is my bodye we may not argue that they tooke it and eate it afore christ had tolde them what he gaue them and all these often rehersalles of bread with he toke bread he brake bread and blessed bread and if ye will adde helde bread all this induce no consequence that he therfore gaue bread For he gaue that he had consecrate and gaue that he made of breade If Christe when he was tempted to make stones breade had taken the stones and blessed them and delyuered them saiynge This is bread had he then delyuered stones or rather that he made of stones bread Such maner of reasonyng vseth Peter Martyr as this auctor doth whose foly I may well say he sawe not to eschwe it but as appeareth rather to folowe it And yet not content to vse this fonde reasonyng this auctor calleth Papists to witnesse that they might lawgh at it because the EuaÌ„geliste telleth the story so as Christ sayde drincke and then could after what it was this auctor fansieth that the Apostels should be so hasty to drinke ere Christ had tolde them what he gaue whiche they had I thinke he woulde haue stayed the cuppe with his hande or byd them rary whiles he had tolde them more I wil no further trauayle with this resonyng which it is pitie to heare in suche a matter of grauite of such coÌ„sequence as it is both in body soule We maye not tryfle with Christes wordes after this sorte When S. Paul sayth we be partakers of one bread he speaketh not of materiall breade but of Christes bodye oure heauenly bread which to all is one cannot be consumed but able to fead all the worlde and if this auctor geueth credite to Theodoretus whom he calleth an holy man theÌ„ shal he neuer fynde the Sacrament called bread after the sanctificacion but the bread of life the like whereof shoulde be in an Epistell of Chrysostome as Peter Martyr allegeth not yet prynted by whose auctorices if they haue any as in there place this auctor maketh muche of them al these argumentes be al tryfles for all the namynge of bread by Christ and Sainct Paule and all other must be vnderstanded before the sanctificacion and not after And if thou reader lokest after vpon Theodoretus and that Epistell Thou shalt fynde true that I saye wherby all this questyoning with Papistes is onely a dalyinge for this auctour pleasure againste his owne auctors and all learnynge In the thirde Chapter wryten in the .xxi. leafe it troubleth this auctour that the doctrine of transubstantiacion is in his Iudgement againste naturall reason and naturall operacion in the entrye of whiche matter he graunteth wisely that they shoulde not preuayle against gods worde and yet he saith when they be ioyned with gods worde they be of a great moment to coÌ„ferme any trueth wherin if he meaneth to coÌ„firme gods worde by reason or gods mysteryes by natural operacion myne vnderstandynge cannot reache that doctrine and is more strange to me then this auctor maketh transubstantiacion to be to him As for the reason of vacuum declareth a vacuum that nature abhorreth not And if we speake after the rules of nature quantite filleth the place rather then substance And shortely to answer this auctor it is not sayd in the doctrine of transubstautiat ioÌ„ that there remayneth nothyng for in the visible forme of bread remayneth the propre obiecâ—e of euery sence truly that is seen with the bodely eye is truely seen that is felt is truly felt that is sauered is truely sauered those thinges corrupte putrifie nurrisne and consume after the trueth of the former nature God so ordryng it that create al vsing singulerly that creature of breade not to vnitie it vnto him as he did mannes nature to be in bread impanate and breaded as he was in fleshe incarnate And as for reason in place of seruice as beyng inferior to fayth will agree with the fayth of Transubstantiacion welynoughe For if our fayth of the true presence of Christes very body he true as it is moste true grounded vppon the wordes of Christ This is my body Then reason yeldyng in that truth wyl not stryue with transubstaÌ„tiacioÌ„ but plainly affirme that by here Iudgement if it be the bodye of Christ it is not bread For in the rule of comeÌ„ reason the graunte of one substance is the denyal of an other therfore reason hathe these coÌ„clusioÌ„s througly what soeuer is breade is no wyne what soeuer is wyne is no milke so forth And therfore beynge ones beleued this to be the body of Christ reason sayth by and by it is not breade by the rule aforesayde wherby appeareth howe reason doth not stryue with transubstantiacion beynge ones conquered with fayth of the true presence qf Christes body whiche is most euident and no whitte darkened by any thynge this auctour hath brought As for naturall operation is not in all mens Iudgementes as this auctour taketh it who semeth to repute it for an inconuenience to saye that the accidentes of wyne do sowre and waxe vinegre But Wlpian a man of notable learnynge is not afrayde to wrytte in the lawe In venditionibus de contrahenda emptione in the pandectes that of wine and vinegre there is prope eadem vsia in maner one substance wherin he sheweth him selfe far against this auctors skil which I put for an example to shewe that naturall operations haue had in naturall mennes iudgementes diuerse consideracioÌ„s one sumtime repugnante to an other and yet the auctors of both opinions called Philosophers all Amonge whiche sum thought for exaÌ„ple they spake wisely that estemed all thinge to altre as swiftelye as the water runneth in the streame and thought therfore no man coulde vttre a worde beyng the same man in th ende of a worde that he was when he beganne to speake and vsed a similitude Like as a man standing in one place cannot touche the same one water twise in a runnynge streame no more can a man be touched the same man twise but he altreth as swiftely as doth the streame These were laughed to skorne yet they thought themselfe wise in naturall speculation Aristotel that is muche estemed and worthely fansyed a first matter in all things to be one
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
substaunce of bread as in the soule of man both these chaunges be meruelous bothe be in the truth of there chaunge whervnto they be chaunged of like truthe and realite to be done in dede they resemble one an other in the secrecie of the mysterie and the ignoraunce of our sences for in neyther is any outwarde chaunge at all and therfore there was neuer man tryppyd himselfe more hansomely to take a fall then this auctour doth in this place not onely in corruptyng euydently and notably the words of Emissene with owâ— purpose wher by neuerthelesse shewed his good will but also by setting forth such matter as ouerturneth all his teachynge at ones For nowe thauctor must say the chaunge in mans soule by Bapâ—isme to be there made the sonne of God is but in figure and signification not true and reall in dede or els graunte the true Cathelique doctrine of the turne of the visible creatures in to the bodye and bloude of Christ to be likewise not in figure and significatioÌ„ but truly really and in dede And for the thyng chaunged as the soule of man in mannes inwarde nature is chaunged so the inwarde nature of the bread is changed And then is that euasion taken awaye whiche this authour vseth in an other place of Sacramentall chaunge whiche should be in the outwarde parte of the visible creatures to the vse of signification This author noteth thage of Emissen and I note with all howe playnely he writeth for confirmation of the Catholique teachynge who in dede because of his auncientie and playne writynge for declaracioÌ„ of the matter in forme of teachyng with owt conteÌ„tion is one whose authorite the churche hath much in allegation vsed to the conuiction of such as haue impugned the Sacrament eyther in truthe of the presence of Christes very body or transubstantiation for the speakynge of the inwarde chaunge doth poynte as it were the change of the substaunce of bread with resemblyng thervnto the soule of man changed in Baptisme This one authour not beynge of any reproued and of so many approued and by this in thallegacion after this maner corrupte might suffice for to conclude all brablyng agaynste the sacrament But I wil exameÌ„ mo particularities I haue before answered to Hilarie to Hilarie whom neuertheles I should aptely haue said sumwhat nowe to note howe he distincteth owtwardly inwardly by beleue corporal sight For owtwardly as Emissene saieth we â—e no chaunge and therfore we see after consecration as before whiche we may therfore call bread but we beleue that inwardly is whiche as Emissene saieth is the substance of the bodye of Christe whervnto the chaunge is made of the inwarde nature of bread as by the comparison of Emissen doth appeare Theise wordes of Epiphanius do Epiphanins playnely ouer turne this auctors doctrine of a figuratiue speache for a figure can not geue lyfe onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lyfe and the speache of this 〈◊〉 of the Sacrament doth necessaryly implye beary true presence of Christes bodye auctor or life And then as often as the authour is ouer throune in the truth of the presence so often is he by zuinglius rule ouerthrowen in traÌ„substanciation As for the name of bread is graunted because it was so and transubstantiation doth not take awaye but it is meate because of the visible matter remaynynge This sayinges be sought owt by this authour onely to wrangle not taken owt where the mysterie is declared and preached to be taught as a doctrine thereof but onely signified by the waye and spoken of vpon occasion the sence wherof faythfull men knowe otherwise then appeareth at the first readynges to the carnall man but by suche like speaches the Arrians impugned the diuinite of Christ Chrisostome speaketh in this place of Chrisostome wyne as Cyprian dyd before against those that offre no wyne but water Chrisostome saiethe thus Christ vsed wyne I graunte he did so For he dyd coÌ„secrate that creature as Emissene sayth turned it in the celebration dispensation of these mysteries But this sayng towcheth nothing the doctrine of traÌ„substantiatioÌ„ The second saying of Chrisostome which I neuer red but in Peter martyrs booke who saieth it is not printed this sentence toucheh this auctours doctrine muche If the breade by consecration be deliuered from the name of breade exalted to the name of our lordes body Nowe consider reader if this maner of speache by Chrisostome here meaneth an effectual namynge to make the substaunce of the body of Christ present as Chrisostome in his publique approued workes is vnderstaÌ„ded of all to teache then is the deliueraunce from the name of breade of like effecte to take a waye the reason of the name of bread whiche is the chaunge in substaunce therof Or if this auctor will say that by the name of breade Chrisostome vnderstaÌ„deth the bare name howe can that staÌ„de without reprouse of sainct Paule who after this authours mynde calleth it bread after consecration and so do many other by this authour alleged here percace may be saide what shuld I reason what he ment when he saieth playnely the nature of bread still remayneth To this I saie that as Chrisostome in this place of an epistell not published by credite saith that the nature of breade remayneth so Cyprian that was older then he saieth the nature of bread is chaunged which Chrisostome in his other workes by publique credite set a brode semeth not to denye Nowe the worde nature signifieth both the substaunce and also propriete of the nature The substaunce therfore after CypriaÌ„ by the worde of god is chaunged but yet the proper effecte is not chaunged but in th accidentes remayne with out illusion by whiche diuers signification acception of the worde nature both the sayinges of S. Cyprian and Sainct Chrisostome if this be his saying may be accorded and not with standynge the contrariete in lettre agre neuerthelesse in sence by twene themselfe and agree with the true doctrine of transubstantiacion Adde to this howe the wordes of Chrisostome next folowyng this sentence alleged by this auctor and as it semeth of purpose lefte here owt doth both confounde this authors enterprise and coÌ„firme the true doctrine whiche wordes be these and is not called two bodyes but one bodye of the sonne of God of Chrisostome I shall speake againe herafter Sainct Ambrose doth not as this author Ambrosius would haue it impugne transubstantiacion but confirmeth it most playnely because he teacheth the true preseÌ„ce of Christes body in the SacrameÌ„t whiche he sayth is by change and thynges still remayning and that maye be verified in the owtwarde visible matter that is to say the accideÌ„tes remayning with there propre effectes whiche therfore maye worthly be called thinges And here I wold aske this authour if his teachyng as he preteÌ„deth wer the catholique fayth the bread onely signified Christes bodye what should neade this force of gods worde that S. Ambrose speaketh of
called it wherin also remaynethe true sauor and taste withe true propriete to corrupte or putrifie and also nurrishe God for ordrynge fayth of the true manhode in Chrâ—ste is truely byleued by true preachinge ther of and by the scriptures not by the outwarde senses of mene which al togither we must confesse coulde be no certaine ineuiâ—able prouf ther of And therfore Christe appearinge to his disciples goinge in to EmaÌ„s opened the scriptures to them for the prouf of his deathe that he suffred as very man and yet he vsed also in some parte to preache to there senses with sensible exhibition of himself vnto theÌ„ and so all Christes doinges which were moste true do beare testimonie to the trueth but in there degree of testimonie and the fealinge of sainct Thomas beinge as sainct Gregorie saithe miraculeuse serueth for prouf of an other thinge that goddes workein miracle dothe not empaire the truth of the thinge wrought and so sainct Thomas touched then Christ as truely by miracle after his resurrection in his bodye glorified as if he had touched his bodye before glorificacion Fynally in Christes actes or his ordinaunces be no illusions all is truth and perfite trueth and our senses in the visible formes of bread and wine be not illuded but haue there proper obiectes in those accidentes and reason in carnall vnderstandinge brought and subdued in obsequie to fayth doth in the estimacion of the hoste coÌ„secrate yelde to faith accordinge wheâ—unto we confeâ—â—ruely the same to be the body of Christe Where this auctors woulde al the Papistes to laye their heades together c. I knowe no suche Papistes but this I saye without further counsaile whiche this auctor with al his counsaile shall not auoyde We beleue most certainely the resurrection of our flesh and be persuaded by Catholique teachyng that the same flesh by participation of Christes godly flesh in the Sacrament shal be made incorruptible Ioan. 6. yet not after the iudgemeÌ„t of our senses conclusions gathered of them consideryng the maner of the continuall consumptioÌ„ of the sayd bodies wherof sum philosophers haue at lenght after their reasoÌ„ declared their mynde whom Christen men coÌ„temâ—e withal thexperieÌ„ce of senses which they allege being vehemeÌ„t in that matter we reade in scripture of the fedyng of Angels wheÌ„â—oth receyued Gen. 18. them I will spend no mo wordes herein but hauyng auoyded this authors reasonyng against traÌ„substantiacioÌ„ Now let vs examine his authorities First he begynneth with Iustine the Martyr Whose words be not truly by this authour here reported which be these truely translate out of the greke When the Iustinê° Prieast hath ended his thankes geuyng and prayours all the people hath sayde Amen they whom we cal deacons geue to euery one then present a parte of the breade and of the wyne and water consecrated and cary parte to those that be absente this is that foode whâ—che is amonge vs called Eucharistia wherof it is lawfull for no man to be partaker except he be persuaded those thinges to be true that be taught vs and be baptized in the water of regeneracion in remissioÌ„ of synnes and ordreth his lifâ— after the maner whiche Christ hath taught For we do not take these for commen breade or dryncke but like as Iesus Christe our Sauyour incarnate by the worde of God had fleshe and bloud for our saluacion euen so we be taught the fode wherwith our fleshe and bloud be nourrisshed by alteracion when it is consecrate by the prayour of his worde to be the flesh and bloude of the same Iesus incarnate For the Apostelles in those there workes whiche be called Gospelles teache that Iesus dyd so commande them and after he had taken the breade and ended his geuyng tankes sayd do this in my remembraunce This is my body And like wise takyng the cuppe after he had geuen thankes sayde This is my bloud and dyd geue them to his Apostels onelye And here I make an issue with this author An issue that he wittyngly corrupteth Iustine in the allegacion of him who wryteth not in such forme of wordes as this authour allegeth owt of his seconde Appologie nor hath any suche speache The bread vvater and vvyne in this Sacrament ar meates ordeyned purposely to geue thankes to God and therfore be called Eucharistia nor hath not these wordes they be called the body and bloud of Christ but hath in playue wordes that we be taught this foode consecrate by gods worde to be the flesh and bloud of Christ as Christ in his incarnatioÌ„ toke flesh and bloud nor hath not this forme of wordes placed to haue that vnderstandyng hovve the same meate and drinke is chaunged into our fleshe and bloud for the wordes in Iustine speakyng of alteracion of the fode haue an vnderstandyng of the fobe as it is before the couse cracion shewyng how Christ vsed those creatures in this mysterie whiche by alteracion nurrish our flesh and bloud For the body of Christ which is the verye celestiall substauce of the hoste consecrate is not chaunged but without al alteracion spiritually nurrisheth the bodyes soules of them that worthely receyue the same to immortalite wherby appeareth this authors coÌ„clusion that bread vvyne remayne stil vvhich is turned into our flesh bloud is not deduced vpoÌ„ Iustines wordes truly vnderstanded but is a glose inuented by this auctor a peruertyng of Iustines words there true meaninges Whervpon I may saye conclude euen as this au ctor erreth in his reasonyng of mother wytte against transubstaÌ„tiacion eueÌ„ so erreth he in the first allegatioÌ„ of his auctorites by plaine mysceportynge let it be further named or thought on as the thinge deserueth Next Iustine is Iren in thallegatioÌ„ of whoÌ„ this auctor maketh also an vntrue report who hathe not this forme of wordes in the fourth boke contra ValeÌ„tinu that the bread wherin we geue thaÌ„kes vnto God although it be of the earth yet when the name of God is called vpon it is not then commen bread but the bread of thankes geuyng hauynge two thinges in it one earthely and the other heauenly This is Irene alleged by this auctor who I saye wryteth not in suche forme of wordes For his wordes be these Like as the bread which is of the earth receyuing the calling of God is now no commen bread but Eucharistia consistynge of two thynges earthely and heauenly so oure bodyes receyuynge Eucharistia be no more corrupâ—â—bâ—e This be Irenes wordes where Irene doth not call the bread receyuinge the callynge of God the bread of thankes geuyng but Eucharistia and in this Eucharistia he sheweth how that that he calleth the heauely thing is the body and bloud of Christ and therfore sayth in his first booke when the chalice mixt and the breade broken receyue the worde of God it is made Eucharistia of the body and bloud of Christ of whiche the substaunce of our fleshe is stayed and encreased