in bread and wyne declaryng that as the bread and wyne corporally comforte and feede our bodyes so doth he with his fleshe and bloud spiritually comfort and feede our soules And nowe may be easyly answered the Papistes argument whereof they do so muche boast For bragge they neuer so muche of the conuersion of bread and wyne into the body and bloud of Christ yet that conuersion is spirituall and putteth not awaye the corporall presence of the material bread and wyne But for asmuche as the same is a moste holy sacrament of our spiritual norishement whiche we haue by the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ there must nedes remayne the sensible element that is to say bread and wyne without the whiche there can be no sacrament As in our spiritual regeneration there can be no sacrament of baptisme if there be no water For as Baptisme is no perfect sacrament of spiritual regeneration without there be aswell the element of water as the holy ghoste spiritually regenerating the person that is baptised which is signified by the saide water euen so the souper of our Lorde can bee no perfecte sacramente of spirituall foode except there be as well bread and wine as the body and bloode of our sauiour Christ spiritually feeding vs which by the said breade and wine is signified And howe so euer the body and bloode of our sauiour Christ be ther presēt thei may as wel be present ther with the substance of bread wyne as with the accidentes of the same as the schole authors do confesse them selues and it shall bee well proued yf the aduersaryes will denye it Thus you se the strongest argumente of the Papistes answered vnto and the chiefe foundacion whervpon they buylde their errour of transubstantiation vtterlye subuerted and ouerthrowen An other reason haue they of lyke strengthe If the breade shoulde remaine saye they than shulde folowe many absurdities and chiefely that Christe hath taken the nature of breade as he tooke the nature of manne and so ioyned it to his substance And than as we haue God verely incarnate for our redemption so shoulde wee haue him Impanate Thou mayste consydre good reader that the reste of theyr reasons be very weake and feeble whan these bee the chiefe and strongest Truth it is in deede that Christe shoulde haue beene impanate yf hee hadde ioyned the breade vnto his substaunce in vnitee of persone that is to saye yf hee hadde ioyned the breade vnto hym in suche sorte that he had made the breade one persone with him selfe But for as much as he is ioyned to the bread but sacramentally ther foloweth no Impanation thereof no more than the holy ghost is Inaquate that is to say made water being sacramentally ioyned to the water in baptisme Nor he was not made a doue whan he toke vppon him the forme of a doue to signifie that he whome saint Iohn did baptise was verye CHRIST But rather of the erroure of the Papistes theym selues as one erroure draweth an other after it shoulde folowe the greate absurditie whiche they speake vppon that is to saye that Christe shoulde bee Impanate and Inuinate For yf Christe doo vse the breade in suche wise that he doeth not adnihilate and make nothing of it as the Papistes say but maketh of it hys owne bodye than is the bread ioyned to his body in a greater vnitee than is his humanitee to his Godhead For his Godhead is adioyned vnto his humanitee in vnitye of person and not of nature But our sauiour Christ by their sayinge adioyneth breade vnto his body in vnitee bothe of nature and person So that the breade and the body of Christe be but one thinge bothe in nature and person And so is there a more entier vnion betwene Christe and breade than betweene hys godheade and manhead or betwene his sowle and his bodye And thus these argumentes of the Papistes retourne lyke riueted nayles vppon their owne heades Yet a thyrde reason they haue whyche they gather out of the syxte of Iohn where CHRIST sayeth I am lyuely breade which came from heauen If anye manne eate of thys breade he shall lyue for euer And the breadde whiche I wyll giue is my fleshe whiche I wyll gyue for the lyfe of the worlde Than reason they after this fashion If the breade whyche Chryste gaue bee his fleshe that it canne not also bee materiall breade and so it muste needes folowe that the materiall breade is gone and that none other substaunce remaineth but the fleshe of CHRIST onlye To this is soone made answere that Christ in that place of Iohn spake not of the materiall and sacramentall breade nor of the sacrementall eating for that was spoken two or thre yeares before the sacramente was fyrste ordained but hee spake of spirituall breade manny tymes repetynge I am the bread of lyfe which came frome heauen and of spirituall eating by faith after whiche sorte hee was at the same presente tyme eaten of as manye as beleued on him although the sacramēt was not at that tyme made and instituted And therefore he saide Your fathers did eate Manna in the deserte and died but he that eateth this bread shall lyue for euer Therefore this place of S. Iohn canne in no wyse be vnderstand of the sacramentall breade which neyther came frō heauen neither giueth life to al that eat it Nor of such bread CHRIST coulde haue than presentlye saide This is my fleshe excepte they wyll saye that Christe dydde than consecrate so many yeares before the instititution of his holy supper Nowe that I haue made a full direct plain answere to the vaine reasons and cauillacions of the Papistes ordre requireth to make lykewise answere vnto their sophisticall allegacions and wresting of authors vnto their phantastycall purposes There bee chiefelye thre places which at the fyrste shewe seeme muche to make for their intent but when they shalbe throughly wayed thei make nothing for theim at all The fyrst is a place of Cyprian in his sermon of the Lordes supper where he saith as is alleged in the Detection of the diuels sophistrye This breade which our lorde gaue to his disciples chaunged in nature but not in outward forme is by the omnipotencye of goddes woorde made fleshe Here the Papistes sticke toothe and nayle to these woordes Chaunged in nature Ergo say they the nature of the bread is chaunged Here is one chiefe point of the diuels sophistry vsed whoe in allegacion of scripture vseth euer either to adde thereto or to take away from it or to alter the sense therof And so haue they in this author lefte out those woordes whiche would open plainly all the whole matter For next the wordes which be here before of them recited do folowe these wordes As in the person of Christ the humanitee was seen and the diuinitee was hyd euen so dyd the diuinitee ineffably putte it selfe
disease the puttyng away of thyn infection the wipyng away of thy fylthynesse be not seene with thyne eyes but are beleued in thy mynde so lykewyse when thou doest go vp to the reuerende altare to feede vpon spirituall meate in thy faith loke vpon the bodye and bloude of hym that is thy God honour hym touche hym with thy mynd take hym in the hande of thy hart and chiefely drynk hym with the draught of thy inward mā Hytherto haue I rehersed the saiynges of Eusebius whiche bee so playne that no man can wyshe more playnely to bee declared that this mutation of the bread and wyne into the body and bloud of Christe is a spirituall mutation and that outwardly nothyng is changed But as outwardly we eate the bread and drynke the wyne with our mouthes so inwardly by faithe wee spiritually eate the very fleshe and drynke the very bloud of Christe Hilarius also in fewe wordes saieth the same There is a figure saieth he for bread and wyne be outwardly seene And there is also a truth of that fygure for the body and bloude of Christe be of a truthe inwardly beleued And this Hilarius was within lesse than 350. yeares after Christe And Epiphanius shortly after the same tyme saieth that the bread is meate but the vertu that is in it is it that geueth lyfe But if there were no bread at all howe coulde it be meate About the same tyme or shortly after aboute the yeere our Lorde 400. Saynte Iohn Chrysostome wryteth thus agaynst theim that vsed onely water in the sacrament Christe sayth he myndyng to plucke vp that heresye by the rootes vsed wyne as well before his resurrection when he gaue the mysteries as after at his table without mysteries For he saith of the fruit of the vyne whyche surely bryngeth foorth no water but wyne These wordes of Chrysostome declare plainly that Christe in his holy table bothe dranke wyne and gaue wyne to drynke whych had not bene true if no wyne had remayned after the Consecration as the Papistes fayne And yet more playnely Saynct Chrysostome declareth this matter in an other place sayeng The breade beefore it bee sanctified is called breade but whan it is sanctified by the meanes of the prieste it is delyuered frome the name of breadde and is exalted to the name of the Lordes body although the nature of bread doeth styll remayne The nature of bread saith he doeth styll remayn to the vtter and manyfest confutation of the Papistes whiche saye that the accidentes of breadde dooe remayne but not the nature and substance At the same tyme was S. Ambrose who declareth the alteration of breade and wyne into the body and bloud of Christe not to be suche that the nature substance of bread wine be gone but that through grace there is a spirituall mutation by the mightye power of God so that he that worthily eateth of that bread dothe spiritually eate Christe and dwelleth in Christe and Christ in hym For sayeth saynte Ambrose speakynge of this chaunge of bread into the body of Christ if the woorde of God bee of that force that it can make thynges of noughte and those thynges to be ▪ whiche neuer were before much more it can make thynges that were before still to be and also to be chaunged into other thynges And he bryngeth for example here of the chāge of vs in baptisme wherin a man is so changed as is before declared in the wordes of Eusebius that he is made a new creature and yet his substance remaineth the same that was before And saint Augustin about the same time wrote thus That whiche you see in the altare is the bread and the cup which also your eyes do shew you But fayth sheweth further that bread is the body of Christ and the cuppe his bloude Here he declareth foure thyngs to be in the sacrament Two that we see whiche be bread and wine And other two which we se not but by faithe only whiche be the body and blud of Christ. And the same thyng he declareth also as plainly in an other place saiyng The sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two thynges of the visible kind of the element of the inuisible flesh blud of our Lorde Iesu Christe bothe of the sacrament and of the thynge signified by the sacrament Euen as the person of Christe consisteth of God and man forasmuch as he is very God and very man For euery thyng conteyneth in it the very nature of those thynges whereof it consysteth Nowe the sacrifice of the Churche consysteth of two thynges of the sacrament and of the thyng thereby sygnified that is to saye the bodye of CHRISTE Therfore there is bothe the sacrament and the thynge of the sacrament whyche is Christes bodye What can be deuised to be spoken more plainly against the errour of the Papistes which say that no bread nor wyne remaineth in the sacrament For as the person of Christe consisteth of two natures that is to say of his manhod and of his Godhead And therfore bothe those natures remayne in Christ euen so sayth saynt-Augustin the sacrament cōsisteth of two natueres of the elemētes of bread and wine and of the body bloud of Christ therfore both these natures must nedes remayne in the sacrament For the more playne vnderstandyng herof it is to bee noted that there were certayne heretyques as Simon ▪ Menander Marcion Ualentinus Basilides Cerdon Manes Eutiches Manicheus Apollinaris and dyuers other of lyke sortes whyche sayd that Christ was very God but not a very manne althoughe in eatynge drynkynge sleapyng and all other operations of man to mens iudgementes he appered lyke vnto a man Other there were as Artemon Theodorus Sabellius Paulus Samasathenus Marcellus Photinus Nestorius and many other of the same sectes whyche sayd that he was a very naturall man but not very God although in geuyng the blynd their syghte the dumbe theyr speeche the deafe their hearynge in healyng sodeynly with his worde al diseases in raysyng to life them that were dead and in al other workes of God he shewed himselfe as he had been God Yet other there were which seyng the scripture so playne in those two matters confessed that he was both God man but not both at one tyme. For before his incarnation sayde they he was God onely and not man and after his incarnation he ceased frō his Godhead became a man onely and not God vntyl his resurrection or ascension and then saye they he left his manhod and was only God agayn as he was before his incarnation So that whan he was mā he was not God and whā he was God he was not man But against these vain heresies the Catholike faith by the expresse word of God holdeth and beleueth that Christ after his incarnation lefte not his diuine nature but remained styll God as he was before beyng togyther at one tyme as he is styl
not in his humayne nature as the Papistes would haue vs to beleue but the olde authors saye that he is in heauen as concernyng his manhoode and neuerlesse both here and there and euery where as concernyng his Godhead For although his diuinitee bee suche that it is infinite without measure compasse or place so that as concernyng that nature he is circumscribed with no place but is euery where and fylleth all the worlde yet as concernyng his humayne nature he hath measure compasse and place so that whan he was here vpon yearth he was not at the same tyme in heauen and nowe that he is ascended into heauen as concernyng that nature he hath nowe forsaken the yearth and is onely in heauen For one nature that is circumscribed compassed and measured can not be in dyuers places at one tyme. This is the fayth of the olde Catholike churche as appeareth as well by the authors before rehersed as by these that hereafter foloweth Sainct Augustyne speakyng that a body must nedes be in some place saith that if it be not within the compasse of a place it is no where And if it be no where than is it not And S. Cyril consideryng the proper nature of a very body sayd that if the nature of the Godhead were a body it must needes bee in a place and haue quantitee greatnes and circumscription If than the nature of the Godhead muste nedes bee circumscribed if it were a body muche more must the nature of Christes manhoode bee circumscribed and contayned within the compasse of a certayne place Didymus also in his booke De spiritu sancto whiche sainct Hierome did translate proueth that the holy ghost is very God because he is in many places at one tyme whiche no creature can be For sayth he all creatures visible and inuisible be circumscribed and inuironed either within one place as corporal and inuisible thynges be or within the proprietee of their owne substance as Angels inuisible creatures bee so that no Angel sayth he can bee at one tym◠in two places And forasmuche as the holy ghost is in many men at one tyme therefore sayth he the holy ghost must nedes be God The same affirmeth also sainct Basyle That the Angel whiche was with Cornelius was not at the same tyme with Philippe nor the Angell whiche spake to zachary in the altare was not the same tyme in his proper place in heauē But the holy ghost was at one tyme in Abacuk and in Danyel in Babylon and with Hieremy in prison and with Ezechiell in Chober wherby he proueth that the holy ghost is God Wherfore the Papistes whiche saie that the body of Christe is in an infinite numbre of places at one tyme doo make his body to bee God and so confounde the two natures of Christ attributyng to his humaine nature that thynge whiche belongeth onely to his diuinitee whiche is a moste heynous and detestable heresy Agaynst whome writeth Fulgentius in this wyse speakyng of the distinction and diuersitee of the two natures in CHRISTE One and the selfe same Christe saythe he of mankynd was made a man compassed in a place who of his father is God without measure or place One and the selfe same person as concernyng his mans substaunce was not in heauen whan he was in yearth and forsooke the yearthe when he ascended into heauen but as concernynge his godly substaunce whiche is aboue all measure he neither lefte heauen when he cam from heauen nor he left not the yearthe whan he ascended into heauen whiche may be knowen by the moste certayn worde of Christ hym self who to shewe the placyng of his humanitee sayd to his disciples I ascende vp to my father and youre father to my God and your God Also when he had sayd of Lazarus that he was dead he added saiyng I am glad for your sakes that you maye beleeue For I was not there but to shewe the vnmeasurable compasse of his diuinitee he sayd to his disciples Beholde I am with you alwaies vnto the worldes ende Nowe how dyd he go vp into heauen but because he is a verye man conteined within a place Or howe is he present with faythfull people but because he is very God beynge without measure Of these wordes of Fulgentius it is declared most certainly that Christe is not here with vs in earth but by his godhead that his humanitee is in heauen onely and absent from vs. Yet the same is more plainly shewed yf more playnely can bee spoken by Uigilius a byshop and an holy martyr He writeth thus agaynste the heretike Eutyches whyche denyed the humanite of CHRISTE holdynge opinion that he was onely God and not manne Whose erroure Uigilius confutynge proueth that CHRISTE hadde in hym two natures ioyned togyther in one persone the nature of his Godhead and the nature of his manhode Thus he writeth Christ sayd to his disciples If you loued me you wold be glad for I go vnto my father And agayn he sayde It is expedient for you that I go for yf I go not the comforter shal not come to you And yet surely the eternal word of God the vertue of God the wysedome of God was euer with his father and in his father yea euen at the same tyme whan he was with vs and in vs For whan he dyd mercyfully dwelle in this worlde he left not his habitation in heauen for he is euery where whole with his father equall in diuinitee whome no place can conteyne for the Sonne fylleth all thynges and there is no place that lacketh the presence of his diuinitee From whence than and whither dyd he say that he wolde go Or howe dyd he say that he went to his father from whome doubtelesse he neuer departed But that to go to his father and frome vs was to take from this worlde that nature whiche he receaued of vs. Thou seest therfore that it was the propretee of that nature to bee taken away and go from vs which in the ende of the worlde shall bee rendered agayne to vs as the angels wytnessed saiyng This Iesus which is taken from you shal com agayn lyke as you saw hym goyng vp into heauen For looke vpon the myracle looke vpon the mysterie of bothe the natures The sonne of God as concernyng his humanitee went from vs as concernynge his diuinitee he sayde vnto vs Behold I am with you all the dayes vnto the worldes ende Thus farre haue I rehersed the woordes of Uigilius and by and by he concludeth thus He is with vs and not with vs For those whome he lefte and went from them as concernyng his humanitee those he lefte not nor forsoke them not as touchyng his diuinitee For as touchyng the form of a seruant which he toke away from vs into heuen he is absent from vs but by the fourme of God whyche goeth not from vs he is present with vs in earth and
both perfect God and perfect mā And for a playne declaracion hereof the olde auncient authors geue two examples one is of man whiche is made of two partes of a soule and of a body and eche of these two partes remayne in man at one tyme. So that whan the soule by the almyghty power of God is put in to the body neither the body nor soule perisheth thereby but therof is made a perfect man hauyng a perfect soule and a perfect body remaynyng in hym bothe at one tyme. The other example whiche the olde authors brynge in for this purpose is of the holy supper of our Lord whiche consisteth say they of two partes of the sacrament or visible element of bread wyne and of the body and bloud of Christ. And as in them that duely receiue the sacrament the very natures of bread and wyne cease not to be there but remayne there styll and be eaten corporally as the body and bloud of Christ be eaten spiritually so likewyse doth the diuine nature of Christ remayne styl with his humanitee Let nowe the Papistes auaunt them selues of their Transubstantiation that there remayneth no bread nor wyne in the ministration of the sacrament if they wyll defende the wicked heresies before rehersed that Christ is not God and man both together But to proue that this was the mynde of the olde authors besyde the saiyng of sainct Augustyne here recited I shall also reherse diuers other Sainct Ihon Chrysostome wryteth against the pestilent errour of Apollinaris whiche affirmed that the Godhead and manhead in Christ were so myxed and confounded together that they bothe made but one nature Against whō sainct Ihon Chrysostome writeth thus Whan thou speakest of God thou must consyder a thyng that in nature is syngle without composition without conuersion that is inuisible immortall incircumscriptible incomprehensible with suche lyke And whan thou speakest of manne thou meanest a nature that is weake subiecte to hunger thyrste wepyng feare sweatyng and suche lyke passions whiche can not bee in the diuine nature And whan thou speakest of Christ thou ioynest two natures together in one person who is bothe passible and impassible Passible as concernyng his fleshe and impassible in his deitee And after he concludeth saiyng Wherfore Christe is bothe God and man God by his impassible nature and man because he suffred He himeslfe beyng one person one sonne one Lord hath the dominion and power of two natures ioyned together whiche be not of one substance but eche of theim hath his properties distincte from the other And therefore remayneth there two natures distincte and not confounded For as before the consecration of the bread we call it bread but whan Goddes grace hath sanctified it by the priest it is deliuered from the name of bread and is exalted to the name of the body of the Lorde although the nature of the bread remayne stil in it and it is not called two bodyes but one body of Gods sonne so likewyse here the diuine nature resteth in the body of Christ and these two make one sonne and one person These wordes of sainct Chrysostome declare and that not in obscure termes but in playne wordes that after the consecracion the nature of bread remayneth styll although it haue an hygher name and bee called the body of Christ to signifie vnto the godly eaters of that bread that they spiritually eat the supernatural bread of the body of Christe who spiritually is there present and dwelleth in them and they in him although corporally he sytteth in heauen at the right hand of his father Herevnto accordeth also Gelasius writyng gainst Eutyches and Nestorius of whome the one said that Christ was a perfect man but not God and the other affirmed clean contrary that hee was very God but not man But againste these two heinous heresies Gelasius proueth bi moste manifest scriptures that Christe is both god and man and that after his incarnacion remained in hym the nature of his godheade so that hee hathe in hym twoo natures with their naturall properties and yet is hee but one Christe And for the more euident declaratiō hereof he bringeth two examples ▪ the one is of man who beeynge but one yet he is made of two partes and hath in him two natures remaininge both togyther in him that is to saye the bodye and the soule with their naturall properties The other example is of the sacrament of the body bloud of Christ which saith he is a godly thing ▪ and yet the substaunce or nature of breade and wine do not cease to be there styll Note well these wordes againste all the Papistes of our time that Gelasius which was byshop of Rome more thā a thousād years passed writeth of this sacrament that the breade and wyne cease not to be there styll as Christ ceased not to be god after his incarnation but remayned styll perfect god as he was before Theodoretus also affirmeth the same both in his first and in his seconde dialoge In the fyrst he saith thus He that called his naturall body wheate and breade and also called him selfe a vyne the selfe same called bread and wyne his bodye and bloudde and yet chaunged not their natures And in his secōd dialogue he saith more plainly For saith he as the breade and wine after the consecration lose not their propre nature but kepe their former substance forme and figure whiche they had before euen so the body of Christ after his ascention was chaunged into the godlye substaunce Nowe lette the Papistes choose whyche of these two they wyll graunte for one of theim they muste needes graunte either that the nature and substaunce of breadde and wine remayne styll in the sacrament after the consecration and then must thei recant their doctrine of Transubstantiation or els that they bee of the errour of Nestorius and other which didde say that the nature of the Godhead remained not in Christ after his incarnation For all these old authors agree that it is in the one as it is in the other Nowe forasmuche as it is proued sufficientelye as well by the holye Scripture as by naturall operacion by naturall reason by all our senses and by the most old and beste learned authors and holy matyres of CHRISTES churche that the substaunce of breadde and wyne dooe remayne and be receaued of faithefull people in the blessed sacramente or supper the LORD It is a thinge woorthy to be considered and well waied what moued the schoole authors of late yeares to defende the contrarye opinion not onely so farre frome all experience of oure senses and so farre frome all reasone but also cleane contrarye to the olde Churche of CHRIST and to goddes moste holy worde Surelye nothing moued them thereto so much as did the vaine faithe whiche they hadde in the churche and sea of Rome For Iohannes Scotus otherwyse called Dunce the subtylest of al the schole authors in
gone hence estranged from vs. For that were to make two natures of one body to diuide the bodye of Iesus for as much as one nature can not at one tyme be both with vs and absent from vs. And therfore saith Origen that the presence must be vnderstand of his diuinitie and the absence of hys humanitee And according herevnto S. Augustin writeth thus in a pistle ad Dardan Doubt not but Iesus Christe as concernynge the nature of his manhode is now there from whence he shal come And remēbre well and beleue the profession of a christian man that he rose from death ascēded into heauen sitteth at the righte hande of his father and from that place and none other shall he come to iudg the quick and the dead And he shal come as the angels said as he was sene go into heauen that is to say in the same forme substaunce vnto the which he gaue immortalitee but changed not nature After this forme saith he meaning his mans nature we may not thinke that he is euery where For we must beware that we do not so stablyshe hys dyuinitee that wee take awaye the veritee of his body These bee S. Augustines plaine wordes And by and by after he addeth these woordes The Lorde Iesus as god is euery where and as manne is in heauen And fynally he concludeth this mattier in these fewe woordes Doubt not but our lorde Iesus Christe is euerye where as God and as a dwellar he is in man that is the temple of God and he is in a certayne place in heauen bicause of the measure of a very bodye And againe S. Augustine writeth vpon the gospell of S. Iohn Our Sauiour Iesus Christ saith S. Augustine is aboue but yet his truth is here His body wherein hee arose is in one place but his truthe is spred euerye where And in an other place of the same boke S Augustine expoundyng these woordes of Christe You shaleuer haue poore menne with you but me you shall not euer haue saithe that Christ spake these woordes of the presence of his bodye For saith he as concernyng his diuine maiestie as concerninge his prouidence as concerninge his infallible and inuisible grace these woordes bee fulfilled whiche hee spake I am with you vnto the worlds end But as concerning the flesh which he toke in his incarnation as concerninge that which was born of the vigin as cōcerning that which was apprehended by the Iewes and crucified vppon a tree and taken doune frome the Crosse lapped in linnen clothes and buried and rose againe and appered after his resurrection as concernyng that fleshe he said You shall not euer haue me wyth you Wherfore seeyng that as concernyng his fleshe he was conuersaunt with his disciples fortye daies and they accompanyeng seyng and folowyng him he wente vp into heauen bothe hee is not here for hee sytteth at the ryght hande of his father and yet hee is here for hee departed not hense as concernynge the presence of hys diuine Maiestie As concernynge the presence of his maiestie wee haue Christe euer with vs but as concernyng the presence of hys fleshe he said truely to his disciples Ye shall not euer haue me with you For as concernynge the presence of hys fleshe the churche had Christ but a fewe dayes yet nowe it holdeth hym faste by faythe though it see him not with eyes All these be S. Augustines woordes Also in an other booke entitled to sainct Augustine is written thus We muste beleue and confesse that the sonne of god as cōcerning his diuinite is inuisible without a body immortal and incircumscriptible but as concernyng his humanitee we ought to beleue and confesse that he is visible hath a body and is contayned in a certayne place and hath truely al the membres of a man Of these wordes of S. Augustyne it is most cleare that the profession of the catholike fayth is that Christ as cōcernyng his bodely substāce and nature of man is in heauen and not present here with vs in yearth For the nature and property of a very body is to be in one place and to occupie one place and not to be euery where or in many places at one tyme. And though the body of Christ after his resurrection and ascencion was made immortal yet the nature therof was not chaunged for than as saint Augustyn sayth it were no very body And further sainct Augustyne sheweth bothe the maner fourme howe Christ is here present with vs in yearth howe he is absent saiyng that he is present by his diuine nature and Maiestie by this prouidence and by his grace but by his humaine nature and very body he is absent frō this worlde and present in heauen Cyrillus likewyse vpon the Gospel of sainct Ihon agreeth fully with S. Augustyne saiyng Although Christ toke away frō hence the presence of his body yet in the Maiestie of his Godhead he is euer here as he promised to his disciples at his departyng saiyng I am with you euer vnto the worldes ende And in another place of the same boke sainct Cyril sayth thus Christian people must beleue that although Christ be absent from vs as concernyng his body yet by his power he gouerneth vs and all thynges and is present with all them that loue him Therfore he sayd Truly truly I say vnto you whersoeuer there be two or thre gathered together in my name there am I in the myddes of them For like as when he was conuersant here in yearth as a man yet than he fylled heauen did not leaue the company of Angels euen so beyng nowe in heauen with his fleshe yet he fylleth the yerth is in them that loue him And it is to be marked that although Christ should go away onely as concernyng his fleshe for he is euer present in the power of his diuinite yet for a lytle tyme he sayd he would bee with his disciples These be the wordes of sainct Cyril Sainct Ambrose also sayth that we must not seeke Christ vpon yearth nor in yearth but in heauen where he sytteth at the right hand of his father And likewyse sainct Gregorye wryteth thus Christe sayth he is not here by the presence of his fleshe and yet he is absent no where by the presence of his Maiestie What subtiltee thynkest thou good reader can the Papistes nowe imagyne to defend their pernitious errour that Christe in his humayne nature is bodely here in yearth in the consecrated bread and wyne seyng that all the olde Churche of Christ beleued the contrary and all the olde authors wrote the contrary For they all affirmed beleued that Christe beyng but one parson hath neuerthelesse in him twoo natures or substaunces that is to say the nature of his Godhead and the nature of his manhood They say furthermore that Christe is both goone hence from vs vnto heauen and is also here with vs in yearth but
neuerthelesse both present and absent he is all one Christe Hytherto you haue herd Uigilius speke that Christ as concernynge his bodily presence and the nature of his manhode is gone from vs taken from vs is gone vp into heuen is not with vs hath left vs hath forsaken vs. But as concernyng the other nature of his deitee he is styl with vs so that he is bothe with vs and not with vs with vs in the nature of his deitee and not with vs in the nature of his humanitee And yet more clerely doth the same Uigilius declare the same thyng in an other place sayenge If the worde and the fleshe were bothe of one nature seyng that the word is euery where why is not the fleshe than euery where For whan yt was in earthe than verily it was not in heauen and nowe whan it is in heauen it is not surely in yearth And it is so sure that it is not in earth that as concernyng it we looke for hym to come from heauen whom as concernyng his eternall woorde we beleue to bee with vs in earthe Therfore by your doctrine saith Uigilius vnto Eutyches who defended that the diuinitee and humanite in Christe was but one nature either the word is conteyned in a place with his fleshe or els the fleshe is euery where with the worde For one nature can not receaue in it selfe two diuers and contrary thinges But these two thinges be dyuers and farre vnlyke that is to say to be conteyned in a place and to be euery where Therfore in as muche as the word is euery where and the fleshe is not euery where it appeareth playnly that one Christ hym self hath in hym two natures that by his diuine nature he is euery where and by his humain nature he is conteined in a place that he is created hath no beginnyng that he is subiect to death can not die Wherof one he hath by the nature of his worde wherby he is God the other he hath by y ◠nature of his fleshe wher by the same God is man also Therfore one son of God the self same was made the sonne of mā and he hath a begynnynge by the nature of his fleshe and no begynnynge by the nature of his Godheade He is created by the nature of his fleshe and not created by the nature of his Godhead He is comprehended in a place by the nature of his fleshe and not comprehended in a place by the nature of his Godhead He is inferiour to angels in the nature of his fleshe and is equall to his father in the nature of his Godhead He dyed by the nature of his fleshe and died not by the nature of his Godhead This is the faithe and catholyke confession whyche the Apostles taught the martyrs dyd corroborate and faithfull people kepe vnto this daie All these be the saiynges of Uigilius who accordyng to al the other authors before rehersed and to the faith and catholike confession of the apostles martyrs and all faithfull people vnto his tyme saith that as concernyng Christes humanitee whan he was here on erthe he was not in heauen and nowe whan he is in heauen he he is not in earthe For one nature can not bee both conteyned in a place in heauen and be also here in earthe at one tyme. And for asmuche as Christe is here with vs in earth and also is conteined in a place in heauen he proueth thereby that Christ hath two natures in hym the nature of a man wherby he is gon from vs and ascended into heauen and the nature of his godhed wherby he is here with vs in erth So that it is not one nature y t is here with vs that is gone from vs that is ascended into heauen and ther cōteined that is permanēt here with vs in erth Wherfore the Papistes whiche nowe of late yeares haue made a newe faythe that Christes naturall bodye is really and naturally present bothe with vs here in earthe and sytteth at the ryght hande of his father in heauen do erre in two very horrible heresies The one that thei confound his two natures his godhead his manhod attributynge vnto his humanitee that thyng which appertaineth only to his diuinitee that is to say to be in heuen and erth and in many places at one tyme. The other is that they deuide and separate his humain nature or his body makyng of one body of Christ. ii bodyes and ii natures one whiche is in heauen visible and palpable hauing al membres and proportions of a most perfect natural man an other which they say is in erth here with vs in euery bread and wyne that is consecrated hauing no distinction forme nor proporcion of membres whiche contrarieties diuersities as this holy martyr Uigilius saith can not be together in one nature But now seyng that it is so euident a matter bothe by the expresse wordes of scripture also by all tholde authors of the same that our sauior Christ as cōcernyng his bodely presence is ascended into heauē and is not here in yerth And seyng that this hath been the true confession of the catholike fayth euer sithens Christes ascencion it is nowe to be cōsidered what moued the Papistes to make a newe and contrary fayth what scriptures they haue for their purpose What moued them I knowe not but their own iniquitie or the nature and condicion of the sea of Rome whiche is of all other most contrary to Christ and therfore most worthy to be called the sea of Antichrist And as for scripture thei allege none but only one that not truly vnderstāded but to serue their purpose wrested out of tune wherby they make it to gerre sound cōtrary to al other scriptures partainyng to that matter Christ toke bread say they blessed and brake it and gaue it to his disciples saiyng This is my body These woordes they euer styll repeate and beate vpon that Christe sayd This is my body And this saiyng they make their shote anker to proue therby aswell the real and nataral presence of Christes body in the sacrament as their imagined Transubstantiation For these woordes of Christ say they be most playne and most true Than forasmuch as he sayd This is my body it must nedes be true that that thyng whiche the priest holdeth in his hādes is Christes body And if it be Christes body than can it not be bread whereof they gather by their reasonyng that there is Christes body really present and no bread Nowe forasmuche as all their profe hangeth onely vpon these wordes This is my body the true sence and meanyng of these wordes must be examined But say they what nede thei any examinacion What wordes can bee more playne than to say This is my body Truth it is in deede that the woordes bee as playne as may be spoken but that the sence is not so plaine it
be offered to God by his priestes wherof they be signes sayest thou Era. ' Of the Lordes boby and bloud Orth. ' Of a very body or not a very body Era. ' Of a very body Orth. Uery wel for an mage must be made after a true paterne for Paynters folowe nature and paynt the images of suche thynges as wee see with our eyes Era. ' Truthe it is Orth. If therfore y e godly sacramētes represent a true body than is the Lordes body yet styll a body not conuerted into the nature of his Godhead but replenished with Gods glory Era. It cōmeth in good time that thou makest mencion of Gods sacramentes for by the same I shall proue y e Christes body is turned into another nature Answer therfore vnto my questions Orth. ' I shall answere Era. What callest thou that which is offered before the inuocation of the priest Orth. We must not speake plainly for it is like that some be present whiche haue not professed Christ. Era. ' Answere couertly Orth. ' It is a norishmēt made of seedes that be like Era. ' Than howe call we the other signe Orth. It is also a cōmon name that signifieth a kynde of drynke Era. But howe doest thou cal them after the sanctification Orth. ' The body of Christ and the bloud of Christ. Era. And dost thou beleue that thou art made parttaker of Christes body and bloudde Orth. ' I beleeue so Era. Therfore as the tokens of Goddes bodye and bloude be other thynges before the priestes inuocation but after the inuocation they be chaunged and be other thynges so also the bodye of Christe after his assumption is chaunged into his diuine substaunce Orth. Thou art taken with thyne owne nette For the sacramentall signes goe not from their owne nature after the sanctification but continue in theyr former substance forme and figure and may be sene and touched as well as before yet in our myndes we do consyder what they bee made and do repute and esteme them and haue them in reuerence acordyng to the same thynges that they be taken for Therfore compare the ymages to the paterne and thou shalt se them like For a figure must be lyke to y e thyng it selfe For Christes bodye hath his former fashion figure and bygnesse and to speake at one worde the same substance of his body But after his resurrection it was made immortall and of suche power that no corruption nor deth coulde come vnto it and it was exalted to that dignitee that it was set at the ryght hande of the father and honoured of all creatures as the body of hym that is the Lorde of nature Era. But the sacramentall token chaungeth his former name for it is no more called as it was before but is called Christes boyde Therefore must his body after his ascention be called God and not a body Orth. Thou semest to me ignorant for it is not called his body onely but also the bread of lyfe as the Lorde called it So the bodye of Christe we call a godly body a body that geueth lyfe Goddes body the Lordes body our maisters bodye meanyng that it is not a common body as other mens bodies be but that it is the bodye of oure Lord Iesu Christ both god and man This haue I rehersed of the great clerke and holy byshop Theodoretus whome some of the Papistes perceyuynge to make so playnely agaynst them haue defamed sayeng that he was infected with the errour of Nestorius Here the Papistes shewe their old accustomed nature and condition whiche is euen in a manifest matter rather to lye without shame than to geue place vnto the truthe confesse their owne errour And althoughe his aduersaries falsely bruted suche a fame agaynst hym whan he was yet alyue neuerthelesse he was pourged thereof by the whole councel of Calcedon about aleuen hundred yeares ago And furthermore in his boke which he wrote against heresies he specially condemneth Nestorius by name And also all his .iii. bookes of his dialoges before rehersed he wrote chiefly agaist Nestorius and was neuer herein noted of errour this thousande yere but hath euer been reputed and taken for an holy byshop a great lerned man and a graue author vntyl now at this present tyme when the Papistes haue nothyng to answere vnto hym they begyn in excusyng of them selues to defame hym Thus muche haue I spoken for Theodoretus which I praie the be not wery to rede good reder but often and with delectation deliberation and good aduertisement to rede For it conteyneth playnly and brefely the true instruction of a christian man concernyng the matter whiche in this boke we treate vpon First that our sauiour Christe in his last supper when he gaue breade and wyne to his apostles sayeuge This is my bodye This is my bloud it was bread which he called his body wyne myxed in the cuppe whyche he called his bloud so that he changed the names of the bread and wine which were the misteries sacraments signes figures tokens of Christes fleshe and bloude called them by the names of the thinges which they dyd represent and signifie that is to say the breade he called by the name of his very fleshe the wyne by the name of his blud Second that although the names of breade and wyne were changed after sanctification yet neuerthelesse the thyngs them selues remayned the selfe same that they were before the sanctification that is to say the same breade and wyne in nature substance forme and fashion The thyrde seynge that the substance of the bread and wyne be not chaunged why bee then their names changed and the bread called Christes flesh and the wyne his bloud Theodoretus sheweth that the cause therof was this that we shuld not haue so muche respect to the breade and wyne whiche we see with our eies and tast with our mouthes as we shuld haue to Christe hym selfe in whom we beleue with our hertes fele and tast him by our faith with whose flesh and bloud by his grace we beleue that we bee spiritually fedde and nouryshed These thynges we ought to remembre and reuolue in our myndes and to lyfte vp our hartes from the bread and wine vnto Christ that sytteth aboue And bicause we shuld so do therfore after the consecration they be no more called bread wyne but the body and bloud of Christe The fourth It is in these sacraments of bread and wyne as it is in the very bodye of Christe For as the body of Christe before his resurrection and after is al one in nature substance bignesse forme and fashion and yet it is not called as an other cōmon body but with addition for the dignitee of his exaltation it is called a heauenly a godly an immortal and the Lords body so lykewyse the breade and wyne before the consecration and after is all one in nature substance bygnesse forme and fashion and yet it is not called as
spirituall and pure eatinge with hart and mind which is to beeleue in oure hartes that his fleshe was â—ente and torne for vs vppon the crosse and his bludde shedde for our redemption and that the same fleshe and bludde nowe sitteth at the ryght hande of the father making continual intercession for vs and to imprint and digest this in our mindes puttinge our whole affiaunce and trust in him as touchinge our saluacion and offering ourselues clearlye vnto hym to loue and serue hym all the dayes of our lyfe thys is trewely sincerely and spiritually to eate his flesh and to drinke his bludde And this sacryfyce of Christe vpon the crosse was that oblation whyche Cypriane saithe was figured and signifyed before it was done by the wyne whiche Noe dranke and by the breade and wyne whiche Melchisedech gaue to Abraham and by many other figures which Cyprian there reherseth And nowe when Christe is come and hath accomplished that sacrifice the same is figured signified and represented vnto vs by that bread and wine which faithfull people receaue daylye in the holy communion Wherein lyke as wyth their mouths carnally thei eat the bread drink the wyne so by their faithe spiritually they eate Christes very fleshe and drinke his very bloode And herby it appeareth that S. Cyprian clearly affirmeth the moste true doctrine and is wholy vpon oure side And against the Papistes hee teacheth moste plainly that the communion ought to be receaued of all men vnder bothe the kindes and that CHRIST called breade his body and wyne hys bloude and that there is no transubstantiation but that breade remaineth there as a figure to represent Christes body and wine to represente his blud and that those whyche bee not y â— lyuely membres of Christe doo eate the breade and drynke the wyne and bee nouryshed by theym but the verye fleshe and bludde of CHRIST they neyther eate nor drinke Thus haue you hearde declared the mynde of Saint Cyprian But Hylarius thynke they is plainest for theym in this matter whose woordes they translate thus If the worde was made verely fleshe we verely receiue the worde beyng fleshe in our Lordes meate howe shall not Christ be thought to dwel naturally in vs who beyng borne man hath taken vnto him the nature of our fleshe that can not be seuered and hath put together the nature of his fleshe to the nature of his eternitee vnder the sacrament of the communion of his fleshe vnto vs. For so wee bee all one because the father is in Christe and Christe in vs. Wherfore whosoeuer will denye the father to be naturally in Christe he muste denye fyrste either him selfe to be naturally in Christ or Christ to be naturally in him For the beyng of the father in Christe and the beyng of Christ in vs maketh vs to be one in them And therfore if Christ haue taken verily the fleshe of our body and the man that was verely borne of the virgyn Mary is Christ and also we receiue vnder the true mysterye the fleshe of his body by meanes whereof wee shall bee one for the father is in Christ and Christ in vs how shall that be called the vnitee of wylle when the naturall propertie brought to passe by the sacrament is the sacrament of vnitee Thus doth the Papistes the aduersaries of Gods woorde and of his trueth allege the authoritee of Hilarius either peruersely and purposely as it seemeth vntruely cityng him and wrastyng his wordes to their purpose or els not truely vnderstandyng him For although he sayth that Christe is naturally in vs yet he sayth also that we be naturally in him And neuerthelesse in so saiyng he ment not of the natural and corporal presence of the substance of Christes body of ours for as oure bodyes bee not after that sorte within his body so is not his body after that sorte within our bodyes but he ment that Christe in his incarnacion receyued of vs a mortall nature and vnited the same vnto his diuinitee and so be we naturally in him And the sacramentes of Baptisme and of his holy supper if we rightly vse the same do moste assuredly certifye vs that wee bee partakers of his godly nature hauyng geuen vnto vs by him immortalitee and life euerlastyng so is Christ naturally in vs. And so bee wee one with Christ and Christ with vs not onely in wylle mynde but also in very naturall properties And so concludeth Hilarius against Arrius that Christe is one with his father not in purpose and wylle onely but also in very nature And as the vnion betwene Christe and vs in baptisme is spiritual and requyreth no real and corporall presence so lykewise oure vnion with Christ in his holy supper is spiritual and therfore requyreth no real and corporall presence And therfore Hilarius speaking there of both the sacramentes maketh no difference betwene our vnion with Christ in baptisme our vnion with him in his holy supper And sayth further that as Christ is in vs so be wee in him â–ª whiche the Papistes can not vnderstand corporally and really except they wyll say that all our bodyes be corporally within Christes body Thus is Hilarius answered vnto both plainly shortly And this answere of Hilarius wyll serue also vnto Cyril whom they allege to speake after the same sort that Hilarius doth that Christ is naturally in vs. The wordes whiche they recite be these We denye not sayth Cyril against the heretike but we be spiritually ioyned to Christ by fayth and syncere charitee but that we shuld haue no maner of coniunction in our fleshe with Christ that we vtterly deny and thynke it vtterly discrepant from Goddes holy scriptures For who doubteth but Christ is so the vyne tre we so the branches as we get thence our life Heare what sainct Paule sayth Wee be all one body with Christe for though we be many we be one in him All we participate in one foode Thynketh this hereticke that we knowe not the strength and vertue of the mistical benediction whiche when it is made in vs doth it not make Christ by coÌ„munication of his fleshe to dwell corporally in vs Why be the membres of faythful mens bodyes called the membres of Christe Knowe you not sayth sainct Paule that your membres be the membres of Christ And shall I make the membres of Christ partes of the whoores body God forbyd And our sauiour also sayth He that eateth my fleshe and drynketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him Although in these wordes Cyril doth say that Christ doth dwell corporally in vs whan we receiue y â— mistical benediction yet he neither sayth that Christ dwelleth corporally in the bread nor that he dwelleth in vs corporally onely at suche tymes as wee receiue the sacrament nor that he dwelleth in vs not we in him but he sayth aswel y t we dwel in him as that he dwelleth in vs. Whiche dwellyng is