liue for euer And thus I haue declared the sence of Christes wordes brought forth out of the Gospell of Sainct Iohn Wherby appeareth how euidentely they set forth the doctrine of the mysterie of the eatyng of Christes fleshe drinkyng his bloud in the Sacrament whiche must nedes be vnderstanded of a corporall eatyng as Christ did after ordre in thinstitucion of the sayd Sacrament accordyng to his promise and doctrine here declared Now where thauctor to exclude the mysterie of corporall manducacion bryngeth forth of Sainct Augustine suche wordes as entreat of theffect and operacion of the worthy receauyng of the Sacrament the handelyng is not so syncere as this matter requireth For as hereafter shal be intreated that is not worthely and well done may because the principall entent fayleth be called nor done as so Sainct Augustine sayth Let him not thinke to eat the bodie of Christ that dwelleth not in Christ not because the body of Christ is not receaued whiche by Sainct Augustines mynde euill men do to their condempnacion but because theffecie of life fayleth And so thauctor by sleight to exclud the corporall manducacion of Christes most precious bodie vttreth suche wordes as myght sounde Christ to haue taught the dwellyng in Christ to be an eatyng whiche dwellyng may be without this corporal manducacion in him that can not attaine the vse of it and dwellyng in Christ is an effecte of the worthy manducacion and not the manducacion it selfe whiche Christ doth ordre to be practised in the moost precious Sacrament institute in his supper Here thou reader mayst see how this doctrine of Christ as I haue declared it openeth the corporall manducacion of his moost holie fleshe and drinkyng of his moost precious bloud whiche he gaue in his supper vnder the formes of bread and wyne Nowe let vs considre the textes of the Euangelistes and Sainct Paule whiche be brought in by thauctor as foloweth Whē they wee catyng Iesus toke bread Mat. 26 and when he had geuē thankes he brake it gaue it to his disciples and sayd Take eat this is my bodie And he toke the cup and when he had geuen thankes he gaue it to them saiyng drinke ye all of this for this is my bloud of the new testament that is shed for many for the remission of synnes But I say vnto you I wyll not drinke henceforth of this frute of the vine vntill that daye when I shall drinke it new with you in my fathers kingdome As they did eat Iesus toke bread and Mar. 14 when he had blessed he brake it and gaue it to them sayd Take eat This is my bodie taking the cup whē he had geuē thankes he gaue it to them and they dranke of it And he said to them This is my bloud of the new Testament whiche is shed for many Uerely I say vnto you I will drinke no more of the frute of the vine vntill that daye that I drinke it newe in the kyngdome of God When the houre was come he sat doune Luc. 22. and the .xij. Apostels with him And he sayd vnto them I haue greatly desired to eat this Pascha with you before I suffre For I say vnto you henceforth I will not eat of it any more vntill it be fulfylled in the kyngdome of God And he toke the cup and gaue thankes and sayd Take this and deuide it among you For I say vnto you I will not drinke of the frute of the vine vntill the kyngdome of God come And he toke bread and whē he had geuen thankes he brake it and gaue it vnto them saiynge This is my bodie whiche is geuen for you This do in remēbrance of me Likewise also when he had supped he toke the cup saiyng This cup is the new Testamēt in my bloud which is shed for you Is not the cuppe of blessyng whiche we 1. Cor. 10 blesse a communion of the bloud of Christ Is not the bread whiche we breake a communion of the bodie of Christ We beyng many are one bread and one bodie for we are all partakers of one bread and of one cuppe That whiche I deliuered vnto you I 1. Cor. 11 receaued of the Lord. For the Lorde Iesus the same night in the whiche he was betrayed toke bread and when he had geuen thankes he brake it and sayd Take eate this is my bodie whiche is broken for you do this in remembraunce of me Likewise also he toke the cup when supper was done saiyng This cup is the new Testament in my bloud do this as often as ye drinke it in remembraunce of me For as often as you shall eate this bread drinke of this cup ye shew forth the Lordes death till he come wherfore whosoeuer shall eat of this bread or drinke of this cuppe vnworthely shal be giltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lorde But let a man examine him selfe and so eat of the bread and drinke of the cup for he that eateth drynketh vnworthely eateth and drynketh his owne damnacion because he maketh no difference of the Lordes bodie For this cause many are weake and sycke among you and many do slepe After these textes brought in thauctor doth in the fourth chapter begyn to trauers Christes intent that he intēded not by these wordes This is my bodie to make the bread his body but to signify that suche as receiue that worthely be membres of Christes bodie The Catholique church acknowlegyng Christ to be verie God and verie man hath frō the beginnyng of these textes of scripture cōfessed truely Christes intent and effectual myraculous woorke to make the bread his body and the wyne his bloud to be verely meate verely drinke vsyng therin his humanitie wherwith to fead vs as he vsed the same wherwith to redeame vs as he doth sanctify vs by his holy spirite so to sanctify vs by his holy diuine fleshe and bloud and as life is renewed in vs by the gift of Christs holy spirite so life to be encreased in vs by the gift of his holy fleshe So as he that beleueth in Christ and receaueth the Sacrament of beleif whiche is baptisme receiueth really Christes spirite So he that hauyng Christs spirite receaueth also the Sacrament of Christes bodie and bloud doth really receaue in the same and also effectually Christes verie bodie and bloud And therfore Christ in thinstitucion of this Sacramēt sayd deliueryng that he consecrated This is my bodie c. And likewise of the cuppe This is my bloud And although to mans reason it semeth straunge that Christ standyng or sittyng at the table should deliuer them his bodie to be eaten yet when we remembre Christ to be verie God we muste graunt him omnipotent and by reason therof represse in oure thoughtes all imaginacions how it might be and considre Christes intent by his will preached vnto vs by scriptures and beleued vniuersally in his church But if it may now be thought semely for
this auctors teaching as may be and yet from him he taketh occasion to speake against adoration As touching thadoratioÌ„ of Christes fleshe in the SacrameÌ„t whiche adoration is a true confession of the holemans soule and body if there be opportunite of the truthe of God in his worke is in my indgement well setforth in the booke of coÌ„moÌ„ prayor where the priest is ordred to knele and make a prayor in his owne and the name of all that shall communicate confessyng therin that is prepared there at whiche tyme neuerthelesse that is not adored that the bodelye eie sceth but that whiche fay the knoweth to be there inuisibly preseÌ„t whiche and there be nothyng as this auctor nowe teacheth it were not well I wyll not answere this auctors eloqueÌ„ce but his matter where it might hurte as in the wronge reporte of Saincte Augustine who speakyng of the adoration of Christes fleshe geuen to be eaten doth so fation his speache as it cannot with any violence be drawen to suche an vnderstandyng as though S. Augustine should meane of thadoryng of Christes fleshe in heauen as this auctor woulde haue it S. Augustine speaketh of the geuyng of Christes flesh to vs to eaâ—e and declareth after that he meaneth in the visible Sacrament whiche must be Inuisibly vnderstaÌ„ded and spiritually not as the Capharnaites did vnderstand Christes wordes carnally to eate that body cutte in piaces and therfore there may be no suche imaginations to eate Christes bodye after the maner he walked here nor drinke his bloud as it was shed vpon the crosse but it is a mystery and sacrament that is godly of gods worke supernaturall aboue mannes vnderstandyng and therfore spiritually vnderstanded shall giue life whiche life carnall vnderstandyng must nedes exclude And by these my wordes I thynke I declare trully sainct Augustines meanynge of the truthe of this Sacrament wherin Christ geueth truely his fleshe to be eaten the fleshe he speake of before taken of the virgin For the spirituall vnderstandynge that sainct Augustine speaketh of is not to exclude the truthe of goddes worke in the Sacrament but to extlude carnall imagination from musyng of the maner of the worke whiche is in mysterye suche as a carnall man can not comprehende In whiche matter yf sainct Augustine had had suche a faythe of the visible sacrameÌ„t as this auctor sayth himselfe hath nowe of late and calleth it Catholique sainct Augustine would haue vttered it as an expositor playnely in this place and said ther is but a figure of Christs body Christes bodye and fleshe is in heuen and not in this visible SacrameÌ„t Christes speache that was estemed so hard was but a figuratiue speach and where Christ said This is my bodye he ment onely of the figure of his body whiche maner of saynges sainct Augustine vseth not in this place and yet he coulde speake playnly and so doth he declarynge vs firste the truthe of the fleshe that Christ geueth to be eaten that is to saye the same fleshe that he tooke of the virgen And yet because christ geneth it not in a visible maner nor suche a maner as the Capharnaites thought on nor suche a maner as any carnall man can conceyue beynge also the fleshe geuen in the SacrameÌ„t not a common fleshe but a lyuely godly and spirituall fleshe Therfore sainct Augustine vseth wordes and speache wherby he denieth the gift of that bodye of Christ whiche we did see and of the bloude that was shed so as by affirmation and deniall so nere together of the same to be geuen and the same not to be geuen the mysterye shoulde be thus far opened that for the truthe of the thynge geuen it is the same and touchynge the maner of the geuynge and the qualitie of the fleshe geuen it is not the same And because it is the same Sainct Angustine sayeth before we muste worshippe it and yet because it is nowe an hidden godly mysterye we maye not haue carnall Imaginations of the same but godly spiritually and inuisibly vnderstande it And because sainct Hierome who was of sainct Augustines tyme writeth in his commentaries Hierony mus ad Ephesios 〈◊〉 vpon sainct Paule Ad Ephesios that maye serue for the better openynge hereof I wyll write it in here The wordes be these The bloude and fleshe of Christe is two wayes vnderstanded eyther the spiritually godly of whiche him selfe said my fleshe is verely meat and my bloud is verely drynke and onlesse ye eat my fleshe and drinke my bloud ye shal not haue euerlasting life Or the fleshe whiche was crucified and bloud whiche was shed with the spere Accordyng to this diuisioÌ„ the diuersite of fleshe and bloud is taken in Christes sainctes that there is one fleshe that shall see the salnatioÌ„ of God an other fleshe and bloud that can not possesse the kyngdome of heauen These be S. Iheromes wordes In which thowe seest reader a denyall of that fleshe of Christ to be geuen to be eaten that was crucified but the fleshe geuen to be eaten to be a godly and spirituall fleshe and a distinction made betwene them as is in oure fleshe of whiche it may be sayde that the fleshe we walke in here shall not see God that is to say as it is corruptible accordyng to the text of S. Paul fleshe and bloud shal not possesse heauen and yet not withstanding we muste beleue and hope with Iob truely that the same oure fleshe shal see god in heauen after whiche diuision likewise we receyue not in the Sacrament Christes fleshe that was crucified beyng so a visible and mortall fleshe but Christes fleshe glorified incorruptible impassible a godly and spirituall fleshe And so that is but one in substaunce and alwayes so the same one is neuerthelesse for thalteration in the maner of the beyng of it diuided so called not the same wherin sainct Hierome and saincte Augustine vsed both one maner of speakinge and sainct Hierome resemblinge the diuisioÌ„ that he rehersith of christes flesh to the diuision of oure flesh in the resurrection dothe more plainely open howe the same maye be called not the same because we beleue certainlye the resurrection of the same flesh we walke in and yet it shall be by the garment of incorruptibilite not the same in qualite and so be verified the scriptures that flesh shall not possess heauen and I shall see god in my flesh And here I will note to the reader by the waye sainct Hierome wrireth this distinctioÌ„ of Christs flesh as a matter aggreed on and then in catholique doctrine receyued not of his inuention but in the catholique faythe as aprincipal established whiche declareth the belef to haue ben of that very godly and spirituall fleshe geuen really in the Sacrament For ells to eate onely in fayth is spiritually to remembre Christ flesh as it was visiblie crucified wherin was accoÌ„plished thoblacon for oure sinnes and sainct Poule willeth vs in the supper to shew forth and to professe
not preseÌ„t because euel meÌ„ receiue it that shal be no argument for the good seed when it was sowen did fall in the euell grounde and althought christ dwelleth not in the euel man yet he maye be receyued of the euell man to his condempnation because he receyue him not to glorifie him as of God as S. Paule sayth Non dijudicans corpus domini not estemyng our Lordes bodye And to all that euer this auctor bryngeth to proue that euel men eare not the body of christ may be said wortely that spiritually they eate it not besides the sacrameÌ„t in the sacrameÌ„t they eate it not effectually to lyfe but coÌ„deÌ„pnatioÌ„ And that is may be called a not eating As they be said not to heare the worde of God that heare it not proufitably And because the body of Christ of it selfe is ordeyned to be eateÌ„ for lyfe those that vnworthely eate condempnatioÌ„ although they eate in dede maye be said not eate because they eate vnworthely as a thyng not well done may be in speache called not done in respecte of the good effect Wherfore it was chefly ordred to be done And by this rule thou reader mast discusse al that this auctor bryngeth forth for his purpose eyther out of Scriptures or doctours For euell men eate not the bodye of Christe to haue any frute by it as euell men be said not to heare goddes worde to haue any frute by it and yet as they here the worde of spirite and lyfe and neuer theles perishe so euel men eate in the visible SacrameÌ„â— the bodye of Christ yet perishe And as I said thus answerith the Scripture with the particuler saynges of CypriaÌ„ Athanase Basyl hierome and Ambrose As for sainct Augustine whiche this auctor Augusti allegeth De ciuitate dei the same S. Augustine doth playnly say there in the place alleged howe the good and euell receyue the same sacrement and addith but not with like proffite whiche wordes this auctor suppresseth and therfore dealith not syncerely As for sainct Augustin shal be herafter more playnely declared Finally he that receyueth worthely the body and bloud of Christ hath euerlasting life dwelleth in Christ Christ in him he that receyueth vnworthely which can be onelye in the Sacrament receyueth not life but condempnation But to encouÌ„tre directly with this auctor where he opposith by interrogation and would be anuswered whither an vnrepentant synner that receyueth the SacrmeÌ„t hath Christes body with in him or no. Marke reader this question whiche declareth that auctor talkyth of the Sacrament not as himselfe teacheth but as the true teaching is although he mean other wise for els howe could an vnrepeÌ„taÌ„t synner receyue Christ but onely in the sacrameÌ„t vnworthely howe could he receyue him vnworthely he were not there but to anuswere to the questioÌ„ I answere no for it foloueth not he receyued him Ergo he hathe him in him for the vessel being not mete he departed from him because he was a synner in whom he dwelleth not And where this auctor now become a questioniste maketh two questions of Christes bodye and his spirite as tough Christes body might be deuided from his spirite he supposeth other to be as ignorant as himselfe For the lerned man will answere that the euel man by force of gods ordinance in the substance of the Sacrament receyued in deade Christes very body there preseÌ„t hol Christ god and man but he taryed not nor Dwelled not nor fructified not in him nor Christes spirite entred not into that mannes sowle because of the malice and vnworthynes of him that receyued For Christ wil not dwell with Belial nor abide with synners 2. Cor. 6. And what hath this auctor wonne nowe by his forked question wherin he semethe to glorie as though he had embraced an absurdite that he hunted for wherin he sheweth onely his ignoraunce who putteth no difference bytwen thentryag of Christe into an euell man by goddes ordynance in the SacrameÌ„t and the dwellyng of Christes spirite in an euel man whiche by Scripture can not be ne is by any Catholique man affirmed For sainct Paule saythe In him that receyuethe vnworthely remaynethe iudgement and condempnation And yet Sainct Pauls wordes playnelye importe that those did eate the verye bodye of Christe whiche did eate vnworthely and therfore were gyltie of the body and bloud of Christ Now reader 1. Cor. 11 consider what is before wryten and thou shalt easelie see what a fonde cunclusioÌ„ this auctor gathereth in the. 97. leafe as though the teachyng were that the same maÌ„ should be both the temple of God and the temple of the dewel with other termes wherwith it liketh this auctour to refreshe himselfe and fayneth an aduersarye suche as he woulde haue but hath none For no Catholique man teacheth so nor it is not all one to receyue Christ and to haue Christ dwellyng in him And a figure therof was in Christes conuersation vpon earthe whoÌ„ taryed not with all that receyued him in outward apparance And there is noted a difference that summe beleued in Christ and yet Christ committed Ioh. 3. not himselfe to them And the Gospell prayseth them that heare the worde of God and Luce. 11. kepe it signifiyng many to here the worde of God and not to kepe it as they that receyue Christ by his ordinaunce in the Sacrament and yet because thei receyue him not accordyng to th entent of his ordinance worthely they are so much the worse therby through ther owne malyce And therfore to conclude this place with thauctor who soeuer eateth Christes fleshe and drynketh his bloud hathe euerlastynge life with Saincte Paulles exposition if he dothe it worthely or elles by the same Saincte Paule he hathe condempnacion 1. Cor. 11 In the .xcvij. leafe and the seconde coluÌ„ne thauctor begynneth to trauerse the wordes of Sainct Paul to the Corinthians would distincte vnworthy eatyng in the substaunce of the Sacrament receyued whiche cannot be For oure vnworthynes cannot altare the substance of gods Sacramente that is euermore all one howesoeuer we swarue frome worthines to vnworthines And this I wold aske of this auctor why shoulde it be a faulte in the vnworthye not to esteme the Lordes body when he is taught if this auctors doctrine be true that it is not there at al If this bread after this auctors teachyng be but a figure of Christes body it is then but as MaÌ„na was the eatynge wherof vnworthely and vnfaythfully was no gilte of Christes body Erasmus noteth these wordes of Saincte Erasmê° Paul to be gilty of our Lords body to proue the prefence of Christes body there who com pareth suche an offender to the iewes that did shedde Christes bloud maliciouslye as those do prophane it vnprofitably in which sence the greke commentaryes do also expounde it And where this auctor bryngeth in the wordes of Saincte Paule as it were to poynte out the mattiere Let
to ensue of the diuersite of the eatyng not of any diuersite of that whiche is eaten whither the good man or euell man recyue the Sacrament If I would here encoÌ„bre the reader I coulde bryng forth many mo places of saincte Augustine to the confusioÌ„ and reproufe of this auctors purpose and yet notwithstandyng to take awaye that he might saye of me that I waye not Saincte Augustine I thynke good to allege bryng forth the iudgement of Martyn Bucer touchyng saincte Augustine who vnderstandeth saincte Augustine clere contrary to this auctor as maye playnely appeare by that the sayde Bucer writeth in fewe wordes in his Epistell dedicatorye of the greate worke he sente abrode of his enarracions of the Gospelles where his iudgement of Sainct Augustine in this poynte he vttereth thus Quoties scribit etiam Iudam ipsum corpus sanguinem Domini sumpsisse Nemo itaque auctoritate S. patrum dicet christum in sacra coena absentem esse The sence in English is this Howe often wryteth he speakyng of Sainct Augustine Iudas also to haue receiued the selfe body and bloud of our Lorde No man therfore by the auctoritie of the fathers can saye Christe to be absente in the holye soupper Thus sayth Bucer who vnderstandeth Saincte Augustine as I haue before alleaged him and gathereth there of a conclusion that no man can by the fathers saiynges proue Christe to be absente in the holye soupper And therfore by Bucers iudgemente the doctrine of this auctour can be in no wise Catholique as dissentynge frome that hathe been before taught and beleued Whither Bucer wyll styl continue in that he hath so solenly published to the world and by me here alleaged I can not tell and whither he do or no it maketh no matter but thus he hathe taught in his latter iudgement with A great protestation that he speaketh without respecte other then to the truthe wherin because he semed to dissent from his freundes he sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whiche wordes haue an imitation of an older sayng and be thus muche to saye Socrates is my frend Truth is my best beloued Socrates and the churche most regarded with this Bucer closith his doctrine of the sacrameÌ„t after he knewe al that zwinglius OecolaÌ„padius could say in the matter And here I wyl leaue to speke of Bucer bring forth Theodoretus a man much extolled by this Theodorâ—â—us in eplam 1. Cor. 2. auctor who sayth playnly in his commentaryes vpon S. Paule howe Christ delyuered to Iudas his precious bodye and bloud and declareth further therwith in that sacrameÌ„t to be the truthe So as this auctor can haue no foundation vpon eyther to maynten his figuratiue speach or the matter of this fourth booke whiche his wordes playnely impugne sainct Hierome in his commentaties Hierome vpon the prophete Malachie hath first this sentence Possumus panem idest corpus christi quando indigni accedimus ad altare sordidi mundum sanguinem bibimus We defile the bread that is to saye the bodye of christ wheÌ„ we cume vnworthely to thalrare and beynge fylthy drinke the cleane bloud Thus sayth S. Hierome who sayth fylthy men drinke the cleane bloud and in an other place after the same Sainct Hierome sayth Polluit christi mysteria indigne accipiens corpus eius sanguineÌ„ He that vnworthly receyueth the body bloud of Christ defyleth the mysteries Can any wordes be more manifest euideÌ„t to declare S. Hieroms mynde howe in the visible sacrameÌ„t men receyue vnworthely whiche be euil men the bodye and bloud of Christ and yet these playne places of auctoritie dissembled of purpose or by ignoraunce passed ouer this auctor as tough This auctor all thynges were by him clearly discussed to his enteÌ„t would by many coÌ„ceytes furnishe further his matters therfore playeth with our ladyes smyling rocking hir child many good mowes so vnsemely for his persoÌ„ that it maketh me almost forget him my selfe also But with such matterhe filleth his leaues forgettyng himselfe maketh meÌ„tioÌ„ of the cathechisme by him traÌ„slate thoriginall wherof coÌ„futeth these two partes of this booke in few words being prynted in germany wherin besides the matter wryteÌ„ is setforth in pictur the maner of the ministring of this sacra meÌ„t where is the altare with caÌ„del light let forth the priest apparelled after the old sort and the man to receiue kneling barehed holdyng vp his handes whiles the priest myuisâ—reth the host to his mouth a matter as clere contrarye to the matter of this booke as is light and darknesse which nowe this auctor would colour with speaches of auctors in a booke wryten to instructe rude childreÌ„ which is as sclendre an excuse as euer was harde none at al when thoriginall is loked on Emissene to stirre vp mens deuotion cumyng Emissen to receyue this Sacrament requireth the roote and foundatioÌ„ therof in the mynde of man as it ought to be therfore exorteth men to take the sacrameÌ„t with thande of the harte drinke with the dranght of the inwarde man whiche men must nedes do that will worthely repare to this feaste And as Emissene speaketh these deuoute wordes of thin warde office of the receyuer so dothe he in declaration of the mystrie shewe howe the Inuisible priest with his secrete power by his worde doth conuert the visible cratures in to the substance of his body and bloud whereof I haue before entrated This auctor vpon these wordes deuontly spoken by Emissene say the there is required no corporall presence of Christes precious bodye in the Sacrament continuynge in his ignoraunce what the worde corporall meaneth But to speake of Emissene if by his fay the the verye bodye and bloud of Christe were not present vpon the altare why dothe he calle it a reuerend altare why to be fed there with spirituall meates and why should fayth be required to lake vpon the bodye and bloud of Christ that is not there on thaltare but as this auctor teacheth onely in heauen and why should he that cummeth to be fede honnor those mysteries there why should Emissene allude to thande of the harte and draught of the inwarde man if the hande of the bodye and draught of thoutwarde man had none office there All this were vayne cloquence and a mere abuse and illusion if the Sacramentall tokens were only a figure if there were no preseÌ„ce but in figure why should not Emissene reather haue folowed the plaine spech of thaÌ„gel to the women that sought Christ Iesum quaeritis non est hic ye seke Iesus he is not here And say as this auctor doth this is onely a figure do no worship here goo vp to heaueÌ„ and downe with thaltare for feare of illusion which Emissene dyd not but called it a reuerend aulter and inuiteth him that should receyue to honnor that foode with such good wordes as before so far descrepauÌ„te froÌ„
plaine doctrine therof accordyng to the Catholique fayth in the other part passe it ouer with the name of a figure whiche consideracioÌ„ in S. Augustins writinges may be euideÌ„tly gathered for in some place no maÌ„ more plainly openeth the substance of the SacrameÌ„t then he doth speakyng expressely of the very body bloud of Christ conteyned in it yet therwith in other places noteth in those words a figure not therby to coÌ„trary his other playne â—aiyngs doctrin but meanyng by the word figure to signifie a secrete depe mistery hid deÌ„ froÌ„ carnal vnderstaÌ„dyng For auoyding expellyng of whiche carnalitie he geueth this doctrine here of this texte Excepte ye eate c. whiche as I sayd before in the bare litteral sence implyeth to carnal iudgemeÌ„t other carnal circunstances to atteyne the same flesh to be eateÌ„ which in that carnal sence can not be but by wickednes But what is this to the obeiyng of Christes coÌ„maundemet in th institucioÌ„ of his supper when himselfe deliuereth his body bloud in these mysteryes and byddeth Eate drinke there can be no offence to do as Christ biddeth therfore S. Augustins rule perteyneth not to Christes supper wher in when Christ willeth vs to vse our mouth we ought to dare do as he biddeth for that is spirituall vnderstandyng to do as is coÌ„manded without carnall thought or murmuryng in our sensuall diuise howe it can be so And sainct Augustine in the same place speakyng de communicaÌ„do passionibus Christi declareth plainely he meaneth of the Sacrament Tertullian speakyng of there present acioÌ„ Tertul. of Christes very body in which place he termeth it the same body speaketh catholiquely in suche phrase as S. Hierome speaketh and theÌ„ TertulilaÌ„ saith afterwarde as this auctor therin truely bryngeth him forth that Christ made the bred his body which bread was in the mouth of the pphet a figure of his body Wherfore it foloweth by Tertullians coÌ„fession when Christ made the bread his body that Christ ended the figure and made it the truth making now his body that was before the figure of his body For if Christ did no more but make it a figure styl theÌ„ did he not make it his body as Tertullian himself saith he did And Tertullian therfore beyng red thus as appeareth to be most probable that that is to say in Turtullian should be onely referred to the explicacioÌ„ of the first this as when TurtulliaÌ„ had alleged Christs words saiyng this is my body putteth to of his owne that is to say the figure of my body these wordes that is to say should serue to declare the demonstracion this in this wise that is to say this which the prophet called the figure of my body is nowe my body so Tertullian sayd before that Christ had made bread his body which bread was a figure of his body with the prophete nowe endeth in the very truth beyng made his body by conuersioÌ„ as CypriaÌ„ sheweth of the nature of bread into his body Tertullian reasoned against the Marcionistes because a figure in the prophete signifieth a certayne vnfayned truth of that is signified seyng Christes bodye was figured by bread in the prophete Hieremy It appeareth Christ had a true body And that the bread was of Christ approued for a figure he made it nowe his very body And this may be sayd euideÌ„tly to Tertullian who reasonyng against heretiques vseth the commoditie of arguyng and geueth no doctrine of the Sacrament to further this auctors purpose And what aduaÌ„tage should theretiques haue of Tertullian if he should meane that these wordes This is my body had only this sence This is the figure of my body hauing himself sayd before that Christ made bread his body If so plaine speache to make bread his body conteineth no more certaintie in vnderstandyng but the figure of a body why should not they say that a body in Christ should euer be spoken of a body in a figure and so no certaintie of any true body in Christ by Tertullians wordes This place of Tertullian is no secrete poynte of lernyng hath been of Decolampadius other alleged by other catholique men answered vnto it wherof this auctor may not thinke nowe as vpon a wranglyng argument to satisfie a coniecture diuised therby to confirme a newe teachyng Fynally Tertullian termeth it not an onely figure whiche this auctor muste proue or els he doth nothyng Cyprian shal be touched after when we CypriaÌ„ speake of him againe Chrisostome shall open himselfe hereafter Chrysosto Hiero. plainely Saint Hierome speketh here very pithely vsyng the worde represent which signifieth a true real exhibicioÌ„ for sainct Hierome speaketh of the representacion of the truth of Christes body which truth excludeth an only figure For howsoeuer the visible matter of the sacrament be a fignre the inuisible parte is a truth Whiche saincre Hierome sayth is here represented that is to say made preseÌ„t which only signification doth not Sainct Ambrose shall after declare himselfe Ambrosius it is not denyed but thauctors in spekyng of the Sacrament vsed these wordes signe figure similitude tokeÌ„ but those speaches exclude not the veritie truth of the body bloud of Christ for no approued auctor hath this exclusiue to say an onely signe an only tokeÌ„ an only similitude or an only significacion whiche is the issue with this auctor As for Sainct Augustine ad Bonifacium Augustinus thauctor shall perceiue his faulte at Martyn Bucers hand who in his epistel dedicatorye of his enarracions of the gospels reherseth his mynde of Sainct Augustine in this wise Est scribit diuus Augustinus SecunduÌ„ queÌ„dam Bucerê° modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi sacrameÌ„tum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi At secunduÌ„ quem moduÌ„ Vt significet tantum corpus sanguineÌ„ Domini absentia Absit Honorari enim percipi in Symbolis visibilibus corpus sanguineÌ„ Domini ideÌ„ passim scribit These wordes of Bucer may be thus englished Saincte Augustine writeth the Sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certaine maner the body of Christ the SacrameÌ„t of the bloud of Christ the bloud of Christ But after what maner that it should signifie onely the body bloud abseÌ„t Absit In no wise For the same S. Augustin writeth in many places the body and bloud of Christ to be honored to be receiued in those visible tokens Thus sayth Bucer who vnderstandeth not S. Augustine to say the sacrameÌ„t of Christes body to be Christes body after a certaine maner of spech as this auctor doth nor S. Augustine hath no suche wordes but only secundum quendaÌ„ moduÌ„ after a certaine maner whervnto to put of speche is an addition more then truth required of necessite In these words of Bucer may appeare his whole iugemeÌ„t coÌ„cernyng S. Augustin who affirmeth the very true presence of the thing signified in the
nor contrarieth not that other afore them had writen For in the olde churche the truth of this mystery was neuer impugned openly and directly that we rede of before Berengarius .v. C. yeres past and Berengarius Bertrame secretely by one Bertrame before that but onely by the Messalions who sayd the corporal eatyng did neither good nor hurte The Antropomorphites also who sayâ—e the vertue of the mysticall benediction endured not to the next day of whom Cyrill speaketh the Nestorians by consecution of their lernyng that diuide L. Christes flesh from the beiâ—e And where this auctor would haue taken for a true supposall that Basill Bregorie Nazâ—anzene and Nissene should take the Sacrament to be figuratiue onely that is to be denied And likewise it is not true that this auctor teacheth that of the figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spoke of the thyng it selfe And that I will declare thus Of the thyng it selfe that is Christes very body beyng present in dede it maye be sayd adore it worshippe it there which may not be sayd of the figure It may be sayd of the very thyng beyng present there that it is a highe myracle to be there it is aboue nature to be there it is an highe secret mysterie to be there But none of these speaches can be conuenieÌ„tly sayd of thonly figure that it is such a miracle so aboue nature so highe a mysterye to be a figure And therfore it is no true doctrine to teache that we may say the same of the figure that may be sayde of the thyng iâ— selfe And where this auctor speaketh of spiritual eatyng and corporall eatyng he remayneth in his ignoraunce what the worde corporall meaneth whiche I haue opened in discussyng of his answer to Cyrill fayth is required in him that shall eate spiritually and the corporall eatyng institute in Christes supper requireth by the reuereÌ„r of mans mouth to receyue our Lordes meat drinke his owne verye flesh and bloud by his omnipotencie prepated in that supper whiche not spiritually that is to say innocently as S. Augu. In IoaÌ„ tract xxvj Augustine in one place expoundeth spiritually receyued bryngeth iudgement and condempnacion accordyng to Saincte Paules wordes This auctor sayth that Emissen is shortly Emisse answered vnto and so is he if a man care not what he saith as Hilarie was answered and Cyrill But els there can not shorte or longe answere confounde the true playne testymonye of Emissen for the commen true fayth of the church in the SacrameÌ„t Which Emissen hath this sentence That the inuisible Prieast by the secrete powre with his worde turneth the visible creatures into the substaunce of his bodye and bloud saiynge thus This is my body And agayne repetyng the same saÌ„ctificatioÌ„ this is my bloud Wherfore as at the becke of him commaundynge the heightes of heuens the depenes of the flouds and largenes of landes were founded of nothyng by like powre in spirituall Sacramentes where vertue commandeth theffect of the truth serueth These be Emissenes saiynges declaryng his fayth plainely of the Sacrament in suche termes as can not be wrested nor writhed who speaketh of a turnyng couuersion of the visible creatures into the substaunce of Christes body and bloud he sayth not into the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud nor figure of Christes body bloud wherby he should meane a onely sacramentall conuersion as this auctor would haue it but he sayth into the substaunce of Christes body and bloud declaryng the truth of Christes body bloud to be in the Sacrament For the wordes substaunce and truth be of one strenght and shewe a difference from a figure wherin the truth is not in dede present but signified to be absent And because it is a worke supernaturall and a great miracle This Emissen represseth mannes carnall reason and succurreth the weke fayth with remembraunce of like power of God in the creation of the worlde whiche were brought forth out of tyme by Emissen if Christes body were not in substaunce present as Emissens wordes be but in figure only as this auctor teacheth And where this auctor coupleth together the two Sacramentes of Baptisme and of the body and bloud of Christ as though there were no difference in the presence of Christ in either he putteth him selfe in daunger to be reproued of malice or ignoraunce For although these mysteryes be both great and mans regeneracion in baptisme is also a mysterye and the secrete worke of God hath a great maruayle in that effecte yet it diffreth from the mysterye of the Sacrament touchyng the maner of Christes preseÌ„ce and the workyng of theffecte also For in Baptisme our vnion with Christe is wrought without the real presence of Christes humanitie only in the vertue and effect of Christes bloud the whole trinitie there workynge as auctor in whose name the SacrameÌ„t is expressely ministred where our soule is regenerate made spiritual but not our body in dede but in hope onely that for the spirite of Christ dwellyng in vs our mortall bodyes shal be resuscitate and as we haue in Baptisme be buried with Christ so we be assured to be parte takers of his resurrectioÌ„ And so in this SacrameÌ„t we be vnite to Christs maÌ„hode by this diuinite But in the Sacrament of Christes body and bloude we be in nature vnited to Christe as man and by his glorified fleshe made parte takers also of his diuinite whiche mysticall vnioÌ„ representeth vnto vs the high estate of our glorificatioÌ„ wherin body sowle shall in the generall resurrectioÌ„ by a meruaylous regeneratioÌ„ of the body be made both spiritual the speciall pledge whereof we receyue in this SacrameÌ„t therfore it is the sacrameÌ„t as hilarie saith of perfect vnitie And albeit the soule of man be more precious theÌ„ the bodye the nature of the godhead in Christe more excellent theÌ„ the nature of man in hym glorified in Baptisme maâ—nes soule is regenerate in the vertue and effect of Christes passioÌ„ bloud christes godhead preseÌ„t there without the reall presence of his humanitie although for these respects thexelleÌ„ce of Baptisme is great Yet because the mistery of the Sacrament of thaltare where Christ is preseÌ„t both man god in theffectual vnite that is wrought bitwene oure bodyes our soules Christes in the vse of this SacremeÌ„t signifieth the perfect redeÌ„ption of oure bodyes in the general resurrectioÌ„ which shal be th ende coÌ„suÌ„mation of al oure felicitie This Sacrament of perfite vnitie is the mysterye of our perfite astate when body soule shal be all spiritual hath so a degre of exelleÌ„ce for the dignitie that is estemed in euerie ende perfection wherfore the worde spirituall is a necessarie worde in this SacrameÌ„t to call it a spirituall foode as it is in dede for it is to work in our bodies a spiritual effect not only in oure soules Christes body fleshe
coÌ„secration As touchyng the spiritualtie of the meat of Christes bodye I haue spoken before but where this auctor addeth it requireth no corporall presence he speaketh in his dreame beynge oppressed with slepe of ignoraunce and can not tell what corporall meaneth as I haue opened before by thauctorite of Cyrill Nowe let vs se what this auctor sayth to Chrisostome This auctor noteth in Chrisostome Chrisostome two places and bryngeth them forth and in handlyng the first place declareth himselfe to trifle in so great a matter euidently to his owne reproufe For where in the secoÌ„d booke of his worke entretyng transubstanciation he would the same words of Chrisostome by this fourme of speache in the negatiue should not denye precisely And when Chrisostome sayth do not thinke that you by man receiue the body of god but that we should not considre man in the receiuyng of it Here this auctor doth allege those wordes and reasoneth of them as though they were termes of were deny all But I would aske of this auctor this question If Chrisostomes fayth had been that we receyue not the bodye of God in the SacrameÌ„t verely Why should he vse wordes Idelly to entreat of whome we receiued the body of God whiche after this auctors doctrine we receiue not at all but in figure no body at all whiche is of Christes humanitie beyng Christ as this auctor teacheth spiritually that is by his diuine nature in him onely that worthely receyueth and in the verye Sacrament as he concludeth in his booke onely figuratiuely Turne backe reader to the. 36. lâ—ef in the auctors booke and reade it with this and so considre vpon what principle here is made an Ergo I will answere that place whan I speake of transubstanciation whiche shall be after answer to the third and fourth booke as the naturall ordre of the matter requiteth The second place of Chrisostome that this auctor bringeth furth he grauÌ„teth it souÌ„deth much against him fauoreth his aduersaries but with coÌ„ferryng coÌ„sideryng he trusteth to altre it from the true vnderstandyng And not to expound but confouÌ„de the matter he ioyneth in speach the SacrameÌ„t of baptisme with this sacrameÌ„t which shifte this auctor vsed vntruly in Hilarie would now beare in hand that the preseÌ„ce of Christ were none otherwise in this sacrameÌ„t theÌ„ in Baptisme whiche is not so for in this Sacrament Christes humanitie godhead is really preseÌ„t in Baptisme his godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud in whiche we be wasshed not requiring by scripture any real preseÌ„ce for dispeÌ„sation of that mystery as I haue before touched discussyng thanswer of Emissen where as Chrisostome speakyng of Chrisosto de Sacerdo li. 3. this sacrameÌ„t whereof I haue before spokeÌ„ and Melancton allegyng it to Oecolampadius saith thus The great myracle and great beneuolence of Christ is that he sitteth aboue with his father and is the same houre in our handes here to de embrased of vs. and therfore where this auctor would not the woÌ„dre of gods worke in the Sacrament to be wonderfull for the worke and effect in man this is one piece of truth but in the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ the olde fathers wonder at the worke in the SacrameÌ„t how bread is chauÌ„ged into the body of christ how Christ sittyng in heauen God and man is also man and God in the Sacrament and beyng worthly receiued dwelleth in such carnally and naturally as Hilarie sayth and corporally as Cyrill sayth How this can be no man can tell no faythfull maÌ„ should aske and yet it is the true Catholique fayth to be truely so wrought For as Emissene sayth he that is thauctor of it he is the witnesse of it And therfore I wil make it an issue with this An issue So this auctor hath nowe in this worke confessed the traÌ„slacion of the catechisme which one in coÌ„munication would nedes haue made me beleue had been his mannes doyng and not his Heare now reader how plainly Theophilact speaketh vpon the Gospelâ— of Sainct Iohn expounding the .vi. Chapter Take hede that the bread whiche is eaten of vs in the mysteryes is not onely a certaine figuration of the fleshe of our Lorde but the fleshe it selfe of our Lorde for he sayde not The bread whiche I shall geue is the figure of my flesh but it is my fleshe For that bread by the mysticall benediction is transformed by mystical wordes and presence of the holy ghost into the flesh of our Lord. And it should trouble no maÌ„ that the bread is to be beleued fleshe for whiles our Lorde walked in flesh and receiued nurrishmeÌ„t of bread that bread he did eat was chaunged into his body and was made like to his holy fleshe and as it is customably in mans feadyng serued to the sustentacion and encrease of it therfore the bread now also is chaunged into the fleshe of our Lorde And howe is it then that it appeareth not fleshe but bread that we should not loth the eatyng of it for if fleshe did appeare we should be vnplesauntly disposed to the communion of it Nowe our Lorde coÌ„desceÌ„dyng to our infirmitie the mystical meat appeareth suche to vs as those we haue been accustomed vnto Hitherto I haue faithfully expressed Thiophilactes wordes out of Latyn of â—ecolampadins translation without termyng the substanciall poyntes otherwise theÌ„ the wordes purporte in Latyn By which may appeare what was Theophilacts meanyng what doctrine he geueth of the Sacrament and howe his owne wordes vpon S. Marke be to be vnderstanded wheÌ„ he sayth Speciem quidem panis vini seruat in virtutem Theophilact autem carnis sanguinis transelemeÌ„tat in corruptyng of whiche wordes this auctor maketh a great matter when they were not alleged for his but as they be his seruare speciem maye be well translate fourme and apparaunce because vpon Sainct Iohn before alleged he sayth of the bread it appeareth And as for these wordes the vertue of Christes fleshe and bloud must be vnderstaÌ„ded to agre with the playne place of Theophilacte vpon Sainct Iohn and vpoÌ„ marke also to signifie not only vertue but veritie of the fleshe and bloud of Christ For if Theophilacte by that speache mente the vertue of the body of Christ and not the veritie of the very body as this author sayth he did why shoulde Theophilacte bothe vpon Saincte Marke and also vpon Saincte Iohn aske this question why doth not the fleshe appeare if himselfe by those wordes should teache there were onely 〈◊〉 presente the vertue of his fleshe who and he had ment so would not haue asked the question or if he had would haue answerd it thus Accordyngly there is no fleshe in dede but the vertue of the fleshe and that had been a playne answer and such as he would haue made This auctor wylaske then why doth Theophilacte vse this phrase to say chaunged into the vertue of the
bodye of Christ Here vnto I answere that this worde vertue in phrase of speache manny tymes onely filleth the speache and is comprehended in the signification of his genitiue folowyng and therfore as Luke in the .xxij. Chapter sayth à dextris virtutis Dei so in the Actes the same sentence is spoken a dextris Dei both out of one penne and a dextris virtutis Dei is no more to say then à dextris Dei and so is virtutem carnis sanguinis no more to say but in carnem sanguinem whiche sentence the same Theophilacte hath vpon Sainct Iohn before alleged in this sayng The bread is chaunged in â—ofiesh and in marke in this phrase in to the vertue of flesh beyng Like these speaches à dextris Dei à dextris virtutis Dei. Whiche and it had liked this auctor to haue considered he should haue taken Theophilactes speache as Theophilacte vnderstandeth himselfe and sayde the wordes alleged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus were not Theophilactes wordes and then he had sayd for so muche true whiche would do well among and the wordes be not in dede Theophilactes words nor were not alleged for his Nowe when this author sayth they were not Theophilus Alexandrinus wordes that is a large negatiue and wil be hardely proued otherwise then by addition of the auctors knowlege for any thyng that he can fynde and so there shal be no absurdite to grauÌ„te it And thus I retourne to myne Issue with this auctor that Theophilacte himselfe hathe no suche meanynge expressed in wordes as this auctour attributeth vnto him but an euident contrarye meanynge sauyng herein I will agree with this auctour that Theophilacte mente not grossely sensibly and carnally as these wordes sounde in carnarall mennes iudgementes For we maye not so thinke of Gods mysteryes the worke wherof is not carnall nor corporall for the maner of it But the maner spirituall and yet in the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ because Christ is in his very true fleshe present he maye be sayde so carnally present and naturally after Hylary and corporally after Cyrill vnderstandyng the wordes of the truthe of that is present Christes verye body and fleshe and not of the maner of the presence whiche is onely spirituall supernaturall and aboue mannes cappacitie And therfore a highe mysterye a greate myracle a wonderfull worke whiche it is holsome to beleue simplye with a syncere fayth and daungerous to serche and examyne with a curious imaginacion suche as idelines and arrogaunce would tempte a man vnto and by diuisyng of a figure or metaphore bryng it within the compasse of our buysie reason This auctor trauayleth to answer Saint Hierom. Hierome and to make him the easyer for him to deale with he cutteth of that foloweth in the same Saincte Hierome whiche should make the matter open and manifest howe effectually Sainct Hierome speaketh of the SacrameÌ„t of Christes body and bloud Ther is sayth Sainct Hierome as great differeÌ„ce betwene the loues called Panes ê“positiones and the body of Christ as there is betwene the shadowe of a body and the body it selfe and as there is betwene an image and the true thyng it selfe and betwene an example of thynges to come and the thynges that be prefigured by them Therfore as mekenes pacience sobrietie moderation abstinence of gayne hospitalitie also and liberalite should be chiefly in a Byshop and among all laye men an excellencie in them so their should be in him a special chastite and as I should say chastitie that is priestly that he shoulde not onely absteyne from an vncleane worke but also from the caste of his eye and his mynde fre from error of thought that should make the body of Christ These be Sainct HieroÌ„s words in this place By the latter part wherof appeareth playnely how Sainct Hierom meaneth of Christes body in the SacrameÌ„t of whiche the loues that were Panes propositiones were a shadow as Sainct Hierom sayth that bread beyng the image and this the trueth that the example and this that was prefigured So as if Christes body in the Sacrament should be there but figuratiuely as this auctor teacheth then were the bread of proposition figure of a figure and shadowe of a shadowe whiche is ouer great an absurdite in our religion Therfore there cannot be a more playne proufe to shewe that by Saincte Hieroms mynde Christes body is verely in the Sacrament not figuratiuely onely then when he noteth Panes propositiones to be the figure the shadowe of christes body in the Sacrament For as TertulliaÌ„ sayth Figura non esset nisi veritatis Tertullianê° aduersus Marcio libr. 4. esset corpus The other were not to be called a figure if that that answered vnto it were not of truth whiche is the sence of Tertullians wordes And therfore Saincte Hierome could with no other wordes haue expressed his mynde so certainely and playnly as with these to confesse the truth of Christs body in the SacrameÌ„t And therfore regarde not reader what this auctor sayth For S. Hierom affirmeth playnely Christes true body to be in the Sacrament the consecration wherof although Saincte Hierome attributeth to the ministre Yet we must vnderstand him that he taketh God for the auctor and worker not withstandyng by reason of the ministeryâ— in the church the doyng is ascribed to man as ministre because Christ sayde Hoc facite after whiche speache saluation remission of synne and the worke in other Sacramentes is attribute to the ministre beyng neuertheles the same the propre and speciall workes of God And this I adde because some he vninstely offended to hiere that man shoulde make the bodye of Christ and this auctor findeth faulte before at the worde makyng whiche religiously hearde and reuerently spoken shoulde offende no man for man is but a ministre wherein he shoulde not glory and Christ maketh not himselfe of the mattier of bread nor maketh himselfe so ofte of bread a newe body but sittyng in heauen dothe as our inuisible Priest worke in the ministerye of the visible Priesthode of his churche and maketh present by his omnipotencye his glorified body and bloud in this high mistery by conuersion of the visible treatures of bread and wyne as Emissene sayth into the same This auctor of this booke as thou reader maist perceiue applyeth the figure of the breades called Panes propositiones to the body of Christ to coÌ„me where as Saincte Hierome calleth them the figure of Christes body in the Sacrament and therfore dothe fation his argumente in this sence If those breades that were but a figure required so muche clennesse in them that shoulde eate them that they might not eate of them whiche a daye or two before had lien with there wyues what clennesse is required in him that shoulde make the bodye of Christ Wherby thou maist see here this auctor hath reserued this notable place of Saincte Hierome to the latter ende
a man examyne himselfe and so eate of the bread and 1. Cor. 11 drynke of the cuppe for he that eateth vnworthely c. These wordes of examinyng and so eatyng declare the thyng to be one ordred to be eaten and all the care to be vsed on our syde to eate worthely or els Saincte Paule had not sayd and so eate And when Saincte Paule â—ayth eate iudgemente and this auctour wyll remembre himselfe he muste call iudgement the effecte of that is eaten and not the thyng eaten For iudgement is neyther spirituall meate nor corporall but the effecte of the eatynge of Christe in euell men who is saluation to good and iudgement to euel And therfore as good men eatyng Christ haue saluation so euell men eatyng Christ haue condempnation and so for the diuersitie of the eaters of Christes bodye foloweth as they be worthye and vnworthy the effecte of condempnacion or lyfe Christes Sacrament and his worke also in the substance of that Sacrament beyng alwayes one and what so euer this auctor talketh otherwise in this matter is mere trifles And yet he goth about because he will make all thynge clere to answer suche authours as the Papistes he sayth brynge for there Augusti purpose And first he begynneth with sainct Augustine who wryteth as playuelye against this auctours mynde as I would haue diuised it if I had no conscience of truth more then I see sum haue and might with a secrete wishe haue altred S. Augustineas I had liste And therfore here I make a playne issue with this auctour that in the serchyng An issue of Sainct Augustine he hath trusted his maÌ„ or his frende ouer negligentely in so great a matter or he hath willyngly gone aboute to deceyue the reader For in the place of Saint Augustine againste the Donatistes alleged here by this auctour whiche he would with the rest assoyle Sainct Augustine hath these formal wordes in Latyn Corpus Domini Augu. de baptis li. 5. ca. 8. sanguis Domini nihilominus erat etiam illis quibus dicebat Apostolus qui manducat indigne iudicium sibi maÌ„ducat bibit Which wordes be thus much in English It was neuertheles the body of our Lorde the bloud of our Lorde also vnto them to whom thappostel sayde he that eateth vnworthely eateth and drynketh iudgement to himselfe These be Saincte Augustines wordes who writeth notably and euidently that it was neuertheles the body and bloud of Christ to them that receyued vnworthely declaryng that their vnworthynes doth not aultre the substance of that Sacrament and doth vs to vnderstande therwith the substaunce of the sacrameÌ„t to be the body and bloud of Christ and neuerthelesse so though the receyuers be vnworthy wherin this auctor is so ouersene as I thinke there was neuer learned maÌ„ before that durst in a comen welthe where lerned men be publish suche an vntruth as this is to be answered in a tong that men knowe Yet Peter Martyr wrote in Latyn and reioyseth not I thinke to haue his lyes in English I will bryng in here an other place of sainct Augustine to this purpose Illud etiam De verbis dnÌ„i Ser. 11. quod ait qui manducat carnem meam bibit sanguinem meum in me manet ego in illo quomodo intellecturi sumus Nunquid etiam illos sic poterimus accipere de quibus dixit Apostolus quod iudicium sibi manducant bibant quum ipsam carnem manducent ipsum sangninem bibant Nuuquid Iudas Magistri venditor traditor impius quamuis primum ipsum manibus eius confectum sacramentum carnis sanguinis eius cuÌ„ caeteris discipulis sicut apertius Lucas Euange lista declarat manducaret biberet mansit in Christo Aut Christus in eo Multi denique qui vel corde ficto carnem illam manducant sanguinem bibunt vel cum manducauerint biberint apostatae fiunt nunquid manent in Christo aut Christus in eis Sed profecto est quidam modus manducandi illam carnem bibendi illum sanguinem quomodo qui manducauerit biberit in Christo manet Christus in eo Non ergo quocunque modo quisque manducauerit carnem Christi biberit sanguiuem Christi manet in Christo in illo christus Sed certo quodam modo quem modum vtique ipse videbat quando ista dicebat The englisse of these wordes is this That same that he also sayth who eateth my flesh and drynketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him howe shall we vnderstande it May we vnderstande also them of whome the Apostle spake that they did eate to them selfe and drynke iudgement when they did eate the same flesh and drinke the same bloud the fleshe it selfe the bloud it selfe did not Iudas the mycked seller and betrayer of his maister wheÌ„ he did eate and drynke as Lucas the euangeliste declareth the first Sacrament of the flesh and bloud of Christ made with his owne handes dwell in Christe or Christe in him Finally many that with a fayned hearte eate that flesh and drynke the bloud or when they haue eaten and dronken become apostatas do not they dwell in Christ or Christ in them But vndowtedly there is a certayne maner of eatyng that fleshe and drynkyng that bloud after whiche maner who so euer eateth and drynketh dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him Therfore not in what so euer maner any man eateth the fleshe of Christ and drynketh the bloud of Christ he dwelleth in christ and Christ in him but after a certayne maner whiche maner he sawe when he sayde these wordes This is the sence of Saincte Augustines saiynge in Latyn wherby appeareth the fayth of Sainct Augustine to be in the Sacrament to be eaten and dronken very body and bloud of Christ which for the substance of the Sacrament euel men receyue as good men do that is to say as Sainct Augustin doth poynte it out by his wordes the same flesh and the same bloud of Christ with suche an expresse speache as he would exclude all difference that diuise of figure might imagine and therfore sayth ipsam car nem ipsum sanguinem Whiche signifyeth the selfe same in dead not by name onely as the auctor of the booke would haue Saincte Augustine vnderstanded and when that appeareth as it is moost manifeste that Iudas receyued the same beynge wycked that good men do howe the same is before the recept by gods omnipotencye present in the visible Sacrament and so not receyued by the onely instrument of fayth whiche in euell men is not lyuely but by the instrument of the mouthe wherein it entreth with the visible element And yet as Saincte Augustine sayth dwelleth not in him that so vnworthely receiueth because the effect of dwellyng of Christe is not in him that receyueth by suche a maner of eatyng as wycked men vse Wherby S. Augustine teacheth the diuerse effecte
then to passe the lippes of suche an auctor to plaie whiche the syllables after this sorte for although he maie rede in sum blinde glose that in the instante af the laste syllable gods work is to be accompted wrought beyng a goode lesson to admonishe the ministre to pronouÌ„ce al. Yet it is so but a priuate opinion and reuerently vttred not to putte the vertue in the Laste syllable nor to sâ—orne the Catholique faith after which maner takyng example of this Auctor If an Ethnike iest of Fiat lux at fi was nothynge and then at at was yet nothinge at lu was nothinge but a lytel litell peringe put an x to it and it was sodenly Lux and then light what Christen man would handle eyther place thus and therfore reader let this entre of the matter serue for an argument with what spirite this matter is handled but to answere that this auctor noteth with an exclamacon Oh goode lorde howe would they haue bragged if christ had said this is no bread Here I would questioÌ„ with this auctor whither Christe saide so or no and reason thus Christes body is no materiall breade Christ saide This is my body ergo he saide this is not bread And the firste parte of this reason this auctor affirmeth in the 59 leafe And the seconde parte is Christ wordes and therfore to auoyd this coÌ„clusion thonly waye is to say that Christes speache was but a figure which the catholik doctrine saieth is false and therfore by the catholique doctrine Christes sayinge This is my bodie sayth in effecte This is no breade wherat this auctor sayth they wolde brage if Christe had saide soo In speach is to be consydered that euery yea coÌ„teineth an nayin it naturaly so as whosoeuer saith This is bread sayth it is no wine whosoeuer sayth thys is wine sayth it is no breade If a lapidarie saith this is a diamoÌ„de he saithe it is no glasse he saith it is no crystall he sayth it is no white safyer So Christ saying this is my body faith it is no breade whiche plainnes of speache caused Suinglius to saye plainlye if there be present the substaunce of the bodie of Christe there is transubstantiacion that is to saye not the substaunce of breade and therfore who will plainelye denie transubstantiacion must denie the true presence of the subsâ—ance of Christes bodie as this auctor doth wherein I haue first conuynced him and therfore vse that victorie for his ouerthrowe in transubstantiacion I haue shewed before how Christes wordes were not figuratiue when he saide this is my bodie and yet I will touche here suche testimonie as this anctor bringith oute of Hilarie for the purpose of transubstantiacion in the xxv leefe of this booke in thiese wordes There is a figure saith Hâ—â—arie for bread and wine be out wardly seen there is also a trueth of that figure for the bodye and bloud of Christe be of a trueth inwardelye beleued Thiese be Hilaries wordes as this auctor allegith theÌ„ who was he saith within 350 yeres of christ Nowe I call to thy Iudgment goode reader coulde any maÌ„ diuise more pithiewordes for the proufe of the real presence of Christes body bloud the coÌ„deÌ„pnacioÌ„ of this auctor that wolde haue an onely figure Here in hilaries wordes is a figure coÌ„pared to trueth sight but wardly to belief inwardly Nowe our beliefe is grounded vppoÌ„ goddes worde which is this This is my body in which wordes hilarie testifieth that is inwardly beleued is a trueth the figure is in that is seeÌ„ outwardly I take hilarie here as this auctor allegith him wherby I aske the reader is not this auctor auerthroweÌ„ that christ speache is not figuratiue but true proper beinge inwardly trewe that we byleue Ye will saye vnto me what is this to traÌ„substaÌ„tiacioÌ„ to the reproufe wherof it was brought in because he saith bread wine are seen First I saye that it ouerthroweth this auctor fortruth of the preseÌ„ce of christes body euery ouerthrow therin ouerthroweth this auctor in traÌ„substaÌ„tiacioÌ„ not by auctorite of the churche of Rome but by coÌ„sequence in truth as Suinglius saith who shal serue me to auoyde papistrie If one aske me what say ye theÌ„ne to hilarie that bread wine areseeÌ„ I say they be in dead seeÌ„ for they appere so therfore be callid so as Isaac sayd of Iacob it was his voice yet by his sence of feling denied him Esau which was not Esau Gene. 27. but was Iacob as the voyce froÌ„ within did declare him If ye will aske me howe canne there according to hilaries wordes be in the outwarde visible creatures any figure onles the same be in deade as they appeare bread wine I will answer euen as well as this out ward obiecte of the seÌ„sible hearynes of Iacob reseÌ„blinge Esau was a figure of christes humanite of the ve ry humanite in deade Thus may Hilarie be answered to anoyde hys auctorite from contraryinge traÌ„substaÌ„tion But this auctor shall neuer auoide that him self hath brought out of hilarie which ouerthro weth hiÌ„ in his figuratiue speache consequeÌ„tly in his denyall of traÌ„substantiation also as shal appere in the further handling of this matter Where this auctor in the 18 leaf coÌ„parith these S. Poules wordes The breade that we breake is it not the coÌ„munion of the bodye of christ to be thexpoâ—mdyng of christes wordes This is my body I deny that for christ wordes declared the substance of the sacrameÌ„t wheÌ„ he said This is my body S. Paule declarith the worthie vse of it according to Christes institucion by the words the bread that we breake doth signifie the hole vse of the supper wherin is breakyng blessyng thauckes geuing dispeÌ„sing receiuiÌ„g eatyng So asonely breakyng is not the coÌ„munioÌ„ yet by that parte in a figure of speach S. Paule meaneth all beyng the same as appeareth by the scripture a terme in spech to go breake bread althoughe it be not alwaies so takeÌ„ wherby cosignifie to go celebrate our lordes supper therfore bread in that place may signifie the commen breade as it is adhibite to be consecrate whiche by the secrete power of god turned in to the bodye of Christe so distribute receyued is the coÌ„munioÌ„ of the body of christ as the cuppe is likirise of the bloud of Christ after the benediction whiche benediction was not spoken of in the bread but yet must be vnderstanded As for Christes callynge of bread his bodye is to make it his bodye who as sainct Paule sayth calleth that is not as it were and so makethe it to be Primo Thargumentes this auctor vseth in 19. and. 20. leef of thordre of Christes speaches as the euangelistes reherse them be captious diuises of this auctor in cace he knowethe what sainct Augustine writeth or els ignoraunce if he hathe not red sainct Augustine De doctrina Christiana
to brynge in the creatioÌ„ of the worlde wherby to induce mannes fayth in this mystery to the belife of it As for th example Baptisme to shewe the chaunge in mannes soule wherof I haue spoken declaryng Emissene serueth for an induction not toleaue to our owtward seÌ„ces ne to mistrust the great miracle of God in eyther because we see none outwarde experieÌ„ce of it but els it is not necessarie the resemblance shall answere in qualitie otherwise then as I saide afore eche parte answeryng his conuenient proportion and as for there comparison of resemblaunce Baptisme with the Sacrament this auctour in his doctrine specially reproueth in that he can not I thynke denye but man by regeneration of his sowle in Baptisme is the partaker of holines but as for the bread he specially admonisheth it is not par taker of holynes by this consecracion but howe soeuer this auctor in his owne doctrine snarleth himselfe the doctrine of S. Ambrose is playne that before the consecration it is bread and after the coÌ„secration the body of Christ whiche is an vndowbted affirmacion then to be no bread howe so euer the accidentes of bread do remayne In the. 26. leef this auctor bryngeth forth two sayinges of S. Augustine which whau Augustinus this auctor wrot it is lik he neither thought of the thirde or first booke of this worke For these two sayinges declare moste euidently the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in the sacrameÌ„t affirmyng the same to be the sacrifice of the Churche wherby apperith it is no figure onely In the first sayinge of S. Augustine is written thus howe fayth shewith me that brede is the body of Christ nowe what soeuer faithe shewith is a truth and then it foloweth that of a truth it is the body of Christ whiche speache breade is the body of Christ is as muche to say as it is made the body of Christ and made not as of a matter but as Emissen wrote by conuersion of the visible creature in to the substaunce of the body of Christ and as S Austen in the same sentence writeth it is bread before the consecration and after the fleshe of Christ As for the seconde sayinge of saincte Austen howe could it with more playne wordes be wryten then to saye that there is bothe the SacrameÌ„t and the thinge of the SacrameÌ„t whiche is Christs body calling the same sacrifice of the Churche Nowe if Christ is body be there it is trulither iÌ„ dede ther which is real Marke 〈◊〉 reader If ther as for there in a figure wer to say not there in truth and in dede but onely signified to be abseÌ„t which is the nature a of figure in his propre and speciall speache But sainct Austen saith euen as the auctour bringeth hiforth yet he haue his priuy nyppe by the waye thus It is saide of S. Augustine there be two thinges in this sacrifice whiche be conteyued in it wherof it coÌ„sisteth so as the body of Christ is conteyued in this sacrifice by S. Augustines mynde According wherunto sainct Augustine is alleged to saye in the same booke from wheÌ„s the auctour tooke this saynge Also these wordes followynge vnder the kindes of bread and wyne whiche we see we honour thiÌ„ges inuisible that is to saye the flesshe and bloud of Christ nor we do not likewise esteme these two kindes as we did bifore the consecration for we muste faithefully confesse before the consecracion to be bread and wyne that nature formed and after consecracion the fleshe and bloud of Christ which the benediction hath coÌ„secrate Thus saith sainct Augustine as he is alleged owt of that booke which in dede I haue not but he hath the like seÌ„ce in other places and for honoringe of the inuisible heauenly thinges there which declare the true and real presence sainct Augustine hathe like in his booke de Cathechisandis rudibus and in the 98. psalme where he speaketh of adoration This may be notable to the reader howe this author concludeth him selfe in the real preseÌ„ce of Christes bodye by his owne collection of saincte Augustines mynde whiche is as he coÌ„fesseth in his owne wordes notynge sainct Augustine that as the person of Christ consistethe of two natures so the Sacrament consisteth of two natures of thellemeÌ„tes of breade and wyne and of the body and bloude of Christ and therfore both these natures do remayne in the Sacrament Thes be this autours owne wordes who trauaylynge to coÌ„founde transubstantacion confoundeth euideÌ„tly himselfe by his owne wordes towching the reall presence For he saieth the nature of the body and bloud of Christ muste remayne in the Sacrament and as truly as the natures of the maÌ„hode godhode were in Christ for thervpon he argueth And nowelet this auctor chose whether he will saie any of the natures the manhod or the godhode were but figuratiuely in Christ whiche and he do then may he the better saâ—e for the agrement of this doctrine the nature of the body the bloud of Christ is but figuratiuely in the SacrameÌ„t And if he saie as he muste nedes saie that the two natures be in Christes person really naturally substantially then must he graunt by his owne collectioÌ„ the truth of the beyng of the nature of the body and bloud of christ to be like wise in the sacrameÌ„t therby call backe all that he hath writteÌ„ against the real preseÌ„ce of Christes body in the sacrameÌ„t and abandon his diuise of a presence by signification which is in truth a playne absence as himselfe spekith also openly which open speche caÌ„not stande and is improued by this opeÌ„ spech of his owne likewise wher he saith the nature of the body and bloud of Christ remayne in the sacrament the worde remaine being of such signification as it betokenith not onely to be there but to cary there and so there is declared the sacrifice of the Churche whiche misterie of sacrifice is perfited before the perceptioÌ„ so it must be euideÌ„t howe the body of Christ is ther that is to saie on thal tere before we receyue it to which aulter S. Augustine saith we cum to receyue it There was neuer maÌ„ouerturned his owne assertioÌ„s more euideÌ„tly then this authour doth here in this place the like wherof I haue obserued in other that haâ—ue writteÌ„ against this sacrameÌ„t who haue by the waye said sum what for it or they haue brought ther treatise to an ende It will be saide here howsoeuer this auctor doth ouerthrowe hiÌ„self in the real pÌ„â—eÌ„ce of christes very body yet he hathe pulled downe traÌ„substaÌ„tiatioÌ„ â—oas crafty wresteles do falling them self on ther bake to throwe ther felowe ouer theÌ„ But it is not like for as loÌ„ge as the true faith of the reall presence staÌ„dith so loÌ„ge standith traÌ„substaÌ„tiatioÌ„ not by aucthoritie of determinatioÌ„ but by a necessary coÌ„sequeÌ„ce of the truth as I said before as zuinglius defeÌ„deth playnely as
two persons and the Eutichians by confusion of the humaine nature Then cummeth Gelasius to the argument of example from the Sacrament of the bodye and bloude of Christ and noteth the person of Christ to be a principall mysterye and the Sacrament an image and similitude of that mysterye which sence his wordes muste nedes haue because he calleth Christe the principall mysterye and as in one place he sayth the image and similitude of the bodye and bloud of Christe so by and by he calleth the Sacramente the image of Christe And here the wordes image and similitude expresse the maner of presence of the truth of the thinges represented to be vnderstanded onely by faith as inuisibly present And Saincte Ambrose by this worde mage signifieth thexhibition of truth to man in this life And to shewe the Sacrament to be suche an image as conteyneth the verye truthe of the thinge whereof it is the image Gelasius declareth in framynge his argumente in these wordes As breade and wyne go into the diuine substaunce the holy gooste bringyng it to passe and yet remayne in the proprietie of there nature so that principall mysterye those natures remayninge whereof it is declared vnto vs true and hole Christ to continue In these wordes of Gelasius where he saith the breade and wyne go into the diuine substaunce is playnely declared the presence of the diuine substaunce and this diuine substaunce can signifie none other substaunce but of the body and bloude of Christe of whiche heauenly nature and earthely nature of the breade and wyne consisteth this Sacrament the image of the principall mysterye of Christes person And therfore as in the image be two diuers natures and different remayninge in there proprietie So likewise in the person of Christ whiche is the conclusion of Gelasius argumente should remayne two natures And here were a greate daunger if we shoulde saye that Christes body whiche is the celestiall nature in the Sacramente were there present but in a figure for it shoulde then implye that in Christes personne the principall mysterye it were also but in a figure And therfore as in the mysterye of Christes personne ordened to redeme vs beynge the principal mistery there is no figure but truth in consideracion of the presens of the two natures wherof Christ is So in the SacrameÌ„t beyng a misterye ordred to feade vs the image of that principal mistery ther is not an onely figure but truth of the presens of the natures earthely celestiall I speake of the truth of presence and meane suche an integritie of the natures present as by the rules of our faith is consonante and agreable to that mistery that is to say in the person of Christ perfit God perfit maÌ„ perfite God to be incarnate perfit man to be deitate as Gregory Nazianzene termeth it In the SacrameÌ„t the visible matter of the earthely creature in his proprietie of nature for the vse of significacioÌ„ is necessariely required also according to the truth of Christ his wordes his very body bloud to be inuisibly with integrite present which Gelasius calleth the diuine substaunce And I thinke it worthy to be noted that Gelasius speking of the bread wyne reciteth not precisely the substaÌ„ce to remaine but saith the substaÌ„ce or nature which nature he calleth after proprietie the disiuÌ„ctiue may be verified in the last it is not necessary thexaÌ„ples to be in al partes equal as rusticus diacomâ—s handleth it very lernedly coÌ„tra Acephalos And Gelasius in opening the mystery of the Sacrament speaketh of traÌ„sitioÌ„ of the bread wyne into the godly substaÌ„ce whiche worde transition is mete to expresse transubstantiacioÌ„ therfore S. Thomas expressed traÌ„substantiacioÌ„ with the same word transire writyng Dogma datur Christianis quod in carneÌ„ traÌ„sit panis vinuÌ„ in sanguineÌ„ But in the mysterie of Christes person there is no traÌ„sition of the deitie into the humanite or humanite into the deitie but onely assumption of the humanite with adunacioÌ„ of those two natures of two perfit natures so differeÌ„t one person one Christ who is God incarnate man deitate as Gregory Nazianzene saith withoutmutation coÌ„uetsion trausitioÌ„ transelementation or transubstantiation whiche wordes be propre special to expresse howe Eucharistia is coÌ„stitute of two distreÌ„t natures an heauenly earthly nature a mystery institute after the exaÌ„ple of the principal mysterie wherwith to feade vs with the substaÌ„ce of the same glorious body that hath redemed vs. And because in the coÌ„stitution of this mysterie of the sacrameÌ„t there is a traÌ„sitioÌ„ of the earthly creature into the diuine substaÌ„ce as Gelasius S. Thomas terme it mutacion as Cyprian Ambrose teache it which Theophilactus expresseth by the worde traÌ„selemeÌ„tacion Emissen by the conuersion all these wordes reduced into there one propre sence expressed in one worde of transubstantiacion it cannot be coÌ„uenient where the maner of the constitution of two mysteries be so different there to require a like remayning of the two natures whereof the mysteryes be In the mysterye of Christes person because there was not of any of the two different natures eythex mutation transition conuersioÌ„ or trauselementation but onely assumption of the humanitie and adunation in the virgyns wombe we cannot say the godhed to haue suffred in that mysterye which were an absurditie but to haue wrought the assumption and adunation of mans nature with it nor mans nature by that assumption and adunation diminished and therfore professe truly Christ to be hole God and whole man and God in that mysterye to be made man and man God where as in the Sacrament because of transition mutation and conuersion of there earthely creatures wrought by the holy goost which declareth those earthly creatures to suffer in this conuersion mutation and transition we knowledge no assumption of those creatures or adunation with the heauthly nature and therfore saye not as we do in the principal mysterye that eche nature is holly the other and as we professe God incarnate so the bodye of Christe breaded and as man is deitate so the bread is corporate whiche we should say if the rules of our fayth could permitte the constitution of eche mysterye to be taught a lyke which the truth of gods morde doth not suffre Wherfore although Gelasius and other argue froÌ„ the Sacrament to declare the mysterye of Christes person yet we maye not presse the argument to distroy orcoÌ„founde the proprietie of eche mysterye and so violate the rules of our fayth and in the authours not presse the wordes otherwise then they maye agree with the Catholique teachynge as those did in the wordes of Cyrill when he speake of nature and subsistence whereof I made mention before to be remembred here in Gelasius that we presse not the worde substance and nature in him but as maye agree with the transition he speaketh of by which word other expresse