transubstaÌ„tiacioÌ„ And against theutichians for to improue ther confusion it suffiseth to shewe two different natures to be in the Sacrament and to remaine in there proprietie and the diuine nature not to confounde the earthely nature nor as it were to swalow it whiche was the dreme of the Eutichians And we muste forbere to presse all partes of thexample in the other argument from the personne of man beynge one of bodye and soule whiche the Churche dothe professe in symbole Athanasij of all receyued For Christ is one personne of two perfitte natures whereof the one was before the other in perfection creator of the other the one impassible the other passible Man is of the soule and bodye one two different natures but suche as for there perfection requyred that vnitie whereof none was before other perfit of Christ we saye he is consubstantiall to his father by the substaunce of his godhed and consubstantiall to man by the substance of his manhod but we may not so say man is consubstantial by his soule to angels and consubstantiall in his body to bestes because then we should deduce also Christ by meane of vs to be consubstantial to beastes thus I writ to shewe that we may not presse thexample in euery parte of it as thauctor of this booke vpon Gelatius who ouerturneth his doctrine of the figure And if that I haue Here sayde be well considered there maye appeare the greate ignoraunci of this author in the alleginge of Theodorete the applinge of him and speakynge of Nestorius in the ende For as the Eutichians reasonynge as Saincte Augustine saith to coÌ„fonude the NestoriaÌ„s fel in to an absurditie in the coÌ„fusioÌ„ of the two natures in christ so Theodoretus reasonyng against the EutichiaÌ„s fel in a vehemeÌ„t suspicioÌ„ to be a nestoriaÌ„ like as S. Augustine reasonyng against the maniches for defence of fre will semed to speke that the PellagiaÌ„s would alowe and reasoning against Pelagians semed to say that the manachees woulde allowe such a daunger it is to reduce extremities to the meane wherin Saincte Augustine was better purged then Theodorete was althowgh Theodorete was reconciled But for example of that I haue sayde this argumente of Theodoretus againste the Eutichians to auoyde confusion of natures in Christe sheweth howe in the sacremeÌ„t where the truth of the mysterye of the two natures in Christ may be as it were in a similitude lerned the presence of the bodye of Christe there in the Sacrament doth not altre nature that is to saye the proprietie of the visible creatures This sayinge was that the Nestoryans woulde drawe for there purpose to proue distincre persons againste whome Cyril trauayled to shewe that in the Sacrament the fleshe of Christ that was geuen to be eaten was geuen not as the fleshe of a comen man but as the fleshe of Godde wherby appeared the vnitie of the godhed to the manhode in Christe in one person and yet no confusion as Theodoretus doth by his argument Declare But whither the prynters negligence or this auctours ouersight hath confunded or confused this matter in the vtterynge of it I can not tell For the auctour of this booke concludeth solemly thus by induction of the premisses that euen so the bodye of Christe was after thascension Chaunged in to the godly substaunce I wene the printer left out a not and shoulde haue sayde not chaunged in the Godlye Substaunce for so the sence shoulde be as Peter Martyr reaporteth Theodorete And yet the triumphe this auctore makethe againste them he calleth for his pleasure Papistes with his forked dylemma maketh me Doubte whither he wiste what he sayde or no because he bryngeth in Nestorius so out of purpose sayinge the Papistes muste eyther graunt the Substance of breade and wyne to remaylie orelles to be of Nestorius heresie that the nature of Godhed remayned not This auctoure of the booke for the name of Nestorius shoulde haue put Entiches and then sayde for conclusion the nature of manhode remayned not in Christe And althoughe in Theodorete the substaÌ„ce of bread is spoken of â—o remayne yet because he doch after expounde himselfe to speake of that is seen and feit he femeth to speake of Substaunce after the comen capacitie and not as it is truely in learnynge vnderstanded an inwarde inuisible and not palpable nature but onely perceyued by vnderstandynge so as this outwarde nature that Theodorete speaketh of maye accordynge to his wordes trewly remayne not with standynge trausubstantiaction This auctoure Declareth playnely his iguoraunce not to perceyue whither the argumente of Theodorete and Gelasius tendeth whiche is properly againste the Eutichians rather then the Nestorians For and no propertye of breade remayne it proueth not the Godhed in Christe not to remayne but the humanitie onely to be as it were swalowed vp of the diuinite whiche the Eutichians entended and specially after Christes resurrection againste whom the argument by Theodorere is specially brought howesoeuer this auctor confounbeth the Nestoryans and Eutichians names and taketh one for an other whiche in so highe a matter is no smale faulte and yet no great fault among so many other howger and greter as be in this booke committed wherin this auctor not seynge howe lytell he hath done concludeth yet as constantly as though he had throwen all downe afore him entendyng to shewe that the doctrine of transubstantiacion dependeth onely of anctorite whiche is not so vsyng the sayinges of duns and Gabriel as he reporteth them for his purpuse because they as he saith bost them selfe what they coulde do if the determina cion of the consaille were not and thus euery idle speache maye haue estimacion with this auctor against the receyued truth And from this poynte of the matter the auctour of this booke maketh a passage with a litell sporte at theÌ„ he fansieth or liketh to cal so Englishe Papistes by the waye entreprise to answere all suche as he supposeth reasons for transubstanciation and auctorites also First he findeth himselfe myrth in deuisynge as he calleth them the Papistes to saye that Christe is made a newe whiche fansye if it were so is againste the reall prefence aswell as transubstantiacion In whiche wordes because euery wise reader may ese howe this auctor playeth I will saye no more but this Christe is not made a newe nor made of the substaunce of bread as of a matter and that to be the Catholique doctrine this auctor if he be right named knoweth welynough and yet spendeth two leanes in it The solution to the seconde reason is allmost as foundely handled alludynge from impanatioÌ„ to Inaquation although it was neuer sayde in Scripture this water is the holy ghoost but in baptisme to be water and the holy goost also of the dowe is not sayd this is the holy ghoost but the holy ghost descended as in the resemblaÌ„ce of a dowe The substance of bread is not adnihilate because goddes worke is no adnihilation who geueth
¶ An explicatioÌ„ and assertion of the true Catholique fayth touchyng the moost blessed Sacrament of the aulter with confutacion of a booke written agaynst the same Made by Steuen Byshop of Wynchester and exhibited by his owne hande for his defence to the kynges maiesties Commissioners at Lambeth Anno. 1551. ¶ Certayne faultes escaped in the prentyng The rest thou mayst geÌ„tle reader easely correcte thy selfe Leafe Pag. Thelyne â—o 2. 2. pag. Lin. 15. for yet it shuld read yet if it shuld 7 1 penul for to purpose read to the purpose 21 1 30 for accasion reade occasion 25 2 29 for dimishe reade diminishe 52 1 25 for shepe reade slepe 42 1 23 for coÌ„municaÌ„do read coÌ„municandis 54 1 13 for manifestye reade manifested 54 1 14 for exhibetie reade exhibited 55 1 19 for enforeth reade enforceth 59 1 20 for Tubax reade Tuba 62 1 13 for fram reade â—rame 81 1 3 for cunclusion reade conclusion 81 2 20 for pretens reade presence 81 1 30 for freundes reade frendes 81 1 31 for possumus reade polluimus 88 1 22 for cratures reade creatures 88 1 24 for entrated reade intreated 88 2 3 for lake read loke 88 2 6 for fede read fed 90 2 6 for speake read spake 91 2 30 for andeleth read handeleth 92 1 8 for hahing read hauyng 92 1 10 for sumuch read so muche 92 1 12 for ityn read it 92 1 15 for wrere read were 92 1 15 for â—e read be 94 1 1 for Ethinkes read Ethnikes 94 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for af read of 96 1 〈◊〉 for 〈…〉 se read likewise 96 2 â—4 〈◊〉 read geueth 97 2 10 for extlude read exclude 105 1 1 for auctors read auctor 106 2 16 for this read these 107 1 3 for commency read commenly 110 1 6 for hatue read hath 119 1 31 for deipara 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deipara 121 2 26 for mage read image 126 2 18 for dowe read doue 131 2 10 for ther read thre 131 2 22 for we read me 134 1 4 for which read with 134 2 5 for obdy read body 136 1 11 for improw read improue 136 1 21 for circuÌ„staÌ„ce pÌ„seÌ„t read circuÌ„staÌ„ce is pÌ„seÌ„t 136 1 23 for supernaturally read naturally 137 1 4 for endureth read abhorâ—ith 138 2 1 for disorowe read improue 142 1 14 for godhod read godhed 143 2 2 for propositiones read ê“positionis 145 2 29 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 145 2 vlt. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 146 1 2 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 146 1 5 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 148 1 19 for saue read sawe 151 2 9 for Ephesine read Ephesin Finis Tabulae ¶ The preface FOr asmuch as amoÌ„ges other mine allegations for defence of my selfe in this matter moued agà ynst me by occasion of my Sermon made before the kynges moost excellent Maiestye touchyng partely the. Catholique faith of the moost precious sacrameÌ„t of thaltare which I see now impugned by a booke set furth vnder the name of my lord of Cauntorburies grace I haue thought expedieÌ„t for the better opening of the matter coÌ„sideryng I am by name touched in the sayde boke the rather to vtter partely that I haue to say by confutatioÌ„ of that boke wherein I thinke neuerthlesse noâ— requisite to directe any speache by speciall name to the person of him that is entitled autor because it may possible be that his name is abused wherwith to set furth the matter beyng him selfe of such dignitie auctorite in the coÌ„men welth as for that respect should be inuiolable For which coÌ„sideracion I shal in my speache of suche reproufe as the vntruth of the matter necessariely requireth omitting the speciall title of the auctor of the boke speake onely of thauctor in generall beyng a thing to me greatly to be me 〈…〉 ed at that such matter shuld nowe be published out of my lord of CaÌ„torburies penne but because he is a man I wil not wondre because he is such a maÌ„ I will reuereÌ„rly vse him forbearyng further to name him talke onely of the auctor by that generall name The confutation of the first booke THis auctor denieth the real preseÌ„ce of Christes most precious bodie bloud in the SacrameÌ„t This auctor denieth Transubstanciation This auctor denieth euil men to eat drinke the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament These thre denials only impugne tende to distroy that faith whiche this auctor termeth the popishe to erre in callyng nowe all popishe that beleue either of these thre articles by him denied the truth whereof shall hereafter be opened Nowe because fayth affirmeth some certaintee if we aske this auctor what is his fayth which he calleth true and catholique it is only this as we may lerne by his boke that in our Lordes supper be coÌ„secrate bread and wyne and deliuered as tokens onely to signify Christes bodie and bloud he calleth them holye tokens but yet noteth that the bread and wyne be neuer the holyer he saith neuerthelesse they be not bare tokeÌ„s and yet concludeth Christ not to be spiritually present in them but onely as a thing is present in that which signifieth it whiche is the nature of a bare token saiyng in another place ther is nothyng to be worshipped for ther is nothing present but in figure and in a signe whiche who so euer sayth calleth the thyng in dede absente And yet the auctor sayth Christe is in the man that worthely receaueth spiritually preseÌ„t who eateth of Christes fleshe and his bloud reignyng in heaueÌ„ whether the good beleuyng man ascendeth by his faith And as oure bodie is norished with the bread wyne receiued in the supper so the true beleuyng man is fedde with the bodie bloud of Christ And this is the summe of the doctrine of that faith whiche this auctor calleth the true catholique faith Nowe a catholique faith is an vniuersall faith taught and preached through all and so receaued and beleued agreablie and consonant to the scriptures testified by such as by all ages haue in their writynges geuen knowlege therof which be the tokens and markes of a true Catholique faith wherof no one can be founde in the faith this auctor calleth catholique Firste there is no scripture that in lettre mainteineth the doctrin of this auctorsboke For Christ saith not that the bread doth only signify his bodie absent nor sainct Paul sayth not so in any place ne any other canonical scripture declareth Christes wordes so As for the sence vnderstaÌ„dyng of Christes wordes there hath not been in any age any one approued and knowen learned maÌ„ that hath so declared expounded Christes wordes in his supper that the bread did onely signify Christes bodie the wyne his bloud as thynges absent And to the intent euery notable
disagrement from the truth may the more euidently appeare I will here in this place as I will hereafter likewise when the case occurreth ioyne as it were an issue with An issue this auctor that is to saye to make a staye with him in this poynte triable as they say by euidence sone tried For in this point the scriptures be alreadie by thauctor brought forth the leterwherof proueth not his faith And albeit he traueyleth and bryngeth forth the saiyng of many approued writers yet is there no one of them that writeth in expresse woordes the doctrine of that fayth which this auctor calleth the faith catholike And to make the issue plaine and to ioyne it directly thus I say No auctor knowen and approued that is to say Ignatius Policarpe Iustine Irene Tertullian Cyprian Chrisostome Hilarie Gregorie Nazianzen Basill Emissen Ambrose Cyril Hierome Augustine DamasceÌ„ Theophilacte none of these hath this doctrine in plaine termes that the bread onely signifieth Christes bodie absent nor this sentence that the bread and wyne be neuer the holier after consecration nor that Christes bodie is none otherwise present in the Sacrament but in a signification nor this sentence that the Sacrament is not to be worshipped because there is nothing present but in a signe And herein what the truth is may soone appeare as it shal by their workes neuer appeare to haue been taught and preached receaued and beleued vniuersally and therfore can be called no Catholique fayth that is to say allowed in the whol through and in outwarde teaching preached and beleued If this auctor settyng apart the word Catholique would of his owne wytte go aboute to proue howsoeuer scripture hath been vnderstanded hitherto yet it should be vnderstanded in dede as he nowe teacheth he hath herein diuers disauaÌ„tages and hynderaunces worthy consideracions whiche I will particularly note Firste the preiudice and sentence geuen as it were by his owne mouthe against him selfe now in the boke called the Catechisme in his name set forth Secondly that about .vij. C. yere ago one Bertrame if the booke set forth in his name be his entreprised secretly the like as appereth by the said booke yet preuayled not Thirdely Berengarius beyng in dede but an Archedeacon about .v. C. yeres past after he had openly attempted to set forth suche like doctrine recanted and so fayled in his purpose Fourthely Wykclif not muche aboue an hundreth yeres past enterprised the same whose teachyng God prospered not Fyftely how Luther in his workes handeled theÌ„ that would haue in our tyme raysed vp the same doctrine in Germany it is manifest by his and their writynges wherby appeareth the enterprise that hath had so many ouerthrowes so many rebukes so often reprofes to be desperate and suche as God hath not prospered and fauored to be receiued at any tyme openly as his true teachyng Herein whether I say true or no let the stories trye me and it is matter worthy to be noted because Gamaliels obseruacion writen in the Actes of the Apostels is allowed Actes 5. to marke howe they prospere go forward in their doctrine that be auctors of any new teachyng But all this set aparte and puttyng a side al testimonies of tholde churche and resortyng onely to the letter of the scripture there to serche out an vnderstandyng And in doyng therof to forget what hath been taught hitherto How shall this auctor establishe vpoÌ„ scripture that he would haue beleued What other text is therin scripture that encountreth with these wordes of scripture This is my body Wherby to altre the signification of them There is no scripture sayth Christ did not geue his bodie but the figure of his bodie nor the geuyng of Christes bodie in his supper verely and really so vnderstaÌ„ded doth not necessaritly impugne and contrarie any other speache or doyng of Christ expressed in scripture For the great power and omnipotencie of God excludeth that repugnaunce whiche mannes reason would deame of Christes departyng from this worlde and placyng his humanitie in the glorie of his father Iâ— this auctor without force of necessitie would induce it by the like speaches as when Christ sayd I am the dore I am the â—yne he is Helias and suche other and because it is a figuratiue speache in them it may be so here whiche maketh no kinde of profe that it is so here But yet if by way of reasonyng I would yelde to him therin and cal it a figuratiue speache as he doth What other poynte of fayth is there then in the matter but to beleue the storie that Christ did institute suche a supper wherin he gaue bread and wyne for a token of his bodie and bloud whiche is nowe after this vnderstandyng no secrete mysterie at all or any ordinaunce aboue reasoÌ„ For commenly men vse to ordaine in sensible thinges remembraunces of them selfe whan they dye or departe the countrie So as in thordinaunce of this supper after this vnderstandyng Christ shewed not his omnipotencie but onely beneuolence that he loued vs and would be remembred of vs. For Christ did not say whosoeuer eateth this token eateth my bodie or eateth my fleshe or shal haue any profite of it in speciall but doo this in remembraunce of me And albeit this auctor would not haue them bare tokens yet and they be onely tokens they haue no warrant signed by scripture for any apparell at all For the sixt of John speaketh not of any promise made to the eatyng of a token of Christes fleshe but to the eatyng of Christes verie fleshe wherof the bread as this auctor would haue it is but a figure in Christes wordes when he sayd This is my body And if it be but a figure in Christes wordes it is but a figure in sainct Paules wordes when he sayd The bread whiche wee breake is it not the communicacion of Christes bodie that is to say a figure of the communicacioÌ„ of Christes bodie if this auctors doctrine be true and not the communicacion in dede Wherfore if the verie bodie of Christ be not in the supper deliuered in dede the eatyng there hath no speciall promise but onely commaundement to do it in remembraunce After whiche doctrine why should it be noted absolutely for a Sacrament and speciall mysterie that hath nothyng hidden in it but a plaine oâ—en ordinaunce of a token for a remembraunce to the catyng of whiche token is annexed no promyse expressely ne any holynes to be accompted to be in the bread or wyne as this auctor teacheth but to be called holie because they be deputed to an holy vse If I aske the vse he declareth to signify If I should aske what to signifye There muste be a sorte of good wordes framed without scripture For scripture expresseth no matter of significacion of speciall effecte And therfore like as the teachyng is new to say it is an onely figure or onely signifieth so the matter of signification must be newly diuised
the sufferyng of the bodie of Christ sheddynge of his moost precyous bloud on thaultar of the Crosse whiche worke and passion of Christ is preached vnto vs by wordes and sacramentes and the same doctrine receiued of vs by faith the effecte of it also And thus farre goeth the doctrine of this auctor But the Catholique teachyng by the scriptures goth futher confessing Christ to feade such as be regenerate in him not onely by his bodie and bloud but also with his bodie and bloud deliuered in this sacrament by him in dede to vs whiche the faythfull by his institucion and commaundement receiue with their faith and with their mouth also and with those specyall deynties be fed specially at Christes table And so God doth not onely preach in his sacraments but also worketh in them and with them and in sensible thynges geueth celestiall giftes after the doctrine of eche sacrament as in baptisme the spirite of Christ and in the sacrament of thaultar the verie bodie bloud of Christe accordyng to the plaine sence of his woordes whiche he spake This is my bodie c. And this is the Catholique faith against the which how thauctor wil fortify that he would haue called Catholique and confute that he improueth I intend hereafter more particularly to touche in discussion of that is sayd wherein I will kepe this ordre First to considre the thirde booke that speaketh against the fayth of the real presence of Christes most precious bodie bloud in the sacrament then against the fourth so returne to the second speakyng of TransubstaÌ„tiation wherof to talke the real presence not beyng discussed were clearly superfluous And finally I wyll somewhat say of the fift booke also The confutation of the thyrd booke IN the beginyng of the thyrde booke thauctor hath thought good to note certaine differences whiche I will also particularly consider It foloweth in him thus They teache that Christ is in the bread and wyne But we say accordyng to The auctor the truth that he is in them that worthely eat and drinke the bread and wyne Note here Reader euen in thenâ—re of the The answer comparison of these differeÌ„ces how vntruly the true fayth of the Churche is reported whiche doth not teache that Christ is in the bread and wyne which was the doctrine of Luther But the true fayth is that Christes most precious bodie bloud is by the might of his worde and determinacion of his will which he declareth by his worde in his holie supper preseÌ„t vnder forme of bread wyne the substaunce of whiche natures of bread wyne is conuerted into his most precious bodie and bloud as it is truely beleued and taught in the Catholique Church of whiche teachyng this auctor can not be ignoraunte So as thauctor of this booke reporteth an vntruth wittyngly against his conscience to say they teache callyng theÌ„ Papistes that Christ is in the bread wyne but they agre in forme of teachyng with that the Churche of England teacheth at this day in the distribution of the holie communion in that it is there sayd the bodie and bloud of Christ to be vnder the forme of bread and wyne And thus much serueth for declaracion of the wrong and vntrue reporte of the fayth of the Catholique church made of this auctor in the settyng forth of this difference on that part whiche it pleaseth him to name Papistes And nowe to speake of the other parte of the difference on thauctors side when he would tell what he and his say he conueyeth a sence craftely in wordes to serue for a difference suche as no Catholique man would deny For euery Catholique teacher graunteth that no man can receaue worthely Christes precious bodie and bloud in the Sacrament onlesse he hath by fayth and charitie Christ dwellyng in him for otherwise suche one as hath not Christ in him receaueth Christes bodie in the Sacrament vnworthely to his condempnacioÌ„ Christ can not be receaued worthely but in to his owne temple whiche be ye S. Paule sayth yet he that hath not Christes spirit in him is not his As for callyng it bread and wyne a Catholique man forbereth not that name signifiyng what those creatures were before the consecracion in substaunce Wherfore appeareth how thauctor of this boke in the lieu and place of a difference whiche he pretendeth he would shew bringeth in that vnder a But which euery Catholique man must nedes confesse that Christ is in them who worthely eate and drinke the sacrameÌ„t of his bodie bloud or the bread and wyne as this auctor speaketh But and this auctor would haue spoken plainely and compared truely the difference of the two teachynges he should in the second part haue sayd somewhat contrarie to that the Catholique churche teacheth which he doth not and therfore as he sheweth vntruth in the first reporte so he sheweth a sleight and shifte in the declaracion of the second part to say that repungneth not to the first matter that no Catholique man will deny consideryng that the sayd two teachynges be not of one matter nor shote not as one might say to one marke For the first part is of the substaunce of the Sacrament to be receaued where it is truth Christ to be present God and man The second part is of Christes spiritual presence in the man that receaueth which in dede must be in him before he receaue the sacrameÌ„t or he can not receyue the Sacrament worthely as afore is sayd whiche two partes may stand well together without any repugnaunce and so both the differences thus taught make but one catholique doctrine Let vs se what the auctor sayth further They say that when any maÌ„ eateth the bread and The auctor drynketh the cup Christ goeth into his mouth or stomoke with the bread and wyne and no further But we say that Christ is in the hole man both in body and soule of him that worthely eateth the bread and drynketh the cup and not in his mouth or stomoke onely In this comparison thauctor termeth the The answer true Catholique teachyng at his pleasure to bryng it in contempte Whiche doyng in rude speache would be called otherwise then I wyll terme it Truth it is as Sainct Augustine sayth we receaue in the Sacrament the body of Christ with our mouthe and suche speache other vse as a booke set forth in the archbisshoppe of Cantorburies name called a Cathechisme willeth children to be taught that they receaue with their bodely mouth the body and bloud of Christ whiche I allege because it shall appeare it is a teachyng set forth among vs of late as hath been also and is by the booke of comen prayor beyng the moost true Catholique doctrine of the substaunce of the Sacrament in that it is there so Catholiquely spoken of whiche booke this auctor doth after specially allow how so euer all the summe of his teachyng doth improue it in
as I sayd before good men do not eate Christes bodye in the Sacrament vnder the visible signes for because it is not there and then much lesse should euel men reache it In the Catholique teachyng all the doctrine of eatyng of Christ is concluded in two maner of eatynges one in the visible Sacrament Sacramentall another spirituall without the Sacrament And because in the eatynge of the visible Sacrament Sainct Paule speaketh of vnworthy the same true teachynge to open the matter more clerely accordyng to Scripture noteth vnto vs thre maner of eatynges one spirituall onely whiche onely good men do feadyng in fayth without the visible Sacrament Another is bothe spirituall and Sacramentall whiche also good men onely do receiuyng the visible Sacrament with a true sincere charitable fayth The third maner of eatyng is Sacramentall onely whiche after sainct Paule euel men do vnworthely and therfore haue iudgement and condempnation and be gylty of our lordes bodye not estemynge our lordes bodye there And here arristeth the knot of conteÌ„tion with this auctor who sayeth euel men eate but the Sacramental bread whervnto I replie no more do good men neyther if this auctors doctrine of the Sacrament be trewe seyng he will haue it but a figure If this auctor wil say theffecte is other in good men then in euell men I will not stryue therin But to discusse this matter euidently we must righely open the truth and then must considre the visible Sacramentes as they be of gods ordinaunce who directeth vs where to seke for his giftes and howe whose workyng albeit it be not restrayned by his Sacramentes and therfore God maye and dothe inuisibly sanctifie and salue as it pleasith him yet he teacheth vs of his ordinarye workyng in the visible Sacramentes and ordereth vs to seke his giftes of helthe and life there wherupon sainct Augustin noteth howe Baptisme among the Augu. de peccatis meri et remiss libro 4. Cap. â—4 Christen men of Aphrike was verye well called helth and the Sacrament of Christes body called lyfe as in whiche God geueth helthe and lefe if we worthely vse them Thordinance of these sacraments is goddes worke the verye author of them who as he is himselfe vniforme as sainct Iames Iacob 1. sayth without alteration so as Dauid sayth his workes be true whiche is asmuch as vniforme for truth and vniforme answerith together As God is all goodnes so all his workes be good So as consideryng the substaunce of goddes workes and ordinauces as they be themselfe they be always vniforme certain and true in ther substaÌ„ce as God ordred them Among men for whom they be wrought and ordred ther is variete good men euell men worthy vnworthy but as sainct Paule sayeth there is but one Ephe. 4 lorde one fayth one Baptisme And the parable of the sower whiche Christe declared Mat. 5. himselfe sheweth a dyuersite of the groundes where the seed dyd fall but the sede was all one that dyd fall in the good grownde and that did fal in the noughty grownde but yt fructified onely in the good grownde whiche seede Christe calleth his worde And in the sixt of sainct Iohn sayeth Ioan. 6. his worde is spirite and lyfe so as by the teachyng of Christ spirite and lyfe maye fal vpon noughty men although for theire malice it carieth not nor fructifieth not in them And sainct Augustine accordyng hereunto In IoaÌ„ tract 27 noteth howe Christes wordes be spirite and life although thou dost carnally vnderstand them and hast no frute of them yet so they be spirite and life but not to the wherby appeareth the substaunce of gods ordynaunce to be one though we in the vsyng of it vary The promyses of God can not be disapointed by mannes infidelite as S. Paule saith which place Luther allegeth Rom. 3. to shewe the vnitie in the substaÌ„ce of Baptisme whither it be ministred to good or euell But S. Paule to the CorinthiaÌ„s declareth it 2. Cor. 2 notably in these wordes We be the good sauor of Christ in theÌ„ that be salued them that perishe Here S. Paule noteth the sauor good and one to diuerse men but after the diuersite in men of diuerse effectes in them that is to saye the sauor of life and the sauor of deathe whiche sayng of S. Paule the greke scolies gathered by Occumenius open and declare with similitudes in nature very aptely The dowe they say and the betel shall feade both vpon one oyntemeÌ„â— and the betel dye of it and the done strenghthened by it The diuersite in theffecte folouing of the diuersite of them that eate and not of that is â—aten whiche is alway one Accordyng herevnto S. Augustine againste the Donatistes geueth for a rule the sacrameÌ„tes to be one in all although they be not one that receiue vse them And therfore to knytte vp this matter for the purpose I entende and wryte it For wemust considre the substance of the visible SacrameÌ„t of Christes body and bloud to be always as of it selfe it is by Christes ordinaunce in the vnderstandyng whereof this auctor maketh variauÌ„ce and wold haue it by Christes ordinauÌ„ce but a figure which he hath not proued but and he had prowed it then is it in substaunce but a figure and but a figure to good men For it must be in substaunce one to good and bad and so neyther to good nor bad this SacrameÌ„t is otherwise dispensed then it is truely taught to be by preachyng Wherfore if it be more then a figure as it is in deade if by Christes ordynance it hath preseÌ„t vnder the forme of those visible sygnes of the fourme of bread and wyne the very body and bloud of Christ as hath been truly taught hitherto Then is the substaunce of the Sacrament one always as the oyntement was whether doues eate of it or betels And this Issue I ioyne with this An issue auctor that he shall not be able by any learnyng to make any diuersite in the substaunce of this sacrament what soeuer diuersite folowe in theffect For the diuersite of theffect is occasioned in them that receyue as before is proued And theÌ„ to anuswere this auctor I say that onely good men eate and drinke the body and bloud of Christ spiritually as I haue declared but al good euel receiue the visible Sacrament of that substaunce God hath ordeyned it whiche in it hathe no variance but is all one to good and euel And as for the Scriptures and doctours which this auctor allegeth to proue that onely good men receyne the body and bloud of Christ I grant it without contention speakyng of spitituall manducation and with lyuely faythe without the Sacrament But in the visible Sacrament euell men receyue the same that good men do for the substance of the Sacrament is by good ordinance all one And if this auctor would vse for a proufe that in the Sacrament Christes verye bodye is
vnite thervnto adoration may onely be directed of vs. And so to conclude vp this matter forasmuch as one of these foure markes and notes maye be founde testified and apparaunte in the anucient wryters with other wordes and sentences conformable to the same this shuld suffise to exclude al argumeÌ„tes of any by sentences ambiguons speaches and to vpholde the certeynte of the true Catholique fayth in dede whiche this auctour by a wronge name of the Catholique fayth impugneth to the greate slaunder of the truth and his owne reproch The confutation of the fift booke AS touchynge the fift booke the title wherof is of thoblation and sacrifice of our Sauiour Christ somwhat is by me spoken before whiche although it be suffitieÌ„t to the matter yet somewhat more must also be nowe said whetwyth to encountre thauctors imaginations and surmises with the wronge construyng of the Scriptures and Auctors to wrest them besides the truth of the matter and ther meanynge This is agreed and by the Scriptures playnelie taught that the oblation and Sacrifice of our Sauiour Christe was and is a perfite worke ones consummate in perfection without necessitie of reiteration as it was neuer taught to be reiterate but a mere blasphemie to presuppose it It is also in the Catholike teachyng grounded vpon the scripture agreed that the same sacrifice ones consomate was ordeyned by Christes institution in his most holye supper to be in the churche often remembred and shewyd forth in suche forte of shewyng as to the faythfull is sene present the most precious bodye and bloude of our Sauiour Christ vnder the fourmes of bread wyne which body bloud the faithfull churche of Christen people graunte confesse accordyng to Christes wordes to haue been betrayed shed for the sins of the world so in the same supper represented deliuered vnto them to eate feade of it accordyng to Christes commandement as of a most precyous acceptable sacrifice acknolegyng the same precious body bloud to be the sacrifice propitiatorie for all the sinnes of the worlde wherunto they onely resorte and onelye accompt that the verye perfite oblacion sacrifice of Christen people through which all other sacrifices necessariely be accepted pleasaunt in the sight of God And this maner of shewyng Christes death kepyng the memorye of it is grounded vpoÌ„ the scriptures wryteÌ„ by the EuaÌ„gelistes S. Paul accordyng therunto preached beleued vsed â—requeÌ„ted in the churche of Christ vniuersally froÌ„ the beginnyng This auctor vttering many wordes at large besides scripture agenst scripture to depratie the Catholike doctrine doth in a fewe wordes which be in dede good wordes true coÌ„fonde ouerthrowe al his enterprise that issue wil I ioinewith him which shall suffise for the coÌ„futacion of this booke The fewe good wordes of the auctor which wordes I saye confounde the reste consiste in these two poyntes One in that the auctor alloweth the Iudgement of Petrns Lombardus touchyng thoblacion and sacrifice of the churche An other in that thauetor confesseth the Counsaill of Nice to be an holye concell as it hath bene in dede coÌ„fessed of al good Christen men UpoÌ„ these two confessions I will declare the whole enterprise of this fifte boke to be ouerthrowen First to begyn with the councel of Nice the same hath opened the mysterye of the Sacrament of the bodye and bloude of Christe in this wise that Christen men beleue the lambe that taketh awaye the synnes of the worlde to be situate vpon gods borde and to be sacrificed of the Priestes not after the maner of other Sacrifices This is the doctrine of the councell of Nice and must then be called an holy doctrine and therby a true doctrine consonante to the Scriptures the foundacion of all truth If thauctor will denye this to haue been the teachyng of the counsaill of Nice I shal alleage therfore the allegacion of the same by Decolampadius who beyng an aduersarye to the truth was yet by gods prouidence ordered to beare testimonie to the truth in this poynte and by his meane is published to the worlde in greke as foloweth which neuerthlesse may otherwise appeare to be true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iterum etiam hic in diuina mensa ne humiliter intenti simus ad propositum panem poculum sed mente exaltata fide intelligamus situm esse in sacra illa mensa illum Dei agnum qui tollit peccata mundi sacrificatum à sacerdotibus non victimarum more nos praeciosum illius corpus sanguinem verè sumentes credere haec esse resurrectionis Symbola Ideo non multum accipimus sed parum vt cognoscamus quoniaÌ„ non in satietatem sed sanctificationem These wordes maye be Englished thus Agayne in this godlye table we should not in base and loue consideracion direct oure vnderstanding to the breade and cuppe set forth but hauing oure mynde exalted we shoulde vnderstand by fayth to be situate in the table the lambe of God whiche taketh awaye the syunes of the worlde Sacrificed of the Priestes not after the maner of other Sacrifices and we receauynge trulye the preciouse bodye and bloude of the same lambe to beleue these to be the tokens of oure resurrection And for that we receaue not muche but a litle because we shoulde knowe that not for saturitie and fillynge but for sanctification This holy Councell of Neece hath been beleued vniuersally in declaration of the mysterye of the Trinitie and the Sacramentes also And â—o them that confesse that councell to be holy as thauctor here doth and to such as professe to beleue the determinacioÌ„ of that councell in the openynge of the mysterye of the Trinitie with other wordes the Scripture vseth although they expresse such sence as in the Scripture is contayned Why shoulde not all suche likewise beleue the same councell in explicacion of the Sacramentes whiche to do thauctor hath bound him selfe grauntyng that councell holye And then we muste beleue the verye presence of Christes bodye and bloude on goddes borde and that Priestes do their sacrifice and be therfore called sacrificers So as those names termes be to be honoured and religiously spoken of beyng in an holy councell vttered and confessed because it was so seen to them and the holye goost without whose presente assistynge and suggession beleued to be there the councel coulde not nor ought not to be called holy Nowe if we conferre with that councell of Nice the testimonye of the Churche begynnyng at S. Dionise who was in the time of the apostelles after him comyng to Irene who was nere thapostels theÌ„ Tertulliane And so S. CypriaÌ„ S. Chrisostome S. Cyril S. Hierome S. Augustine from that age to Petrus LoÌ„bardus all spake of the sacrameÌ„t to the same effecte termed it for the word sacrifice and oblacion to be frequented in the church of the body bloud of