is dispensed the holy hoste and sacrifice wherby was cancelled the byl obligatory that was against vs further hippinus sayth that the olde men called the bread wyne of our Lords supper a sacrifice an hoste oblatioÌ„ for that specially because they beleued and taught the true bodye of Christe and his true bloud to be distribute in the bread and wyne of Eucharistia and as Augustinus Hippinê° S. Augustine sayth ad Ianuarium to entre in and be receyued with the mouthe of them that eate These be hippinus verye wordes who because he is I thynke in this auctors opinion taken for no Papist I rather speake in his wordes then myne owne whom in an other parte of this worke this auctor dothe as it were for charitie by name slaunder to be a Papiste wherfore the sayd hippinus wordes shal be as I thynke more weighty to oppresse this auctors talke theÌ„ myne be and therfor howe soeuer this auctor handlethe before the wordes of sainct Cyprian De vuctione Chrismatis and the word shewyng out of epistels yet the same Cyprians fayth appeareth so certaine otherwise as those places shal nede no further answer of me heâ— hauyng brought furth the iudgemeÌ„t of Hippinus Melancton howe they vnderstand sainct Cyprians fayth whiche thou reader oughtest to regarde more then the assertion of this auctor specially wheÌ„ thou hast redde howe he hath handled Hilarie Cyril Theophilact and Damassene as I shal hereafter touche This answer to hilarie in the .lxxviii. leef requireth a plaine precise Issue worthy to be tryed and apparaunt at hand ThallegatioÌ„ An issue of Hilarie toucheth specially me who do saye and mainteyne that I cited Hilarie truely as the copie did serue and did traÌ„slate him truly in Englishe after the same wordes in latin This is one Issue which I qualifye with a coppie because I haue Hilarie nowe better correct which better correction sitteth forth more liuely the truth theÌ„ thother did therfore that I did translate was not so much to thaduauntage of that I alleged Hilarie for as is that in the booke that I haue now better correct Hilaries wordes in the booke newly corrected be these Si enim verè verbum caro factum est et nos verè Verbum Hilari ' carnem cibo dominico sumimus quomodò non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est qui naturam carnis nostrae iaÌ„ inâ—eparabilem sibi homo natus assumpsit naturam carnis suae ad naturam eternitatis sub sacrameÌ„to nobis communicandoe carnis admiscuit Ita enim omnes vnum sumus quia in christo pater est christus in nobis est Quisquis ergo naturaliter patrem in christo negabit neget prius non naturaliter vel se in christo vel christum Sibi inesse quia in christo pater christus in nobis vnum in iis esse nos faciunt Si verè igitur carnem corporis nostri christus assumpsit verè homo ille qui ex maria natus fuit Christus est nosque vère sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus per hoc vnum erimus quia pater in eo est ille in nobis quomodo voluntatis vnitas asseritur cum naturalis per Sacramentum proprietas perfectae sacrameÌ„tum sit vnitatis My translation is this If the worde was made verely fleshe we verely receyue the worde beyng fleshe in our lordes meate howe shal not Christ be thought to dwel naturally in vs who beyng borne man hathe taken vnto him the nature of our fleshe that can not be seuered and hathe put together the nature of his fleshe to the nature of his eternitie vnder the Sacrament of the coÌ„muniâ— of his fleshe vnto vs for so we be all one because the father is in Christe and Christe in vs. Wherfore who soeuer will deuye the father to be naturally in Christ he must 〈◊〉 first either him selfe to be naturally in Christ or Christe not to be naturally in him for the beynge of the father in Christ and the beyng of Christ in vs maketh vs to be one in them And therfore if Christ hath taken verely the fleshe of our body and the man that was borne of the virgine Marie is verely Christ and also we verely receyue vnder a mysterie the fleshe of his bodye by meanes wereof we shal be one for the father is in Christe and Christe in vs howe shall that be called the vnitie of will when the naturall proprietie brought to passe by the Sacrement is the Sacrament of perfite vnitie This translation differeth from myne other whereat this auctor findeth faulte but wherein the worde Vero was in the other copie an adiectiue I ioyned it with Mysterio and therfore said the true mysterie whiche worde mysterie neded no suche adiectiue true for euery mysterie is true of it selfe But to say as Hilarie truely correct saythe that we receyue vnder the mysterie truely the fleshe of Christes body that word truely so placed sitteth furthe liuely the reall presence and substantiall presence of that is receyued repeteth againe the same that was before sayd to the more vehemeÌ„cie of it So as this rorrection is better then my first copie and accordyng to this correctioÌ„ is Hilarius alleged by MelaÌ„gton to DecolaÌ„padius for the same purpose I allege him An other alteration in the translation thou scist reader in the worde Perfectae whiche in my copie was Perfecta so was ioyned to Proprictas whiche nowe in the genetiue case ioyned to Vnitatis geueth an excellent sence to the dignitie of the SacrameÌ„t how the naturall proprietie by the Sacrament is a Sacrament of perfite vnitre so as the pecfite vnitie of vs with Christ is to haue his fleshe in vs and to haue Christe bodely and naturally dwellyng in vs by his manhode as he dwelleth in vs spiritually by his god hed and now I speake in such phrase as Hilarie and Cyrill speake and vse the wordes as they vse theÌ„ Whatsoeuer this auctor sayth as I wil iustifie by their plaine wordes And so I ioyne nowe with this auctor an Issue An issue that I haue not peruerlly vsed thaâ— legation of Hilarie but alleged him as one that speaketh most clearly of this matter whiche Hilarie in his 8. booke de Trinitate enâ—â—eath how many diuers wayes we be one in christ among which he accoÌ„pteth faith for one TheÌ„ he coÌ„meth to the vnitie in Baptisme where he handleth the matter aboue some capacities and because there is but one Baptisme and all that be baptized be so regenerate in one dispensation and do the same thynge and be one in one they that be one by the same thynge be as he saythe in nature one From that vnitie in Baptisme he commeth to declare our vnitie with Christe in fleshe whiche he callethe the Sacrament of perfite vnitie declarynge howe it is when Christe who toke truely our fleshe mortall in the virgyns wombe
deliuerethe vs the same fleshe glorified truely to be communicate with our fleshe wherby as we be naturally in Christ so Christ is naturally in vs and wheÌ„ this is brought to passe theÌ„ is the vnitie betwene Christe and vs perfited for as Christ is naturally in the father of the same essence by the diuine nature and God the father naturally in Christ his sonne very God of the same essence in the diuine nature So we be naturally in Christ by our natural fleshe which he toke in the virgyns wombe and he naturally in vs by the same fleshe in him glorified and geuen to vs and receyued of vs in the Sacrement For Hilarie sayth in plaine wordes howe Christes verye fleshe Hilariê° and Christes very bloud receyued and dronken Accepta hausta bryng this to passe And it is notable howe Hilarie compareth together the truely in Christes takynge of our fleshe in the virgyns wombe with the truely of our takynge of his fleshe In cibo dnÌ„ico in our lordes meate by which words he expresseth the Sacrament after reproueth those that sayd we were onely vnitie by obedience and will of religion to Christe and by him so to the father as though by the Sacrement of fleshe and bloud no proprietie of naturall communion were geuen vnto vs wheras both by the honor geuen vnto vs we be the sonnes of god and by the sonne dwellynge carnally in vs and we beynge corporally and inseparably vnitie in him the mysterie of true and natural vnitie is to be preached These be Hilaries wordes for this latter parte where thou hearest reader the sonne of god to dwel carnally in vs not after mannes grosse imagination for we may not so thinke of godly mysteries but carnally is referred to the truth of Christes fleshe geueÌ„ to vs in this SacrameÌ„t and so is naturally to be vnderstanded that we receyue Christes naturall fleshe for the truthe of it as Christe receyued our naturall fleshe of the virgyn although we receyue Christes fleshe glorified incorruptible verye spirituall and in a spiritual maner deliuered vnto vs. Here is mention made of the worde corporall but I shal speake of that in the discussioÌ„ of Cyril This hilarie was before sainct Augustine and was knowen both of him S. Hierom who called him Tubaâ— latini eloquii against tharriaÌ„s Neuer manne founde fault at this notable place of Hilarie Now let vs consider howe the auctor of this booke forgetteth him selfe to call Christe in vs naturally by his godhead whiche were then to make vs all gods by nature whiche is ouer greatan absurditie and Christe in his diuine nature dwelleth onely in his father naturally and in vs by grace But as we reaceiue him in the Sacrament of his fleshe and bloud if we receyue hym worthely so dwelleth he in vs naturally for the mutuall communication of our nature and his And therfore where this auctor reaporteth Hilarie to make no difference betwene our vnyon to Christe in Baptisme and in the supper let hym truste hym no more that told hym so or if this auctor wil take vpoÌ„ him as of his owne knowlege then I would say if he were another an answere in frenche that I will not expresse And here vpoÌ„ wil I wynne the Issue that in Hilarie the matter is so plaine otherwise An issue then this auctour reherseth as it hath no colour of defence to the contrarye And what Hilarie speaketh of Baptisme and our vnitie therin I haue before touched and this vnitie in fleshe is after treated aparte What shall I saye to this so manifest vntruth but that it confirmeth that I haue in other obserued howe therewas neuer one of theÌ„ that I haue red writynge againste the SacrameÌ„t but hath in his writynges sayd somwhat so euidently in the matter or out of the matter discrepaunte from truthe as might be a certaine marke to iudge the qualitie of his spirite Thauctor saythe suche answere as he made to Hilarie wyll serue for Cyrill and Cyrill in deade to saye truthe it is made after the same sorte and hathe euen suche an error as the other had sauyng it maye be excused by ignoraunce For where thauctor trauayleth â—ere to expouÌ„de the worde corporally which is a sore worde in Cyrill against this auctor and therfore taketh labour to teÌ„pere it with the worde corporaliter in sainct Paule applyed to the dwellynge of the diuinitie in Christ and yet not conteÌ„t therwith maketh further serche and would gladly haue somewhat to coÌ„firme his fausye out of Cyril himselfe and seketh in Cyrill where it is not to be founde and sekech not where it is to be founde For Cyrill telleth hymselfe plainely what he meaneth by the worde corporally whiche place and this auctour had founde he might haue spared a greate many of wordes vttered by diuination but then the truthe of that place hindreth and qualeth in maner all the booke I will at my peril bryng for the Cyrils owne wordes truely vpon the xvij Chaptre of sainct Iohn Corporaliter filius per benedictionis mysticam Cyrillê° in IoaÌ„ Cap 17 nobis vt homo Vnitur spiritualiter autem vt deus Whiche be in Englishe thus much to say The sonne is vnitie as man corporally to vs by the mystical benedictioÌ„ spiritually as God These be Cyrils wordes who nameth the Sacrament of the body bloude of Christe the mysticall benediction and sheweth in this sentence howe hym selfe vnderstaÌ„deth the wordes corporally spiritually That is to saye when Christ vniteth hym selfe to vs as man whiche he dothe he doth geuynge his bodye in this Sacrament to suche as worthely receyue it then he dwelleth in them corporally whiche Christe was before in them spiritually orels they could not worthely receyue him to theffecte of that vnitie corporall and corporall dwellynge by whiche worde corporal is vnderstanded no grosues at all whiche the nature of a mysterie excludeth and yet kepeth truthe still beyng the vnderstandyng onely atteined by faythe But where thauctor of the booke allegeth Cyrill in wordes to deny the eatyng of a man and to affirme the receyuinge in this Sacrament to be only by faith It shall appeare I doubt not vpon further discussion that Cyrill say the not so and the translations of Cyrill into latine after the printe of basil in a booke called Antidoton and of hole Cyrils workes prynted at colen haue not in that place suche sentence So as folowynge the testimonye of those bookes set forthe by publique fayth in two sondrie places I shoulde call thallegation of Cyrill made by this auctour in this poynte vntrue as it is in deade in the matter vntrue And yet because the Originall error procedeth from Oecolampadius it shall serue to good purpose to directe thoriginall faulte to hym as he well deseruethe to be as he is noted gyltie of it whose reputacion deceyued many in the matter of the Sacrament and beynge well noted howe the same Oecolampadius corrupteth Cyrill it maye
percase somewhat worke with this auctor to considre howe he hath in this place been deceyued by him I will write here the verye wordes of Cyrill in greke as they be of Oecolampadius broughte forth and publisâ—hed in his name wherby the reader that vnderstandeth the greke as many do at this tyme maye iudge of Oecolampadius conscience in handlyng this matter The wordes of Cyrill be alleged of Oecolampadius to be these in greke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyrillus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These wordes be by OecolaÌ„padius translate in this wise NoÌ„ne igitur euÌ„ qui videtur filium Christum alium a deo verbo qui ex deo esse affirmant cui apostolatus functio tributa sit Non enim sacramentum nostrum hominis manducationem asserit mentes credeutium ad crassas cogitationes irreligiosè introtrudeÌ„s humanis cogitationibus subijcere enitens ea quae sola pura inexquisita fide capiuntur This is Oecolampadius translacion of the greke as the same is by Oecolampadius alleged Whiche compared with the greke and the congruetie and phrase of the greke tonge considered doth plainely open a corruption in the greke texte First in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which shoulde bea participle in the singuler nuÌ„ber 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all which participles depend of the third persone reproued of Cyrill and nominatiue case to the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whiche hath the nowne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his accusatiue case for congruite wyll not suffer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the nominatiue case as DecoÌ„laÌ„padius maketh it because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should then depend on it whiche be the masculine gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the newtre and besides that the sence hath so no good reason to attribute assertion to the mysterye by waye of declaratioÌ„ the mysterie of nature secret hath nede of declaration and maketh none but hideth rather and the mysterie cannot declare properly that should leade or subdue men to vaine imaginacion But Cyrill entendyng to reproue the conclusioÌ„ of him that attributeth to that is seen in Christ the nature of his humanite thoffice of thappostle and so therby semeth to make in Christ two seuerall persons estemyng that is sene another soÌ„ne froÌ„ the secoÌ„d person sheweth howe that man so ‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coÌ„cludyng doth affirme an absurditie that is to say ‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 declareth ‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that ‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mysterye ‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of our humanaÌ„ coÌ„mixtioneÌ„ for so hath the publique traÌ„slacion and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which should signifie catyng of a man as DecolaÌ„padius would haue it cannot with this coÌ„struction to make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the accusatiue case haue any sence and then that man so concludyng may be sayd therewith ‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leadyng the mynde of theÌ„ that beleue in to slender darke imaginacioÌ„s or thoughes so ‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 going about to bryng vnder maÌ„s reasonyngs such things as be ‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken or vnderstaunded by an onely simple bare no curious faith And this is vttered by Cyrill by interrogation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which continueth on to the laste worde of all that is here writeÌ„ in greke endyng in the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But DecolaÌ„padiê to fram these words to his purpose corrupteth the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and maketh it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby he might cut of the interrogatiue and then is he yet fayne to adde euidently that is not in the greke a copulatiue causall enim and then when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by the cuttyng of thinterrogation thaddition of enim made the nominatiue case then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 depend of it because of the gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of tharticle determineth the principall mysterie in Christes person and after the publique translacion it should seme the greke worde was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the publique traÌ„slatioÌ„ is expressed with these two wordes humanaÌ„ coÌ„mixtioneÌ„ This one place and their were no molike maye shewe with what conseieuce Decolampadius handled the matter of the SacrameÌ„t who was lerned in the greke tongue moost exercised in translacions and had ones written a graÌ„mer of the greke yet in this place abuseth him selfe and the reader in peruerting Cyril against al coÌ„gruites of the speach against the propre significatioÌ„ of the words against the conuenient connectioÌ„ of the matter with deprauacion of the phrase and corruption of certaine wordes all againste the common and publique translacion and when he hath done all this coÌ„cludeth in th end that he hath translate the greke faythfully when there is by him vsed no good fayth at all but credite and estimacion of learnyng by him abused to deceyue well meanyng simplicite serueth for some defence to suche as be bold to vse and folowe his auctorites in this matter As the auctor of the booke semeth to haue folowed him herein for els the publique autentique translations whiche be abrode as I said of the printes of basell and colen haue no suche matter and therfore the faulte of the auctor is to leue publique truth and serche matter whispired in corners But thusmuche must be graunted though in the principall matter that in the mysterye of the sacrameÌ„t we must exclude all grossenes and yet for the truth of gods secrete worke in the sacrameÌ„t that in suche as receyue the Sacramente worthely Christ dwelleth in them corporally as Cyrill sayth and naturally and carnally as Hilarye sayth And with this true vnderstaÌ„dyng after the simplicite of a Christen faith whiche was in these fathers Hillarie and Cyrill the contencion of these thre enuyous wordes in grosse capacites grosly taken naturall carnall and corporall which carnalite hath engeÌ„dred might sone be much assuaged and this auctor also consideryng with him selfe how muche he hath been ouer seen in the vnderstandyng of them and the specialtie in this place of him selfe and Deco lampadius might take occasion to repeÌ„t and call home him selfe who wonderfully wandreth in this matter of the Sacrament and hauyng lost his right way breaketh vp hedges leapeth ouer diches with a wundrous trauaill to go whither he would not beyng not yet as appeareth determined where he would rest by the varietie of his owne doctrine as may appeare in soundrie places if they be compared together As for Basill Gregory Nissen and Gregoire Basilius Crego Nissenê° Grego Nazian zenus NaziaÌ„zen this auctor saith they speake litle of this matter in dede they speake not somuche as other do but that they speake is not discrepaunt
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
for these places of S. augustine may be answered vnto for they speke of the visible matter elemeÌ„te which remayne truely in ther proprietie of their nature for so much as remayneth so as their is true reall bodely matter of thaccideÌ„tes of breade wyne not in faÌ„sy or imaginatioÌ„ wherby their shuld be illusioÌ„ in the seÌ„ses but so in dede as thexperieÌ„ce doth shewe the chauÌ„ge of substance of the creatures in to a better substaÌ„ce wuld not impayr the truth of that remaineth but that remaineth doth indede remaine which the same natural effects by miracie that it had wheÌ„ the substaÌ„ce was ther which is one maruail 〈◊〉 this mystery as their were diuerse more in maÌ„na the figure of it And then a myracle in gods workinge doth not empayre the truth of the worke And therfore I noted before howe saincte Thomas did towche Christ after his resurrection truely and yet it was by myracle as saincte Grigorie writeth And further we may saye towching the comparison that when a resemblaunce is made of the Sacrament to Christes person or contrarywise of Christes person to declare the Sacrament we may not presse all partes of the resemblance with a through equalitie in consideracion of eche parte by it selfe but onely haue respecte to th ende wherfore the resemblaunce is made In the persone of Christe be ioyned two holl perfite natures inseperably vnite which faith the nestorians impugned and yet vnite witout confusioÌ„ of them which confusion Theutichians in consequeÌ„ce of their of error affirmed and so argumeÌ„tes be brought the Sacrament wher with to conuince both as I shall shewe answeringe to Gelasius But in this place saincte Augustine vseth the truth most certaine of the two natures in Christes person wherby to declare his beliefe in the Sacrament whiche beliefe as Hylarie before is by this auctor alleaged to saye is of that is inwardly For that is owtowardly of the visible creature we see he hath with our bodelye eye and therfore therin is no poynte of faith that shulde nede suche a declaracion as S. Augustine makith And yet making the comparison he reherseth both the truthes on both sides sayng As the persoÌ„ of Christ coÌ„sisteth of God and man so the sacrifice of the Church coÌ„sisteth of two thinges the visible kinde of the elemente and the inuisible fleshe and bloud finishing the conclusion of the similitude that therfore their is in the sacrifice of the Churche both the Sacrament and the thyng of the Sacrament Christes body That is whiche is inuiuisible and therfore required declaracioÌ„ that is by S. Augustine opened in the comparison that is to say the body of Christ to be there truely and their with that neded no declaratioÌ„ that is to saye the visible kinde of the element is spoken of also as being true but not as a thing which was entended to be proued for it neded not any prouf as the other parte did and therfore it is not necessary to presse both partes of the resemblaunce so as because in the nature of Christes humanite thier was no substaunce conuerted in Christ whiche had been contrary to thordre of that mysterye which was to yoyne the holl nature of mane to the godhed in the person of Christ that therfore in this mystery of the Sacrament in the whiche by the rule of our faithe Christes body is not impanate the coÌ„uersion of the substaunce of the visible elemeÌ„tes shuld not therfore be If truth answerith to truth for the proportioÌ„ of the truthe in the mysterie that is sufficieÌ„te For elles the natures be not so vnite in one hipostasic in the mysterie of the sacrameÌ„te as they be in Christes person the fleshe of maÌ„ in Christ by vnioÌ„ of the diuinitie is a diuine spirituall fleshe is called is a liuely fleshe and yet thauctor of this booke is not afrayde to teache the breade in the sacrameÌ„t to haue no participatioÌ„ of holynes wherin I agree not with him but reason aganiste him with his owne doctrine and much I could saye more but this shal suffise The wordes of S. Augustine for the reall presence of Christes body be suche as no mane caÌ„ wreste or writh to an other seÌ„se with their force haue made this auctor ouerthrowe him selfe in his owne wordes But that S. Augustine saith towching the nature of breade and the visible elemeÌ„te of the sacrament wih out wresting or writhing may be agreed in coÌ„uenieÌ„r vnderstaÌ„ding with the doctrine of traÌ„substaÌ„tiation therfore is an authoritie familier with those writers that affirme traÌ„substanciatioÌ„ by expresse wordes owt of whose qui ner this authour hath pulled owt this bolt as it is owt of his boweseÌ„te turneth bake hitteth himselfe on the forhed yet after his fashion by wronge vntrue traÌ„slatioÌ„ he sharpened it somewhat not with out suÌ„ punisshemeÌ„t of god euideÌ„tly by the waye by his owne wordes to ouerthrowe himselfe In the secoÌ„de coluÌ„ne of the 27 leaf the firste of the 28 leaf this auctour maketh a processe in declaration of herises in the person of Christ for coÌ„uictioÌ„ wherof this authr saith the olde fathers vsed argumeÌ„ts of two exaÌ„ples in eyther of which exaÌ„ples were two natures to gyther the one not perishing nor coÌ„founding the other One exaÌ„ple is in the body soule of man An other exaÌ„ple of the sacrameÌ„t in which be two natures as inowarde heuenly an owtwarde earthly as in man their is a body a soule I leaue owt this auctours owne iudgement in that place of the o reader require thyne whither those fathers that did vse both these exaÌ„ples to the coÌ„fusioÌ„ of heretiques did not belief as apperith by the processe of theire reasoning in this poynte did they not I say hele ne that euen as really as truly as the soule of maÌ„ is preseÌ„t in the bodye so really so truely is the body of christ which in the sacrameÌ„t is the inward inuisible thing as the soule is in the body preseÌ„t in the sacrameÌ„t for elles the body of Christ were not as truly really present in the sacrameÌ„t as the soule is in maÌ„nes body that argumeÌ„t of the sacrament had no two thinges preseÌ„t so as thargumeÌ„t of the body soule had wherby to shewe howe two things may be to gether witout coÌ„fusioÌ„ of eyther eche remayning in his nature for if the teaching of this auctour in other partes of this booke wer true theÌ„ were the sacrameÌ„t like a body lyinge in a traunse whose soule for the while were in heueÌ„ had no two thinges but one bare thinge that is to saie breade breade neuer the holyer with significatioÌ„ of an other thig so far abseÌ„t as is heueÌ„ froÌ„ earth therfor to say as I ê“blabli thinke this part of this secoÌ„de booke against transubstantiacion was a collection of this auctour wheÌ„ he mynded to mayntaine luthers opinioÌ„ against traÌ„ substaÌ„ciacioÌ„ onely and to striue for bread
slenderly as it were but figuratyuely And if the Catholique fayth had not bene then certenly taught and constaÌ„tly beleued without variaunce Christes very fleshe to be in dede eaten in that mistery it would haue bene answered of the heretiques it had bene but a figure but that appeareth nor and the other appeareth whiche is a testymonye to the truth of matter in dede Hilarie reasonynge Hilarius 8. libro de â—â—tim of the naturall coniuction betwene vs and Christ by meane of this Sacrament expresseth the same to com to passe by the receyuynge truely the verie fleshe of our lorde in our lordes meate and therupon argueth against the ArriaÌ„s whiche Arrians if it had not bene so really in dede but all was spiritually so as there was no suche naturall and corporall coÌ„munion in dede as Hilarie supposed but as this auctor teacheth a figure it had bene the Catholike doctrine so that argumeÌ„t of Hilarie had bene of no force S. Chrisostom Belasius and Theodorete argue of the truth of this misterie to conuince the Appollinaristes and Eutichians which were noon argument if Christes verie body were not as really present in the SacrameÌ„t for the truth of presence as the godhed in the person of Christ beynge theffect of thargument this that as the presence of Christes body in this misterie doth not altre the properties of the visible natures no more doth the godhode in the person of Christ extinguishe his humanite whiche againste those heretiques serued for an argument to exclud confusion of natures in Christ and had bene a daungerous argument to be embrased of the Nestorians who woulde hereby haue furdred ther heresie to proue the distinction of natures in Christ without any vnion for they woulde haue said As the earthly heaueÌ„ly natures be so distincte in the SacrameÌ„t as the one is not spoken of the other so be the natures of the humanite godhod not vnited in Christ whiche is false and in the comparynge we may not loke that all should answere in equalite but onely for the point it is made for that is as in the Sacrament the visible clement is not extinguished by the presence of Christes most precious body no more is Christes humanite by his godhode and yet we may not say that as in the SacrameÌ„t be but onely accideÌ„tes of the visible earthly matter that therfore in the person of Christ be onely accideÌ„tes of the humanite For that misterye requireth the hole truth of mannes nature and therfore Christe toke vppon him the hole man bodie and soule The mysterye of the Sacrament requirethe the truthe of the accidentes onelye beynge the substaunce of the visible creatures conuerted into the body bloude of Christ And this I write to preuent suche cauillations as some would serch fore But to retourne to our matter all these argumeÌ„tes were vayne if there were not in the Sacrament the true presence of Christes very bodye as the celestiall parte of the SacrameÌ„t beynge the visible formes therthly thyng Which earthly thyng remaineth in the former proprietie with the verye presence of the celestial thyng And this suffiseth concernyng the first marke An other certaine token is the wondryng and great meruelyng that the olde auctours make howe the substance of this Sacrament is wrought by goddes omnipotencie Baptisme is merueled at for the wonderfull effecte that is in man by it howe man is regenerat not howe the water or the holy ghoost is there But the wondre in this Sacrament is specially directed to the worke of God in the visible creatures howe they be so changed into the body and bloud of Christ which is a worke of god wrought before we receyue the Sacrament Whiche worke Cyprian sayth is inestable that is to say not speakable whiche is not so Cyprian de coena dnÌ„i if it be but a figure for then it may easely be spoken as this auctour speaketh it with ease I thynke he speaketh it so often Of a preseÌ„ce by signification if it may so be called euery man maye speake and tell howe but of the verye presence in dede and therfore the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament no creature can tell howe it maye be that Christ ascended into heauen with his humaine body and therwith coutinually reignying there should make present in the Sacrament the same body in dede whiche Christ in dede worketh beynge neuerthelesse then at the same houre present in heauen as S. Chrisosostom doth with a maruayle say If the maruayle were onely of godes worke in man in theffect of the Sacrament as it is in Baptisme it were an other matter but I said before the wrondre is in the worke of God in the substaunce of the Sacrament before it be receyued which declareth tholde auctours that so wondre to vnderstande the reall presence of Christes verye bodye and not an onelye signification whiche hathe no wondre at all And therfore seyng S. Cyprian wondreth at it and calleth the worke inestable S. Chrisostom wondreth at it S. Ambrose wondreth at it Emissen wondreth at it Cyrill wondreth at it What should we nowe doubt whether their fayth were of a signification onely as this auctour woulde haue it which is no wondre at all or of the reall presence whiche is in dede a wonderfull worke Wherfore where this manifest token and certaine marke appeareth in the olde fathers their can no constructioÌ„ of sillables or words dissuade or peruerte the truth thus testified A third token their is by declaration of figures as for example S. Hierom when he declareth vpon thepistel Ad Titum so aduisedly at lenght howe Panes prepositiones were the figure of the bodie of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t that processe declareth the mynds of that auctor to be that in the Sacrament is present the verie truth of Christes body not in a figure again to ioyne one shadowe to an other but euen the very truth to answere the figure and therfore no particuler wordes in S. Hierome can haue any vnderstandynge contrarye to his mynde declared in this processe Fourthly an other certaine marke is where the olde auctours wryte of the addration of this Sacrament whiche can not be but to the thynges godly really present And therfore S. Augustine wrytynge in his booke de Catechizandis rudibus howe the Inuisible thynges be honored in this SacrameÌ„t meanyng the bodie and bloud of Christ and in the. 98. Psalme speaketh of adoratioÌ„ Theodoretus also spekyng specially of adoration of this SacrameÌ„t These auctours by Theodoretus Dialogo 3. this marke that is most certaine take awaye all suche ambiguite as men might by suspitions diuination gather sumtyme of their seuerall wordes and declare by this marke of adoratioÌ„ playnely their faith to haue bene and also their doctrine vnderstanded as they ment of the reall presence of Christes verye bodye and bloud in the Sacrament and Christ himselfe God and man to be their present to whose diuine nature and the humanite