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
supper to their coÌ„dempnacion only And the learned men in Christes churche say that the ignorauÌ„ce want of obseruacion of these thre maner of eatynges causeth the errour in thunderstandyng of the scriptures suche fathers saiynges as haue written of the Sacrament And when the churche speaketh of these thre maner of eatynges what an impudeÌ„cy is it to say that the church teacheth good meÌ„ only to eat the body of Christ and drinke his bloud when they receyue the Sacrament beyng the truth otherwise and yet a diuersitie there is of eatyng spiritually onely eatyng spiritually sacramentally because in the supper they receyue his very fleshe and very bloud in dede with theffectes of all graces and giftes to suche as receyue it spiritually and worthely where as out of the supper wheÌ„ we eat only spiritually by faith God that worketh without his sacrameÌ„tes as semeth to him doth releaue those that beleue and trust in him suffreth them not to be destitute of that is necessary for them wherof we may not presume but ordenarely seke god wher he hath ordred himself to be sought there to assure our selfe of his couenauntes and promyses whiche be most certaynely annexed to his sacrameÌ„tes wherunto we ought to geue most certayne trust confideÌ„ce wherfore to teache the spirituall manducacioÌ„ to be equal with the spiritual manducation sacramental also that is to dimishe theffecte of the institution of the SacrameÌ„t whiche no Christen man ought to do They say that the body of Christ that is in the The 〈◊〉 SacrameÌ„t hath his owne propre tourme quantitie We say that Christ is there sacramentally and spiritually without fourme or quantitie In this coÌ„parison is both sleight crafte The answer In the first part of it which is that they say there is mention of the body of Christ which is propre of thumanitie of Christ In the seconde parte whiche is of we say there is no mention of Christes body but of Christ who in his diuine nature is vnderstanded present without a body Nowe the Sacrament is institute of Christes body and bloud and because the diuine nature in Christicontinueth the vnitie with the body of Christ we must nedes confesse where the body of Christ is there is whole Christ God man And whe we speake of Christes body we must vnderstande a true body whiche hath both fourme and quantitie and therfore suche as confesse the true Catholique fayth they affirme of Christes body all truth of a naturall body whiche although it hath all those truthes of fourme and quantitie yet they say Christes body is not present after the maner of quantitie nor in a visible fourme as it was conuersaunt in this present life but that there it is truely in the SacrameÌ„t the very true body of Christ which good men beleue vpon the credite of Christ that sayd so knowlege therwith the maner of that preseÌ„ce to be an high mystery and the maner so spirituall as the â—arnall man can not by discourse of reason reache it but in his discourse shal as this auctor doth thinke it a vanitie and folishenesse Whiche folishenesse neuerthelesse ouercommeth the wisdome of the worlde And thus I haue opened what they say on the Catholique parte Now for the other parte wherof this auctor is and with his fayth we saye the wordes seme to imply that Christes humayne body is not in the SacrameÌ„t in that it is sayd Christ to be there sacramentally spirituallye without fourme or quantitie whiche saiyng hath no scripture for it For the scripture speaketh of Christs body which was betrayed for vs to be geuen vs to be eaten Where also Christes diuinitie is present as accompaniyng his humanitie which humanitie is specially spoken of the presence of whiche humanite when it is denyed then is there no text to proue the presence of Christes diuinitie specially that is to say otherwise then it is by his omnipotencye presente euery where And to conclude this piece of comparison this maner of speache was neuer I thinke redde that Christ is present in the SacrameÌ„t without fourme or quantitie And S. Paule speaketh of a fourme in the godhead Qui quum in forma dei esset Who Phil. 2. when he was in the fourme of God So as if Christ be present in the Sacrament without all fourme then is he there neither as God nor man whiche is a straunger teachyng theÌ„ yet hath been heard or redde of but into such absurdities in dede do they fall who entreat irreuerently and vntruely this high misterie This is here worthy a speciall note how by the maner of the speache in the latter parte of this difference the teachyng semeth to be that Christ is spiritually present in the Sacrament because of the worde there which thou reader mayest compare how it agreeth with the rest of this auctors doctrine Let vs go to the next They say that the fathers and Prophetes of the The auctor old testament did not eate the body nor drinke the bloud of Christ We say that they did eat his body and drinke his bloud although he wer not yet borne nor incarnated This comparison of difference is clerkely The answer conceyued as it wer of a ryddle wherin nay yea when they be opened agree consent The fathers did eate Christes body drinke his bloud in truth of promyse whicht was effectual to theÌ„ of redemption to be wrought not in truth of presence as we do for confirmation of redemption already wrought They had a certayne promyse and we a certayne present payment they did eate Christ spiritually beleuing in him that was to come but they did not eate Christes body present in the Sacrament sacramentally and spiritually as we do Their sacramentes were figures of the thynges but out conteyne the very thinges And therfore albeit in a sence to the learned men it may be verefyed that the fathers did eat the body of Christ drink his bloud yet there is no suche forme of wordes in scripture it is more agreable to the simplicitie of scripture to say the fathers before Christes natiuite did not eate the body and bloud of Christ whiche body bloud Christ himselfe truely toke of the body of the virgin Marie For although S. Paule in the tenth to the Corinthians be so vnderstanded of some as the fathers should eat the same spiritual meat drinke the same spiritual drinke that we do to which vnderstaÌ„dyng al do not agree yet folowyng that vnderstaÌ„dyng we may not so presse the words as there should be noÌ„ differeÌ„ce at al this one special differeÌ„ce S. Augustine noteth how their sacramentes conteyned the promyse of that whiche in our sacramentes is geueÌ„ Thus he sayth this is euideÌ„t of it selfe how to vs in the holy supper Christ sayth This is my body that shall be betrayed for you Take eate which was neuer sayd to the fathers although their fayth
in substance agreed with our hauyng al one Christ mediatour whiche they loked for to come we acknowledge to be already coÌ„me Come to come as S. Augustine sayth differeth But Christ is one by whom all was create mans fal repared from whom is all fedyng corporall spirituall in whom al is restored in heauen in earth In this fayth of Christ the fathers were fedde with heauenly spiritual foode whiche was the same with ours in respecte of the restitution by Christ redemption by them hoped whiche is atchieued by the mystery of the body and bloud of Christ by reason wherof I denye not but it may be sayd in a good sence howe they dyd eate the body and bloud of Christ before he was incarnate but as I sayd before scripture speaketh not so and it is no holsome facion of speache at this tyme which furthereth in sounde to the eares of the rude the pestilent heresy wherin Ione of kent obstinately Ione of KeÌ„tes obstinacye dyed that is to say that Christ toke nothyng of the virgyn but brought his body with him froÌ„ aboue beyng a thyng worthy to be noted how the old heresi deniyng the true takyng of the fleshe of Christ in the virgyns woÌ„de at the same tyme to reuiue When the true deliuerance of Christes fleshe in the holy supper be of vs eateÌ„ is also denyed For as it is a mere truth without figure yet an high mistery godsworke in thincarnatioÌ„ of Christ wherin our fleshe was of Christ truly takeÌ„ of the virgyns substance So is it a mere truth without figure yet an high mistery gods worke in the geuyng of the same true fleshe truly to be in the supper eateÌ„ WheÌ„ I exclude figure in the Sacrament I meane not of the visible parte whiche is called a figure of the celestial inuisible parte whiche is truly there without figure wherby to empayre the truth of that preseÌ„ce which I adde to auoyde cauillatioÌ„ And to make an ende of this coÌ„parison this I say that this article declareth waÌ„tones to make a differeÌ„ce in wordes where none is in the sence rightly taken witâ— a noueltie of speache not necessary to be vttred nowe They say that the body of Christ is euery day many The auctor tymes made as often as there be masâ—es sayd and that then and there he is made of breade and wyne we say that Christes body was neuer but ones made and then not of the nature substaunce of bread and wyne but of the substaunce of his blessed mother The body of Christ is by goddes omnipotency The answer who so worketh in his worde made present vnto vs at suche tyme as the churche prayeth it may please him so to do whiche prayour is ordred to be made in the booke of common prayour now set forth Wherin we require of God the creatures of bread and wyne to be sanctified and to be to vs the body and bloud of Christ whiche they can not be onles God worketh it make them so to be In whiche mistery it was neuer taught as this auctor willyngly mysreporteth that Christes most precious body is made of the matter of bread but in that ordre exhibitie made present vnto vs by coÌ„uersion of the substaunce of bread into his precious body not a new body made of a newe matter of bread wyne but a newe presence of the body that is neuer old made preseÌ„t there wher the substaÌ„ce of bread wine was before So as this coÌ„parison of differeÌ„ce is mere wraÌ„glyng so euideÌ„t as it nedeth no further answer but a note â—o how they be not ashamed to trifle in so great a matter without cause by wrong termes to bring the truth in slaunder if it were possible May not this be accompted as a parte of Gods punishement for men of knowlege to wryte to the people such matter seriously as were not tollerable to be by a scoffer diuised in a play to supply when his felowe had forgotten his parte They say that the masse is a sacrifice satisfactory for synne by the deuocion of the priest that offreth The auctor and not by the thyng that is offred But we say that their â—aiyngs a most haynous yea and detestable errour agaynst the glorye of Christ For the satisfaction of our synnes is not the deuotion nor offryng of the priest but thonly host and satisfaction for al the synnes of the world is the death of Christ and thoblation that Christ himselfe offred ones vpon the crosse and neuer but ones nor neuer none but he And therfore that oblation whiche the priestes make dayly in their papisticall masses can not be satisfaction for other mennes synnes by the priestes deuotion but is a mere illusion and subtyll craft of the deuill wherby Antichrist hath many yeres blinded and deceyued the world This comparison is out of the matter of the presence of Christes most precious body The answer in the Sacrament whiche presence this auctor in the first part of his coÌ„parison semeth by implication to graunte when he findeth faulte that the priestes deuotion should be a sacrifice satisfactorie and not the thyng that is offred whiche maner of doctrine I neuer red and I thinke it myselfe it ought to be improued if any such there be to make the deuotioÌ„ of the priest a satisfactioÌ„ For vndoubtedly Christ is our satisfactioÌ„ wholly fully who hath payde our hole debte to god the father for thappesing of his iust wrath against vs and hath caÌ„celled the byll obligatory as S. Paule sayth that was against vs. For further openyng wherof if it be asked howe he satisfyed we aniwere as we be taught by the scriptures by thaccomplishement of the wyl of his father in his innoceÌ„t suffryng his willyng obedieÌ„t suffering the miseryes of this worlde without synne the violent persecution of the worlde euen to the death of the crosse sheddyng of his most precious bloud Wherin was perfited the willyng sacrifice that he made of himselfe to God the father for vs of whom it was writen in the beginnyng of the booke that he should be the body perfyte accoÌ„plishmeÌ„t of al sacrifices as of whom all other sacrifices before were shadowes figures And here is to be coÌ„sidered howe the obedient wyl in Christes sacrifice is specially to be noted who suffred because he would Whiche S. Paule setteth forth in declaratioÌ„ of Christes humilitie And although that willyng obedieÌ„ce was ended perfited on the crosse to the whiche it coÌ„tinued froÌ„ the begining by reasoÌ„ wherof thoblatioÌ„ is in S. Paules speach attribute ther vnto yet as in the sacrifice of abrahaÌ„ wheÌ„ he offred Isaac the ernest wil of offryng was accoÌ„pted for the offryng in dede wherpoÌ„ it is sayd in scripture that AbrahaÌ„ offred Isaac the declaration of the wil of AbrahaÌ„ is called the offryng So the declaration of Christes wil
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
substaunce of bread as in the soule of man both these chaunges be meruelous bothe be in the truth of there chaunge whervnto they be chaunged of like truthe and realite to be done in dede they resemble one an other in the secrecie of the mysterie and the ignoraunce of our sences for in neyther is any outwarde chaunge at all and therfore there was neuer man tryppyd himselfe more hansomely to take a fall then this auctour doth in this place not onely in corruptyng euydently and notably the words of Emissene with owâ— purpose wher by neuerthelesse shewed his good will but also by setting forth such matter as ouerturneth all his teachynge at ones For nowe thauctor must say the chaunge in mans soule by Bapâ—isme to be there made the sonne of God is but in figure and signification not true and reall in dede or els graunte the true Cathelique doctrine of the turne of the visible creatures in to the bodye and bloude of Christ to be likewise not in figure and significatioÌ„ but truly really and in dede And for the thyng chaunged as the soule of man in mannes inwarde nature is chaunged so the inwarde nature of the bread is changed And then is that euasion taken awaye whiche this authour vseth in an other place of Sacramentall chaunge whiche should be in the outwarde parte of the visible creatures to the vse of signification This author noteth thage of Emissen and I note with all howe playnely he writeth for confirmation of the Catholique teachynge who in dede because of his auncientie and playne writynge for declaracioÌ„ of the matter in forme of teachyng with owt conteÌ„tion is one whose authorite the churche hath much in allegation vsed to the conuiction of such as haue impugned the Sacrament eyther in truthe of the presence of Christes very body or transubstantiation for the speakynge of the inwarde chaunge doth poynte as it were the change of the substaunce of bread with resemblyng thervnto the soule of man changed in Baptisme This one authour not beynge of any reproued and of so many approued and by this in thallegacion after this maner corrupte might suffice for to conclude all brablyng agaynste the sacrament But I wil exameÌ„ mo particularities I haue before answered to Hilarie to Hilarie whom neuertheles I should aptely haue said sumwhat nowe to note howe he distincteth owtwardly inwardly by beleue corporal sight For owtwardly as Emissene saieth we â—e no chaunge and therfore we see after consecration as before whiche we may therfore call bread but we beleue that inwardly is whiche as Emissene saieth is the substance of the bodye of Christe whervnto the chaunge is made of the inwarde nature of bread as by the comparison of Emissen doth appeare Theise wordes of Epiphanius do Epiphanins playnely ouer turne this auctors doctrine of a figuratiue speache for a figure can not geue lyfe onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lyfe and the speache of this 〈◊〉 of the Sacrament doth necessaryly implye beary true presence of Christes bodye auctor or life And then as often as the authour is ouer throune in the truth of the presence so often is he by zuinglius rule ouerthrowen in traÌ„substanciation As for the name of bread is graunted because it was so and transubstantiation doth not take awaye but it is meate because of the visible matter remaynynge This sayinges be sought owt by this authour onely to wrangle not taken owt where the mysterie is declared and preached to be taught as a doctrine thereof but onely signified by the waye and spoken of vpon occasion the sence wherof faythfull men knowe otherwise then appeareth at the first readynges to the carnall man but by suche like speaches the Arrians impugned the diuinite of Christ Chrisostome speaketh in this place of Chrisostome wyne as Cyprian dyd before against those that offre no wyne but water Chrisostome saiethe thus Christ vsed wyne I graunte he did so For he dyd coÌ„secrate that creature as Emissene sayth turned it in the celebration dispensation of these mysteries But this sayng towcheth nothing the doctrine of traÌ„substantiatioÌ„ The second saying of Chrisostome which I neuer red but in Peter martyrs booke who saieth it is not printed this sentence toucheh this auctours doctrine muche If the breade by consecration be deliuered from the name of breade exalted to the name of our lordes body Nowe consider reader if this maner of speache by Chrisostome here meaneth an effectual namynge to make the substaunce of the body of Christ present as Chrisostome in his publique approued workes is vnderstaÌ„ded of all to teache then is the deliueraunce from the name of breade of like effecte to take a waye the reason of the name of bread whiche is the chaunge in substaunce therof Or if this auctor will say that by the name of breade Chrisostome vnderstaÌ„deth the bare name howe can that staÌ„de without reprouse of sainct Paule who after this authours mynde calleth it bread after consecration and so do many other by this authour alleged here percace may be saide what shuld I reason what he ment when he saieth playnely the nature of bread still remayneth To this I saie that as Chrisostome in this place of an epistell not published by credite saith that the nature of breade remayneth so Cyprian that was older then he saieth the nature of bread is chaunged which Chrisostome in his other workes by publique credite set a brode semeth not to denye Nowe the worde nature signifieth both the substaunce and also propriete of the nature The substaunce therfore after CypriaÌ„ by the worde of god is chaunged but yet the proper effecte is not chaunged but in th accidentes remayne with out illusion by whiche diuers signification acception of the worde nature both the sayinges of S. Cyprian and Sainct Chrisostome if this be his saying may be accorded and not with standynge the contrariete in lettre agre neuerthelesse in sence by twene themselfe and agree with the true doctrine of transubstantiacion Adde to this howe the wordes of Chrisostome next folowyng this sentence alleged by this auctor and as it semeth of purpose lefte here owt doth both confounde this authors enterprise and coÌ„firme the true doctrine whiche wordes be these and is not called two bodyes but one bodye of the sonne of God of Chrisostome I shall speake againe herafter Sainct Ambrose doth not as this author Ambrosius would haue it impugne transubstantiacion but confirmeth it most playnely because he teacheth the true preseÌ„ce of Christes body in the SacrameÌ„t whiche he sayth is by change and thynges still remayning and that maye be verified in the owtwarde visible matter that is to say the accideÌ„tes remayning with there propre effectes whiche therfore maye worthly be called thinges And here I wold aske this authour if his teachyng as he preteÌ„deth wer the catholique fayth the bread onely signified Christes bodye what should neade this force of gods worde that S. Ambrose speaketh of
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
vs to be so boulde in so high a mysterie to begynne to discusse Christes intent what should moue vs to thinke that Christ would vse so many wordes without effectuall and reall significacion as be rehersed touchyng the mysterie of this Sacrament First in the .vi. of Iohn whan Christ had taught of the eatyng of him beyng the bread descended from heauen and declaring that eating to signify beleuing wherat was no murmuryng that then he should entre to speake of geuyng of his fleshe to be eaten and his bloud to be dronken and to say he would geue a bread that is his fleshe whiche he would geue for the life of the worlde In whiche wordes Christ maketh mention of two giftes and therfore as he is truth must needes intend to fulfill them both And therfore as we beleue the gift of his fleshe to the Iewes to bee crucified So we must beleue the gift of his fleshe to be eaten of that gift lyuerie and seisme as we say to be made of him that is in his ê“mises faithful as Christ is to be made in both And therfore whan he sayd in his supper Take eat This is my bodie he must nedes intend plainely as his wordes of promise required these woordes in his supper purport to geue as really then his bodie to be eaten of vs as he gaue his bodie in dede to be crucified for vs aptely neuerthelesse and conueniently for eche effect and therfore in maner of geuyng diuersely but in the substaunce of the same geuen to be as his wordes beare wytnes the same and therfore sayd This is my bodie that shal be berrayed for you expressyng also the vse wheÌ„ he sayd Take eat which wordes in deliueryng of materiall bread had been superfluous For what should men do with bread when they take it but eat it specially when it is broken But as Cyrill saith Christe opened there vnto theÌ„ the practise of that doctrine he spake of in the .vi. of Sainct Iohn because he sayd he would geue his fleshe for foode whiche he would geue for the life of the worlde he for fulfillyng of his promise sayd Take eate this is my bodie whiche wordes haue been taught beleued to be of effecte and operatorie and Christe vnder the forme of bread to haue been his verie bodie Accordyng wherunto S. Paule noreth the receauer to be giltie when he doth not esteme it our Lordes bodie wherwith it pleaseth Christ to fede such as be in him regenerate to thintente that as man was redemed by Christ sufferyng in the nature of his humanitie so to purchace for man the kingdome of heauen ioste by Adams fall Euen likewise in the nature of the same humanitic giuyng it to be eaten to norishe man make him strong to walke and continue his iorney to emoye that kingdome And therfore to set forth liuely vnto vs the communication of the substance of Christes most precious bodie in the Sacrament and the same to be in dede deliuered Christ vsed plaine wordes testified by the EuaÌ„gelistes S. Paule also rehersed the same wordes in the same plain termes in the .xi. to the Corinthians and in the tenth geuyng as it were an exposion of theffecte vseth the same propre wordes declaryng theffecte to be the coÌ„municatioÌ„ of Christes bodie and bloud And one thing is notable touching the scripture that in suche notable speaches vttered by Christ as might haue an ambiguitie the Euangelistes by some circumstaunce declared it or some tyme opened it by plaine interpretacion as when Christ sayd he would dissolue the temple and within three daies buylde it againe The EuaÌ„gtlistes by and by addeth for interpretacioÌ„ This he said of the temple of his bodie And when Christe sayd he is Helias and I am the true vine the circumstaunce of the text openeth the ambiguitie But to shew that Christ should not meane of his verie bodie when he so spake Neither S. Paule after ne the EuaÌ„gtlistes in the place adde any wordes or circumstauÌ„ces wherby to take away the propre significacion of the wordes bodie and bloud so as the same might same not in dede geueÌ„ as the Catholique faith reacheth but in significacion as thauctor would haue it For as for the wordes of Christ The spirit geueth life the fleshe profiteth nothing be to declare the two natures in Christ eche in their propertie apart considered but not as they be in Christes persoÌ„ vnited the mysterie of which vnioÌ„ suche as beleued not Christ to be God could not consider and yet to insinuate that vnto them Christ made mention of his descension from heauen and after of his ascension thither againe wherby they might vnderstand him verie God whose fleshe taken in the virgyns wombe and so geuen spiritually to be eaten of vs as I haue before opened viuisike and geueth life And this shall suffice here to shew how Christes inteÌ„t was to geue verely as he did in dede his precious bodie and bloud to be eaten and drunken accordyng as he taught theÌ„ to be verely meat and drinke and yet gaue and geueth them so vnder fourme of visible creatures to vs as we may conueniently and without horror of our nature receaue theÌ„ Christ therin condiscendyng to our infirmitie As for such other wranglyng as is made in the vnderstandyng of the wordes of Christ shall after be spoken of by further occasion The auctor vttereth a great meny wordes from the .viii. to the .xvii. chapter of the first booke declaryng spirituall hungre and thurst and the releuyng of the same by spirituall feadyng in Christ and of Christ as we constantly beleue in him to the confirmacioÌ„ of which beleif the auctor would haue the Sacramentes of Baptisme and of the bodie and bloud of Christ to be adminicles as it were and that we by them be preched vnto as in water bread and wyne and by them all our sences as it were spoken vnto or proprely touched whiche matter in the grosse although ther be some wordes by the way not tollerable yet if those wordes set apart the same were in the summe graunted to be good teachyng and holesome exhorcacion it conteyneth so no more but good matter not well applyed For the Catholique churche that professeth the truth of the presence of Christes bodie in the Sacrament would therewith vse that declaration of hungre of Christ and that spirituall refreshyng in Christe with the effect of Christes passion and death and the same to be thonely meane of mans regeneracion and feadyng also with the differences of that feadyng froÌ„ bodiely feadyng for continuyng this yearthly life But this toucheth not the principal point that should be entreated Whether Christ so ordered to fede suche as be regenerate in him to geue to them in the Sacrament the same his bodie that he gaue to be crucified for vs. The good man is fedde by faith and by the merites of Christes passion beyng the meane of the gift of that faith other giftes also and by
that point So much is he contrarie to him selfe in this worke and here in this place not caryng what he sayth reporteth suche a teachyng in the first parte of this difference as I haue not hearde of before There was neuer man of learnyng that I haue red termed the matter so that Christ goeth into the stomoke of the maÌ„ that receaueth and no further For that is writteÌ„ contra Stercoronistas is nothyng to this teachyng nor the speache of any glose if there be any such were herein to be regarded The Catholique doctrine is that by the holy coniunction in the Sacrament we be ioyned to Christ really because we receaue in the holy supper the most precious substaunce of his glorious body whiche is a fleshe geuyng life And that is not digested into our fleshe but worketh in vs and attempereth by heauenly nurrttor our body and soule beyng partakers of his passyon to be conformable to his will and by suche spiritual foode to be made more spirituall In the receauyng of whiche foode in the most blessed Sacrament our body and soule in them that duelie coÌ„municate worketh together in due ordre without other discussyon of the mysterie then God hath ordred that is to say the soule to beleue as it is taught and the body to do as God hath ordred knowyng that gloryous fleshe by our eatyng can not be consumed or suffre but to be most profitable vnto such as do accustonie worthely to receiue the same But to say that the churche teacheth how we receaue Christ at our mouth and he goeth into our stomoke and no further is a reporte which by the iust iudgemente of God is suffred to come out of the mouthe of them that fyght against the truth in this most high mysterie Now where this auctor in the secoÌ„de part by an aduersiteue with a But to make the comparison telleth what he and his say he telleth in effect that which euery Catholique man must nedes and doth confesse For such as receaue Christes most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament worthly they haue Christ dwellyng in theÌ„ who conforteth both body and soule whiche the church hath euer taught most plainely so as this comparison of differeÌ„ce in his two parties is made of one open vntruth a truth disguised as though it were now first opened by this auctor and his whiche maner of handelyng declareth what sleyght and shift is vsed in the matter They say that Christ is receyued in the mouth The auctor entreth in with the bread and wyne We say that he is receyued in the heart and entreth in by faith Here is a pretie slaight in this coÌ„parison The answer where both partes of the comparison may be vnderstanded on bothe sydes and therfore here is by thauctor in this coÌ„parison no issue ioyned For the worthy receauyng of Christs body and bloud in the Sacramente is both with mouth heart both in facte faith After whiche sorte S. Peter in the last supper receaued Christes body wheras in the same supper Iudas receaued it with mouth in fact only wherof S. Augustin speketh in this wise Non dicunt ista nisi qui de meÌ„sa domini August contra li teras pe til lib. 2 cap. 47. vitaÌ„sumunt Sicut Petrus non iudicium sicut Iudas et tamen ipsa vtrique fuit vna sed non vtrique valuit ad vnum quia ipsi noÌ„ erant vnuÌ„ Whiche wordes be thus muche to say That they say not so as was before entreated but suche as receaue life of our Lordes table as Peter did not iudgment as Iudas and yet the table was all one to them both but it was not to all one effect in theÌ„ both because they were not one Here S. Augustine noteth the difference in the receauer not in the Sacrament receaued whiche beyng receaued with the mouth onely and Christ entryng in mysterie only doth not sanctify vs but is the stone of stumblyng and our iudgement and condempnacion but if he be receaued with mouthe and body with hearte and fayth to such he bryngeth life and nurrishemeÌ„t wherfore in this comparison thauctor hath made no difference but with diuers termes the catholique teachyng is deuided into two membres with a But facioned neuertheles in an other phrase of speache then the church hath vsed whiche is so commen in this auctor that I will not hereafter note it any more for a faulte Let vs go further They say that Christ is really in the SacrameÌ„tall The auctor bread beyng reserued an whole yere so long as the forme of bread remaineth but after the receauyng therof he flieth vp they say from the receyuer vnto heauen as sone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or chaunged in the stomoke But we say that Christ remayneth in the man that worthely receaueth it so long as the man remayneth a membre of Christ This comparison is like the other before The answer wherof the first parte is garnished and emblossed with vntruth and the second parte that the church hath euer taught most truly that al must beleue and therfore that pece hath no vntruth in the matter but in the maner only beyng spokeÌ„ as though it diffred froÌ„ the continuall open reachyng of the churche which is not so wherfor in the maner of it in vtteraunce signifieth an vntruth whiche in the matter it selfe is neuerthelesse most true For vndoutedly Christ remaineth in the maÌ„ that worthely receiueth the sacrameÌ„t so loÌ„g as that man remayneth a membre of Christ In this first part there is a fault in the matter of the speache for explicacion wherof I wil examin it particularly This auctor saith they say that Christ is really in the SacrameÌ„tal bread beyng reserued an hole yere c. The church geuyng faith to Christes worde wheÌ„ he sayd This is my body c. techeth the body of Christ to be present in the SacrameÌ„t vnder the forme of bread vnto which words wheÌ„ we put the worde really it serueth only to expresse that truth in open wordes which was afore to be vnderstaÌ„ded in sence For in Christ who was the body of al the shadowes figures of the law who did exhibit geue in his sacrameÌ„tes of the new law the things promised in his sacramentes of tholde lawe We must vnderstaÌ„d his wordes in the institucion of his sacraments without figure in the substance of the celestial thyng of theÌ„ therfore when he ordred his most precious bodye bloud to be eateÌ„ drunken of vs vnder the formes of bread wyne we professe beleue that truely he gaue vs his most precious body in the SacrameÌ„t for a celestial foode to coÌ„fort strength vs in this miserable life And for the certayntie of the truth of his worke therin we ê“fesse he geueth vs his body realy that is to say in ded his body the thing it self Which is the heauenly part of the SacrameÌ„t
spake it by an Ironie or skorne yet it implyeth that all had receyued that he thus mocketh Whiche after the sorte he writeth was neuer diuised by Papiste or other to be so taught otherwise then as this auctor might rede it as an idle argument to shewe absurdite in reason For in gods workes as the sacramentes be we must thinke al semelynes in dede without deformite eueÌ„ as we beleue al gods iudgemeÌ„tes iust true although reasoÌ„ coÌ„clude in theÌ„ euideÌ„t iÌ„iquitie MaÌ„s reasoÌ„ wheÌ„ it semeth most galauÌ„t is ful of sportes folie Gods workes be al semelynes without confusion monstre or any such absurditie as this auctor supposeth Although I caÌ„ not in the sacrameÌ„t with the eye of my reasoÌ„ locally distincte Christes head froÌ„ his foote his legge froÌ„ his arme wher in the boke of coÌ„mon prayor it is truly sayd iÌ„ eche part of the bread coÌ„secrat brokeÌ„ to be Christs hole body if one of curiosite wold questioÌ„ with me I of foly wold answer him first wher is Christs head I should say here pointyng with my finger he would thinke it first a lytle head TheÌ„ he would aske wher is his foote I shold say ther pointe in the same place agayne for there is noone other left If he replyed that I poynted before the same for the head might not the thyrd a Catholique maÌ„ that stode by trowe you wisely caiie vs both madde to goo aboute to discusse that we must grauÌ„t we see not wheÌ„ by faythe we knowe only the beyng present of Christes most preciouse body theÌ„ by blynd reason to discusse the maner of beyng in the situacion of suche partes as we do not see Now if there came among vs a fourth man as a mediator would do as kyng Alexander did when he could not open the knot of Quintê° Curâ—us maketh mencion of this facte of Alexander Gordius he did cutte it with his sworde if this maÌ„ should say I wyll releaue this matter you beleue Christes body is present in dede really and substaÌ„cially leue out really and substantially and say his body is preseÌ„t in significacion then it may be easely conceyued by reason that Christes body beyng neuer so great may be aswell signifyed by a lytle peece of bread as by a great peece of breade euen as a manne may wryte a great mans name aswell in smallettres shorte as in great letters at lenght And to commende further his diuise vnto vs would percase tell how many absurdities as he thinketh and inconueniences might be auoyded by it This fourth man I speake of makyng him selfe a mediatour vnmete therfore because he hath no participatioÌ„ with fayth yet if our religion and fayth wer mans inuention as that of Numa Pompilius was should not vtter thys his conceyte all idelly For 〈◊〉 speaketh of a ioly easye way without any misterye or meruayle at all But our fayth is of hearyng as hath been preached contynually from the beginnyng grounded vpon the most sure truthe of the worde of God and therfore can not be attempered as man would diuise it to exclude trauayle in carnal reason For then the Sabellians wer to be Sabellians herkened vnto Who by their heresy toke away all the harde and difficile questions in the mistery of the trinitie The Arrians also releued muche mannes Arrians reason in consideration of Christes death deniyng hym to be of the same substaunce with his father whiche was a pestilent heresye Now in the SacrameÌ„t to say Christes bodye is present only by signification as it releueth in some mennes indgementes the absurdities in reason which ought not to be relieued So it condempneth al the true publique fayth testified in the churche from the beginyng hitherto sheweth the lerned holy men to haue wondred in their writynges at that whiche hath no wounder at al to ordeyne one thyng to be the signification of an other which is practised dayly among men But from the beginnyng the mistery of the Sacrament hath been with wounder merueyled at how Christ made bread his body and wyne his bloud and vnder the figure of these visible creatures gaue inuisibly his precious body and bloud presently there tedly S. Augustyne sayth We may not of mens maners esteme the sacramentes they Contra liâ—â—eras â—eti lib. 20. be made by him whose they be but worthely vsed they bryng reward vnworthely handled they bring indgemeÌ„t He that dispenseth the Sacrament worthely and he that vseth it vnworthely be not one but that thyng is one whither it be handeled worthely or vnworthely so as it is neyther better ne worse but life or deathe of them that vse it Thus sayth S. Augustyne and therfore be the receyuer worthy or vnworthy good or euil the substaunce of Christes Sacrament is all one as beyng goddes worke who worketh vniformely and yet is not in all that receyue of like effecte not for any alteracion or diminution in it but for the diuersitie of him that receyueth So as the report made here of the doctrine of the Catholique churche vnder the name of Papistes is a very true reporte and for want of grace reproued by thauctor as no true doctrine And the seconde part of the comparison on thauctors side conteyned vnder we say by them that in hypocrisye preteÌ„d to be truthes frendes conteyneth an vntruth to the simple reader and yet hath a matter of wranglyng to the learned reader because of the worde very which referred to thefecte of eatyng the body of Christ wherby to receyue life may be so spokeÌ„ that none receyue the body of Christe with the very effecte of life but suche as eate the sacrament spirituallye that is to saye with true fayth worthely And yet euill men as Iudas receiue the same very body touchyng the truth of the presence therof that S. Peter did For in the substaunce of the Sacrament whiche is Goddes worke is no variete who ordeyneth all as afore vniformely but in man is the variete amonges whoÌ„ he that receyueth worthely Christes body receyueth life and he that receyueth vnworthely receyueth coÌ„dempnacion There foloweth further They say that good men eate the body of Christ The auctor and drinke his bloud only at that tyme when they receyue the Sacrament we say that they eate drinke and fede of Christ continually so long as they be membres of his body What forehede I pray you is so heatdened The answer that can vtter this among them that know any thing of the learnyng of Christes churche In whiche it is a most coÌ„mon distinction that there is thre maner of eatynges of Christes body and bloud one spiritual only whiche is here affirmed in the seconde parte we say wherein the auctor and his say as the churche sayth Another eatyng is bothe sacramentally spiritually whiche is when men worthely communicate in the supper The thyrd is sacramentally only whiche is by men vnworthy who eate and drynke in the holy
in his last supper was an offryng of him to God the father assuryng there his Apostels of his wil determination by thē al the worlde that his body should be betrayed for thē vs his precious bloud shedde for remissiō of synne which his worde he cōfermed thē with the gift of his precious body to be eaten his precious bloud to be dronken In which mistery he declared his body and bloud to be the very sacrifice of the worlde by him offred to God the father by the same wil that he sayd his body shuld be betrayed for vs. And therby ascertayned vs to be in him willyng that the Iewes on the crosse semed to execute by violence force against his wil. And therfore as christ offred himself on the crosse in the execution of the worke of his wil so he offred himselfe in his supper in declaration of his wil wherby we might be the more assured of the effect of his deth which he suffred willyngly determinatly for the redemptiō of the worlde with a most perfite oblation satisfaction for the synnes of the worlde exhibite offred by him to God the father for the recōciliatiō of mannes nature to gods fauor grace And this I wryte because this auctor speaketh so precisely howe Christ offred himself neuer but ones wherby if he meane by ones offryng the hole action of our redēption whiche was consummate perfited vpon the crosse Al must confesse the substaunce of that worke of redemption by thoblation of Christes body on the crosse to haue been absolutly finished so ones offred for al. But there is no scripture wherupō we myght conclude that Christ dyd in this mortall life but in one particuler momēt of tyme offre himselfe to his father For S. Paule describeth it to the Philippians vnder the Phil. 2. worde of humiliation to haue continued the hole tyme of Christes conuersation here euē to the death the death of the crosse And that thys obedience to God in humilitie is called offeryng appeareth by S. Paule when he exhorteth vs to offre our bodies which meaneth a continual obedience in thobseruation of Gods will he calleth Oblationem gentium Rom. 12 to bryng them to fayth And Abrahās willyng obedience ready at Gods commaūdement to offre Isaac is called the offerynge of Isaac and is in very dede a true offeryng and eche man offreth himselfe to God when he yeldeth to gods callyng and presenteth himselfe ready to do gods wyl and cōmaundement who then may be say de to offre his seruyce that is to say to place his seruice in sight and before him before whom it should be done And because our sauiour Christ by the decree of the hole trinite roke mannes nature vpon him to suffre death for our redemption whiche death in his last supper he declared playnly he would suffre We reade in S. Cyprian how Christ offred himselfe in his supper fulfillyng the figure of Melchisedech who by thoffryng of bread and wyne signifyed that high mistery of Christes supper in which Christ vnder the forme of bread and wyne gaue his very body and bloud to be eaten and dronken and in the geuynge therof declared the determination of his glorious Passion and the fruite and effecte therof Whiche doyng was a swete pleasaunte oblatiō to God the father conteinyng a most perfyte obedience to Gods wyll and pleasure And in the mistery of this supper was writen made and sealed a most perfyte testimonie for an effectuall memorye of Christes offeryng of himselfe to his father and of his death and passion with the fruite therof And therfore Christ ordeyned this supper to be obserued and continued for a memory to his cummyng So as we that sawe not with our bodely eyes Christes death and passion may in the celebration of the supper be most suredly ascertayned of the truth out of Christes owne mouth Who styl speaketh in the person of the ministre of the church This is my body that is betrayed for you This is my bloud that is shedde for you in remission of synne and therwith maketh his very body truely present and his precious bloud truely present to be taken of vs eaten and dronken Wherby we be assured that Christ is the same to vs that he was to them and vseth vs as familiarly as he did them offreth himself to his father for vs aswel as for thē declareth his wil in the fruit of his death to perteyn aswel to vs as to thē Of which death we be assured by his own mouth that he suffred the same to thef fecte he spake of by the continual feadyng in this high mystery of the same very body that suffed and feadyng of it without consumptiō beyng continually exhibite vnto vs a liuyng body and liuely bloud not only our soule is specially and spiritually comforted and our body therby reduced to more conformable obedience to the soule but also we by the participation of this most precious body and bloud be ascertayned of resurrectiō and regeneration of our bodyes fleshe to be by gods power made incorruptible immortal to lyue haue fruition in God with our soule for euer Wherfore hauyng this mystery of Christes supper so many truthes in it the churche hath celebrate thē al and knowledged them al of one certayntie in truth not as figures but really in dede that is to say as our body shal be in the general resurrectiō regenerate in dede so we beleue we fede here of Christes body in dede And as it is true that Christes body in dede is betrayed for vs so it is true that he geueth vs to eate his very body in dede And as it is true that Christ was in yearth and dyd celebrate this supper So it is true that he commaunded it to be celebrate by vs tyl he come And as it is true that Christ was very God omnipotēt and very man So it is true that he could do that he affirmed by his worde himselfe to do And as he is most sincere truth So may we be truely assured that he would and did as he sayd And as it is true that he is most iuss so it is true that he assisteth the doyng of his commaundement in the celebration of the holy supper And therfore as he is auctor of this most holy Sacrament of his precious body and bloud so is he the maker of it is the inuisible priest who as Emissene sayth Emissen by his secrete power with his worde chaūgeth the visible creatures into the substāce of his body and bloud Wherin manne the visible priest and ministre by ordre of the churche is only a dispenser of the mystery doyng and saiyng as the holy ghost hath taught the churche to be done and sayd Finally as we be taught by fayth all these to be true so when wanton reasō fayth beyng a shepe goth about by curiositie to empayre any one of these truthes the
is flesh by Gods omnipotency so this auctor entreatyng this matter as he doth hath partly opened the faith of traÌ„substanciation For in dede bread beyng bread is not Christes body but that was bread is now Christes bodâ—e because bread is made Christes bodye because Christ called bread his bodye whiche was in Christ to make bread his body When Christ made water wyne the spech is very propre to say water is made wyne For after like maner of spech we say Christ iustifyeth a wicked manne Christ saueth synners and the physitioÌ„ hath made the sicke man whole and suche dyet will make an whole man sycke All these speches be propre and playne so as construction but not made captious and Sophistical to ioyne that was to that nowe is forgettyng the meane worke When Christe sayd This is my body there is no necessitie that the demonstratioÌ„ this should be referred to the outwarde visible matter but may be referred to the inuisible substaunce As in the speche of God the father vpon Christ in Baptisme This is my sonne And here when this auctor taketh his recreatioÌ„ to speake of the fainyng of the papistes I shal ioyne this Issue in this place that he vnderstaÌ„deth not An issue what he sayth if his knowlege be no better then is vttered here in the penne to be in this poynte clerely coÌ„deÌ„pned of ignoraunce In the .lx. leef thauctor entreateth whither it be a plaine spech of christ to say Eate drinke speakyng of his body and bloud I answer the spech of it selfe is propre coÌ„mauÌ„dyng them preseÌ„t to eate and drinke that is proponed for theÌ„ yet it is not requisite that the nature of maÌ„ shuld with like comon effect worke in eatyng drinkyng that heauenly meate drinke as it doth in earthely carnali meates In this mysterye man doth as Christ ordeyned that is to say receyue with his mouth that is ordred to be receiued with his mouth grauÌ„tyng it neuerthelesse of that dignitie estimation that Christes wordes affirme whither he so doth or no Christes ordinaunce is as it is in the substaunce of it self alone wherof no good man iudgeth carnally or grossely ne discusseth the vnfaythfall questioÌ„ how which he can not coÌ„ceyue but leueth the depenes thereof doth as he is bidden This misterye receyueth no mans thoughtes Christes institution hath a propertie in it whiche can not be discussed by mans sensual reasoÌ„ Christes wordes be spirite life which this auctour wresteth with his owne glose to exclud the truth of the eatyng of Christes flesh in his supper And yet for a shifte if a man would ioyne issue with him putteth to this spech the wordes grossely carnally which wordes in suche a rude vnderstandyng be termes meter to expresse howe dogges deuoure paunches then to be inculked in speakyng of this high mysterye Wherin I wil make the issue with this auctour An issue that no Catholique teaching is so fourmed with suche termes as though we should eate Christes moste precious bodye grossely carnaly ioynyng those wordes so together For els carnally alone may haue a good signification as Hilarye vseth it but contrarywise spekyng in the Catholique teachyng of the maner of Christes presence they call it a spiritual maner of presence and yet there is present by gods powre the very true natural body bloud of Christ hole God man without leuyng his place in heauen in the holy supper meÌ„ vse their mouthes and teathe followyng Christes commaundement in the receiuyng of that holy Sacrament beyng in fayth sufficiently instructe that they do not ne can not teare consume or violate that moste precious body and bloud but vnworthely receiuyng it are cause of theyr owne iugement and condempnation Nowe I wil touche shortely what maye bee sayd to the particuler auctorities brought in by this auctor Origen is noted among other writers Origenes of the churche to drawe the texte to allegories who doth not therby meane to destroye the truth of the lettre therfore wheÌ„ he speketh of a figure sayth not there is a only figure whiche exclusiue only beyng away as it is not found by any auctor Catholike taught that the spech of Christ of the eatyng of his fleshe to be only a figure This auctor hath nothyng auaunced his purpose As for spiritual vnderstandyng meaneth not any destruction of the lettre where the same may stande with the rule of our fayth All Christes wordes be life and spirite containyng in the lettre many tymes that is aboue our capacite as specially in this place of the eatyng of his flesh to discusse the particularities of howe and yet we must beleue to be true that Christ sayth although we can not tell howe For wheÌ„ we go about to discusse of gods misterye howe then we fall from fayth and waxe carnall men and would haue Gods wayes like ours Sainete Chrisostome declareth himselfe Chrisosto howe mysteries must be considered with inwarde eyes whiche is a spirituall vnderstandyng wherby the truth of the mysterye is not as it were by a figuratiue spech empayred but with an humilitie of vnderstandyng in a certaine fayth of the truth merueyled at And here thauetor of the boke vseth a sleight to ioyn figuratiuely to spiritually as though they were alwayes all one whiche is not so Sainct Augustine accordyng to his rules Augustinus of a figuratiue and propre speche taketh this speche Excepte ye eate c. for a figuratiue speche because it semeth to commande in the lettre carnally vnderstaÌ„ded an heynous and a wicked thyng to eate the fleshe of a man as mans carnall imaginacion conceyueth it as appeared by the Capharnites who murmured at it And therfore because only faithfull men can by fayth vnderstande this mysterye of the eatyng of Christes fleshe in the Sacrament in whiche we eate not the carnal fleshe of a commen man as the lettre soundeth but the very spiritual flesh of Christ God man as fayth teacheth It is in that respecte well noted for a figuratiue speche for that it hath suche a sence in the lettre as is hidden froÌ„ the vnfaithfull So as the same lettre beyng to faithful meÌ„ spirite life who in humilitie of fayth vnderstand the same is to the vnfaithful a figure as conteinyng such a mystery as by the outward barke of the lettre they vnderstand not vpon which consideracioÌ„ it semeth probable that the other fathers also signifiyng a great secrecie in this mysterye of the sacrameÌ„t wherin is a worke of god ineffable suche as the Ethnike eares could not abide theitermed it a figure not therby to diminish the truth of the misterye as the propre special name of a figure doth but by the name of a figure reuerently to couer so great a secrecie apte only to be vnderstaÌ„ded of men beleuyng therfore the said fathers in some part of their workes in plaine wordes expresse declare the truth of the mysterye the
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
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
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
called it wherin also remaynethe true sauor and taste withe true propriete to corrupte or putrifie and also nurrishe God for ordrynge fayth of the true manhode in Chrâ—ste is truely byleued by true preachinge ther of and by the scriptures not by the outwarde senses of mene which al togither we must confesse coulde be no certaine ineuiâ—able prouf ther of And therfore Christe appearinge to his disciples goinge in to EmaÌ„s opened the scriptures to them for the prouf of his deathe that he suffred as very man and yet he vsed also in some parte to preache to there senses with sensible exhibition of himself vnto theÌ„ and so all Christes doinges which were moste true do beare testimonie to the trueth but in there degree of testimonie and the fealinge of sainct Thomas beinge as sainct Gregorie saithe miraculeuse serueth for prouf of an other thinge that goddes workein miracle dothe not empaire the truth of the thinge wrought and so sainct Thomas touched then Christ as truely by miracle after his resurrection in his bodye glorified as if he had touched his bodye before glorificacion Fynally in Christes actes or his ordinaunces be no illusions all is truth and perfite trueth and our senses in the visible formes of bread and wine be not illuded but haue there proper obiectes in those accidentes and reason in carnall vnderstandinge brought and subdued in obsequie to fayth doth in the estimacion of the hoste coÌ„secrate yelde to faith accordinge wheâ—unto we confeâ—â—ruely the same to be the body of Christe Where this auctors woulde al the Papistes to laye their heades together c. I knowe no suche Papistes but this I saye without further counsaile whiche this auctor with al his counsaile shall not auoyde We beleue most certainely the resurrection of our flesh and be persuaded by Catholique teachyng that the same flesh by participation of Christes godly flesh in the Sacrament shal be made incorruptible Ioan. 6. yet not after the iudgemeÌ„t of our senses conclusions gathered of them consideryng the maner of the continuall consumptioÌ„ of the sayd bodies wherof sum philosophers haue at lenght after their reasoÌ„ declared their mynde whom Christen men coÌ„temâ—e withal thexperieÌ„ce of senses which they allege being vehemeÌ„t in that matter we reade in scripture of the fedyng of Angels wheÌ„â—oth receyued Gen. 18. them I will spend no mo wordes herein but hauyng auoyded this authors reasonyng against traÌ„substantiacioÌ„ Now let vs examine his authorities First he begynneth with Iustine the Martyr Whose words be not truly by this authour here reported which be these truely translate out of the greke When the Iustinê° Prieast hath ended his thankes geuyng and prayours all the people hath sayde Amen they whom we cal deacons geue to euery one then present a parte of the breade and of the wyne and water consecrated and cary parte to those that be absente this is that foode whâ—che is amonge vs called Eucharistia wherof it is lawfull for no man to be partaker except he be persuaded those thinges to be true that be taught vs and be baptized in the water of regeneracion in remissioÌ„ of synnes and ordreth his lifâ— after the maner whiche Christ hath taught For we do not take these for commen breade or dryncke but like as Iesus Christe our Sauyour incarnate by the worde of God had fleshe and bloud for our saluacion euen so we be taught the fode wherwith our fleshe and bloud be nourrisshed by alteracion when it is consecrate by the prayour of his worde to be the flesh and bloude of the same Iesus incarnate For the Apostelles in those there workes whiche be called Gospelles teache that Iesus dyd so commande them and after he had taken the breade and ended his geuyng tankes sayd do this in my remembraunce This is my body And like wise takyng the cuppe after he had geuen thankes sayde This is my bloud and dyd geue them to his Apostels onelye And here I make an issue with this author An issue that he wittyngly corrupteth Iustine in the allegacion of him who wryteth not in such forme of wordes as this authour allegeth owt of his seconde Appologie nor hath any suche speache The bread vvater and vvyne in this Sacrament ar meates ordeyned purposely to geue thankes to God and therfore be called Eucharistia nor hath not these wordes they be called the body and bloud of Christ but hath in playue wordes that we be taught this foode consecrate by gods worde to be the flesh and bloud of Christ as Christ in his incarnatioÌ„ toke flesh and bloud nor hath not this forme of wordes placed to haue that vnderstandyng hovve the same meate and drinke is chaunged into our fleshe and bloud for the wordes in Iustine speakyng of alteracion of the fode haue an vnderstandyng of the fobe as it is before the couse cracion shewyng how Christ vsed those creatures in this mysterie whiche by alteracion nurrish our flesh and bloud For the body of Christ which is the verye celestiall substauce of the hoste consecrate is not chaunged but without al alteracion spiritually nurrisheth the bodyes soules of them that worthely receyue the same to immortalite wherby appeareth this authors coÌ„clusion that bread vvyne remayne stil vvhich is turned into our flesh bloud is not deduced vpoÌ„ Iustines wordes truly vnderstanded but is a glose inuented by this auctor a peruertyng of Iustines words there true meaninges Whervpon I may saye conclude euen as this au ctor erreth in his reasonyng of mother wytte against transubstaÌ„tiacion eueÌ„ so erreth he in the first allegatioÌ„ of his auctorites by plaine mysceportynge let it be further named or thought on as the thinge deserueth Next Iustine is Iren in thallegatioÌ„ of whoÌ„ this auctor maketh also an vntrue report who hathe not this forme of wordes in the fourth boke contra ValeÌ„tinu that the bread wherin we geue thaÌ„kes vnto God although it be of the earth yet when the name of God is called vpon it is not then commen bread but the bread of thankes geuyng hauynge two thinges in it one earthely and the other heauenly This is Irene alleged by this auctor who I saye wryteth not in suche forme of wordes For his wordes be these Like as the bread which is of the earth receyuing the calling of God is now no commen bread but Eucharistia consistynge of two thynges earthely and heauenly so oure bodyes receyuynge Eucharistia be no more corrupâ—â—bâ—e This be Irenes wordes where Irene doth not call the bread receyuinge the callynge of God the bread of thankes geuyng but Eucharistia and in this Eucharistia he sheweth how that that he calleth the heauely thing is the body and bloud of Christ and therfore sayth in his first booke when the chalice mixt and the breade broken receyue the worde of God it is made Eucharistia of the body and bloud of Christ of whiche the substaunce of our fleshe is stayed and encreased
onely which not with stonding the newe enterprise of this authour to denye the reall preseÌ„ce is so ferce vehement as it ouerthroueth his newe purpose or he cumith in his ordre in his booke to entreat of it For there can no demonstracion be made more euidente for the catholique faith of the real preseÌ„ce of Christs body in the SacrameÌ„t then that the truth of it was so certaynly byleued as they toke Christes very body as verely in the sacrameÌ„t euen as the soule is present in the body of maÌ„ S. Chrisostomes wordes in deade if this Chrisostomus auctour had had them eyther truly translate unto him or had taken the paynes to haue truly traÌ„slate them himselfe whiche as peter martyrsaieth be not in printe but were founde in florence a copy wherof remayneth in tharche deacon or Archebisshoh of Caunterburies handes or els if this authour had reaported the wordes as they be ttanslate in to englishe owt of peter martyrs booke wherin in sum pointe the translator in Englishe semeth to haue attayned by gesse the seÌ„se more perfitely theÌ„ peter martyr vttereth it hiself if eyther of this had beeÌ„ done the mater shuld haue semed for somuch the more playne But what is this to make foundacion of an argumeÌ„te vpoÌ„ a secrete copye of an epistell vttred at one tyme iÌ„ diuerse seÌ„ses I shall to wch one speciall point peter martyr saith in lateÌ„ whoÌ„ the translator in englishe therin followeth that the bread is reputed worthy the name of the lordes body This authour englishyng the same place turnith it exalted to the name of the lordes body which wordes of exalting cum nerer to the purpose of this auctour to haue the bread but a figure ther with neuer the holyer of it selfe But a figure caÌ„ne neuer be accompted worthy the name of our lordes body the very thing of the Sacramente onles there were the thing in dede as there is by coÌ„uersion as the Church truely teacheth Is not here reader a meruelouse diuersitie in reporte and the same so setforth as thowe that cannest but reade englishe maiste euideÌ„tly see it God ordringe it so as such varieties and contradictions shuld so manyfestely appeare where the truth is impugned Againe this auctor makith Chrisostome to speake straÌ„gely in th ende of this auctoritie that the diuine nature restith in the body of Christ as thowgh the nature of man were the staye to the diuine nature wheir as in that vnion the rest is an ineffable mysterie the two natures in Christ to haue one subsistence called termed an hypostasie therfore he that hath translate peter martyr in to englishe doth traÌ„slate it thus The diuine coÌ„stitutioÌ„ the nature of the body adyoyned thiese two both to gyther make one sonne and one person Thow reader maiste compare the bookes that be a brode of Peter martyr in laten peter martyr in englishe and this auctours booke with that I write and so deme whither I saye true or no. But to the purpose of sainct Chrisostomes wordes if they be his wordes he directeth his argument to shewe by the my sterie of the SacrameÌ„t that as that as in it there is no confuâ—ion of natures but eche remayneth in his proprietie So likewise in Christ the nature of his hodheade doth not confounde the nature of his manhode If the visible creatures were in the Sacrament by the presence of Christes body the râ— truly present beinge inuisible also as that body is impalpable also as that is incorruptiptible also as that is then were the visivisible nature altred and as it were confounded whiche Chrisostom saieth is not so for the nature of the bread remayneth by which worde of nature is conueniently signified the propriete of nature For prouf wherof to shewe remayninge of the proprietie with out alteracion Chrisostom maketh onely the resemblance and before I haue shewed howe nature signifieth the proprietie of nature and may signifie the owtward part of nature that is to say thaccideÌ„tes beyng substaunce in his propre significatioÌ„ the inward nature of the thing of the conuersion wherof is specially vnderstanded transubstantiation Nowe foloweth to answere to Belasius who abhorrynge bothe the herises of Eutiches Gelasius and Nestorius in his treatise againste the EutichiaÌ„s forgetteth not to coÌ„pare with there errour in extremitie one the one side thextreme errour of the Nestorians one the other side but it principally entendeth the confusion of the Eutichians with whome he was specially troubled These two herises were not so grosse as thauctour of this boke reporteth them wherin I will writte what Uigilius saith Inter Nestorii ergo quondaÌ„ Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae non rectoris Uigilius diaio 4. sed dissipatoris non pastoris sed praedatoris sacrilegum dogma Eutichetis nefariam detestabilem sectam ita serpeÌ„tinae grassationis sese calliditas temperauit vt vtrumque sine vtriusque periculo plerique vitare non possint dum si quis Nestorii perfidiam damnat Euchicetis putatur errori succumbere rursum dum Eutichianae haeresis impietateÌ„ destruit Nestorii arguitur dogma erigere These be vigilius wordes in his first booke whiche be thus much in Englishe Betwene thabominable teaching of Nestorius sumtyme not ruler but waster not past oÌ„r but pray sercher of the church of coÌ„staÌ„tinople the wicked detestable secte of Eutiches the crafte of the deuels spoyling so facioned it self that meÌ„ could not auoyde any of the sectes without dauÌ„ger of thother So as whiles any maÌ„ rdeÌ„pneth the falsenes of the nestoriaÌ„ he maye be though fallen to the errour of the Eutichian and whiles he distroyeth the wickednesse of the eutichianes herisie he may be chaleÌ„ged to realeue the teachinge of the Nestorian This is the senteÌ„ce of vigilius By whiche appereth howe these herisies were both subtely conueyed without so playne contradiction as this auctor either by ignoraunce or of purpose fayneth ashthowh the nestoriaÌ„ should saye Christ was a perfit man but not God and the Eutichian clene contrary very God but not man For if the herisies had bene suche vigilius had had no cause to speake of any suche ambiguitie as he notith that a maÌ„ shoulde hardely speake againste the one but he might be suspected to fauour the other And yet I graunte that the Nestorians sayinges might implie christ not to be God because they wolde two distincte different natures to make also two distincte persons and so as it were two Christes the one onely man and the other onely God so as by there teachinge God was neither incarnate nor as Gregorie Nazianzene saith maÌ„ deitate for so he is termed to saye The Eutichians as Sainct Augustine saith reasoninge against the Nestoriaus becam heritiques themselfe and because we coÌ„fesse truly by faith but one Christ the sonne of God very God The Eutichians saye although there were in the virgins wombe before thadunation two natures yet after thadunation in that mystery of Christes incarnacion there is but
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
all beynge and adnihilacion is a defection of the creature from God and yet Christes bodye is not augmeÌ„ted by the substaÌ„ce of bread in which body it endeth by coÌ„nersioÌ„ as in the better without adnihilatioÌ„ which is a changyng by miracle And when this auctor knoweth this or shoulde haue known it or hath forgotten it he wryteth like one that were ignoraunt and had red no thing in the matter as it were to make himselfe populer to ioyne himselfe in ignoraunce with the rude vnlerned people A thirde reason this auctor frameth himselfe werby to take occasion to afferme howe the .vi. chaptre of sainct Iohn shuld not apperteyne to the SacrameÌ„tal maÌ„ducation the contrary wher of apperith aswell by the wordes of Christ in that .vi. chaptre saing I will gyue not I do gyue which promise was fullfilled in the supper as also hy the catholique wryters and specially by Cyril and therfore I will not Ioh. 6. further stryue with this auctour in that matter but see howe he can assoyle thauctorites wherunto he entreth with greate coÌ„fidence First in Cyprian who speketh playnelie in the matter this auctor fyndetha fault that he is not holly alleged wherupon this auctor bryngeth in the sentence followinge not necessary Cyprianus to be rehersed for the matter of transubstantiacioÌ„ and hansom to be rehersed for the ouerthrowe of the rest of this auctours newe catholique faith whither that nowe shall be added was materiall in the matter of transubstanciacion I require the Iudgement of the o reader The first wordes of Cyprian be these This breade whiche our lorde gaue to his disciples chaunged in nature but not in outwarde forme is by the oÌ„mnipotencye of gods worde De câ—â—na dnÌ„i made fleshe These be Cyprianus wordes then folowe thies As in the person of Christ the humanite was seen the diuinite hiddeÌ„ euen so the diuinite ineffably infused it selfe in to the visible Sacrament Thus saith Cyprian as I can englishe hym to expresse the worde infudit by latin englishe not liking theÌ„ glishe worde shed because in our englishe tonge it resembleth spillyng and euacuation of the hole and much lesse I can agree to vse the worde powrynge although infunde in laten maye in the vse of earthly thynges signifie so because powring noteth a successiue workyng wheras gods worke is in an instant and for that respecte neuer sheddynge But this auctor had a faÌ„sye to vse the sounde of the worde powryng to serue in stede of an argumeÌ„t to improue transubstantiacion meanyng the hearer or reader in the conceyuyng of the sence of Cypryan thus termed should fansye the bread in the visible Sacrament to be like a soppe wherupon lyquor were powred which is a kynde of deprauation as thou reader by consideration of Cyprians wordes meanyng may est perceyue which CypriaÌ„ hath sheued howe the bread is made fleshe by the omnipoteÌ„cie of gods worde and made by chaÌ„ge TheÌ„ because this mysterie of the SacrameÌ„t in coÌ„sideration of the two natures celestial earthly resembleth the principal misterie of Christes persoÌ„ne S CypriaÌ„ saith in seÌ„ce that as in the persoÌ„ of Christ the humanite was seen the diuinite hidden so likewise in this SacrameÌ„t visible is also the diuine nature hidden This is the seÌ„ce where for declaracioÌ„ of the worke of god presetyng his diuine nature there is vsed the verbe infudit in latyn by whiche worde the motion of the diuine nature is spokeÌ„ of in scriptures not because it is a liquide substaÌ„ce to be poured as thauctor of this booke englishethit signifiyng a successiue operation but rather as a worde if we should scanne it as this auctor would signifiyng the coÌ„tinuaÌ„ce of the terme feoÌ„ whence to the terme whervnto with out leauyng the one by motion to the other for there is in the godly nature no local motion therfor we say christ not leauing his father desceÌ„ded froÌ„ heaueÌ„ being in earth was also in heueÌ„ which coÌ„fusioÌ„ in sum parte reseÌ„bleth but maÌ„s words caÌ„ not expresse gods diuine operacioÌ„s To the purpose the first word of CypriaÌ„ shewe the maner of the coÌ„stitucion of this sacrameÌ„t to be by muracioÌ„ of the earthly creatures in to the body blod of christ And the by the wordes folowing sheueth the truth of the substaÌ„ce of the sacrameÌ„t to thinteÌ„t we might vse our repayre to it and frame our deuotioÌ„ according to the dignite of it este ming as S. Paule saith our lordes body for the more euident declaratioÌ„ wherof S. CypriaÌ„ by example of the mysterye in Christes person sheueth Christes humanite and diuinite present in the visible sacrameÌ„t of which diuinite there is speciall mencion againste such whiche fansied the flesh of Christ to begyuen to be eaten as diuided from the diuine nature whiche was the heresie of the NestoriaÌ„s and such other denying therby the perfite vnite of the two natures in Christ which the holy Sinode of Ephesus did specially coÌ„dempne as other fathers in there wrytinge did specially preueÌ„te with distincte wryting against that errour and therfore sainct Cyprian not content to shew the presence of Christes fleshe by mutacon of the bread doth after make speciall mencion of Christes diuinite not correcting that he had said before but further openynge it And so vtterby condempneth the teachynge of thauctor of this booke towching the presence of Christ to be onely figura tiuely Cyprian saith that in the sacrament is the truth and then there is present the true fleshe of Christ and the godhed truly whiche deuotion should knowelege as for transubstaÌ„ciation according to the first wordes of sainct CypriaÌ„ the bread is chaunged not informe but in nature whiche is not in the proprietes of nature nor in the operacion of nature neither in quantite or qualite of nature and therfore in the inwarde nature whiche is properly substaunce This is the playne directe vnderstandynge not by way of addition as this auttor of his ymaginatioÌ„ diuiseth who vseth the worde spirituall as a stop and opposition to the catholique teaching whiche is not so and clerelye without earnyng compareth with this Sacrament the water of Baptisme of whiche we reade not wryten that it is chaunged as we reade of the breade and therfore the resemblaunce of water in Baptisme is vsed onely to blinde the rude reader and serueth for a shifte of talke to wynde out of that matter that cannot be answered and as euill debters shake of there creditours with a by communicacion so this auctor conueyeth himselfe awaye at a backe dore by water not doynge first as he promised to answere so as he would auoyde Cyprian directly by laude Answerynge to Chrisostome this auctor Chryso complayneth as he did in Cyprian of malicyous leauyng out of that whiche when it is brought in doth nothing empayre that went before Chrisostome woulde we shoulde consider the secrete truth of this mysterie where Christe is the Inuisible Prieste and ministreth in
the visible churche by his visible minister the visible Prieste whereof Chrisostome woulde by his wordes put vs in remeÌ„brance not deniyng therby the visible ministerye no more then he doth in his other wordes denye the visible forme of bread and yet woulde we should not loke onely vpon that but whither fayth directeth vs that is to saye vpon the very bodye of Christ there inuisiblye present whiche fayth knoweth and knoweth it to be there the very bodye and there therfore to be no breade which breade this true confession of Christes body present by fayth excludeth But touchyng the Priest Sainct Chrisostomes words do by no meane teach vs that there is no visible Prieste but to thinke that the bodye of Christe is delyuered of Christes handes which excludeth not in like sorte the ministre visible as fayth doth the substaunce inuisible of bread in the Sacrament The one saiynge of Chrisostome is a godlye exhortacion accordynge to the truth the other is a doctrine of fayth in the truth we be not taught that the Prieste is Christ but we be taught that the substaunce of the breade is made Christes body And then the questioÌ„ in the wordes of Chrisostome Seest thou breade is as muche to saye as remembrest thy fayth as beynge one of the faythfull that knowe whiche terme Saincte Augustine vsed And then Chrisostome to conferme oure fayth in so high a mysterye declareth howe we shoulde thinke Christe to delyuer his bodye himselfe as a thynge farre excedynge mannes power to do it And with other heauenlye wordes setteth forthe the greatenesse of that mysterye with wordes of godlye and good meditacion conueniente for so high a matter to adourne it accordynglye whiche because they be holsome and mete allegoryes wherwith to drawe and lifte vp our myndes to celestiall thoughtes we maye not therby esteme the substaunce of that mysterye to be but in allegorye here in flede of a solution the auctor fylieth thre whole leaues with proâ—fe of thaâ— is not necessarye howe a deniall by comparison is not vtterlye a deniall whiche is in dede true and as one was answeâ—ed aâ— Cambridge when he pressed the responâ—all what saye ye to myne argumente whiche was not in dede of his owne makynge The responsall lesâ—e his Latyn and toulde the opp 〈…〉 before all his countrye frindes in playne Englishe It is a good argumente syr quod he but no thynge to the purpose and so is of this matrier the entreatynge of deniall by comparison good but nothynge to the purpose here and it is an obseruacion that requireth good iudgemente or elles maye therby be induced many absurdities Chrysostome as I sayde before speakynge to the Christen man semeth to aske whither he vseth his fayth or no For if he seeth breade he seeth not with faith whiche seeth the bodye of Christ there presence and so no breade If the Christen man thinke of passage throughe him of the celestiall fode he hathe therein no spirituall thoughte suche as fayth engendreth and therfore sayth Chrysostome absit here in these wordes of Chrisostome is no denyall with comparison and therfore this auctour mighte haue spared his treatise in these thre leaues For in those wordes when Chrisostome saith Thinke not thou receyuest the bodye of Christe by a man c. There this auctour so neglecteth his owne rule as in his thirde booke he maketh a solemne argument that by those Chrisostomes wordes we receyue not the bodye of Christ at all seyng Chrisostome sayth we may not thinke we receyue it by man So lytell substancially is this matter handled as a man might saye here were many accidentall wordes withoute a substaunce or myracle howe strange so euer the same seme to this auctor otherwise Nowe let vs here what this auctor will saye to Saincte Ambrose He reherseth him at good lenght but translateth him for aduantage As among other in one place where Saincte Ambrose sayth This Sacramente whiche thou receyuest is made by the worde of Christ this auctor translateth is done by the worde of Christ because makynge muste be vnderstanded in the substaunce of the Sacrament chiefly before it is receyued and doynge maye be referred to the effecte chieflye for whiche purpose it shoulde seme thauctor of this booke cannot awaye with the worde made where at it pleaseth him in an other place of this booke to be merye as at an absurditie in the Papistes when in dede both Saincte Ambrose here Saincte Cyprian and Sainct Hierome also in there places vse the same worde speakynge of this Sacrament and of the wonderfull worke of God in ordenyng the substance of it by such a conuersion as breade is made the bodye of Christe But as touchynge thanswere of this auctor to Sainct Ambrose it is diuerse For first he doth trauerse thauctoritie of the booke whiche allegation hath been by other here to fore made and answered vnto in such wise as the booke remayneth Saincte Ambroses still and MelaÌ„cton saith it semeth not to him vnlike his and therfore allegeth this verye place out of him against Oecolampadius This auctor will not sticke in that allegation but for answere sayth that Saincte Ambrose saith not that the substaunce of the breade and wyne is gone and that is true he sayth not so in syllables but he sayth so in sence because he speaketh of a chaunge so playnelye in the breade into that it was not wherunto this auctor for declaration of change sayth the breade and wyne be changed into an higher astate nature and condition whiche thre wordes of astate nature and condition be good wordes to expresse the chaunge of the breade into the bodye of Christe whiche bodye is of an other nature an other state and condition then the substaunce of the breade without coÌ„parison hygher But then this auctor addeth to be taken as holye meates and drinkes wherein if he meaneth to be taken so but not to be so as his teachynge in other places of this boke is the breade to be neuer the holyer But to signifie an holy thynge then is the chaunge nothynge in dede touchynge nature but onelye as a cowarde maye be channged in apparell to playe Hercules or Sampsons parte in a playe himselfe therby made neuer the hardyer man at all but onelye appoynted to signifie an hardye man of whiche mannes chaunge althoughe his astate and condition might in speache be called chaunged for the tyme of the playe yet no man woulde terme it thus to saye his nature were changed whither he mente by the worde nature the substaunce of the mannes nature or propertie for in these two poyntes he were still the same man in Hercules coote that he was before the playe in his owne so as if there be nothynge but a figure in the bread then for so much this auctors other teaching in this booke where he sayth the breade is neuer the holyer is a doctrine better then this to teache a chaunge of the breade to an higher nature when it
the accideÌ„tes be by miracle without substaÌ„ce as they be in the visible ê‘t of the sacrameÌ„t theÌ„ the same accideÌ„tes to be brokeÌ„ cateÌ„ droÌ„keÌ„ with al thaditioÌ„s this auctor for his pleasur maketh theriÌ„ is no miracle or meruaile as for absur dite no poiÌ„t at al for by quaÌ„tite which remaineth is al diuisioÌ„ we ought to coÌ„fesse good christen men do professe the mysterye of the SacrameÌ„t to be supernatural and aboue the ordre of nature therfore it is a trauayle in vayne to frame the consideratioÌ„ of it to agree with the termes of philosophye But where this auctor saith that nothyng can be answered to be brokeÌ„ but the accideÌ„tes yes verely for in tyme of conteÌ„cioÌ„ as this is to him that would aske what is brokeÌ„ I would in other termes answere thus That thou seest is broken And theÌ„ if he would aske further what that is I would tell him the visible matter of the Sacrament vnder whiche is present Inuisibly the substance of the most precious body of Christ if he will aske yet further Is that bodye of Christ broken I will say no. For I am lerned in fayth that that glorious body nowe impassible can not be broken or diuided and therfore it is holy in euery parte of that is broken as the substaunce of bread is in comen bread in euery parte that is broken accordyng wherunto it is in the booke of comen prayour setforth howe in eche part of that is broken is the hole body of our sauiour Christ If this questioner be further curious and saye is not that that is broken breade I woulde answere as a beleuynge man by fayth truely no For in fayth I must call it because it is truely so the bodye of Christe inuisibly there and the breakynge to be not in it but in the visible signe Yea ye will call it so sayth this questioner but yet it is bread Nay quod I my sayth is a most certaine truth and beleueth thinges as they verily be for Christes worde is of strenght not onely to shewe and declare as other mens wordes do but therwith effectual to make it so to be as it is by him called And this I write because howsoeuer clerkes soberly entreate the matter such as mynde well I meane to consider accideÌ„tes and substaÌ„ce whiche termes the rude vnderstaÌ„de not it is not necessarye therfore in those termes to make answere to suche as be coÌ„tentiously curious who labour with questioÌ„s to dissolue the truth of the misterie in declaracioÌ„ wherof we as men stumble and terme it otherwise then we shuld that is no IncoÌ„uenieÌ„ce in the misterie but an imparfection in vs that be not able to expresse it not hauinge such giftes of god as other haue nor studyinge to atteyne lernyng as other haue done And whatsoeuer in scoles with a deuoute mynde to aus were al captious questions hath for thexercitation of mennes senses bene moued soberly and by way of argument obiected that is nowe picked out by this auctor and brought to the comen peoples cares in which it might sounde euill they not beinge able to make answere theruÌ„to wherby they might be snarled and intaÌ„gled with vayne fanses against that truth which before without curiosite of questions they truely and coÌ„stantly beleued Finally the doctrine of the sacrament is simple and playne to haue the visible fourmes of breade and wyne for significatioÌ„ the thing wherof in the verye bodye bloud of Christ which beyng the truth of the hole it is no absurdite to coÌ„fesse truely the partes as they be if occasioÌ„ require howesoeuer it soundeth to the Ethnike or carualic mannes eares for whose satisfaction there is no cause why the truth should be altred into alye wherwith to make melody to ther vnderstaÌ„dinges For howsoeuer carnall reason be offended with spiritual truth it forceth not but against the hole consent of the auncient doctors no doctrine caÌ„ be instified with whose restimonie howe the fayth of the church in the sacrameÌ„t nowe agreeth it is manifest howsoeuer it liketh this auctor to reaporte the contrarye Secondly these TransubstaÌ„tiators do say contrarye to all lernynge that accidentes of bread and The auctor wyne do hange alone in th aire without any substance wherin they may be stayed and what may be sayd more folyshelye The maister of the sentences she winge diuers meÌ„s sayinges in discussioÌ„ as they can The answer sententia 〈◊〉 di 〈…〉 t. 9. q. 10. of this mysterie telleth what sume say that had reather saye sum what then nothinge which this auctor rehersith as a determinacion of the church that in dede maketh no doctrine of that pointe so but acknowlegith the misterie to excede our capacite And as for the accidentes to be stayed that is to saye to remayne without there natural substance is without difficultie beleued of men that haue sayth consideryng thalmightie power of Christ whose diuine body is there present And shall that be accompted for an inconuenience in the misterie that any one man saith whose sayinge is not as a full determinacioÌ„ approued If that man should encontre with this auctor if he were a lyue so to do I thinke he would saye it were more tollerable in him of a zeale to agree with the true doctrine to vtter his coÌ„seyte foÌ„dly then of a malice to disseÌ„t froÌ„ the true doctrine this auctor so fondly to improwe his sayinge But if he should oppose this auctor in lernynge and aske him howe he wyll vnderstand Fiat lux in the creatioÌ„ of the world where the light stayed that was then create But I will procede to peruse the other absurdities Thirdly that the substance of Christes body is there The auctor really corporally and naturally present without any accidentes of the same And so the papistes make accidentes to be with out substance and substance without accidentes Howe Christes bodye in circuÌ„staÌ„ce preseÌ„t The answer no man caÌ„ define but that it is truely preseÌ„t therfore really preseÌ„t corporally also but yet supper naturally with relation to the truth of the body preseÌ„t not to the maner of preseÌ„ts which is spiritual excedyng our capacitâ— therfore therin with out drawyng awaye accideÌ„tes or adding we byleue simplie the 〈◊〉 howsoeuer it liketh this auctor with out the booke to 〈◊〉 it at his pleasur to speke of substaÌ„ce without accideÌ„tes accideÌ„tes without substaunce whiche perplexite in wordes cannot ieste out the truth of the catholique bilyefe And this is on thauctours part nothinge but iestinge with a wroÌ„ge surmise and supposall as though men had inuiÌ„ted and ymagined that whiche by force and truth of the scripture all good men haue and must byleue that is to saye the true presence of the substance of the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament accordinge to the wordes of Christ This is my body whiche exclude the substance of breade declaringe the substance of the body of
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
called Eucharistia hauyng the visible forme of bread wyne coÌ„teinyng inuisibly the verie body bloud of our sauiour Christ which was not wont to be reserued other wise but to be ready for such as in danger of death call for it the same so loÌ„g as it may be vsed is still the same sacrameÌ„t which only tyme altereth not wherof Cyril wrote to this sence Cyrillê° ad Calo syriuÌ„ epi scopum Hesichiê° in leuit li. 2. ca. 8 many hundred yeres past Hesichius also what ought to be done when by negligeÌ„ce of the ministre it wer reserued ouerlong Mary where it liketh thauctor of these differeÌ„ces to saye the church teacheth Christ to flye vp froÌ„ the receauer vnto heaueÌ„ so sone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or chaunged it rite stomake this maner of speache implyeth as though Christ lefte the seate of his maiestie in heauen to be present in the Sacrament which is most vntrue The churche acknowledgeth beleueth and teacheth truely that Christ sytteth on the right haÌ„de of his father in glory from whence he shall come to iudge the world also teacheth Christes very body bloud Christ himselfe God man to be present in the Sacrament not by shifryng of place but by the determinatioÌ„ of his will declared in scriptures beleued of the Catholique church which articles be to reason impossible but possible to God omnipotent So as beyng taught of his wil we should huÌ„bly submitte al our sences reason to the faith of his wil worke declared in his scriptures In the beleif of which mysteries is great benefit consolacion in the vnreuerent serche curious discussioÌ„ of theÌ„ presumptuous boldnes wicked temerite I knowe by fayth Christ to be present but the particularite how he is present more then I am assured he is truely present therfore in substaunce present I caÌ„not tell but present he is truely is verely is and so in dede that is to say really is and vnfaynedly is and therfore in substaunce is and as we terme it substancially is present For all these aduerbes really substancially with the rest be conteyned in the one worde is spoken out of his mouthe that speaketh as he meaneth truely certaynely as Christ did saiyng This is my body that shal be betrayed for you who then caryed himselfe in his handes after a certayne maner as sainet Augustine sayth whiche neuer man besides August Psal 33. him could do who in that his last super gaue himselfe to be eaten without coÌ„sumyng The wayes meanes wherof no man can tell but humble spirites as they be taught must constantly beleue it without thinkyng or talkyng of fliyng or sliyng of Christ agayne vnto heauen where Christ is in the glory of his father continually and is neuerthelesse because he will so be present in the SacrameÌ„t whole God and man and dwelleth corporally in him that receyueth him worthely Wherfore reader when thou shalt agayne well consider this coÌ„parison thou shalt finde true howe the first parte is disguised with vntrue reporte of the commen teachynge of the churche howsoeuer some glose or some priuate teacher might speake of it and the secoÌ„d part suche as hath been euer so taught One thyng I thinke good to admonishe the reader that whatsoeuer I affirme or precisely denye I meane within the compasse of my knowlege which I speake not because I am in any suspicioÌ„ or dout of that I affirme or deny but to auoyde the temerite of deniyng as neuer or affirmyng as euer which he extremities And I mean also of publike doctrin by consent receyued so taught beleued and not that any one man might blindely write as vtteryng his fansye as this auctor dothe for his pleasure There foloweth in the auctor thus They say that in the Sacrament the corporall The auctor membres of Christ be not distante in place on from an other but that whersoeuer the hede is there be the feeâ—e whersoeuer the armes be ther be the legges so that in euery parte of the bread and wyne is all together whole hede whole feete whole fleshe whole bloud whole hearte whole longes whole breaste whole backe and al togither whole confused and mixte without distinction or diuersite O what a folishe and an abhominable inuentioÌ„ is this to make of the most pure and persite bodye of Christ suche a confuse and monstrouse bodye And yet can the Papistes imagyne nothyng so folishe but al christeÌ„ people must receyue the same as an oracle of God as a most certayne article of theyr fayth without whisperyng to the contrarye This is merueylous Rhetorique suche The answer as thauctor hath ouersene himselfe in the vtteraunce of it coÌ„fesseth himself pretely abused to the latter ende of his yeres to haue beleued that he now calleth so folishe But to the purpose In the booke of commen prayor now at this tyme set forthe in this realme At is ordred to teache the people that in eche parte of the bread consecrate broken is the hole body of our sauior Christ which is agreable to the Catholique doctrine UpoÌ„ accasioÌ„ hereof it liketh this auctor to multiply language by enumeracioÌ„ of partes and because reason without fay the directeth the bodely eye to so litle a visible quaÌ„titie in the hooste This auctor beareth in hand the Catholique churche to say and teache al that fonde reason diuiseth where as the churche in the doctrine of this mistery denyeth al that reason without fayth diuiseth And therfore when we acknowledge by faythe Christes body present although we say it is preseÌ„t truely really substancially yet we say our senses be not priuy to that presence ne the maner of it but by instruction of fayth and therfore we saye Christes body to be not locally present not by maner of quantite but inuisibly and in no sensible maner but meruelously in a SacrameÌ„t and mistery truely and in suche a spiritual maner as we can not defyne and determyne yet by faith we know his body present the partes of whiche be in them self distincte one froÌ„ an other in their swne substance but not by circumscription of seuerall places to be comprehended of our capacitie which partes we can not by demonstracion place nor by imaginacioÌ„ displace diminishe altre or coÌ„found as this auctor for his pleasure reporteth who writeth moÌ„st rously in so high a mistery impudeÌ„tly beareth in hand the Catholique churche to teache that he lysteth to beare in haÌ„d may by wanton reasoÌ„ be deduced of their teachyng wher as altrue christiaÌ„ men beleue simply Christes wordes trouble not their heades with suche consequeÌ„ces as seme to stryue with reasoÌ„ This is in th auctor no whisperyng but plainly raylyng wherin if he had remembred himselfe wel he would not haue spokeÌ„ of all christian men in the receypt of that he enteÌ„deth to disproue And if he would say he