sainct Ambrose consonante to those of saincte Augustine and the openinge of S. Augustines wordes as before I truste I haue made manifest howe this auctor trauaileth againste the streame and laborith in vaine to wrieth saincte Augustine to his purpose in this matter The beste is in this auctor that he audeleth saincte Augustine no worse then the reste but all after one sorte because they be all of like sorte againste his newe catholique faith and conferme the olde trew catholique faith or do not improue it For of this highe misterie thauctors write summe more obscurely and decklye then other and vse diuersites of speaches wordes wher with the true doctrine hath been of a very fewe impugned but euer in vayne as I truste in god shal be moste in vaine Hahinge this auctor vttred suche vntruthes with sumoâ—he blynde ignoraunce as this worke wel wayed and consydered that is to saye who made ityn when he made it and of like howe many were or might haue ben and shulde haue ben of counsaile in so greate a matter who if there wrere any e all reprouid in this one worke all suche circumstaunces coÌ„sydered this boke maye do as muche gode to releaue suche perplexite as altercacion hathe engeÌ„dred and so do as god seruice to the trueth as was ment there by to hindre and Impaire it And this shal suffise for an auswere to this fourth booke ¶ The confutation of the seconde booke HAuinge declared how much again all trueth this auctor would beare in hand that the reall presence the corporall presence and substanciall presence of Christes most precyous body and bloud in the Sacrament is not the true Catholique doctrine but a diuise of the Papistes which is a terme wherwith this auctor doth vncharitablye charge the kynges true subiectes amonges whom he knoweth a great many to be of that faith he calleth nowe Papistes But settyng wordes a parte and to cume to the mattier as I haue shewed this auctor to erre partelye by willfulnes partelye by ignoraunce in thunderstandyng of the olde auctors concernyng the true real presence of Christes bodye and bloud in the SacrameÌ„t So I trust to shewe this auctor ouerseen in tharticle of transubstantiacion For entre wherunto first I saye thus that albeit the worde transubstantiacion was first spokeÌ„ of by publique auctorite in that assemble of learned men of Christendome in a generall consayle where the Bysshppe of rome was present yet the true matter signified by that worde was older and beleued before vpon the true vnderstandyng of Christes wordes was in that counsaile confessed not for the auctorite of the Byshop of rome but for thauctorite of trueth beyng tharticle suche as toucheth not the auctorite of the Byshop of rome but the true doctrine of Christes mysteries and therfore in this realme thauctorite of rome câ—ssing was also coÌ„fessed for a truth by all the clergye of this realme in an open coÌ„saile specially discussed and though the hardenes of the law that by parliameÌ„t was established of that and other articles hath been repelled yet that doctrine was neuer hitherto by any publique consaile or any thynge set forth by auctorite empayred that I haue hard wherfore me thinketh this auctor shuld not improue it by the name of the Bishop of rome seynge we rede howe truth was vttred by BalaaÌ„ caiph as also Num. 22 IohaÌ„ 11. S. Paul teacheth the PhilippeÌ„ses that whither it be by coÌ„tencion or enuye so Christ be preached the person shuld not empaire thopâ—ing of truth if it be truth which Luther in deed would not alowe for truth impugning tharticle of transubstaÌ„tiacioÌ„ not meanynge therby as this auctour doth to empayre the truth of the very presence of Christs most precious body in the Sacrament of the aultare as is a for sayd In the discussion of whiche truth of traÌ„substaÌ„tiacioÌ„ I for my part shuld be specially defended by two meanes wherwith to anoyde the enuious name of Papist One is that zuinglius himselfe who was no Papist as is well knoweÌ„ nor god christeÌ„ maÌ„ as sume sayd neyther sayth playâ—ly writing to luther in the matter of the sacrament it must nedes be true that if the body of Christ be really in the sacrament there is of necessite transubstantiacion also Wherfore seing by luthers trauayle who fanâ—red not the bishoppe of Rome neither and also by euidence of the truth moste certaine and manifest it apperith that according to the treue catholique faith Christe is reallye present in the sacrament it is now by Suinglius iudgemeÌ„t a necessary consequeÌ„ce of that trueth to saye there is transubstantiacion also whiche shal be one meane of purgation that I defende not transubstantiacion as dependinge of the bishoppe of Romes determination which was not his absolutely but of a necess 〈…〉 e of the trueth housoeuer it liketh dunâ— or gabriel to write in it whose sayinges this auctor vsith for his pleasure An other defence is that this auctor himselfe saith that it is ouer greate an absurdite to saye that breade insensible with many other termes that he addith shulde be the bodye of Christe and therfore I thinke that the is that is to saye the inwarde nature essence of that Christe deliuered in his supper to be eaten and droÌ„cken was of his body bloud and not of the bread and wyne and therfore canne well agree with this auctor that the bread of wheate is not the body of Christe nor the bodie of Christe made of it as of a matter whiche consideracions will enforce him that beleueth the trueth of the presence of the substaÌ„ce of Christes body as the treue catholique faith teachith to assent to transubstantiacion not as determined by the churche of Rome but as a coÌ„sequeÌ„t of treuth beleued iÌ„ the misterie of the sacrameÌ„t which transubstantiacioÌ„ how this auctor wolde impugne I wil without quarel of eÌ„uious wordes coÌ„sider with true opening of his haÌ„deling the mattier doubte not to make the reader to see that he fighteth against the trueth I will passe ouer the vnreuerent handelinge of Christes wordes This is my body which wordes I harde this auctor if it be the same that is named ones reherse more seriously in a soleÌ„â—â—…e open audience to the conuiction condempnacion as folowid of one that erroncously mainteyned against the sacrameÌ„t the same that this auctor callith now the catholique faith But to the purpose the simplicite of faith in a Christen mans brest doth not so precisely marke stay at the sillables of Christes wordes as this auctor pretendith and knowinge by faith the truth of Christes wordes that as he said he wrought doo not measure goddes secret working after the ê“lacion of our sillables whose worke is in one instauÌ„ce how soeuer speche in vs require a successiue vttrauÌ„ce the maner of haÌ„d linge this auctor vsith to bringe the misticall wordes in coÌ„teÌ„pte wer meater in an Ethinkes mouthe to ieste out all
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
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 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
¶ An explicatioÌ„ and assertion of the true Catholique fayth touchyng the moost blessed Sacrament of the aulter with confutacion of a booke written agaynst the same Made by Steuen Byshop of Wynchester and exhibited by his owne hande for his defence to the kynges maiesties Commissioners at Lambeth Anno. 1551. ¶ Certayne faultes escaped in the prentyng The rest thou mayst geÌ„tle reader easely correcte thy selfe Leafe Pag. Thelyne â—o 2. 2. pag. Lin. 15. for yet it shuld read yet if it shuld 7 1 penul for to purpose read to the purpose 21 1 30 for accasion reade occasion 25 2 29 for dimishe reade diminishe 52 1 25 for shepe reade slepe 42 1 23 for coÌ„municaÌ„do read coÌ„municandis 54 1 13 for manifestye reade manifested 54 1 14 for exhibetie reade exhibited 55 1 19 for enforeth reade enforceth 59 1 20 for Tubax reade Tuba 62 1 13 for fram reade â—rame 81 1 3 for cunclusion reade conclusion 81 2 20 for pretens reade presence 81 1 30 for freundes reade frendes 81 1 31 for possumus reade polluimus 88 1 22 for cratures reade creatures 88 1 24 for entrated reade intreated 88 2 3 for lake read loke 88 2 6 for fede read fed 90 2 6 for speake read spake 91 2 30 for andeleth read handeleth 92 1 8 for hahing read hauyng 92 1 10 for sumuch read so muche 92 1 12 for ityn read it 92 1 15 for wrere read were 92 1 15 for â—e read be 94 1 1 for Ethinkes read Ethnikes 94 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for af read of 96 1 〈◊〉 for 〈…〉 se read likewise 96 2 â—4 〈◊〉 read geueth 97 2 10 for extlude read exclude 105 1 1 for auctors read auctor 106 2 16 for this read these 107 1 3 for commency read commenly 110 1 6 for hatue read hath 119 1 31 for deipara 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deipara 121 2 26 for mage read image 126 2 18 for dowe read doue 131 2 10 for ther read thre 131 2 22 for we read me 134 1 4 for which read with 134 2 5 for obdy read body 136 1 11 for improw read improue 136 1 21 for circuÌ„staÌ„ce pÌ„seÌ„t read circuÌ„staÌ„ce is pÌ„seÌ„t 136 1 23 for supernaturally read naturally 137 1 4 for endureth read abhorâ—ith 138 2 1 for disorowe read improue 142 1 14 for godhod read godhed 143 2 2 for propositiones read ê“positionis 145 2 29 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 145 2 vlt. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 146 1 2 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 146 1 5 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 148 1 19 for saue read sawe 151 2 9 for Ephesine read Ephesin Finis Tabulae ¶ The preface FOr asmuch as amoÌ„ges other mine allegations for defence of my selfe in this matter moued agà ynst me by occasion of my Sermon made before the kynges moost excellent Maiestye touchyng partely the. Catholique faith of the moost precious sacrameÌ„t of thaltare which I see now impugned by a booke set furth vnder the name of my lord of Cauntorburies grace I haue thought expedieÌ„t for the better opening of the matter coÌ„sideryng I am by name touched in the sayde boke the rather to vtter partely that I haue to say by confutatioÌ„ of that boke wherein I thinke neuerthlesse noâ— requisite to directe any speache by speciall name to the person of him that is entitled autor because it may possible be that his name is abused wherwith to set furth the matter beyng him selfe of such dignitie auctorite in the coÌ„men welth as for that respect should be inuiolable For which coÌ„sideracion I shal in my speache of suche reproufe as the vntruth of the matter necessariely requireth omitting the speciall title of the auctor of the boke speake onely of thauctor in generall beyng a thing to me greatly to be me 〈…〉 ed at that such matter shuld nowe be published out of my lord of CaÌ„torburies penne but because he is a man I wil not wondre because he is such a maÌ„ I will reuereÌ„rly vse him forbearyng further to name him talke onely of the auctor by that generall name The confutation of the first booke THis auctor denieth the real preseÌ„ce of Christes most precious bodie bloud in the SacrameÌ„t This auctor denieth Transubstanciation This auctor denieth euil men to eat drinke the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament These thre denials only impugne tende to distroy that faith whiche this auctor termeth the popishe to erre in callyng nowe all popishe that beleue either of these thre articles by him denied the truth whereof shall hereafter be opened Nowe because fayth affirmeth some certaintee if we aske this auctor what is his fayth which he calleth true and catholique it is only this as we may lerne by his boke that in our Lordes supper be coÌ„secrate bread and wyne and deliuered as tokens onely to signify Christes bodie and bloud he calleth them holye tokens but yet noteth that the bread and wyne be neuer the holyer he saith neuerthelesse they be not bare tokeÌ„s and yet concludeth Christ not to be spiritually present in them but onely as a thing is present in that which signifieth it whiche is the nature of a bare token saiyng in another place ther is nothyng to be worshipped for ther is nothing present but in figure and in a signe whiche who so euer sayth calleth the thyng in dede absente And yet the auctor sayth Christe is in the man that worthely receaueth spiritually preseÌ„t who eateth of Christes fleshe and his bloud reignyng in heaueÌ„ whether the good beleuyng man ascendeth by his faith And as oure bodie is norished with the bread wyne receiued in the supper so the true beleuyng man is fedde with the bodie bloud of Christ And this is the summe of the doctrine of that faith whiche this auctor calleth the true catholique faith Nowe a catholique faith is an vniuersall faith taught and preached through all and so receaued and beleued agreablie and consonant to the scriptures testified by such as by all ages haue in their writynges geuen knowlege therof which be the tokens and markes of a true Catholique faith wherof no one can be founde in the faith this auctor calleth catholique Firste there is no scripture that in lettre mainteineth the doctrin of this auctorsboke For Christ saith not that the bread doth only signify his bodie absent nor sainct Paul sayth not so in any place ne any other canonical scripture declareth Christes wordes so As for the sence vnderstaÌ„dyng of Christes wordes there hath not been in any age any one approued and knowen learned maÌ„ that hath so declared expounded Christes wordes in his supper that the bread did onely signify Christes bodie the wyne his bloud as thynges absent And to the intent euery notable
and new wyne haue new bottelles and be throughly new after .xv. C. l. yeres in the verie yere of Iubile as they were wount to call it to be newly erected and builded in Englishe mens heartes Whiche new teachyng whether it procedeth from the spirite of truth or no shall more plainely appeare by suche matter as this auctor vttereth wherewith to impugne the true faith taught hitherto For among many other profes whereby trueth after much trauaile in contencion at the last preuayleth and hath victorie there is none more notable then when the verie aduersaries of truth who pretend neuertheles to be truthes frendes do by some euident vntruth bewray themself According wherunto whē the two women contended before kyng Salomon for the childe yet aliue Salomon descerned 3. Reg. 3. the true naturall mother from the other by their speaches and saiynges Which in the verie true mother were euer conformable to nature and in the other at the last euidently against nature The verie true mother speake alwaies like her selfe and neuer disagreed from the truth of nature but rather then the childe should be killed as Salomon threatened whē he called for asword required rather it to be geuen whole aliue to the other woman The other woman that was not the true mother cared more for victorie then for the childe and therfore spake that was in nature an euidence that she lied callyng her selfe mother and saiyng let it be deuided whiche no true naturall mother could say of her owne childe wherupon proceded Salomons most wise iudgmēt which hath this lesson in it euer where contention is on that parte to be the truth where all saiynges and doynges appeare vniformely consonante to the truth pretended and on what side a notable lye appeareth the rest may be iudged to be after the same sorte for truth nedeth no ayde of lyes craft or slayte wherwith to be supported and maynteined So as in the intreatyng of the truth of this high and ineffable mysterie of the Sacrament on what parte thou reader seest traft slayte shift obliquitie or in any one pointe an open manifest lye there thou maist consider whatsoeuer pretence be made of truth yet the victorie of truth not to be there intended whiche loueth simplicitie plainenes directe speache without admixcion of shift or coloure And that thou reader mightest by these markes iudge of that is here intreated by thauctor against the most blessed Sacratment I shall note certaine euident and manifest vntruthes whiche this auctor is not affrayed to vtter a matter wounderfull consideryng his dignitie if he that is named be the auctor in dede whiche should be a great stay of contradiction if any thyng wer to be regarded against the truth First I will note vnto the reader howe this auctor termeth the fayth of the real and substanciall presence of Christes bodie and bloud in the Sacramēt to be the fayth of the Papistes whiche saiyng what foundaciō it hath thou maiest consider of that foloweth Luther that professed openly to abhore al that might be noted Papish defēded stoutly the presence of Christes bodie in the Sacrament and to be present really and substancially euen with the same wordes and termes Bucer that is here in Englād in a solēpne worke that he wryreth vpon the Gospels professeth the same fayth of the real and substāciall presence of Christes bodie in the Sacrament whiche he affermeth to haue been beleued of all the churche of Christ from the beginnyng hitherto Iustus Ionas hath trāslate a Catechisme out of Douch into Latin taught in the citie of Noremberge in Germanye where Hosiander is cheife preacher in whiche Catechisme they be accompted for no true Christian men that denye the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament The wordes really and substancially be not expressed as they be in Bucer but the worde truely is there and as Bucer sayth that is substancially Which Catechisme was translate into Englishe in this auctors name about two yeres paste Philipp Melancton no Papist nor priest writeth a verie wise Epistle in this matter to Oecolāpadius and signifiyng soberly his beleif of the presence of Christes verie bodie in the Sacrament and to proue the same to haue been the faith of the olde churche from the begīnyng allegeth the saynges of Irene Cyprian Chrisostome Hilarie Cyrill Ambrose and Theophilacte whiche auctors he estemeth both worthy credite and to affirme the presence of Christes bodie in the Sacramēt plainly without ambiguitie He answereth to certaine places of S. Augustine and sayth all Oecolampadius enterprise to depend vpon coniectures and argumentes applausible to Idle wittes with muche more wise matter as that Epistle doth purporte whiche is set out in a booke of a good volume amonge the other Epistles of Oecolampadius so as no man may suspect any thyng counterfecte in the matter One Hippinus or Oepinus of Hamborough greatly estemed among the Lutherians hath written a booke to the kinges maiesty that now is publisshed abrode in prynt wherin muche inueiyng against the churche of Rome doth in the matter of the Sacrament write as foloweth Eucharistia is called by it selfe a sacrifice because it is a remēbraunce of the true sacrifice offered vpō the crosse and that in it is dispēsed the true bodie and true bloud of Christ whiche is plainely the same in essence that is to say substaunce and the same bloud in essēce signifiyng though the maner of presence be spirituall yet the substaunce of that is present is the same with that in heauen Erasmus noted a man that durst and did speake of all abuses in the church liberally taken for no Papist and among vs so muche estemed as his Paraphrases of the gospell is ordred to be had in euery church of this Realme declareth in diuers of his workes most manifestly his faith of the presence of Christes bodie in the Sacrament and by his Epistles recommendeth to the worlde the worke of Algerus in that matter of the Sacrament whom he noteth well exercised in the scriptures and the olde doctors Cypriā Hilarie Ambrose Hierome Augustine Basil Chrysostom And for Erasmus own iugemēt he sayth we haue an inuiolable foundacion of Christes owne woordes This is my body rehersed agayn by S. Paule he sayth further the bodie of Christ is hidden vnder those signes and sheweth also vpon what occasions mē haue erred in readyng the olde fathers and wysheth that they which haue folowed Berengarius in error would also folowe him in repētaunce I will not reader encombre the with mo wordes of Erasmus Peter Martyr of Oxforde taken for no Papist in a treatyse he made of late of the Sacrament whiche is now translated into English sheweth how as touchyng the real presence of Christes bodie it is not onely the sentence of the Papistes but of other also whom the sayd Peter neuerthelesse doth with as many shyftes lyes as he may impugne for that poynte aswell as he doth the Papistes for transubstanciation but yet he doth not 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
the sufferyng of the bodie of Christ sheddynge of his moost precyous bloud on thaultar of the Crosse whiche worke and passion of Christ is preached vnto vs by wordes and sacramentes and the same doctrine receiued of vs by faith the effecte of it also And thus farre goeth the doctrine of this auctor But the Catholique teachyng by the scriptures goth futher confessing Christ to feade such as be regenerate in him not onely by his bodie and bloud but also with his bodie and bloud deliuered in this sacrament by him in dede to vs whiche the faythfull by his institucion and commaundement receiue with their faith and with their mouth also and with those specyall deynties be fed specially at Christes table And so God doth not onely preach in his sacraments but also worketh in them and with them and in sensible thynges geueth celestiall giftes after the doctrine of eche sacrament as in baptisme the spirite of Christ and in the sacrament of thaultar the verie bodie bloud of Christe accordyng to the plaine sence of his woordes whiche he spake This is my bodie c. And this is the Catholique faith against the which how thauctor wil fortify that he would haue called Catholique and confute that he improueth I intend hereafter more particularly to touche in discussion of that is sayd wherein I will kepe this ordre First to considre the thirde booke that speaketh against the fayth of the real presence of Christes most precious bodie bloud in the sacrament then against the fourth so returne to the second speakyng of TransubstaÌ„tiation wherof to talke the real presence not beyng discussed were clearly superfluous And finally I wyll somewhat say of the fift booke also The confutation of the thyrd booke IN the beginyng of the thyrde booke thauctor hath thought good to note certaine differences whiche I will also particularly consider It foloweth in him thus They teache that Christ is in the bread and wyne But we say accordyng to The auctor the truth that he is in them that worthely eat and drinke the bread and wyne Note here Reader euen in thenâ—re of the The answer comparison of these differeÌ„ces how vntruly the true fayth of the Churche is reported whiche doth not teache that Christ is in the bread and wyne which was the doctrine of Luther But the true fayth is that Christes most precious bodie bloud is by the might of his worde and determinacion of his will which he declareth by his worde in his holie supper preseÌ„t vnder forme of bread wyne the substaunce of whiche natures of bread wyne is conuerted into his most precious bodie and bloud as it is truely beleued and taught in the Catholique Church of whiche teachyng this auctor can not be ignoraunte So as thauctor of this booke reporteth an vntruth wittyngly against his conscience to say they teache callyng theÌ„ Papistes that Christ is in the bread wyne but they agre in forme of teachyng with that the Churche of England teacheth at this day in the distribution of the holie communion in that it is there sayd the bodie and bloud of Christ to be vnder the forme of bread and wyne And thus much serueth for declaracion of the wrong and vntrue reporte of the fayth of the Catholique church made of this auctor in the settyng forth of this difference on that part whiche it pleaseth him to name Papistes And nowe to speake of the other parte of the difference on thauctors side when he would tell what he and his say he conueyeth a sence craftely in wordes to serue for a difference suche as no Catholique man would deny For euery Catholique teacher graunteth that no man can receaue worthely Christes precious bodie and bloud in the Sacrament onlesse he hath by fayth and charitie Christ dwellyng in him for otherwise suche one as hath not Christ in him receaueth Christes bodie in the Sacrament vnworthely to his condempnacioÌ„ Christ can not be receaued worthely but in to his owne temple whiche be ye S. Paule sayth yet he that hath not Christes spirit in him is not his As for callyng it bread and wyne a Catholique man forbereth not that name signifiyng what those creatures were before the consecracion in substaunce Wherfore appeareth how thauctor of this boke in the lieu and place of a difference whiche he pretendeth he would shew bringeth in that vnder a But which euery Catholique man must nedes confesse that Christ is in them who worthely eate and drinke the sacrameÌ„t of his bodie bloud or the bread and wyne as this auctor speaketh But and this auctor would haue spoken plainely and compared truely the difference of the two teachynges he should in the second part haue sayd somewhat contrarie to that the Catholique churche teacheth which he doth not and therfore as he sheweth vntruth in the first reporte so he sheweth a sleight and shifte in the declaracion of the second part to say that repungneth not to the first matter that no Catholique man will deny consideryng that the sayd two teachynges be not of one matter nor shote not as one might say to one marke For the first part is of the substaunce of the Sacrament to be receaued where it is truth Christ to be present God and man The second part is of Christes spiritual presence in the man that receaueth which in dede must be in him before he receaue the sacrameÌ„t or he can not receyue the Sacrament worthely as afore is sayd whiche two partes may stand well together without any repugnaunce and so both the differences thus taught make but one catholique doctrine Let vs se what the auctor sayth further They say that when any maÌ„ eateth the bread and The auctor drynketh the cup Christ goeth into his mouth or stomoke with the bread and wyne and no further But we say that Christ is in the hole man both in body and soule of him that worthely eateth the bread and drynketh the cup and not in his mouth or stomoke onely In this comparison thauctor termeth the The answer true Catholique teachyng at his pleasure to bryng it in contempte Whiche doyng in rude speache would be called otherwise then I wyll terme it Truth it is as Sainct Augustine sayth we receaue in the Sacrament the body of Christ with our mouthe and suche speache other vse as a booke set forth in the archbisshoppe of Cantorburies name called a Cathechisme willeth children to be taught that they receaue with their bodely mouth the body and bloud of Christ whiche I allege because it shall appeare it is a teachyng set forth among vs of late as hath been also and is by the booke of comen prayor beyng the moost true Catholique doctrine of the substaunce of the Sacrament in that it is there so Catholiquely spoken of whiche booke this auctor doth after specially allow how so euer all the summe of his teachyng doth improue it in
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 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
chayne is broken the lynkes sparkle abroade and all is brought in daungier to be scattered and scambled at Truthes haue been abused but yet they be true as they were before For no man can make that is true false abuse is mannes faulte not the thynges Scripture in speache geueth to man as gods ministre the name of that actiō which God specially worketh in that ministery So it pleaseth God to honor the ministery of man in his churche by whom it also pleaseth him to worke effectually And Christ sayd they that beleue in me shall do the workes that I do and greater When all this honour is geuen to man as spiritually to regenerate when the ministre sayth I Baptize the and to remitte synne to suche as fall after to be also a ministre in consecration of Christes most precious body wyth the ministration of other sacramentes benedictions prayour If man should then waxe proude glorye as of himselfe and extolle his owne deuotion in these ministeries suche men should bewraye their owne noughtie hypocrisye yet therby empayre not the very dignitie of the ministery ne the very true frute effecte therof And therfore when the church by the ministre prayeth that the creatures of bread and wyne set on thaultare as the booke of commen prayour in this realme hath ordred may be vnto vs the body bloud of our sauior Christ we require then the celebration of the same supper whiche Christ made to his Apostels for to be the continual memory of his death with all frute and effecte suche as the same had in the first institutiō Wherfore when the ministre pronounseth Christes wordes as spoken of his mouth it is to be beleued that Christ doth nowe as he did then And it is to be noted that although in the sacramēt of baptisme the ministre saith I baptize the yet in the celebratiō of this supper the wordes be spoken in Christs person as saiyng himselfe This is my body that is broken for you which is not to vs only a memory but an effectuall memory with the very presence of Christes body bloud our very sacrifice who doyng now as he did then offreth himselfe to his father as he did thē not to renewe that offryng as though it wer imperfite but continually to refreshe vs that dayly fall and decay And as S. Iohn sayth Christ is our aduocate entreateth for vs or 1. Ioā 2. pleadeth for vs not to supplye any wante on gods behalfe but to releaue our wantes in edificatiō wherin the ministery of the church trauayleth to brynge manne to perfection in Christ whiche Christ himselfe dothe assiste and absolutely perfourme in his churche his mystical body Nowe whē we haue Christes body thus presente in the celebration of the holy supper and by Christes mouth present vnto vs saying This is my body whiche is betrayed for you Then haue we Christs body recommended vnto vs as oure sacrifice and a sacrifice propiciatory for al the synnes of the worlde beynge the onely sacrifice of Christes church the pure and cleane sacrifice whereof the prophete Malachie spake and Malach. wherof the fathers in Christes churche haue synce the beginnyng contynually writen the very true presence wherof most constantely beleued hath encreased from tyme to tyme suche ceremonyes as haue been vsed in the celebration of that supper in which by Christes owne mouth we be ascertayned of his most glorious death and passion and the selfe same body that suffred deliuered vnto vs in mysterye to be eaten of vs therfore so to be worshipped acknowledged of vs as our very only sacrifice in whom by whom and for whom our other priuate giftes sacrifices be acceptable and none otherwise And therfore as Christ declareth in the supper himselfe an offryng sacrifice for our synne offryng himself to his father as our mediatour so therwith recommendeth to his father the church his body for which he suffreth so the churche at the same supper in their offryng of laudes and thankes with suche other giftes as they haue receyued frō God ioyne thē selfe with their head Christ presentyng offryng him as one by whom for whom in whom all that by gods grace man can do wel is auaylable acceptable without whom nothing by vs done can be pleasaunce in the sight of God wherupon this persuasion hath been truely conceyued whiche is also in the booke of commen prayour in the celebration of the holy supper retayned that it is very profitable at that tyme when the memory of Christs death is solempnized to remēbre with prayour all astates of the church to recommende thē to God which S. Paule to Timothe semeth 1. Tim. 2. to require At whiche tyme as Christ signifyeth vnto vs the certayntie of his death geueth vs to be eaten as it were in pledge the same his precious body that suffred So we for declaratiō of our cōstdēce in that death sacrifice do kindely remembre with thākes his special giftes charitably remembre the rest of the membres of Christes churche with prayour as we are able shoulde with our bodely goods remēbre at that tyme specially to releaue such as haue nede by pouertie And agayne as Christ putteth vs in remēbraunce of his great benefite so we should throughly remēbre him for our parte with the true confessiō of this mystery wherin is recapitulate a memorial of al giftes misteryes that God in Christ hath wrought for vs. In the cōside ratiō estimatiō wherof as there hath been a faulte in the securite of suche as so their names wer remēbred in this holy time of memory they cared not how muche they forgat themselfe so there may be a faulte in such as neglectyng it care not whither they be remēbred there at al therfore would haue it nothyng but a plaine eatyng drinkyng How much the remēbrance in prayour may auayle no mā mā prescribe but that it auayleth euery christē mā must cōfesse Mā may nothing and gate to his deuotiō But s Iames sayd truly Iaco. 5. multum valet oratio iusti assidua It is to be abhorred to haue hypocrites that counterfecte deuotion but true deuotion is to be wisshed of God and prayed for whiche is Gods gifte not to obscure his glorye but to set it forth not that we should then trust in mens merites prayers but laud glorify God in thē Qui talem potestatem dedit hominibus one to be iudged able to releue an other with his prayour referryng all to procede from God by the mediation of our sauiour redemer Iesus Christ I haue taryed long in this matter to declare that for theffect of al celestial or worldly giftes to be obteined of God in the celebratiō of Christs holy supper whē we call it the cōmunion is now prayed for to be present is present with Gods fauour shal be obteyned if we
deuoutly reuerently charitably quietly vse frequent the same without other Innouacions then thordre of the boke prescribeth Now to the last diffreÌ„ce They say that Christ is corporally in many places The auctor at one tyme affirming that his body is corporally really present in as many places as there be hostes consecrated We say that as the sonne corporally is euer in heauen no where els yet by his operation vertue the sonne is here in earth by whose influeÌ„ce vertue all thinges in the world be corporally regene rated encreased grow to their perfite state So likewise our sauiour Christ bodely corporally is in heuen sittyng at the righthande of his father although spirituallye he hath promysed to be present with vs vpoÌ„ yearth vnto the worldes ende And when so euer two or thre be gathered together in his name 〈◊〉 is there in the myddes among them by whose spiritual grace al godly men be first by him spiritually regenerate and after encrease and growe to their spirituall perfection in God spiritually by fayth eatyng his fleshe and drinkyng his bloud although the same corporally be in heauen The true teachyng is that Christes very The answer body is present vnder the forme of bread in as many hoostes as be coÌ„secrate in how many places soeuer the hoostes be coÌ„secrate is there really substancially whiche wordes really substaÌ„cially be implyed wheÌ„ we say truly-preseÌ„t The worde corporally may haue an ambiguite doublenes in respecre relation One is to the truth of the body present so it may be said Christ is corporally preseÌ„t in the Sacrament but if the worde corporally be referred to the maner of the preseÌ„ce then we should say Christes body were present after a corporall maner whiche we say not but in a spirituall maner therfore not locally nor by maner of quantitie but in such a maner as God only knoweth yet doth vs to vnderstand by fayth the truth of the very presence excedyng our capacite to coÌ„prehend the maner howe This is the very true teachyng to affirme the truth of the presence of Christes very body in the SacrameÌ„t euen of the same bodye that suffred in playne simple euident termes wordes suche as can not by cauillatioÌ„ be mystaken construed so nere as possibly maÌ„s infirmitie permitteth suffreth Nowe let vs coÌ„sider in what sorte thauctor his company which he calleth we say do vnderstand the SacrameÌ„t who go about to expresse the same by a similitude of the creature of the sonne whiche sonne this auctor saith is euer corporally in heauen no where els yet by operation vertue is here in year so Christ is corporally in heauen c. In this matter of similitudes it is to be taken for a truth vndoubted that there is no creature by similitude ne any laÌ„guage of man able to expresse God his mysteries For and thinges that be seeÌ„ or herd might throughly expresse Gods inuisible mysteries the nature whereof is that they caÌ„not throughly be expressed they wer no mysteries yet it is true that of thinges visible wherin God worketh wonderfully there may be some resemblaunces some shadowes and as it wer inductions to make a maÌ„ astomed in coÌ„sideracioÌ„ of thinges inuisible when he seeth thynges visible so wonderfully wrought to haue so merueylous effectes And diuers good catholike deuout men haue by diuerse naturall thinges gone about to open vnto vs the mysterye of the trinitie partely by the sonne as this auctor doth in the Sacrament partly by fyre partely by the soule of man by the MusiciaÌ„s science the arte the touche with the players fyngers the sounde of the corde wherin when witte hathe all trauayled the matter yet remayneth darke ne cannot be throughly set forthe by any similitude But to the purpose of this similitude of the soÌ„ne which soÌ„ne this auctor sayth is onely corporally in heaueÌ„ no where els in the yearth the operation vertue of the sonne So as by this auctours supposal the substaunce of the sonne should not be in yearth but only by operacion vertue wherin if this auctor erreth he doth the reader to vnderstand that if he erre in coÌ„sideracion of naturall thinges it is no merueyle though he erre in heauenly thinges For because I wil not of my selfe beginne the coÌ„tencioÌ„ with this auctor of the natural worke of the-sonne I will bryng forthe the saiyng of Martine Bucer nowe resideÌ„t at Cambridge who vehemeÌ„tly for so much truly affirmeth the true real presence of Christes body in the sacrameÌ„t For he sayth Christ sayd not This Bucer is my spirite this is my vertue but this is my body wherfore he saith we must beleue Christes body to be there the same that did hange vpoÌ„ the crosse our lord himself which in som parte to declare he vseth the similitude of the son for his purpose to proue christs body preseÌ„t really substaÌ„cially in the sacrameÌ„t wher this autor vseth the same similitude to proue the body of christ really abseÌ„t I wil write in here as Bucer speketh it in latin expouÌ„dyng the .xxvi. chap. of Mathewe theÌ„ I will put the same in english Bucers wordes be these Vt sol verè vno in loco coeli visibilis circumscriptus Bucerê° est radijs tamen suis presens verè substantialiter exhibetur vbilibet orbis Ita Dominus etiam si circumscribatur vno loco coeli arcani diuini id est gloriae patris verbo tamen suo sacris symbolis verè totus ipse deus homo praesens exhibetur in sacra coena eoque substancialiter quaÌ„ praesentiaÌ„ non minus certo agnoscit mens credeÌ„s verbis hijs DnÌ„i symbolis quam oculi vident habeÌ„t Solem praesentem demonstratum exhibitum sua corporali luce Res ista arcana est noui Testamenti res fidei noÌ„ sunt igitur huc admitteÌ„dae cogitationes de praesentatione cor poris quae constat ratione huius vitae etiaÌ„ im patibilis fluxè Verbo Domini simpliciter inherendum est debet fides sensuum defectui praebere supplementum Whiche is thus much in Englishe As the sonne is truly placed determinately in one place of the visible heauen and yet is truely substantially present by meane of his beames elswhere in the worlde abrode So our Lorde although he be comprehended in one place of the secret and diuine heauen that is to say the glorye of his father yet neuer the lesse by his worde and holy tokens he is exhibite present truly whole God and man therfore in substance in his holy supper whiche presence mannes mynde geuyng credite to his wordes tokeÌ„s with no lesse certaintie acknowlegeth then our eyes see haue the soÌ„ne present exhibite and shewed with his corporal light This is a depe secrete matter of the newe testameÌ„t a matter
of faith and therfore herin thoughtes be not to be receyued of suche a presentation of the body as coÌ„sisteth in the maner of this lyfe traÌ„sitorie and subiecte to suffre We must simply cleaue to the worde of Christ fayth must releue the defaulte of our sences Thus hath Bucer expressed his mynd wher vnto because the similitude of the sonne doth not answer in all partes he noteth wisely in th eÌ„d how this is a matter of faith therfore vpon the foundatioÌ„ of fayth we must speake of it therby to supply where our sences faile For the presence of Christ and hole Christe God and man is true althoughe we can not thinke of the maner howe The chief cause why I bring in Bucer is this to shewe how in his iugement we haue not only in earth the operation vertue of the sonne but also the substaunce of the sonne by meane of the sonne beames which be of the same sustauÌ„ce with the sonne can not be deuyded in substaunce from it therfore we haue in yerth the substaÌ„cial presence of the sonne not onely the operation vertue And howsoeuer the sonne aboue in the distaunce appereth vnto vs of an other sorte yet the beames that touche the yerth be of the same substaunce with it as clerkes say or at the lest as Bucer sayth whom I neuer harde accompted Papist and yet for the reall and substannciall presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament wryteth pythely playnly here encountreth this auctor with his similitude of the soÌ„ne directly whereby may appeare howe muche soeuer Bucer is estemed otherwise he is not with this auctor regarded in the truth of the Sacrament which is one of the highe mysteryes in our religion And this may suâ—â—ice for that pointe of the similitude where this auctor would haue Christ noon otherwise present in the Sacrament thâ—n he promised to be in thassemble of suche as be gathered together in his name it is a plaine abolition of the mysterye of the Sacrament in the woordes wherof Christes humayne body is exhibite made preseÌ„t with his very fleshe to feade vs to that singuler special effecte which in thother presence of Christ in thassemble made in his name is not spokeÌ„ of it hath no apparaunce of lernyng in scriptures to conclude vnder one coÌ„sideratioÌ„ a specialtie a generalitie And therfore it was well answered of him that said If I could tel reasoÌ„ ther wer no faith If I could shewe the like it wer not singuler whiche both be notable in this sacrameÌ„t where coÌ„deÌ„pnyng all reason good men both constantly beleue that Christ sitteth on the right hande of his father very god maÌ„ also without chauÌ„ge of place doth neuerthelesse make himselfe by his power preseÌ„t both God man vnder the forme of bread wyne at the prayor of the churche and by the ministery of the same to geue life to such as with fayth do accordâ—yng to his institutioÌ„ in his holy supper wortâ—hely receyue him to the condemnatioÌ„ of su 〈…〉 s do vnworthely presume to receiue him there For the worthie receiuyng of whoÌ„ we must come endued with christ clothed with him semely in that garment to receyue his moste precious body bloud Christ whole God man whereby he then dwelleth in vs more abundantly confirmyng in vs the effectes of his PassioÌ„ establishyng oure hope of resurrection then to enioye the regeneratioÌ„ of our body with a ful redemption of body soule to lyue with God in glorye for euer Thus I haue perused these differences whiche well considered me thinke sufficient to take away appeace all such difference as might be moued agaynst the Sacrament the faith whereof hath euer preuayled againste suche as haue impugned it And I haue not redde of any that hathe writen againste it but somewhat hathe agaynste his entreprise in his writynges appeared whereby to confirme it or so euident vntruthes affirmed as whereby those that be as indifferent to the truthe as Salamon was in the iudgement of the lyuynge childe May discerne the verye true mother from the other that is to say who playnely entende the true childe to continue aliue and who coulde be content to haue it distroyed by diuision God of his infinite mercy haue pytie on vs and graunt the true fayth of this holy mystery 〈…〉 rmely to be conceyued in our vnderstandynges in one forme of wordes to be vttered and preached which in the booke of common prayor is well termed not distaunt from the Catholique fayth in my iugement These differences ende in the .xlviii. leef in the second columne I entende nowe to touch the further matter of the booke with the maner of the handelyng of it and where an euident vntruth is ther to ioyne an issue and where slayte crafte is ther to note it in the whole The matter of the booke from theÌ„ce vnto the .xlvi. liefe touchyng the beyng of Christ in heauen and not in yerth in out of purpose superflous The article of our Crede that Christ asceÌ„ded to heaueÌ„ sitteth on the right hand of his father hath been is most constantly beleued of true Christen men which the true faith of Christes real presence in the SacrameÌ„t doth not touche or empayre Nor Christ beyng wholy God and man in the Sacrament is therby either out of heauen or to be sayd conuersaunt in yearth because the conuersation is not yearthly but spirituall and godly beyng thascensioÌ„ of Christ thend of his coÌ„uersation in yearth and therfore all that reasonyng of thauctor is clerely voyd to trayuaile to proue that is not denied only for a sleight to make it seme as though it wer denyed After this the auctor occupyeth a great numbre of leaues that is to say from the .lvii. leef vnto the .lxxiiii. to proue Christes wordes This is my body to be a figuratiue speche Sleight shifte is vsed in the matter without any effectuall consecution to him that is lerned First thauctour sayth Christ called bread his body Christ confessed bread his body To this is answered Christes callyng is a makyng as S. Paule sayth Vocat ea quae non Rom. 4. sunt tanq ea quae sint He calleth that be not as they were And so his callyng as Chrisostome and the greke commentaryes say is a making which also the Catechisme teacheth translate by Iustus Ionas in Germany after by this auctor in Englishe Tertullian Tertullianê° aduersus MarcioneÌ„ lib. 4. Cyprianus de ce na domini sayth Christ made bread his body and it is al one speche in Christ beyng God declaring his ordinaunces whither he vse the worde call or make for in his mouthe to call is to make Cyprian sayth accordyng hereunto howe bread is by Gods omnipotencie made fleshe wherupon also this speche bread is fleshe is asmuche to say as made fleshe not that bread beyng bread is fleshe but that was bread
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
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
sacrameÌ„t whiche truth established in the matter the callyng it a signe or a token a figure a similitude or a she wyng maketh no matter wheÌ„ we vnderstaÌ„d the thyng really preseÌ„t that is signified Which it wer not in dede in the SacrameÌ„t why shuld it after Bucers true vnderstaÌ„ding of S. Augustine be honored there Arguyng vpoÌ„ mens speaches may be without ende thauctor vpoÌ„ diuerse respectes speake of one thyng diuersely Therfore we should resorte to the pyth and knot of the matter and see what they saye in expoundyng the speciall place without contencioÌ„ not what they vtter in the heat of their disputacioÌ„ ne to serch the darke ambiguous places wherwith to coÌ„founde that they speake openly plainely Thauctor bringeth in Theodoret a greke Theodoretê° whom to discusse particulerly wer long and tedious one notable place there is in him whiche toucheth the poynte of the matter which place Peter martyr allegeth in greke then translateth it into Latin not exactely as other haue done to the truthe but as he hath done I will write in here And then wil I write the same translate into Englishe by one that hath traÌ„slate Peter Martyrs boke and then will I adde the translation of this auctor and finally the very truth of the Latyn as I will abyde by ioyne an issue with this auctor in it wherby thou reder shalt perceiue with what sinceritie thinges be haÌ„dled Peter Martyr hath of Theodorete this in Latyn whiche the same Theodorete in a disputacion P. Martyr with an heretique maketh the Catholique man to say Captusies ijs quae tetenderas retibus Neque enim post sanctificationeÌ„ mystica symbola illa propria sua natura egrediuntur manent enim in priori sua substaÌ„cia figura specie adeoque videntur palpantur qucÌ„admodum antea Intelliguntur autem quae facta sunt creduntur adoraÌ„tur tanquam ea existentia quae creduntur He that traÌ„slated Peter martyr in Englishe dothe expresse these wordes thus Lo thou art now caught in the same net whiche thou haddest set to catche me in For those same mystical signes do not departe awaie out of their owne propre nature after the halowyng of theÌ„ For they remayne styll in their former substaunce and their former shape and their former kinde and are euen aswell seen and felt as they were afore But the thynges that are done are vnderstanded and are beleued and are worshipped euen as though they were in verye dede the thinges that are beleued This is the common translation in to Englishe in Peter martyrs booke translated whiche this auctor doth traÌ„slate after his facion thus Thou arte taken with thine owne nette for the SacrameÌ„tal signes go not from their owne nature after the sanctification but continue in their former substaunce forme and figure and bee seen and touched aswel as before Yet in our myndes we considre what they be made dorepute and esteme them and haue them in reuerence accordyng to the same thynges that they be taken for Thus is the translation of this auctor Myne Englishe of this Latyn is thus Thou art takeÌ„ with the same nettes thou diddest lay forth For the mystical tokens after the sanctification go nota way out of their propre nature For they abyde in their former substance shape and forme so farfurth that they may bee seen and felt as they might before But they be vnderstanded that they be made are beleued are worshipped as beyng the same thynges whiche be beleued This is my translation who in the first seÌ„teÌ„ce meane not to vary from the other translations touchyng the remayne of substaunce shape forme or figure I will vse all those names But in the seconde parte where Theodorete speaketh of oure beleef what the tokeÌ„s be made and where he saith those tokens be worshipped as beyng the same thynges which be beleued thou mayst see reader howe this auctour flyeth the wordes beleue and worship whiche the coÌ„mon translation in englishe dothe playnely and truely expresse howe soeuer that translator swarued by colour of the word taÌ„quam which there after the greke signifieth the truth not the similitude only like as in samet Paule Vocat ea quae non sunt taÌ„quam sint which is to make to be in dede not as though they were And the greke is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it were an absurditie to beleue thynges otherwise theÌ„ they be as though they wer very Idolatrie to worship that is not as though it were in dede And therfore in these two wordes that they be beleued that they bee made be worshiped is declared by Theodorete his fayth of the very true real preseÌ„ce of Christes glorious fleshe whervnto the deite is vnite which fleshe S. Augustine coÌ„sonaÌ„tly to this Theodorete said must be worshipped before it be receyued The worde worshippyng put here in Englishe is to expresse the worde AdoraÌ„tur put by Peter in latyn signifiyng adoring beyng the verbe in greke of suche signifycation as is vsed to expresse godly worshippe with bowyng of the knee Now reader what should I say by this auctor that conueyeth these two wordes of beleuyng and worshippyng and in stede of theÌ„ coÌ„meth in with reuerence takyng reputyng estemyng wherof thou mayst esteme howe this place of Theodorete pinched this auctor who could not but se that adoryng of the. SacrameÌ„t signifieth the presence of the body of Christ to be adored which els were an absurditie therfore thauctor toke paine to ease it with other wordes of callyng beleuyng reputyng estemyng for AdoratioÌ„ ReuereÌ„ce Consider what prayse this auctor geueth Theodorete which prayse condempneth this auctor sore For Theodorete in his doctrine would haue vs beleue the mistery adore the sacrameÌ„t where this auctor after in his doctrine professeth ther is nothyng to be worshipped at al. If one should nowe say to me yeasyr but this Theodorete semeth to condeÌ„pne transubstantiation because he speketh so of the bread Thervnto shal be answered when I speake of transubstanciation whiche shal be the laste For before the truth of the presence of the substaunce of Christes body may appeare what should we talke of transubstanciation I will trauaile no more in Theodoret but leaue it to thy iudgement reader what credite this auctor ought to haue that haÌ„dleth the mater after this sorte As for the vse of figuratiue speches to be accustumed in scripture is not denyed But Philip Melancton in an epistel to Decolampadius Melancton of the Sacrement geueth one good note of obseruation in difference betwene the speches in gods ordinaunces commaundementes and otherwise For if in thunderstaÌ„dyng of gods ordinaunces and commaundementes figures may be often receyued truth shall by allegories be shortely subuerted and all our religion reduced to significations There is no speache so plaine and simple but it hath soÌ„ne peice of
a figuratiue speache but such as expresseth the common plaine vnderstandyng and then the common vse of the figure causeth it to be taken as a common propre speache As these speches drinke vp this cup or eate this dishe is in dede a figuratiue speche but by custume made so common that it is reputed the plaine spech because it hath but one only vnderstaÌ„dyng commonly receyued And when Christ sayd This cuppe is the newe testament the propre speche therof in lettre hath an absurdite in reason fayth also But wheÌ„ Christ sayd This is my body although the truth of the litteral sence hath an absurditie in carnall reason yet hath it no absurditie in humilite of fayth nor repugneth not to any other truthe of scripture And seyng it is a singuler miracle of Christ wherby to exercise vs in the fayth vnderstaÌ„ded as the plaine wordes signifie in their propre sence there can no reasonyng be made of other figuratiue speches to make this to be their felowe and like vnto them No man denyeth the vse of figuratiue speaches in Christes supper but suche as be equal with plaine propre spech or be expouÌ„ded by other Euangelistes in plaine speche In the .lxxiiii. leef this auctor goth about to geue a general solution to all that may be said of Christes beyng in yearth in heaueÌ„ or the. Sacrament and geueth instructioÌ„s how these wordes of Christes diuine nature figuratiuely spiritually really carnally corpoporally may be placed and thus he sayth Christ in his diuine nature may be sayd to be in the earth figuratiuely in the sacrameÌ„t spiritually in the man that receiueth but really carnally corporally only in heaueÌ„ Let vs coÌ„sider the placyng of these termes When we say christis in his diuine nature euery wher is he not also really euery where accordyng to the true esseÌ„ce of his godhed in dede euery where that is to say not in fansye nor imagination but verely truely therfore really as we beleue so in dede euery where And when Christe is spiritually in good men by grace is not Christe in them really by grace but in fansye and imagination And therfore whatsoeuer this auctor sayth the worde really may not haue such restraint to be referred only to heaueÌ„ onles the auctor would deny the substaunce of the godhed which as it coÌ„prehendeth all beyng incoÌ„prehensible is euery wher without limitatioÌ„ of place so as it is truly it is in dede is therfore really is therfore of Christ must be sayd whersouer he is in his diuine nature by powre or grace he is ther really whither we speake of heaueÌ„ or yearth As for the termes carnally corporaly as this auctor semeth to vse theÌ„ in other places of his booke to expresse the maner of presence of the humayne nature in Christ I meruayle by what scripture he wil proue that Christes body is so carnally and corporally in heauen we be assured by fayth grounded vpon the scriptures of the truth of the beyng of Christes fleshe and body there and the same to be a true fleshe and a true bodye but yet in suche sence as this auctor useth the termes carnai and corporal against the Sacrament to implie a grossenes he can not so attribute those termes to Christes body in heauen S. Augustine after the grosse Augu. de ciui tate dei Grego NaziaÌ„zenê° de baptismo sence of carnally sayth Christ reigneth not carnally in heauen And Gregorie NaziaÌ„zen sayth Although Christ shall come in the last day to iudge so as he shal be seen yet there is in him no grossenes he sayth And referreth the maner of his beyng to his knowlege only And our resurrection sainct Augustine sayth althoughe it shal be of our true fleshe yet it shall not be carnally And when this auctour hath diffamed as it were the termes carnally and corporally as termes of grossenes to whom he vsed alwaies to put as an aduersatiue the terme spiritually as thought carnally and spiritually might not agre in one Nowe he would for al that place them in heauen where is no carnalitie but all the maner of beyng spirituall where is noo grossenes at all the secrecie of the maner of whiche life is hidden from us and suche as eye hath not seen or eare herd or ascended in to the heart and thought of man I knowe these termes carnally and corporally maye haue a good vnderstandyng out of the mouth of him that had not diffamed them with grossenes or made them aduersaryes to spirituall and a man may saye Christ is corporally in heauen because the truth of his bodye is there and carnally in heauen because his fleshe is truely there but in this vnderstandyng both the wordes carnally and corporally may be copled with the worde spiritually which is against this auctors teaching who appointeth the worde spiritually to be spokeÌ„ of Christes preseÌ„ce in the maÌ„ that receiued the sacrameÌ„t worthely which speech I do not disalowe but as Christ is spiritually in the man that dothe receyue worthely the Sacrament So is he in him spiritually before hereceyue orels he can not receiue worthely as I haue before sayd And by this appereth howe this auctor to frame his general solution hath vsed neither of the termes really carnally corporally or spiritually in a conuenient ordre but hath in his distribution mysused them notably For Christe in his diuine nature is really euerye where and in his humayne nature is carnally and corporally as these wordes signifie substaunce of fleshe and bodye continually in heauen to the daye of iudgement neuerthelesse after that signification preseÌ„t in the SacrameÌ„t also And in those termes in that signification the fathers haue spoken of the Sacrament as in the particuler solutions to 〈…〉 tours hereafter shal appeare Mary as touchyng the vse of the worde figuratiuely to saye that Christe is figuratiuely in the bread and wyne is a saiyng whiche this aucroâ—â— hath not proued at all but is a doctrine before this diuerse tymes reproued nowe by this auctour in England renewed Let vs nowe consider what particuler answers this auctor diuiseth to make to the fathers of the church and first what he saith to sainct Elementes Epistel his handelyng wherof is worthie to be noted First he sayth the Epistel is not Clementes but fayned as he sayth many other thynges Clement be for their purpose he sayth whiche solution is shorte and may be sone learned of noughty men and noughtly applied further as they liste But this I may say if this Epistel wer fayned of the Bapistes then do they shewe themselfe fooles that could fayne no better but so as this auctor mighte of their fayned Epistell gather thre notes againste them This auctors notes be these First that the bread in the sacrameÌ„t is called the Lords body and that the brokeÌ„ bread be called the peces and fragmentes of the Lordes body Marke well reader this note that speaketh so muche of bread where the
so as may appeare by Tertullianes words reported by this auctor before This note that I make nowe of TertuliaÌ„ makethe against this auctors purpose but yet it makethe with the truthe which this auctor should not impugne The seconde note gathered of Tertulian by this auctor is not true for Christ called it his body made it his body as Tertullian sayth And the thirde note of this auctor is in coÌ„trauersy of readyng must be so vnderstaÌ„ded as maye agree with the rest of Tertullians saynges which after my readyng doth euidently proue at the lest dothe not improue the Catholique doctrine of Christes churche vniuersally receiued althoughe it improueth that which this auctor calleth here our Catholique doctrine most impudently and vntruely reportynge the same Origens wordes be verie plaine and meanynge Origenes also whiche speake of manifestation and exhibition whiche be two thynges to be verified thre wayes in our religioÌ„ that is to say in the worde re generatioÌ„ the Sacrament of bread and wyne as this auctor ter 〈…〉 i the it which Origene speaketh not so but â—hus the fleshe of the word of god not meaâ—yng in euerie of these after one sorte but â—fter the truth of Scripture in eche of them Christ in his word is manifested exhibited vnto vs and by faieth that is of hearynge dwelleth in vs spirituallye for so we haue his spirite Of Baptisme S. Paule sayth as manny as be Baptized be clade in Christe Nowe in the SacremeÌ„t of bread wyne by OrigeÌ„s rule Christ shuld be manifestie exhibitie vnto vs after the scriptures So as the SacremeÌ„t of bread wyne should not onely signifie Christ that is to say preach him but also exhibite him seÌ„sible as Origenes words be reaported here to be so as Christes words this is my body should be wordsnot of figure sheuyng but of exhibityng Christes body vnto vs sensibly as this auctor allegeth him whiche should signifie to be receiued with our moueth as christ coÌ„mauÌ„ded wheÌ„ he said take eat c. diuersly froÌ„ thother two waies in whiche by Christes spirite we be made participaunt of the benefit of his passion wroght in his manhode But in this Sacrament we be made participaunt of his Godhode by his humanite exhibite vnto vs for fode so in this mysterie we receyue him man god in thother by meane of his god head be participat of the effect of his passion suffred in his manhead In this Sacrament Christes manhead is represeÌ„ted truely preseÌ„t wher vnto the godhead is moste certainly vnited whereby we receyue a pledge of the regeneratioÌ„ of our fleshe to be in the general resurrection spiritual with oure soule as we haue been in Baptisme made spirituall by regeneration of the soule which in the full redemption of our bodies shal be made perfite And therfore this auctor may not compare Baptisme with the SacrameÌ„t throughly in whiche Baptisme Christes manhode is not really present althoughe the vertue effecte of his most precious bloude be there but the truth of the mysterie of this SacrameÌ„t is to haue Christes body his flesh and bloud exhibited wherevnto eatyng drinkyng is by Christ in his supper appropriate In whiche supper Christ said This is my body which Bucer noteth and that Christ sayd not this is my sprit this is my vertue wherfore after Origens teachyng if Christ be not only manifested but also exhibitie seÌ„sibly in the Sacrament then is he in the SacrameÌ„t in dede that is to say really and then is he there substanetally because the substaunce of the bodye is there and is there corporally al so because the very bodye is there naturallâ— because the natural body is there not vnderstandyng corporally and naturally in the maner of presence nor sensibly nother For then wer the maner of preseÌ„ce with in mans capacitie and that is false and therfore the Catholique teachyng is that the maner of Christes presence in the Sacrament is spiriâ—ual and supernatural not corporal not car 〈…〉 all not naturall not sensible not percepti 〈…〉 le but onely spirituall the howe maner whereof God knoweth and we assured by his worde knowe onely the truthe to be so that it is there in dede and therfore really to be also receyued with our handes and monthes so seÌ„sibly there the body that suffred and therfore his naturall body there the body of very fleshe and therfore his carnal body the body truely and therfore his corporal bodye there But as for the maner of presence that is only spiritual as I sayd before and here in the inculcation of these wordes I am tedious to a lerned reader but yet this auctor enforeth me thervnto who with these wordes carnally corporally grosly sensibly naturally appliyng theÌ„ to the maner of presence dothe craftely carie away the reader from the simplicitie of his fayth and by such absurdities as these wordes grosly vnderstanded importe astonneth the simple reader in consideration of the matter and vseth these words as dust afore their eyes which to wipe away I am enforced to repete thuÌ„derstandyng of these wordes oftener theÌ„ els wer necessarie these thynges wel coÌ„sidered no man dothe more plainely confounde this auctor then this saiyng of Origene as he allegeth it whatsoeuer other sentencies he woulde pyke out of Origene when he vseth libertie of allegories to make him seme to say otherwise and as I haue declared afore to vnderstand Christes wordes spiritually is to vnderstand them as the spirite of God hath taught the churche and to esteme gods mysteries moste true in the substaunce of the thing so to be althoughe the maner excedeth our capacites whiche is a spirituall vnderstandyng of the same and here also this auctor putteth in for spiritually figuratiuely to deceyue the reader As touching CyprtaÌ„ this auctor maketh an exposition of his owne diuise whiche he Cypria nus would haue taken for an answer vnto him Where as Cyprian of all other like as he is ancient within 25. yeres of Christe so did he write very openly in the matter therfore MelaÌ„thon in his Epistle to Occolampadius did those hym for one whose wordes in Melanthon thaffirmation of Christes true preseÌ„ce in the SacrameÌ„t had no ambiguitie And lyke iudgement doth Hippinus in his booke before Hippinê° alleged geue of Cyprianus fayth in the SacrameÌ„t whiche two I allege to contrauaile the iudgement of this auctor who speaketh of his owne head as it liketh him playnge with the wordes grosse and carnal vsyng the worde represent as though it expressed a figure only Hippinus in the sayd booke allegeth Cyprian to saye libro 3. ad quirinum Cyprianus lib. 3. ad Quirinum that the bodye of our lorde is our sacrifice in fleshe meanyng as hippinus sayth Eucharistiam wherin S. Augustine as hippinus sayth further in the prayor for his mother speakynge of the bread and wyne of Eucharistia sayth that in it
percase somewhat worke with this auctor to considre howe he hath in this place been deceyued by him I will write here the verye wordes of Cyrill in greke as they be of Oecolampadius broughte forth and publisâ—hed in his name wherby the reader that vnderstandeth the greke as many do at this tyme maye iudge of Oecolampadius conscience in handlyng this matter The wordes of Cyrill be alleged of Oecolampadius to be these in greke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyrillus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These wordes be by OecolaÌ„padius translate in this wise NoÌ„ne igitur euÌ„ qui videtur filium Christum alium a deo verbo qui ex deo esse affirmant cui apostolatus functio tributa sit Non enim sacramentum nostrum hominis manducationem asserit mentes credeutium ad crassas cogitationes irreligiosè introtrudeÌ„s humanis cogitationibus subijcere enitens ea quae sola pura inexquisita fide capiuntur This is Oecolampadius translacion of the greke as the same is by Oecolampadius alleged Whiche compared with the greke and the congruetie and phrase of the greke tonge considered doth plainely open a corruption in the greke texte First in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which shoulde bea participle in the singuler nuÌ„ber 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all which participles depend of the third persone reproued of Cyrill and nominatiue case to the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whiche hath the nowne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his accusatiue case for congruite wyll not suffer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the nominatiue case as DecoÌ„laÌ„padius maketh it because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should then depend on it whiche be the masculine gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the newtre and besides that the sence hath so no good reason to attribute assertion to the mysterye by waye of declaratioÌ„ the mysterie of nature secret hath nede of declaration and maketh none but hideth rather and the mysterie cannot declare properly that should leade or subdue men to vaine imaginacion But Cyrill entendyng to reproue the conclusioÌ„ of him that attributeth to that is seen in Christ the nature of his humanite thoffice of thappostle and so therby semeth to make in Christ two seuerall persons estemyng that is sene another soÌ„ne froÌ„ the secoÌ„d person sheweth howe that man so ‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coÌ„cludyng doth affirme an absurditie that is to say ‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 declareth ‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that ‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mysterye ‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of our humanaÌ„ coÌ„mixtioneÌ„ for so hath the publique traÌ„slacion and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which should signifie catyng of a man as DecolaÌ„padius would haue it cannot with this coÌ„struction to make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the accusatiue case haue any sence and then that man so concludyng may be sayd therewith ‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leadyng the mynde of theÌ„ that beleue in to slender darke imaginacioÌ„s or thoughes so ‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 going about to bryng vnder maÌ„s reasonyngs such things as be ‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken or vnderstaunded by an onely simple bare no curious faith And this is vttered by Cyrill by interrogation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which continueth on to the laste worde of all that is here writeÌ„ in greke endyng in the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But DecolaÌ„padiê to fram these words to his purpose corrupteth the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and maketh it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby he might cut of the interrogatiue and then is he yet fayne to adde euidently that is not in the greke a copulatiue causall enim and then when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by the cuttyng of thinterrogation thaddition of enim made the nominatiue case then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 depend of it because of the gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of tharticle determineth the principall mysterie in Christes person and after the publique translacion it should seme the greke worde was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the publique traÌ„slatioÌ„ is expressed with these two wordes humanaÌ„ coÌ„mixtioneÌ„ This one place and their were no molike maye shewe with what conseieuce Decolampadius handled the matter of the SacrameÌ„t who was lerned in the greke tongue moost exercised in translacions and had ones written a graÌ„mer of the greke yet in this place abuseth him selfe and the reader in peruerting Cyril against al coÌ„gruites of the speach against the propre significatioÌ„ of the words against the conuenient connectioÌ„ of the matter with deprauacion of the phrase and corruption of certaine wordes all againste the common and publique translacion and when he hath done all this coÌ„cludeth in th end that he hath translate the greke faythfully when there is by him vsed no good fayth at all but credite and estimacion of learnyng by him abused to deceyue well meanyng simplicite serueth for some defence to suche as be bold to vse and folowe his auctorites in this matter As the auctor of the booke semeth to haue folowed him herein for els the publique autentique translations whiche be abrode as I said of the printes of basell and colen haue no suche matter and therfore the faulte of the auctor is to leue publique truth and serche matter whispired in corners But thusmuche must be graunted though in the principall matter that in the mysterye of the sacrameÌ„t we must exclude all grossenes and yet for the truth of gods secrete worke in the sacrameÌ„t that in suche as receyue the Sacramente worthely Christ dwelleth in them corporally as Cyrill sayth and naturally and carnally as Hilarye sayth And with this true vnderstaÌ„dyng after the simplicite of a Christen faith whiche was in these fathers Hillarie and Cyrill the contencion of these thre enuyous wordes in grosse capacites grosly taken naturall carnall and corporall which carnalite hath engeÌ„dred might sone be much assuaged and this auctor also consideryng with him selfe how muche he hath been ouer seen in the vnderstandyng of them and the specialtie in this place of him selfe and Deco lampadius might take occasion to repeÌ„t and call home him selfe who wonderfully wandreth in this matter of the Sacrament and hauyng lost his right way breaketh vp hedges leapeth ouer diches with a wundrous trauaill to go whither he would not beyng not yet as appeareth determined where he would rest by the varietie of his owne doctrine as may appeare in soundrie places if they be compared together As for Basill Gregory Nissen and Gregoire Basilius Crego Nissenê° Grego Nazian zenus NaziaÌ„zen this auctor saith they speake litle of this matter in dede they speake not somuche as other do but that they speake is not discrepaunt
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
bodye of Christ Here vnto I answere that this worde vertue in phrase of speache manny tymes onely filleth the speache and is comprehended in the signification of his genitiue folowyng and therfore as Luke in the .xxij. Chapter sayth à dextris virtutis Dei so in the Actes the same sentence is spoken a dextris Dei both out of one penne and a dextris virtutis Dei is no more to say then à dextris Dei and so is virtutem carnis sanguinis no more to say but in carnem sanguinem whiche sentence the same Theophilacte hath vpon Sainct Iohn before alleged in this sayng The bread is chaunged in â—ofiesh and in marke in this phrase in to the vertue of flesh beyng Like these speaches à dextris Dei à dextris virtutis Dei. Whiche and it had liked this auctor to haue considered he should haue taken Theophilactes speache as Theophilacte vnderstandeth himselfe and sayde the wordes alleged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus were not Theophilactes wordes and then he had sayd for so muche true whiche would do well among and the wordes be not in dede Theophilactes words nor were not alleged for his Nowe when this author sayth they were not Theophilus Alexandrinus wordes that is a large negatiue and wil be hardely proued otherwise then by addition of the auctors knowlege for any thyng that he can fynde and so there shal be no absurdite to grauÌ„te it And thus I retourne to myne Issue with this auctor that Theophilacte himselfe hathe no suche meanynge expressed in wordes as this auctour attributeth vnto him but an euident contrarye meanynge sauyng herein I will agree with this auctour that Theophilacte mente not grossely sensibly and carnally as these wordes sounde in carnarall mennes iudgementes For we maye not so thinke of Gods mysteryes the worke wherof is not carnall nor corporall for the maner of it But the maner spirituall and yet in the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ because Christ is in his very true fleshe present he maye be sayde so carnally present and naturally after Hylary and corporally after Cyrill vnderstandyng the wordes of the truthe of that is present Christes verye body and fleshe and not of the maner of the presence whiche is onely spirituall supernaturall and aboue mannes cappacitie And therfore a highe mysterye a greate myracle a wonderfull worke whiche it is holsome to beleue simplye with a syncere fayth and daungerous to serche and examyne with a curious imaginacion suche as idelines and arrogaunce would tempte a man vnto and by diuisyng of a figure or metaphore bryng it within the compasse of our buysie reason This auctor trauayleth to answer Saint Hierom. Hierome and to make him the easyer for him to deale with he cutteth of that foloweth in the same Saincte Hierome whiche should make the matter open and manifest howe effectually Sainct Hierome speaketh of the SacrameÌ„t of Christes body and bloud Ther is sayth Sainct Hierome as great differeÌ„ce betwene the loues called Panes ê“positiones and the body of Christ as there is betwene the shadowe of a body and the body it selfe and as there is betwene an image and the true thyng it selfe and betwene an example of thynges to come and the thynges that be prefigured by them Therfore as mekenes pacience sobrietie moderation abstinence of gayne hospitalitie also and liberalite should be chiefly in a Byshop and among all laye men an excellencie in them so their should be in him a special chastite and as I should say chastitie that is priestly that he shoulde not onely absteyne from an vncleane worke but also from the caste of his eye and his mynde fre from error of thought that should make the body of Christ These be Sainct HieroÌ„s words in this place By the latter part wherof appeareth playnely how Sainct Hierom meaneth of Christes body in the SacrameÌ„t of whiche the loues that were Panes propositiones were a shadow as Sainct Hierom sayth that bread beyng the image and this the trueth that the example and this that was prefigured So as if Christes body in the Sacrament should be there but figuratiuely as this auctor teacheth then were the bread of proposition figure of a figure and shadowe of a shadowe whiche is ouer great an absurdite in our religion Therfore there cannot be a more playne proufe to shewe that by Saincte Hieroms mynde Christes body is verely in the Sacrament not figuratiuely onely then when he noteth Panes propositiones to be the figure the shadowe of christes body in the Sacrament For as TertulliaÌ„ sayth Figura non esset nisi veritatis Tertullianê° aduersus Marcio libr. 4. esset corpus The other were not to be called a figure if that that answered vnto it were not of truth whiche is the sence of Tertullians wordes And therfore Saincte Hierome could with no other wordes haue expressed his mynde so certainely and playnly as with these to confesse the truth of Christs body in the SacrameÌ„t And therfore regarde not reader what this auctor sayth For S. Hierom affirmeth playnely Christes true body to be in the Sacrament the consecration wherof although Saincte Hierome attributeth to the ministre Yet we must vnderstand him that he taketh God for the auctor and worker not withstandyng by reason of the ministeryâ— in the church the doyng is ascribed to man as ministre because Christ sayde Hoc facite after whiche speache saluation remission of synne and the worke in other Sacramentes is attribute to the ministre beyng neuertheles the same the propre and speciall workes of God And this I adde because some he vninstely offended to hiere that man shoulde make the bodye of Christ and this auctor findeth faulte before at the worde makyng whiche religiously hearde and reuerently spoken shoulde offende no man for man is but a ministre wherein he shoulde not glory and Christ maketh not himselfe of the mattier of bread nor maketh himselfe so ofte of bread a newe body but sittyng in heauen dothe as our inuisible Priest worke in the ministerye of the visible Priesthode of his churche and maketh present by his omnipotencye his glorified body and bloud in this high mistery by conuersion of the visible treatures of bread and wyne as Emissene sayth into the same This auctor of this booke as thou reader maist perceiue applyeth the figure of the breades called Panes propositiones to the body of Christ to coÌ„me where as Saincte Hierome calleth them the figure of Christes body in the Sacrament and therfore dothe fation his argumente in this sence If those breades that were but a figure required so muche clennesse in them that shoulde eate them that they might not eate of them whiche a daye or two before had lien with there wyues what clennesse is required in him that shoulde make the bodye of Christ Wherby thou maist see here this auctor hath reserued this notable place of Saincte Hierome to the latter ende
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
is a staye whiche we call a substaÌ„ce beyng the principall parte of euery thyng whiche fayling we saye that speciall thynge not to be As where the substaÌ„ce of bread is nor there that special thyng bread is not because bread is as euery other natural visible thynge is of two partes substance and accidentes nowe if the one parte that is to say substaÌ„ce be not there which can be but by myracle then is no bread proprely there because the one and chief parte is not there yet I saye not nothynge is there for the other parte remanynge hath a beyng as gods visible creature may be called the visible part of the bread therfore the outwarde kinde forme of bread thapparaÌ„ce of bread a trew seÌ„sible parte of bread therfore be called also by the name of bread not that it is so properly but after the comeÌ„ speach capacite of meÌ„ may be called the nature of bread signifiyng the propriete the matter of bread signifiynge the grossenes The rude man I thinke would herat say here is sophistrie in deade for here is substaÌ„ce no substaÌ„ce matter of bread no bread apparance of bread no bread called bread and no bread this is to playe iugling where it happeneth Wherein this rude maÌ„ for wante of true vnderstaÌ„ding of the wordes perfite coÌ„sideratioÌ„ of the matter speaketh thus fondely who if he should their vpon require the scoler to shewe him sume differeÌ„ce of the very substance bytwene bread chese ale what could the learned scoler answer here but eueÌ„ fraÌ„kly declare his ignoraÌ„ce say I knowe none whiche is as muche to say as I knowe their is a differeÌ„ce but I wote not what it is Whervnto I trowe the rude maÌ„ wold say to the scoler theÌ„ arte thowe with all thy learnyng as verye a foole as I to speake of a differeÌ„ce caÌ„ not tel what it is Nowe if the scoler shuld vtter eueÌ„th extremite of his learning in propretermes saye I knowe bread is no chiese chiese is none ale of ther accideÌ„tal parts I caÌ„ in dede shew differeÌ„ces but of the very substaÌ„ce none The rude maÌ„ if his nature were not very dul would laugh rowndely to here a scoler vtter for a point of lerning that bread is no chiese chiese is none ale which who so knoweth not is a very fole merily to knit vp the matter would keape the accideÌ„tes of his bread chiese ale for himself geue the substaÌ„ce to the scoler if he can diuide it as a rewarde for his cunning to his better nurcitour And this I write after this grosse sorte to 〈◊〉 that this matter of substaÌ„ce is not 〈◊〉 vnderstaÌ„ded as seÌ„ces exercised 〈…〉 perceyue it howe maÌ„s outwarde seÌ„ces caÌ„ not as this auctor wold haue it be iudges of the inwarde nature of substaÌ„ce which reasoÌ„ perswadeth to be vsinge the seruice of the sences for induction of the knolege of it in which iudgemeÌ„t vpon ther reaporte happeneth many tymes muche deceyte Titus liuius speaketh of a great numbre of diuers dishes of meate made in a solempne supper wherat the gâ—stes wondred to see such a variete at that tyme of the yeare and when they demaunded of it answere was made the substance was but one all hogges fleshe so as thalteration in the accidentes deceyued there Iudgementes That stone whiche among many thought to haue sume skil hath been takeÌ„ for a precious diamonde hath after by cunning lapidaries been Iudged to be but a white safier contrary wise So easlye maye our iudgement vpoÌ„ the reporte of our sences fal in error not that the sences be properly deceyued but rather the man that is grossely sensuall and iudgeth fondly by theÌ„ For the very substaunce is not the propre obiecte of any of the fiue wittes but of their reporte coÌ„sidered in reason denied and fomtyme gessed at wher of ensueth great error quid pro quo among the potycaries and lerned also in thinges straunge where of they haue but accidentall markes Wherfore vpoÌ„ coÌ„fideracioÌ„ of the premisses it may easly appeare howe the questioÌ„ of this auctor why the seÌ„ces be not beleued in knowlege of substaÌ„ces as in knolege of accideÌ„tes may bereasonally answered And theÌ„ if the iudgemeÌ„t of reason in thestimation of godeds naturall workes and denyinge that this substance when by accidentes it should seme otherwise reason dothe staye sensualite and when men of experience knowlege and credite haue determined such a certaine stone to be a very true dyamonde other ignoraÌ„te wil be ashamed to say the contrary And if a man fearinge hymselfe deceyued to haue bought one kinde of drunges for an other and yet mistrusting wisely his owne iugmeÌ„t caused it to be wiened by men of knolege good fayth and honestie if they affirme it to be the very thing this manne will then condemne his owne imagination and vppon credite call it so and take it so to be wherfore if in thiese thinges I saye reason dothe in a man stay sensualyte and if knowlege with honestie ruleth the iudgmeÌ„t rude of vnderstaÌ„dinge and fynally if credite amonge menne be so muche regarded how muche more conuenient is it that faythe in goddes worde wherin can be no deceite as there is in men shulde altre and chaunge mannes iugement in reason and bringe it in to thobedience of â—aythâ— Of that is bread after the iudgement of oure reason after the reporte of our seÌ„ces Christe determineth vnto vs the substaunce of that to be his bodye sayinge This is my body why shal not nowe a trew christeÌ„ man answer euer accordinge to his fayth to saye and professe the same to be the substaunce of christes body vppon credite of Christes wordes as well as the carnall man will vppon reaport of his senses coÌ„clude in reason there to be the substaunce of bread wherby is not taken awaye the credite of our sences as this auctor supposeth which haue there obiectes still true as they had before For the colour greatnes sauore and taste al remaine truly with thexperyences of them as before Upon whose reaporte reason neueethelesse nowe reduced to the obsequie of faythe forbeareth reuerentlye to conclude againste the truthe of faythe but accordynge to faythe confesseth the substaunce to be the verye substance of Christes bodye and the accidentes to remayne in theire verye true nature because faythe teacheth not the contrarye and that it agreeth withe the rule of fayth so to be and therfore remayneth a verye true greatnes thicknes and wayght whiche maye be called in comen speche substaunce signifiynge the outwarde nature and in that sence Theodorete reasonynge with an heretique semethe to call it because Hauyng spoken of substaunce remainynge he declareth what he meaneth by it addynge it maye be seen and felt as before whiche is not the nature of substaunce properlye but by like comen speache that remayneth maye be called matter as Origene
And how saye they that our fleshe is not able to receyue gods gifte who is eternal life which flesh is nurrished with the body bloud of Christ These be also Irenes wordes wherby appeareth what he ment by the heauenly thing in Eucharistia whiche is the very presence of Christes body bloud And for the playne testimonye of this faithe this Irene hathe been commeeÌ„y alleaged and specially of Melancton to Decolampadius as one moste ancient and most playnely testifiyng the same So as his very words truely alleaged ouerthrowe this authour in the impugnation of Christes reall presence in the Sacramente and therfore can nothyng helpe this auctors purpose agaynst transubstautiation Is not this a goodly and godly entre of this author in the first two auctorities that he bryngeth in to corrupte them both As for Drigene in Drigene his owne wordes saith the matter of the breade remayneth whiche as I haue before opened it may be granted but yet he termeth it not as this auctour dothe to call in materiall breade Whenne God formed Adam of Gene. 〈◊〉 claye the mattier of the claye remayned in Adam and yet the materiall claye remayned not for it was altred into an other substance whiche I speake not to compare equallye the fourmynge of Adam to the Sacrament but to shewe it not to be all one to saye the materiall breade and the matter of breade For the accidentes of bread maye be called the matter of breade but not the materiall breade as I haue sumwhat spoken thereof before but suche shiftes be vsed in this matter notwithstandynge the importaunce of it Saincte Cypriaus wordes do note impugne Cyprian transubstantiacioÌ„ for they tend onely to shewe that wyne is the creature appoynted to the celebration of this mysterye and therfore water onelye is no due matter accordynge to Christes institution And as the name wyne muste be vsed before the consecration to shewe the trueth of it then so it maye also be vsed for a name of it after to shewe what it was whiche is often vsed And in one place of Cyprian by this author here alleaged it appeareth Sainct Cyprian by the worde wyne signifieth the heauenly wyne of the vineyarde of the Lorde of Saboth callyng it newe wyne and alludynge therin to Dauid And this dothe Cyprian shewe in these wordes he we shall we drinke with Christ newe wine of the creature of the vyne if in the sacrifice of God the father Christ we do not offer wyne Is not here mention of newe wyne of the creature of the vyne what newe wyne can be but the bloud of Christ the very wyne consecrate by gods omnipotencye of the creature of the vyne offred And therfore this one place may geue vs a lesson in Cyprian that as he vseth the worde wyne to signifie the heauenly drinke of the bloud of Christ made by consecration of the creature of wine So wheithe nameth the bread consecrate bread he meaneth the heauenly bread Christ who is the bread of life And so Cyprian can make nothynge by those wordes againue transubstantiacion who wryteth playnely of the chaunge of the bread by gods omnipotencye into the â—â—eâ—he of Christ as shall after appeare where this author goeth about to answere v 〈…〉 him As touchyng Emissene by whose wordes Emissen is expresselye testified the truth of the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament and also the sence of the doctrine of transubstantiacion this auctor maketh himselfe bolde ouer him and so bolde that he dare corrupte him whiche Emissen wryteth nâ—t that man is turned in to the body of the Churche And here I make an issue with this author that Emissene Anissue hath not that worde of turnyng in that place and man to be turned into the body of the Church is no conuenient speache to signifie a change in him that is regenerate by baptisme He in dede that is thruste out of the chauncell for his misdemeanour in seruice tyme maye be sayde tourned into the bodye of the Churche But Emissene speaketh not so here but because the same Emissene declarynge the mysterye of the Sacrament sayth the visible creatures be tourned into the substance of the bodye of Christe thys auctour thought it woulde sounde gaylye well to the confusion of that â—â—ewe doctyne of tournynge to speake in Baptisme of the turnyng of a man in to the body of the Churche And it may be comenly obserued in this authour wheÌ„ he allegeth any auctorite of others he bryngeth forthe the same in suche forme of wordes as he would haue them and not as they be for the most parte or very often and ones of purpose were ouer often in so high a matter as this is And yet in this Emissins authorite afteral the payne taken to reforge him Emissens doctrine play nely confoundeth this authours teachynge This author maketh a note that there is in man baptized nothynge chaunged outwardely and therfore in the SacrameÌ„t neyther and it must be graunted For the doctrine of transubstantiation teacheth not in the Sacrament any outwarde chaunge For the substance of the bread and wyne is an inwarde nature and so is substance of one defined And to speake of the thyng changed then as in man the chaÌ„ge is in the soule which is the substaÌ„ce of man So for the thyng chaÌ„ged in the visible creatures should be also changed and is chaunged the substance of the bread and wyne to answere theirin to the other And we must considre howe this comparison of the two chaunges is made as it were by proportion Wherin eche chaunge hath his special ende and terme whervnto and therfore accordynge to terme and ende hath his worke of chaunge speciall and seuerall both by gods worke Thus I meane The visible creatures hath there ende and terme whervnto the change is made the very body and bloud of Christe whiche body beynge a trut body we must saye is a corporall substance The soule of man hath his ende and terme a spirituall alteration incorporall to be regenerate the sonne of God And then the doctrine of this Emissene is playne this that eche change is of like truth and then it foloweth that if the change of mannes soule in Baptisme be true and not in a figure The chaunge likewise in the Sacrament is also true and not in a figure And if manues soule be the chunge in Baptisme be in deade that is to saye really made the sonne of God then is the substance of the bread whiche is as it were the soule of the bread I am bolde here in speache to vse the worde soule â—o expresse proportion of the comparison but euen so is the inwarde nature of the bread whiche is substance turned and chaunged in to the bodye of Christe beynge the terme and ende of that chaunge And here I saye so not to declare the maner but the truthe of th end that is to saye as really and in dede the chaunge is in the
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
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
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 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
Christ to be acknoweleged and professed in the Sacrament by the true faith of a ChristeÌ„ man CoÌ„pare with this what this auctor writeth in his 9 difference in the 47 leafe of his booke and so consider the truth of this reaport and howe this auctor agreeth with himselfe Fourthly they saye that the place where the bread and wyne be hath no substance there to fyll that The auctor place and so must there nedes be graunted vacuum whiche nature abhorreth This auctor goeth a bout to finde so many absurdites that he speketh he woteth not The answer what where he seeth and fealith quantite accoÌ„mpteth the place voyd for want of substance as though in consideration of comen natural thinges seuerally as thei be in nature it were the substance that filled the place and not rather quantite although in the natural ordre of thinges there is no quantite without substance and is in this Sacrament onely by miracle There wanted a substaunce in consideracion of this absurditie and was suche a vacuum as nature playnelye endureth Fiftely they are not asshamed to saye that substance The auctor is made of accidentes wheÌ„ the bread mouldeth or is turned into wormes or the wyne sowreth True beleuyng men ar not ashamed to coÌ„fesse The answer the truth of there fayth whatsoeuer argumentes might be brought of experience in nature to the contrarye For Christs workes we knowe to be trewe by most certain fayth what mouldeth in bread or sowreth in wine we be not so assured or where on wormes engendre it is not so fully agreed on amonge men The learned lawer Ulpian writeth as I haue before alleged that wyne and vinegre haue in maner one substance so as when wyne sowreth and is vinagre in maner the same substaunce remayneth in whome it is thought no absurditie to say by that meanes that the accidentes onely sower And if we agree with the Philosophers that there is Materia prima whiche in all thinges is one and altereth not but as a newe forme cummeth taketh a newe name fansinge that as one waue in the water thrusteth a way another so doth one fourme an other it shoulde seme by this conclusion all alteracion to be in accidentes and the corruption of accidentes to be the generacion of newe accidentes the same Materia prima beyng as it were substancia that altereth not And this I wryte that maye be sayde as it were to make a title to this auctours certayntie whiche is not so sure as he maketh it Amonges men haue been meruelous fansies in coÌ„sideracion of naturall thinges and it is to me a verye greate absurdite of that secrete and therfore to our knowledge an vncertein worke to deduce an argument wherwith to impugne oure certaine faith But to cum nerer to the purpose it is wronge borne in hande that we affirme wormes to be engendred of accidentes but when the wormes be engendred we graunte the wormes to be and will rather say wherof they be we cannot tel then to say that substance is made of accideÌ„ces and that doctrine is not annexed to the fayth of transubstantiacion and such as entreate those chaunces and accidentes do not induce that conclusioÌ„ but do reasonably auoyde it And yet by the waye in mouldyng and sowrynge it shoulde me semeth be properly sayd that the accidentes moulde and the accidentes sowre because we call moulde bread bread so wer wyne wyne and in wyne as I sayde before made vinigre the former substaunce hathe been in lernyng accompted in maner to remayne so as this auctor ouershoteth himselfe when he matcheth generacion of wormes with mouldyng sowryng which differ so farre in ther speculation But euen as this auctors wyt is ouerturned in consideracion of the true faith so doth it appeare peruerted in consideracion of natural thinges The .vi. absurdite is this Sixtly that substance is nuxrished without substance The auctor by accideÌ„â—es onely if it chauÌ„ce any catt mouse dogge or any other thinge to eate the Sacramentall bread or drinke the Sacramentall wyne It hath been heard without fables of certain The answer men that haue lyued and been nurrished with sauors onely and in golde and certaine precious stones that they gyue a kinde of nurritour to an other substance without diminution of their substaÌ„ce experieÌ„ce hath shewed it so therfore the principel or maxime that this auctor gathereth hathe no suche absurdite in it as he noteth to saye that substance is nurrished without substaunce But when vermyne by chaunce happen to deuoure any hoost as I am sure they cannot violate Christes most precious body so what effecte foloweth of the rest what nedeth it to be discussed If it nurrisheth then doth that effecte remaine although the substance be not there If euery nourritour muste nedes be of substance then woulde those that discusse those chaunces say the substances to retourne but hele gates shall not make me speake against my faith And if I be asked the question whither the visible matter of the SacrameÌ„t nurrishe I wil answere yea Ergo saith he there is substaunce I denye it he shall nowe from the effecte to the cause argue by physike I shal disprowe the conclusion by thauctorite of fayth who is it most mete shuld yelde to other And if in nature many thinges be in experience countrarye to the generall rules why maye not one singuler condition be in this visible mattier of the Sacrament that the ouelye substance beynge chaunged all other partes proprieties and effectes may remayne Is it an absurdite for a mayde to haue a childe because it is againste the rules of nature Is it an absurdite the worlde to be made of nothynge because the philosopher faith of nothynge cummeth nothynge The principall of nature is that whatsoeuer hath a begynnynge hath an ende and yet it is no absurdite to beleue our soules to haue a begynnyng without ende and to be immortall Wherfore to conclude this mattier it is a great absurdite in this auctour to note that for an absurdite in our fayth whiche repugueth onely to the principles of philosophie or reason wheÌ„ that is onely to be accompted for an absurdite that shoulde repugne to the scripture and gods wil whiche is the staÌ„derd to trye the rule of oure faith Howe soeuer reason or Philosophie be offended it forceth not so gods teachynge be embraced and persuaded in fayth whiche nedeth no such playsters and salues as this auctour hath diuised to make a sore where none is and to corrupte that is whole The best playstor and medicine that coulde nowe be deuised were to leaue a parte questions and idle talke and mekely to submitte our capacites to the true faith and not to ouerwhelme our vnderstandynges with serche and enquire wherof we shall neuer fynde au ende entrynge the botomlesse secrecye of gods mysteryes Let vs not seke that is aboue our reache but that God hath commauÌ„ded vs let vs do Ech man impugneth
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
vnite thervnto adoration may onely be directed of vs. And so to conclude vp this matter forasmuch as one of these foure markes and notes maye be founde testified and apparaunte in the anucient wryters with other wordes and sentences conformable to the same this shuld suffise to exclude al argumeÌ„tes of any by sentences ambiguons speaches and to vpholde the certeynte of the true Catholique fayth in dede whiche this auctour by a wronge name of the Catholique fayth impugneth to the greate slaunder of the truth and his owne reproch The confutation of the fift booke AS touchynge the fift booke the title wherof is of thoblation and sacrifice of our Sauiour Christ somwhat is by me spoken before whiche although it be suffitieÌ„t to the matter yet somewhat more must also be nowe said whetwyth to encountre thauctors imaginations and surmises with the wronge construyng of the Scriptures and Auctors to wrest them besides the truth of the matter and ther meanynge This is agreed and by the Scriptures playnelie taught that the oblation and Sacrifice of our Sauiour Christe was and is a perfite worke ones consummate in perfection without necessitie of reiteration as it was neuer taught to be reiterate but a mere blasphemie to presuppose it It is also in the Catholike teachyng grounded vpon the scripture agreed that the same sacrifice ones consomate was ordeyned by Christes institution in his most holye supper to be in the churche often remembred and shewyd forth in suche forte of shewyng as to the faythfull is sene present the most precious bodye and bloude of our Sauiour Christ vnder the fourmes of bread wyne which body bloud the faithfull churche of Christen people graunte confesse accordyng to Christes wordes to haue been betrayed shed for the sins of the world so in the same supper represented deliuered vnto them to eate feade of it accordyng to Christes commandement as of a most precyous acceptable sacrifice acknolegyng the same precious body bloud to be the sacrifice propitiatorie for all the sinnes of the worlde wherunto they onely resorte and onelye accompt that the verye perfite oblacion sacrifice of Christen people through which all other sacrifices necessariely be accepted pleasaunt in the sight of God And this maner of shewyng Christes death kepyng the memorye of it is grounded vpoÌ„ the scriptures wryteÌ„ by the EuaÌ„gelistes S. Paul accordyng therunto preached beleued vsed â—requeÌ„ted in the churche of Christ vniuersally froÌ„ the beginnyng This auctor vttering many wordes at large besides scripture agenst scripture to depratie the Catholike doctrine doth in a fewe wordes which be in dede good wordes true coÌ„fonde ouerthrowe al his enterprise that issue wil I ioinewith him which shall suffise for the coÌ„futacion of this booke The fewe good wordes of the auctor which wordes I saye confounde the reste consiste in these two poyntes One in that the auctor alloweth the Iudgement of Petrns Lombardus touchyng thoblacion and sacrifice of the churche An other in that thauetor confesseth the Counsaill of Nice to be an holye concell as it hath bene in dede coÌ„fessed of al good Christen men UpoÌ„ these two confessions I will declare the whole enterprise of this fifte boke to be ouerthrowen First to begyn with the councel of Nice the same hath opened the mysterye of the Sacrament of the bodye and bloude of Christe in this wise that Christen men beleue the lambe that taketh awaye the synnes of the worlde to be situate vpon gods borde and to be sacrificed of the Priestes not after the maner of other Sacrifices This is the doctrine of the councell of Nice and must then be called an holy doctrine and therby a true doctrine consonante to the Scriptures the foundacion of all truth If thauctor will denye this to haue been the teachyng of the counsaill of Nice I shal alleage therfore the allegacion of the same by Decolampadius who beyng an aduersarye to the truth was yet by gods prouidence ordered to beare testimonie to the truth in this poynte and by his meane is published to the worlde in greke as foloweth which neuerthlesse may otherwise appeare to be true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iterum etiam hic in diuina mensa ne humiliter intenti simus ad propositum panem poculum sed mente exaltata fide intelligamus situm esse in sacra illa mensa illum Dei agnum qui tollit peccata mundi sacrificatum à sacerdotibus non victimarum more nos praeciosum illius corpus sanguinem verè sumentes credere haec esse resurrectionis Symbola Ideo non multum accipimus sed parum vt cognoscamus quoniaÌ„ non in satietatem sed sanctificationem These wordes maye be Englished thus Agayne in this godlye table we should not in base and loue consideracion direct oure vnderstanding to the breade and cuppe set forth but hauing oure mynde exalted we shoulde vnderstand by fayth to be situate in the table the lambe of God whiche taketh awaye the syunes of the worlde Sacrificed of the Priestes not after the maner of other Sacrifices and we receauynge trulye the preciouse bodye and bloude of the same lambe to beleue these to be the tokens of oure resurrection And for that we receaue not muche but a litle because we shoulde knowe that not for saturitie and fillynge but for sanctification This holy Councell of Neece hath been beleued vniuersally in declaration of the mysterye of the Trinitie and the Sacramentes also And â—o them that confesse that councell to be holy as thauctor here doth and to such as professe to beleue the determinacioÌ„ of that councell in the openynge of the mysterye of the Trinitie with other wordes the Scripture vseth although they expresse such sence as in the Scripture is contayned Why shoulde not all suche likewise beleue the same councell in explicacion of the Sacramentes whiche to do thauctor hath bound him selfe grauntyng that councell holye And then we muste beleue the verye presence of Christes bodye and bloude on goddes borde and that Priestes do their sacrifice and be therfore called sacrificers So as those names termes be to be honoured and religiously spoken of beyng in an holy councell vttered and confessed because it was so seen to them and the holye goost without whose presente assistynge and suggession beleued to be there the councel coulde not nor ought not to be called holy Nowe if we conferre with that councell of Nice the testimonye of the Churche begynnyng at S. Dionise who was in the time of the apostelles after him comyng to Irene who was nere thapostels theÌ„ Tertulliane And so S. CypriaÌ„ S. Chrisostome S. Cyril S. Hierome S. Augustine from that age to Petrus LoÌ„bardus all spake of the sacrameÌ„t to the same effecte termed it for the word sacrifice and oblacion to be frequented in the church of the body bloud of
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