spake it by an Ironie or skorne yet it implyeth that all had receyued that he thus mocketh Whiche after the sorte he writeth was neuer diuised by Papiste or other to be so taught otherwise then as this auctor might rede it as an idle argument to shewe absurdite in reason For in gods workes as the sacramentes be we must thinke al semelynes in dede without deformite eueÌ„ as we beleue al gods iudgemeÌ„tes iust true although reasoÌ„ coÌ„clude in theÌ„ euideÌ„t iÌ„iquitie MaÌ„s reasoÌ„ wheÌ„ it semeth most galauÌ„t is ful of sportes folie Gods workes be al semelynes without confusion monstre or any such absurditie as this auctor supposeth Although I caÌ„ not in the sacrameÌ„t with the eye of my reasoÌ„ locally distincte Christes head froÌ„ his foote his legge froÌ„ his arme wher in the boke of coÌ„mon prayor it is truly sayd iÌ„ eche part of the bread coÌ„secrat brokeÌ„ to be Christs hole body if one of curiosite wold questioÌ„ with me I of foly wold answer him first wher is Christs head I should say here pointyng with my finger he would thinke it first a lytle head TheÌ„ he would aske wher is his foote I shold say ther pointe in the same place agayne for there is noone other left If he replyed that I poynted before the same for the head might not the thyrd a Catholique maÌ„ that stode by trowe you wisely caiie vs both madde to goo aboute to discusse that we must grauÌ„t we see not wheÌ„ by faythe we knowe only the beyng present of Christes most preciouse body theÌ„ by blynd reason to discusse the maner of beyng in the situacion of suche partes as we do not see Now if there came among vs a fourth man as a mediator would do as kyng Alexander did when he could not open the knot of Quintê° Curâ—us maketh mencion of this facte of Alexander Gordius he did cutte it with his sworde if this maÌ„ should say I wyll releaue this matter you beleue Christes body is present in dede really and substaÌ„cially leue out really and substantially and say his body is preseÌ„t in significacion then it may be easely conceyued by reason that Christes body beyng neuer so great may be aswell signifyed by a lytle peece of bread as by a great peece of breade euen as a manne may wryte a great mans name aswell in smallettres shorte as in great letters at lenght And to commende further his diuise vnto vs would percase tell how many absurdities as he thinketh and inconueniences might be auoyded by it This fourth man I speake of makyng him selfe a mediatour vnmete therfore because he hath no participatioÌ„ with fayth yet if our religion and fayth wer mans inuention as that of Numa Pompilius was should not vtter thys his conceyte all idelly For 〈◊〉 speaketh of a ioly easye way without any misterye or meruayle at all But our fayth is of hearyng as hath been preached contynually from the beginnyng grounded vpon the most sure truthe of the worde of God and therfore can not be attempered as man would diuise it to exclude trauayle in carnal reason For then the Sabellians wer to be Sabellians herkened vnto Who by their heresy toke away all the harde and difficile questions in the mistery of the trinitie The Arrians also releued muche mannes Arrians reason in consideration of Christes death deniyng hym to be of the same substaunce with his father whiche was a pestilent heresye Now in the SacrameÌ„t to say Christes bodye is present only by signification as it releueth in some mennes indgementes the absurdities in reason which ought not to be relieued So it condempneth al the true publique fayth testified in the churche from the beginyng hitherto sheweth the lerned holy men to haue wondred in their writynges at that whiche hath no wounder at al to ordeyne one thyng to be the signification of an other which is practised dayly among men But from the beginnyng the mistery of the Sacrament hath been with wounder merueyled at how Christ made bread his body and wyne his bloud and vnder the figure of these visible creatures gaue inuisibly his precious body and bloud presently there tedly S. Augustyne sayth We may not of mens maners esteme the sacramentes they Contra liâ—â—eras â—eti lib. 20. be made by him whose they be but worthely vsed they bryng reward vnworthely handled they bring indgemeÌ„t He that dispenseth the Sacrament worthely and he that vseth it vnworthely be not one but that thyng is one whither it be handeled worthely or vnworthely so as it is neyther better ne worse but life or deathe of them that vse it Thus sayth S. Augustyne and therfore be the receyuer worthy or vnworthy good or euil the substaunce of Christes Sacrament is all one as beyng goddes worke who worketh vniformely and yet is not in all that receyue of like effecte not for any alteracion or diminution in it but for the diuersitie of him that receyueth So as the report made here of the doctrine of the Catholique churche vnder the name of Papistes is a very true reporte and for want of grace reproued by thauctor as no true doctrine And the seconde part of the comparison on thauctors side conteyned vnder we say by them that in hypocrisye preteÌ„d to be truthes frendes conteyneth an vntruth to the simple reader and yet hath a matter of wranglyng to the learned reader because of the worde very which referred to thefecte of eatyng the body of Christ wherby to receyue life may be so spokeÌ„ that none receyue the body of Christe with the very effecte of life but suche as eate the sacrament spirituallye that is to saye with true fayth worthely And yet euill men as Iudas receiue the same very body touchyng the truth of the presence therof that S. Peter did For in the substaunce of the Sacrament whiche is Goddes worke is no variete who ordeyneth all as afore vniformely but in man is the variete amonges whoÌ„ he that receyueth worthely Christes body receyueth life and he that receyueth vnworthely receyueth coÌ„dempnacion There foloweth further They say that good men eate the body of Christ The auctor and drinke his bloud only at that tyme when they receyue the Sacrament we say that they eate drinke and fede of Christ continually so long as they be membres of his body What forehede I pray you is so heatdened The answer that can vtter this among them that know any thing of the learnyng of Christes churche In whiche it is a most coÌ„mon distinction that there is thre maner of eatynges of Christes body and bloud one spiritual only whiche is here affirmed in the seconde parte we say wherein the auctor and his say as the churche sayth Another eatyng is bothe sacramentally spiritually whiche is when men worthely communicate in the supper The thyrd is sacramentally only whiche is by men vnworthy who eate and drynke in the holy
in his last supper was an offryng of him to God the father assuryng there his Apostels of his wil determination by thē al the worlde that his body should be betrayed for thē vs his precious bloud shedde for remissiō of synne which his worde he cōfermed thē with the gift of his precious body to be eaten his precious bloud to be dronken In which mistery he declared his body and bloud to be the very sacrifice of the worlde by him offred to God the father by the same wil that he sayd his body shuld be betrayed for vs. And therby ascertayned vs to be in him willyng that the Iewes on the crosse semed to execute by violence force against his wil. And therfore as christ offred himself on the crosse in the execution of the worke of his wil so he offred himselfe in his supper in declaration of his wil wherby we might be the more assured of the effect of his deth which he suffred willyngly determinatly for the redemptiō of the worlde with a most perfite oblation satisfaction for the synnes of the worlde exhibite offred by him to God the father for the recōciliatiō of mannes nature to gods fauor grace And this I wryte because this auctor speaketh so precisely howe Christ offred himself neuer but ones wherby if he meane by ones offryng the hole action of our redēption whiche was consummate perfited vpon the crosse Al must confesse the substaunce of that worke of redemption by thoblation of Christes body on the crosse to haue been absolutly finished so ones offred for al. But there is no scripture wherupō we myght conclude that Christ dyd in this mortall life but in one particuler momēt of tyme offre himselfe to his father For S. Paule describeth it to the Philippians vnder the Phil. 2. worde of humiliation to haue continued the hole tyme of Christes conuersation here euē to the death the death of the crosse And that thys obedience to God in humilitie is called offeryng appeareth by S. Paule when he exhorteth vs to offre our bodies which meaneth a continual obedience in thobseruation of Gods will he calleth Oblationem gentium Rom. 12 to bryng them to fayth And Abrahās willyng obedience ready at Gods commaūdement to offre Isaac is called the offerynge of Isaac and is in very dede a true offeryng and eche man offreth himselfe to God when he yeldeth to gods callyng and presenteth himselfe ready to do gods wyl and cōmaundement who then may be say de to offre his seruyce that is to say to place his seruice in sight and before him before whom it should be done And because our sauiour Christ by the decree of the hole trinite roke mannes nature vpon him to suffre death for our redemption whiche death in his last supper he declared playnly he would suffre We reade in S. Cyprian how Christ offred himselfe in his supper fulfillyng the figure of Melchisedech who by thoffryng of bread and wyne signifyed that high mistery of Christes supper in which Christ vnder the forme of bread and wyne gaue his very body and bloud to be eaten and dronken and in the geuynge therof declared the determination of his glorious Passion and the fruite and effecte therof Whiche doyng was a swete pleasaunte oblatiō to God the father conteinyng a most perfyte obedience to Gods wyll and pleasure And in the mistery of this supper was writen made and sealed a most perfyte testimonie for an effectuall memorye of Christes offeryng of himselfe to his father and of his death and passion with the fruite therof And therfore Christ ordeyned this supper to be obserued and continued for a memory to his cummyng So as we that sawe not with our bodely eyes Christes death and passion may in the celebration of the supper be most suredly ascertayned of the truth out of Christes owne mouth Who styl speaketh in the person of the ministre of the church This is my body that is betrayed for you This is my bloud that is shedde for you in remission of synne and therwith maketh his very body truely present and his precious bloud truely present to be taken of vs eaten and dronken Wherby we be assured that Christ is the same to vs that he was to them and vseth vs as familiarly as he did them offreth himself to his father for vs aswel as for thē declareth his wil in the fruit of his death to perteyn aswel to vs as to thē Of which death we be assured by his own mouth that he suffred the same to thef fecte he spake of by the continual feadyng in this high mystery of the same very body that suffed and feadyng of it without consumptiō beyng continually exhibite vnto vs a liuyng body and liuely bloud not only our soule is specially and spiritually comforted and our body therby reduced to more conformable obedience to the soule but also we by the participation of this most precious body and bloud be ascertayned of resurrectiō and regeneration of our bodyes fleshe to be by gods power made incorruptible immortal to lyue haue fruition in God with our soule for euer Wherfore hauyng this mystery of Christes supper so many truthes in it the churche hath celebrate thē al and knowledged them al of one certayntie in truth not as figures but really in dede that is to say as our body shal be in the general resurrectiō regenerate in dede so we beleue we fede here of Christes body in dede And as it is true that Christes body in dede is betrayed for vs so it is true that he geueth vs to eate his very body in dede And as it is true that Christ was in yearth and dyd celebrate this supper So it is true that he commaunded it to be celebrate by vs tyl he come And as it is true that Christ was very God omnipotēt and very man So it is true that he could do that he affirmed by his worde himselfe to do And as he is most sincere truth So may we be truely assured that he would and did as he sayd And as it is true that he is most iuss so it is true that he assisteth the doyng of his commaundement in the celebration of the holy supper And therfore as he is auctor of this most holy Sacrament of his precious body and bloud so is he the maker of it is the inuisible priest who as Emissene sayth Emissen by his secrete power with his worde chaūgeth the visible creatures into the substāce of his body and bloud Wherin manne the visible priest and ministre by ordre of the churche is only a dispenser of the mystery doyng and saiyng as the holy ghost hath taught the churche to be done and sayd Finally as we be taught by fayth all these to be true so when wanton reasō fayth beyng a shepe goth about by curiositie to empayre any one of these truthes the
vs to be so boulde in so high a mysterie to begynne to discusse Christes intent what should moue vs to thinke that Christ would vse so many wordes without effectuall and reall significacion as be rehersed touchyng the mysterie of this Sacrament First in the .vi. of Iohn whan Christ had taught of the eatyng of him beyng the bread descended from heauen and declaring that eating to signify beleuing wherat was no murmuryng that then he should entre to speake of geuyng of his fleshe to be eaten and his bloud to be dronken and to say he would geue a bread that is his fleshe whiche he would geue for the life of the worlde In whiche wordes Christ maketh mention of two giftes and therfore as he is truth must needes intend to fulfill them both And therfore as we beleue the gift of his fleshe to the Iewes to bee crucified So we must beleue the gift of his fleshe to be eaten of that gift lyuerie and seisme as we say to be made of him that is in his ê“mises faithful as Christ is to be made in both And therfore whan he sayd in his supper Take eat This is my bodie he must nedes intend plainely as his wordes of promise required these woordes in his supper purport to geue as really then his bodie to be eaten of vs as he gaue his bodie in dede to be crucified for vs aptely neuerthelesse and conueniently for eche effect and therfore in maner of geuyng diuersely but in the substaunce of the same geuen to be as his wordes beare wytnes the same and therfore sayd This is my bodie that shal be berrayed for you expressyng also the vse wheÌ„ he sayd Take eat which wordes in deliueryng of materiall bread had been superfluous For what should men do with bread when they take it but eat it specially when it is broken But as Cyrill saith Christe opened there vnto theÌ„ the practise of that doctrine he spake of in the .vi. of Sainct Iohn because he sayd he would geue his fleshe for foode whiche he would geue for the life of the worlde he for fulfillyng of his promise sayd Take eate this is my bodie whiche wordes haue been taught beleued to be of effecte and operatorie and Christe vnder the forme of bread to haue been his verie bodie Accordyng wherunto S. Paule noreth the receauer to be giltie when he doth not esteme it our Lordes bodie wherwith it pleaseth Christ to fede such as be in him regenerate to thintente that as man was redemed by Christ sufferyng in the nature of his humanitie so to purchace for man the kingdome of heauen ioste by Adams fall Euen likewise in the nature of the same humanitic giuyng it to be eaten to norishe man make him strong to walke and continue his iorney to emoye that kingdome And therfore to set forth liuely vnto vs the communication of the substance of Christes most precious bodie in the Sacrament and the same to be in dede deliuered Christ vsed plaine wordes testified by the EuaÌ„gelistes S. Paule also rehersed the same wordes in the same plain termes in the .xi. to the Corinthians and in the tenth geuyng as it were an exposion of theffecte vseth the same propre wordes declaryng theffecte to be the coÌ„municatioÌ„ of Christes bodie and bloud And one thing is notable touching the scripture that in suche notable speaches vttered by Christ as might haue an ambiguitie the Euangelistes by some circumstaunce declared it or some tyme opened it by plaine interpretacion as when Christ sayd he would dissolue the temple and within three daies buylde it againe The EuaÌ„gtlistes by and by addeth for interpretacioÌ„ This he said of the temple of his bodie And when Christe sayd he is Helias and I am the true vine the circumstaunce of the text openeth the ambiguitie But to shew that Christ should not meane of his verie bodie when he so spake Neither S. Paule after ne the EuaÌ„gtlistes in the place adde any wordes or circumstauÌ„ces wherby to take away the propre significacion of the wordes bodie and bloud so as the same might same not in dede geueÌ„ as the Catholique faith reacheth but in significacion as thauctor would haue it For as for the wordes of Christ The spirit geueth life the fleshe profiteth nothing be to declare the two natures in Christ eche in their propertie apart considered but not as they be in Christes persoÌ„ vnited the mysterie of which vnioÌ„ suche as beleued not Christ to be God could not consider and yet to insinuate that vnto them Christ made mention of his descension from heauen and after of his ascension thither againe wherby they might vnderstand him verie God whose fleshe taken in the virgyns wombe and so geuen spiritually to be eaten of vs as I haue before opened viuisike and geueth life And this shall suffice here to shew how Christes inteÌ„t was to geue verely as he did in dede his precious bodie and bloud to be eaten and drunken accordyng as he taught theÌ„ to be verely meat and drinke and yet gaue and geueth them so vnder fourme of visible creatures to vs as we may conueniently and without horror of our nature receaue theÌ„ Christ therin condiscendyng to our infirmitie As for such other wranglyng as is made in the vnderstandyng of the wordes of Christ shall after be spoken of by further occasion The auctor vttereth a great meny wordes from the .viii. to the .xvii. chapter of the first booke declaryng spirituall hungre and thurst and the releuyng of the same by spirituall feadyng in Christ and of Christ as we constantly beleue in him to the confirmacioÌ„ of which beleif the auctor would haue the Sacramentes of Baptisme and of the bodie and bloud of Christ to be adminicles as it were and that we by them be preched vnto as in water bread and wyne and by them all our sences as it were spoken vnto or proprely touched whiche matter in the grosse although ther be some wordes by the way not tollerable yet if those wordes set apart the same were in the summe graunted to be good teachyng and holesome exhorcacion it conteyneth so no more but good matter not well applyed For the Catholique churche that professeth the truth of the presence of Christes bodie in the Sacrament would therewith vse that declaration of hungre of Christ and that spirituall refreshyng in Christe with the effect of Christes passion and death and the same to be thonely meane of mans regeneracion and feadyng also with the differences of that feadyng froÌ„ bodiely feadyng for continuyng this yearthly life But this toucheth not the principal point that should be entreated Whether Christ so ordered to fede suche as be regenerate in him to geue to them in the Sacrament the same his bodie that he gaue to be crucified for vs. The good man is fedde by faith and by the merites of Christes passion beyng the meane of the gift of that faith other giftes also and by
that point So much is he contrarie to him selfe in this worke and here in this place not caryng what he sayth reporteth suche a teachyng in the first parte of this difference as I haue not hearde of before There was neuer man of learnyng that I haue red termed the matter so that Christ goeth into the stomoke of the maÌ„ that receaueth and no further For that is writteÌ„ contra Stercoronistas is nothyng to this teachyng nor the speache of any glose if there be any such were herein to be regarded The Catholique doctrine is that by the holy coniunction in the Sacrament we be ioyned to Christ really because we receaue in the holy supper the most precious substaunce of his glorious body whiche is a fleshe geuyng life And that is not digested into our fleshe but worketh in vs and attempereth by heauenly nurrttor our body and soule beyng partakers of his passyon to be conformable to his will and by suche spiritual foode to be made more spirituall In the receauyng of whiche foode in the most blessed Sacrament our body and soule in them that duelie coÌ„municate worketh together in due ordre without other discussyon of the mysterie then God hath ordred that is to say the soule to beleue as it is taught and the body to do as God hath ordred knowyng that gloryous fleshe by our eatyng can not be consumed or suffre but to be most profitable vnto such as do accustonie worthely to receiue the same But to say that the churche teacheth how we receaue Christ at our mouth and he goeth into our stomoke and no further is a reporte which by the iust iudgemente of God is suffred to come out of the mouthe of them that fyght against the truth in this most high mysterie Now where this auctor in the secoÌ„de part by an aduersiteue with a But to make the comparison telleth what he and his say he telleth in effect that which euery Catholique man must nedes and doth confesse For such as receaue Christes most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament worthly they haue Christ dwellyng in theÌ„ who conforteth both body and soule whiche the church hath euer taught most plainely so as this comparison of differeÌ„ce in his two parties is made of one open vntruth a truth disguised as though it were now first opened by this auctor and his whiche maner of handelyng declareth what sleyght and shift is vsed in the matter They say that Christ is receyued in the mouth The auctor entreth in with the bread and wyne We say that he is receyued in the heart and entreth in by faith Here is a pretie slaight in this coÌ„parison The answer where both partes of the comparison may be vnderstanded on bothe sydes and therfore here is by thauctor in this coÌ„parison no issue ioyned For the worthy receauyng of Christs body and bloud in the Sacramente is both with mouth heart both in facte faith After whiche sorte S. Peter in the last supper receaued Christes body wheras in the same supper Iudas receaued it with mouth in fact only wherof S. Augustin speketh in this wise Non dicunt ista nisi qui de meÌ„sa domini August contra li teras pe til lib. 2 cap. 47. vitaÌ„sumunt Sicut Petrus non iudicium sicut Iudas et tamen ipsa vtrique fuit vna sed non vtrique valuit ad vnum quia ipsi noÌ„ erant vnuÌ„ Whiche wordes be thus muche to say That they say not so as was before entreated but suche as receaue life of our Lordes table as Peter did not iudgment as Iudas and yet the table was all one to them both but it was not to all one effect in theÌ„ both because they were not one Here S. Augustine noteth the difference in the receauer not in the Sacrament receaued whiche beyng receaued with the mouth onely and Christ entryng in mysterie only doth not sanctify vs but is the stone of stumblyng and our iudgement and condempnacion but if he be receaued with mouthe and body with hearte and fayth to such he bryngeth life and nurrishemeÌ„t wherfore in this comparison thauctor hath made no difference but with diuers termes the catholique teachyng is deuided into two membres with a But facioned neuertheles in an other phrase of speache then the church hath vsed whiche is so commen in this auctor that I will not hereafter note it any more for a faulte Let vs go further They say that Christ is really in the SacrameÌ„tall The auctor bread beyng reserued an whole yere so long as the forme of bread remaineth but after the receauyng therof he flieth vp they say from the receyuer vnto heauen as sone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or chaunged in the stomoke But we say that Christ remayneth in the man that worthely receaueth it so long as the man remayneth a membre of Christ This comparison is like the other before The answer wherof the first parte is garnished and emblossed with vntruth and the second parte that the church hath euer taught most truly that al must beleue and therfore that pece hath no vntruth in the matter but in the maner only beyng spokeÌ„ as though it diffred froÌ„ the continuall open reachyng of the churche which is not so wherfor in the maner of it in vtteraunce signifieth an vntruth whiche in the matter it selfe is neuerthelesse most true For vndoutedly Christ remaineth in the maÌ„ that worthely receiueth the sacrameÌ„t so loÌ„g as that man remayneth a membre of Christ In this first part there is a fault in the matter of the speache for explicacion wherof I wil examin it particularly This auctor saith they say that Christ is really in the SacrameÌ„tal bread beyng reserued an hole yere c. The church geuyng faith to Christes worde wheÌ„ he sayd This is my body c. techeth the body of Christ to be present in the SacrameÌ„t vnder the forme of bread vnto which words wheÌ„ we put the worde really it serueth only to expresse that truth in open wordes which was afore to be vnderstaÌ„ded in sence For in Christ who was the body of al the shadowes figures of the law who did exhibit geue in his sacrameÌ„tes of the new law the things promised in his sacramentes of tholde lawe We must vnderstaÌ„d his wordes in the institucion of his sacraments without figure in the substance of the celestial thyng of theÌ„ therfore when he ordred his most precious bodye bloud to be eateÌ„ drunken of vs vnder the formes of bread wyne we professe beleue that truely he gaue vs his most precious body in the SacrameÌ„t for a celestial foode to coÌ„fort strength vs in this miserable life And for the certayntie of the truth of his worke therin we ê“fesse he geueth vs his body realy that is to say in ded his body the thing it self Which is the heauenly part of the SacrameÌ„t
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
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
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
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
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
where he geuteh a rule of recapitulatioÌ„ as he calleth it when that is tolde after that was done afore and therfore we maye not argue so firmely vpon the ordre of the tellynge in the speche S. Augustine bryngeth an example Augustinus de doctrina 〈◊〉 libro 3. Cap. 36. that by ordre of tellyng Adam was in paradise or any tree was brought forth for feadyng with diuerse other wherewith I will not encoÌ„bre the reader Theuangeliste reherseth what Christ said and did simplye and truely whiche story we must so place in vnderstandyng as we tryfle not the mysterie at stayng and stoppyng of lettres and syllables And therfore though the worde take eate goo before the wordes This is my bodye we may not argue that they tooke it and eate it afore christ had tolde them what he gaue them and all these often rehersalles of bread with he toke bread he brake bread and blessed bread and if ye will adde helde bread all this induce no consequence that he therfore gaue bread For he gaue that he had consecrate and gaue that he made of breade If Christe when he was tempted to make stones breade had taken the stones and blessed them and delyuered them saiynge This is bread had he then delyuered stones or rather that he made of stones bread Such maner of reasonyng vseth Peter Martyr as this auctor doth whose foly I may well say he sawe not to eschwe it but as appeareth rather to folowe it And yet not content to vse this fonde reasonyng this auctor calleth Papists to witnesse that they might lawgh at it because the EuaÌ„geliste telleth the story so as Christ sayde drincke and then could after what it was this auctor fansieth that the Apostels should be so hasty to drinke ere Christ had tolde them what he gaue whiche they had I thinke he woulde haue stayed the cuppe with his hande or byd them rary whiles he had tolde them more I wil no further trauayle with this resonyng which it is pitie to heare in suche a matter of grauite of such coÌ„sequence as it is both in body soule We maye not tryfle with Christes wordes after this sorte When S. Paul sayth we be partakers of one bread he speaketh not of materiall breade but of Christes bodye oure heauenly bread which to all is one cannot be consumed but able to fead all the worlde and if this auctor geueth credite to Theodoretus whom he calleth an holy man theÌ„ shal he neuer fynde the Sacrament called bread after the sanctificacion but the bread of life the like whereof shoulde be in an Epistell of Chrysostome as Peter Martyr allegeth not yet prynted by whose auctorices if they haue any as in there place this auctor maketh muche of them al these argumentes be al tryfles for all the namynge of bread by Christ and Sainct Paule and all other must be vnderstanded before the sanctificacion and not after And if thou reader lokest after vpon Theodoretus and that Epistell Thou shalt fynde true that I saye wherby all this questyoning with Papistes is onely a dalyinge for this auctour pleasure againste his owne auctors and all learnynge In the thirde Chapter wryten in the .xxi. leafe it troubleth this auctour that the doctrine of transubstantiacion is in his Iudgement againste naturall reason and naturall operacion in the entrye of whiche matter he graunteth wisely that they shoulde not preuayle against gods worde and yet he saith when they be ioyned with gods worde they be of a great moment to coÌ„ferme any trueth wherin if he meaneth to coÌ„firme gods worde by reason or gods mysteryes by natural operacion myne vnderstandynge cannot reache that doctrine and is more strange to me then this auctor maketh transubstantiacion to be to him As for the reason of vacuum declareth a vacuum that nature abhorreth not And if we speake after the rules of nature quantite filleth the place rather then substance And shortely to answer this auctor it is not sayd in the doctrine of transubstautiat ioÌ„ that there remayneth nothyng for in the visible forme of bread remayneth the propre obiecâ—e of euery sence truly that is seen with the bodely eye is truely seen that is felt is truly felt that is sauered is truely sauered those thinges corrupte putrifie nurrisne and consume after the trueth of the former nature God so ordryng it that create al vsing singulerly that creature of breade not to vnitie it vnto him as he did mannes nature to be in bread impanate and breaded as he was in fleshe incarnate And as for reason in place of seruice as beyng inferior to fayth will agree with the fayth of Transubstantiacion welynoughe For if our fayth of the true presence of Christes very body he true as it is moste true grounded vppon the wordes of Christ This is my body Then reason yeldyng in that truth wyl not stryue with transubstaÌ„tiacioÌ„ but plainly affirme that by here Iudgement if it be the bodye of Christ it is not bread For in the rule of comeÌ„ reason the graunte of one substance is the denyal of an other therfore reason hathe these coÌ„clusioÌ„s througly what soeuer is breade is no wyne what soeuer is wyne is no milke so forth And therfore beynge ones beleued this to be the body of Christ reason sayth by and by it is not breade by the rule aforesayde wherby appeareth howe reason doth not stryue with transubstantiacion beynge ones conquered with fayth of the true presence qf Christes body whiche is most euident and no whitte darkened by any thynge this auctour hath brought As for naturall operation is not in all mens Iudgementes as this auctour taketh it who semeth to repute it for an inconuenience to saye that the accidentes of wyne do sowre and waxe vinegre But Wlpian a man of notable learnynge is not afrayde to wrytte in the lawe In venditionibus de contrahenda emptione in the pandectes that of wine and vinegre there is prope eadem vsia in maner one substance wherin he sheweth him selfe far against this auctors skil which I put for an example to shewe that naturall operations haue had in naturall mennes iudgementes diuerse consideracioÌ„s one sumtime repugnante to an other and yet the auctors of both opinions called Philosophers all Amonge whiche sum thought for exaÌ„ple they spake wisely that estemed all thinge to altre as swiftelye as the water runneth in the streame and thought therfore no man coulde vttre a worde beyng the same man in th ende of a worde that he was when he beganne to speake and vsed a similitude Like as a man standing in one place cannot touche the same one water twise in a runnynge streame no more can a man be touched the same man twise but he altreth as swiftely as doth the streame These were laughed to skorne yet they thought themselfe wise in naturall speculation Aristotel that is muche estemed and worthely fansyed a first matter in all things to be one
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