coÌ„secration As touchyng the spiritualtie of the meat of Christes bodye I haue spoken before but where this auctor addeth it requireth no corporall presence he speaketh in his dreame beynge oppressed with slepe of ignoraunce and can not tell what corporall meaneth as I haue opened before by thauctorite of Cyrill Nowe let vs se what this auctor sayth to Chrisostome This auctor noteth in Chrisostome Chrisostome two places and bryngeth them forth and in handlyng the first place declareth himselfe to trifle in so great a matter euidently to his owne reproufe For where in the secoÌ„d booke of his worke entretyng transubstanciation he would the same words of Chrisostome by this fourme of speache in the negatiue should not denye precisely And when Chrisostome sayth do not thinke that you by man receiue the body of god but that we should not considre man in the receiuyng of it Here this auctor doth allege those wordes and reasoneth of them as though they were termes of were deny all But I would aske of this auctor this question If Chrisostomes fayth had been that we receyue not the bodye of God in the SacrameÌ„t verely Why should he vse wordes Idelly to entreat of whome we receiued the body of God whiche after this auctors doctrine we receiue not at all but in figure no body at all whiche is of Christes humanitie beyng Christ as this auctor teacheth spiritually that is by his diuine nature in him onely that worthely receyueth and in the verye Sacrament as he concludeth in his booke onely figuratiuely Turne backe reader to the. 36. lâ—ef in the auctors booke and reade it with this and so considre vpon what principle here is made an Ergo I will answere that place whan I speake of transubstanciation whiche shall be after answer to the third and fourth booke as the naturall ordre of the matter requiteth The second place of Chrisostome that this auctor bringeth furth he grauÌ„teth it souÌ„deth much against him fauoreth his aduersaries but with coÌ„ferryng coÌ„sideryng he trusteth to altre it from the true vnderstandyng And not to expound but confouÌ„de the matter he ioyneth in speach the SacrameÌ„t of baptisme with this sacrameÌ„t which shifte this auctor vsed vntruly in Hilarie would now beare in hand that the preseÌ„ce of Christ were none otherwise in this sacrameÌ„t theÌ„ in Baptisme whiche is not so for in this Sacrament Christes humanitie godhead is really preseÌ„t in Baptisme his godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud in whiche we be wasshed not requiring by scripture any real preseÌ„ce for dispeÌ„sation of that mystery as I haue before touched discussyng thanswer of Emissen where as Chrisostome speakyng of Chrisosto de Sacerdo li. 3. this sacrameÌ„t whereof I haue before spokeÌ„ and Melancton allegyng it to Oecolampadius saith thus The great myracle and great beneuolence of Christ is that he sitteth aboue with his father and is the same houre in our handes here to de embrased of vs. and therfore where this auctor would not the woÌ„dre of gods worke in the Sacrament to be wonderfull for the worke and effect in man this is one piece of truth but in the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ the olde fathers wonder at the worke in the SacrameÌ„t how bread is chauÌ„ged into the body of christ how Christ sittyng in heauen God and man is also man and God in the Sacrament and beyng worthly receiued dwelleth in such carnally and naturally as Hilarie sayth and corporally as Cyrill sayth How this can be no man can tell no faythfull maÌ„ should aske and yet it is the true Catholique fayth to be truely so wrought For as Emissene sayth he that is thauctor of it he is the witnesse of it And therfore I wil make it an issue with this An issue So this auctor hath nowe in this worke confessed the traÌ„slacion of the catechisme which one in coÌ„munication would nedes haue made me beleue had been his mannes doyng and not his Heare now reader how plainly Theophilact speaketh vpon the Gospelâ— of Sainct Iohn expounding the .vi. Chapter Take hede that the bread whiche is eaten of vs in the mysteryes is not onely a certaine figuration of the fleshe of our Lorde but the fleshe it selfe of our Lorde for he sayde not The bread whiche I shall geue is the figure of my flesh but it is my fleshe For that bread by the mysticall benediction is transformed by mystical wordes and presence of the holy ghost into the flesh of our Lord. And it should trouble no maÌ„ that the bread is to be beleued fleshe for whiles our Lorde walked in flesh and receiued nurrishmeÌ„t of bread that bread he did eat was chaunged into his body and was made like to his holy fleshe and as it is customably in mans feadyng serued to the sustentacion and encrease of it therfore the bread now also is chaunged into the fleshe of our Lorde And howe is it then that it appeareth not fleshe but bread that we should not loth the eatyng of it for if fleshe did appeare we should be vnplesauntly disposed to the communion of it Nowe our Lorde coÌ„desceÌ„dyng to our infirmitie the mystical meat appeareth suche to vs as those we haue been accustomed vnto Hitherto I haue faithfully expressed Thiophilactes wordes out of Latyn of â—ecolampadins translation without termyng the substanciall poyntes otherwise theÌ„ the wordes purporte in Latyn By which may appeare what was Theophilacts meanyng what doctrine he geueth of the Sacrament and howe his owne wordes vpon S. Marke be to be vnderstanded wheÌ„ he sayth Speciem quidem panis vini seruat in virtutem Theophilact autem carnis sanguinis transelemeÌ„tat in corruptyng of whiche wordes this auctor maketh a great matter when they were not alleged for his but as they be his seruare speciem maye be well translate fourme and apparaunce because vpon Sainct Iohn before alleged he sayth of the bread it appeareth And as for these wordes the vertue of Christes fleshe and bloud must be vnderstaÌ„ded to agre with the playne place of Theophilacte vpon Sainct Iohn and vpoÌ„ marke also to signifie not only vertue but veritie of the fleshe and bloud of Christ For if Theophilacte by that speache mente the vertue of the body of Christ and not the veritie of the very body as this author sayth he did why shoulde Theophilacte bothe vpon Saincte Marke and also vpon Saincte Iohn aske this question why doth not the fleshe appeare if himselfe by those wordes should teache there were onely 〈◊〉 presente the vertue of his fleshe who and he had ment so would not haue asked the question or if he had would haue answerd it thus Accordyngly there is no fleshe in dede but the vertue of the fleshe and that had been a playne answer and such as he would haue made This auctor wylaske then why doth Theophilacte vse this phrase to say chaunged into the vertue of the
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
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
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
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