sainct Ambrose consonante to those of saincte Augustine and the openinge of S. Augustines wordes as before I truste I haue made manifest howe this auctor trauaileth againste the streame and laborith in vaine to wrieth saincte Augustine to his purpose in this matter The beste is in this auctor that he audeleth saincte Augustine no worse then the reste but all after one sorte because they be all of like sorte againste his newe catholique faith and conferme the olde trew catholique faith or do not improue it For of this highe misterie thauctors write summe more obscurely and decklye then other and vse diuersites of speaches wordes wher with the true doctrine hath been of a very fewe impugned but euer in vayne as I truste in god shal be moste in vaine Hahinge this auctor vttred suche vntruthes with sumoâ—he blynde ignoraunce as this worke wel wayed and consydered that is to saye who made ityn when he made it and of like howe many were or might haue ben and shulde haue ben of counsaile in so greate a matter who if there wrere any e all reprouid in this one worke all suche circumstaunces coÌ„sydered this boke maye do as muche gode to releaue suche perplexite as altercacion hathe engeÌ„dred and so do as god seruice to the trueth as was ment there by to hindre and Impaire it And this shal suffise for an auswere to this fourth booke ¶ The confutation of the seconde booke HAuinge declared how much again all trueth this auctor would beare in hand that the reall presence the corporall presence and substanciall presence of Christes most precyous body and bloud in the Sacrament is not the true Catholique doctrine but a diuise of the Papistes which is a terme wherwith this auctor doth vncharitablye charge the kynges true subiectes amonges whom he knoweth a great many to be of that faith he calleth nowe Papistes But settyng wordes a parte and to cume to the mattier as I haue shewed this auctor to erre partelye by willfulnes partelye by ignoraunce in thunderstandyng of the olde auctors concernyng the true real presence of Christes bodye and bloud in the SacrameÌ„t So I trust to shewe this auctor ouerseen in tharticle of transubstantiacion For entre wherunto first I saye thus that albeit the worde transubstantiacion was first spokeÌ„ of by publique auctorite in that assemble of learned men of Christendome in a generall consayle where the Bysshppe of rome was present yet the true matter signified by that worde was older and beleued before vpon the true vnderstandyng of Christes wordes was in that counsaile confessed not for the auctorite of the Byshop of rome but for thauctorite of trueth beyng tharticle suche as toucheth not the auctorite of the Byshop of rome but the true doctrine of Christes mysteries and therfore in this realme thauctorite of rome câ—ssing was also coÌ„fessed for a truth by all the clergye of this realme in an open coÌ„saile specially discussed and though the hardenes of the law that by parliameÌ„t was established of that and other articles hath been repelled yet that doctrine was neuer hitherto by any publique consaile or any thynge set forth by auctorite empayred that I haue hard wherfore me thinketh this auctor shuld not improue it by the name of the Bishop of rome seynge we rede howe truth was vttred by BalaaÌ„ caiph as also Num. 22 IohaÌ„ 11. S. Paul teacheth the PhilippeÌ„ses that whither it be by coÌ„tencion or enuye so Christ be preached the person shuld not empaire thopâ—ing of truth if it be truth which Luther in deed would not alowe for truth impugning tharticle of transubstaÌ„tiacioÌ„ not meanynge therby as this auctour doth to empayre the truth of the very presence of Christs most precious body in the Sacrament of the aultare as is a for sayd In the discussion of whiche truth of traÌ„substaÌ„tiacioÌ„ I for my part shuld be specially defended by two meanes wherwith to anoyde the enuious name of Papist One is that zuinglius himselfe who was no Papist as is well knoweÌ„ nor god christeÌ„ maÌ„ as sume sayd neyther sayth playâ—ly writing to luther in the matter of the sacrament it must nedes be true that if the body of Christ be really in the sacrament there is of necessite transubstantiacion also Wherfore seing by luthers trauayle who fanâ—red not the bishoppe of Rome neither and also by euidence of the truth moste certaine and manifest it apperith that according to the treue catholique faith Christe is reallye present in the sacrament it is now by Suinglius iudgemeÌ„t a necessary consequeÌ„ce of that trueth to saye there is transubstantiacion also whiche shal be one meane of purgation that I defende not transubstantiacion as dependinge of the bishoppe of Romes determination which was not his absolutely but of a necess 〈…〉 e of the trueth housoeuer it liketh dunâ— or gabriel to write in it whose sayinges this auctor vsith for his pleasure An other defence is that this auctor himselfe saith that it is ouer greate an absurdite to saye that breade insensible with many other termes that he addith shulde be the bodye of Christe and therfore I thinke that the is that is to saye the inwarde nature essence of that Christe deliuered in his supper to be eaten and droÌ„cken was of his body bloud and not of the bread and wyne and therfore canne well agree with this auctor that the bread of wheate is not the body of Christe nor the bodie of Christe made of it as of a matter whiche consideracions will enforce him that beleueth the trueth of the presence of the substaÌ„ce of Christes body as the treue catholique faith teachith to assent to transubstantiacion not as determined by the churche of Rome but as a coÌ„sequeÌ„t of treuth beleued iÌ„ the misterie of the sacrameÌ„t which transubstantiacioÌ„ how this auctor wolde impugne I wil without quarel of eÌ„uious wordes coÌ„sider with true opening of his haÌ„deling the mattier doubte not to make the reader to see that he fighteth against the trueth I will passe ouer the vnreuerent handelinge of Christes wordes This is my body which wordes I harde this auctor if it be the same that is named ones reherse more seriously in a soleÌ„â—â—…e open audience to the conuiction condempnacion as folowid of one that erroncously mainteyned against the sacrameÌ„t the same that this auctor callith now the catholique faith But to the purpose the simplicite of faith in a Christen mans brest doth not so precisely marke stay at the sillables of Christes wordes as this auctor pretendith and knowinge by faith the truth of Christes wordes that as he said he wrought doo not measure goddes secret working after the ê“lacion of our sillables whose worke is in one instauÌ„ce how soeuer speche in vs require a successiue vttrauÌ„ce the maner of haÌ„d linge this auctor vsith to bringe the misticall wordes in coÌ„teÌ„pte wer meater in an Ethinkes mouthe to ieste out all
And how saye they that our fleshe is not able to receyue gods gifte who is eternal life which flesh is nurrished with the body bloud of Christ These be also Irenes wordes wherby appeareth what he ment by the heauenly thing in Eucharistia whiche is the very presence of Christes body bloud And for the playne testimonye of this faithe this Irene hathe been commeeÌ„y alleaged and specially of Melancton to Decolampadius as one moste ancient and most playnely testifiyng the same So as his very words truely alleaged ouerthrowe this authour in the impugnation of Christes reall presence in the Sacramente and therfore can nothyng helpe this auctors purpose agaynst transubstautiation Is not this a goodly and godly entre of this author in the first two auctorities that he bryngeth in to corrupte them both As for Drigene in Drigene his owne wordes saith the matter of the breade remayneth whiche as I haue before opened it may be granted but yet he termeth it not as this auctour dothe to call in materiall breade Whenne God formed Adam of Gene. 〈◊〉 claye the mattier of the claye remayned in Adam and yet the materiall claye remayned not for it was altred into an other substance whiche I speake not to compare equallye the fourmynge of Adam to the Sacrament but to shewe it not to be all one to saye the materiall breade and the matter of breade For the accidentes of bread maye be called the matter of breade but not the materiall breade as I haue sumwhat spoken thereof before but suche shiftes be vsed in this matter notwithstandynge the importaunce of it Saincte Cypriaus wordes do note impugne Cyprian transubstantiacioÌ„ for they tend onely to shewe that wyne is the creature appoynted to the celebration of this mysterye and therfore water onelye is no due matter accordynge to Christes institution And as the name wyne muste be vsed before the consecration to shewe the trueth of it then so it maye also be vsed for a name of it after to shewe what it was whiche is often vsed And in one place of Cyprian by this author here alleaged it appeareth Sainct Cyprian by the worde wyne signifieth the heauenly wyne of the vineyarde of the Lorde of Saboth callyng it newe wyne and alludynge therin to Dauid And this dothe Cyprian shewe in these wordes he we shall we drinke with Christ newe wine of the creature of the vyne if in the sacrifice of God the father Christ we do not offer wyne Is not here mention of newe wyne of the creature of the vyne what newe wyne can be but the bloud of Christ the very wyne consecrate by gods omnipotencye of the creature of the vyne offred And therfore this one place may geue vs a lesson in Cyprian that as he vseth the worde wyne to signifie the heauenly drinke of the bloud of Christ made by consecration of the creature of wine So wheithe nameth the bread consecrate bread he meaneth the heauenly bread Christ who is the bread of life And so Cyprian can make nothynge by those wordes againue transubstantiacion who wryteth playnely of the chaunge of the bread by gods omnipotencye into the â—â—eâ—he of Christ as shall after appeare where this author goeth about to answere v 〈…〉 him As touchyng Emissene by whose wordes Emissen is expresselye testified the truth of the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament and also the sence of the doctrine of transubstantiacion this auctor maketh himselfe bolde ouer him and so bolde that he dare corrupte him whiche Emissen wryteth nâ—t that man is turned in to the body of the Churche And here I make an issue with this author that Emissene Anissue hath not that worde of turnyng in that place and man to be turned into the body of the Church is no conuenient speache to signifie a change in him that is regenerate by baptisme He in dede that is thruste out of the chauncell for his misdemeanour in seruice tyme maye be sayde tourned into the bodye of the Churche But Emissene speaketh not so here but because the same Emissene declarynge the mysterye of the Sacrament sayth the visible creatures be tourned into the substance of the bodye of Christe thys auctour thought it woulde sounde gaylye well to the confusion of that â—â—ewe doctyne of tournynge to speake in Baptisme of the turnyng of a man in to the body of the Churche And it may be comenly obserued in this authour wheÌ„ he allegeth any auctorite of others he bryngeth forthe the same in suche forme of wordes as he would haue them and not as they be for the most parte or very often and ones of purpose were ouer often in so high a matter as this is And yet in this Emissins authorite afteral the payne taken to reforge him Emissens doctrine play nely confoundeth this authours teachynge This author maketh a note that there is in man baptized nothynge chaunged outwardely and therfore in the SacrameÌ„t neyther and it must be graunted For the doctrine of transubstantiation teacheth not in the Sacrament any outwarde chaunge For the substance of the bread and wyne is an inwarde nature and so is substance of one defined And to speake of the thyng changed then as in man the chaÌ„ge is in the soule which is the substaÌ„ce of man So for the thyng chaÌ„ged in the visible creatures should be also changed and is chaunged the substance of the bread and wyne to answere theirin to the other And we must considre howe this comparison of the two chaunges is made as it were by proportion Wherin eche chaunge hath his special ende and terme whervnto and therfore accordynge to terme and ende hath his worke of chaunge speciall and seuerall both by gods worke Thus I meane The visible creatures hath there ende and terme whervnto the change is made the very body and bloud of Christe whiche body beynge a trut body we must saye is a corporall substance The soule of man hath his ende and terme a spirituall alteration incorporall to be regenerate the sonne of God And then the doctrine of this Emissene is playne this that eche change is of like truth and then it foloweth that if the change of mannes soule in Baptisme be true and not in a figure The chaunge likewise in the Sacrament is also true and not in a figure And if manues soule be the chunge in Baptisme be in deade that is to saye really made the sonne of God then is the substance of the bread whiche is as it were the soule of the bread I am bolde here in speache to vse the worde soule â—o expresse proportion of the comparison but euen so is the inwarde nature of the bread whiche is substance turned and chaunged in to the bodye of Christe beynge the terme and ende of that chaunge And here I saye so not to declare the maner but the truthe of th end that is to saye as really and in dede the chaunge is in the
this auctor doth impute that fayth of the real presence of Christes bodie and bloud to thonly Papistes Wherupon reader here I ioyne with thauctor an issue that the fayth of the real and substantiall An issue presence of Christes bodie and bloud in the Sacrament is not the diuise of Papistes or their fayth onely as this auctor doth consideratly slander it to bee and desire therfore that accordyng to Salomons iudgemēt this may serue for an note and marke for to geue sentence for the true mother of the childe For what should this meane so without shame openly and vntruly to call this fayth papishe but onely with the enuyous worde of Papist to ouermatche the truth It shal be now to purpose to considre the scriptures touchyng the matter of the Sacrament which thauctor pretēdyng to bring forth faithfully as the maiestie therof requireth in the rehersal of the wordes of Christ out of the gospel of saint Iohn he begynneth a litle to lowe and passeth ouer that perteyneth to the matter and therfore should haue begon a litle hygher at this clause And the bread whiche I shall geue you is my fleshe whiche I wyll geue for the life of the world The Iewes therfore striued betwene theim self saiyng How can this mā geue his fleshe to be eaten Iesus therfore sayd vnto them Uerely verely I say vnto you except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud ye haue no life in you Who so eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life I wyl rayse him vp at the last day For my fleshe is verie meat and my bloud verie drinke He that eateth my flesh drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me I in him As the liuyng father hath sent me and I liue by the father Euen so he that eateth me shal liue by me This is the bread which came doune frō heauen Not as your fathers did eat Manna and are dead He that eateth this bread shall lyue for euer Here is also a faulte in the translacion of the texte whiche should be thus in one place For my fleshe is verely meat and my bloud is verely drinke In whiche speache the verbe that cuppleth the wordes fleshe and meat together knitteth them together in their propre significacion so as the fleshe of Christ is verelymeat as thauctor would persuade And in these words of Christ may appere plainly how Christ taught the mysterie of the fode of his humanitie whiche he promised to geue for foode euen the same fleshe that he said he would geue for the life of the worlde and so expresseth the first sentence of this scripture here by me holly brought forth that is to say And the bread whiche I shall geue you is my fleshe whiche I shall geue for the life of the worlde And so it is plaine that Christ spake of fleshe in the same sence that Sainct Ihon speaketh in saiyng The worde was made fleshe signifiyng by fleshe the hole humanitie And so did Cyrill agre to Nestorius when he vpon these textes reasoned howe this eatyng is to be vnderstanded of Christes humanitie to whiche nature in Christes person is properly attribute to be eaten as meate spiritually to norishe man dispensed and geuen in the Sacrament And betwene Nestorius and Cyrill was this diuersitie in vnderstandyng the mysterie that Nestorius estemyng of eche nature in Christe a seuerall personne as it was obiected to him and so dissoluyng the ineffable vnitie did so repute the bodie of Christe to be eaten as the bodie of a man seperate Cyrill maynteyned the bodie of Christ to be eaten as a bodie inseperable vnited to the godhed and for the ineffable mysterie of that vnion the same to be a fleshe that geueth life And then as Christ sayth if wee eate not the fleshe of the sonne of man we haue not life in vs because Christ hath ordered the Sacrament of his most precious bodie and bloud to norishe suche as be by his holy spirite regenerate And as in Baptisme we receaue the spirite of Christ for the renewyng of our life so do we in this Sacrament of Christes moost precious bodie and bloud receaue Christes verie fleshe drynke his verie bloud to continus and preserue increase and augment the life receaued And therfore in the same forme of wordes Christ spake to Nycodemus of Baptisme that he speaketh here of the eatyng of his bodie and drinkyng of his bloud and in both the Sacramentes geueth dispenseth and exhibiteth in dede those celestial gyftes in sensible elementes as Chrisostome sayth And because the true faithfull beleuyng men do onely by fayth know the sonne of man to be in vnitie of person the sonne of God so as for the vnitie of the two natures in Christ in one person the fleshe of the sonne of man is the propre fleshe of the soone of God Saincte Augustine sayd well when he noted these wordes of Christ verely verely onlesse ye eat the fleshe of the sonne of man c. to be a figuratiue speache because after the bare lettre it semeth vnprofitable consideryng that flesh profiteth nothyng in it selfe estemed in thowne nature alone but as the same fleshe in Christ is vnited to the diuine nature so is it as Christ sayd after Cyrilles exposition spirite and life not chaunged into the diuine nature of the spirite but for the ineffable vnion in the person of Christ therunto it is viuificatrix as Cyrill sayd and as the holy Ephesine councel decreed a fleshe geuyng life accordyng to Christes wordes who eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life and I will raise him vp at the latter day And then to declare vnto vs how in geuyng this life to vs Christ vseth the instrumēt of his verie humaine bodie it foloweth For my fleshe is verely meat and my bloud verely drinke So like as Christ sanctifieth by his godlye spirite so doth he sanctifye vs by his godlie fleshe and therfore repeteth againe to inculcate the celestial thing of this mysterie and sayth he that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him whiche is the natural and corporal vnion betwene vs and Christ Wherupō foloweth that as Christ is naturally in his father and his father in him so he that eateth verely the fleshe of Christ he is by nature in Christ and Christ is naturally in him and the worthy receauer hath life encreased augmented and confirmed by the participacion of the fleshe of Christe And because of thin effable vnion of the two natures Christ sayd This is the foode that came doune frō heauen because God whose proper fleshe it is came downe from heauen and hath an other vertue then Manna had because this geueth life to them that worthely receaue it whiche Manna beyng but a figure therof did not but beyng in this foode Christes verie fleshe inseperably vnite to the godhed the same is of suche efficacie as he that worthely eateth of it shall
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
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
deuoutly reuerently charitably quietly vse frequent the same without other Innouacions then thordre of the boke prescribeth Now to the last diffreÌ„ce They say that Christ is corporally in many places The auctor at one tyme affirming that his body is corporally really present in as many places as there be hostes consecrated We say that as the sonne corporally is euer in heauen no where els yet by his operation vertue the sonne is here in earth by whose influeÌ„ce vertue all thinges in the world be corporally regene rated encreased grow to their perfite state So likewise our sauiour Christ bodely corporally is in heuen sittyng at the righthande of his father although spirituallye he hath promysed to be present with vs vpoÌ„ yearth vnto the worldes ende And when so euer two or thre be gathered together in his name 〈◊〉 is there in the myddes among them by whose spiritual grace al godly men be first by him spiritually regenerate and after encrease and growe to their spirituall perfection in God spiritually by fayth eatyng his fleshe and drinkyng his bloud although the same corporally be in heauen The true teachyng is that Christes very The answer body is present vnder the forme of bread in as many hoostes as be coÌ„secrate in how many places soeuer the hoostes be coÌ„secrate is there really substancially whiche wordes really substaÌ„cially be implyed wheÌ„ we say truly-preseÌ„t The worde corporally may haue an ambiguite doublenes in respecre relation One is to the truth of the body present so it may be said Christ is corporally preseÌ„t in the Sacrament but if the worde corporally be referred to the maner of the preseÌ„ce then we should say Christes body were present after a corporall maner whiche we say not but in a spirituall maner therfore not locally nor by maner of quantitie but in such a maner as God only knoweth yet doth vs to vnderstand by fayth the truth of the very presence excedyng our capacite to coÌ„prehend the maner howe This is the very true teachyng to affirme the truth of the presence of Christes very body in the SacrameÌ„t euen of the same bodye that suffred in playne simple euident termes wordes suche as can not by cauillatioÌ„ be mystaken construed so nere as possibly maÌ„s infirmitie permitteth suffreth Nowe let vs coÌ„sider in what sorte thauctor his company which he calleth we say do vnderstand the SacrameÌ„t who go about to expresse the same by a similitude of the creature of the sonne whiche sonne this auctor saith is euer corporally in heauen no where els yet by operation vertue is here in year so Christ is corporally in heauen c. In this matter of similitudes it is to be taken for a truth vndoubted that there is no creature by similitude ne any laÌ„guage of man able to expresse God his mysteries For and thinges that be seeÌ„ or herd might throughly expresse Gods inuisible mysteries the nature whereof is that they caÌ„not throughly be expressed they wer no mysteries yet it is true that of thinges visible wherin God worketh wonderfully there may be some resemblaunces some shadowes and as it wer inductions to make a maÌ„ astomed in coÌ„sideracioÌ„ of thinges inuisible when he seeth thynges visible so wonderfully wrought to haue so merueylous effectes And diuers good catholike deuout men haue by diuerse naturall thinges gone about to open vnto vs the mysterye of the trinitie partely by the sonne as this auctor doth in the Sacrament partly by fyre partely by the soule of man by the MusiciaÌ„s science the arte the touche with the players fyngers the sounde of the corde wherin when witte hathe all trauayled the matter yet remayneth darke ne cannot be throughly set forthe by any similitude But to the purpose of this similitude of the soÌ„ne which soÌ„ne this auctor sayth is onely corporally in heaueÌ„ no where els in the yearth the operation vertue of the sonne So as by this auctours supposal the substaunce of the sonne should not be in yearth but only by operacion vertue wherin if this auctor erreth he doth the reader to vnderstand that if he erre in coÌ„sideracion of naturall thinges it is no merueyle though he erre in heauenly thinges For because I wil not of my selfe beginne the coÌ„tencioÌ„ with this auctor of the natural worke of the-sonne I will bryng forthe the saiyng of Martine Bucer nowe resideÌ„t at Cambridge who vehemeÌ„tly for so much truly affirmeth the true real presence of Christes body in the sacrameÌ„t For he sayth Christ sayd not This Bucer is my spirite this is my vertue but this is my body wherfore he saith we must beleue Christes body to be there the same that did hange vpoÌ„ the crosse our lord himself which in som parte to declare he vseth the similitude of the son for his purpose to proue christs body preseÌ„t really substaÌ„cially in the sacrameÌ„t wher this autor vseth the same similitude to proue the body of christ really abseÌ„t I wil write in here as Bucer speketh it in latin expouÌ„dyng the .xxvi. chap. of Mathewe theÌ„ I will put the same in english Bucers wordes be these Vt sol verè vno in loco coeli visibilis circumscriptus Bucerê° est radijs tamen suis presens verè substantialiter exhibetur vbilibet orbis Ita Dominus etiam si circumscribatur vno loco coeli arcani diuini id est gloriae patris verbo tamen suo sacris symbolis verè totus ipse deus homo praesens exhibetur in sacra coena eoque substancialiter quaÌ„ praesentiaÌ„ non minus certo agnoscit mens credeÌ„s verbis hijs DnÌ„i symbolis quam oculi vident habeÌ„t Solem praesentem demonstratum exhibitum sua corporali luce Res ista arcana est noui Testamenti res fidei noÌ„ sunt igitur huc admitteÌ„dae cogitationes de praesentatione cor poris quae constat ratione huius vitae etiaÌ„ im patibilis fluxè Verbo Domini simpliciter inherendum est debet fides sensuum defectui praebere supplementum Whiche is thus much in Englishe As the sonne is truly placed determinately in one place of the visible heauen and yet is truely substantially present by meane of his beames elswhere in the worlde abrode So our Lorde although he be comprehended in one place of the secret and diuine heauen that is to say the glorye of his father yet neuer the lesse by his worde and holy tokens he is exhibite present truly whole God and man therfore in substance in his holy supper whiche presence mannes mynde geuyng credite to his wordes tokeÌ„s with no lesse certaintie acknowlegeth then our eyes see haue the soÌ„ne present exhibite and shewed with his corporal light This is a depe secrete matter of the newe testameÌ„t a matter
is flesh by Gods omnipotency so this auctor entreatyng this matter as he doth hath partly opened the faith of traÌ„substanciation For in dede bread beyng bread is not Christes body but that was bread is now Christes bodâ—e because bread is made Christes bodye because Christ called bread his bodye whiche was in Christ to make bread his body When Christ made water wyne the spech is very propre to say water is made wyne For after like maner of spech we say Christ iustifyeth a wicked manne Christ saueth synners and the physitioÌ„ hath made the sicke man whole and suche dyet will make an whole man sycke All these speches be propre and playne so as construction but not made captious and Sophistical to ioyne that was to that nowe is forgettyng the meane worke When Christe sayd This is my body there is no necessitie that the demonstratioÌ„ this should be referred to the outwarde visible matter but may be referred to the inuisible substaunce As in the speche of God the father vpon Christ in Baptisme This is my sonne And here when this auctor taketh his recreatioÌ„ to speake of the fainyng of the papistes I shal ioyne this Issue in this place that he vnderstaÌ„deth not An issue what he sayth if his knowlege be no better then is vttered here in the penne to be in this poynte clerely coÌ„deÌ„pned of ignoraunce In the .lx. leef thauctor entreateth whither it be a plaine spech of christ to say Eate drinke speakyng of his body and bloud I answer the spech of it selfe is propre coÌ„mauÌ„dyng them preseÌ„t to eate and drinke that is proponed for theÌ„ yet it is not requisite that the nature of maÌ„ shuld with like comon effect worke in eatyng drinkyng that heauenly meate drinke as it doth in earthely carnali meates In this mysterye man doth as Christ ordeyned that is to say receyue with his mouth that is ordred to be receiued with his mouth grauÌ„tyng it neuerthelesse of that dignitie estimation that Christes wordes affirme whither he so doth or no Christes ordinaunce is as it is in the substaunce of it self alone wherof no good man iudgeth carnally or grossely ne discusseth the vnfaythfall questioÌ„ how which he can not coÌ„ceyue but leueth the depenes thereof doth as he is bidden This misterye receyueth no mans thoughtes Christes institution hath a propertie in it whiche can not be discussed by mans sensual reasoÌ„ Christes wordes be spirite life which this auctour wresteth with his owne glose to exclud the truth of the eatyng of Christes flesh in his supper And yet for a shifte if a man would ioyne issue with him putteth to this spech the wordes grossely carnally which wordes in suche a rude vnderstandyng be termes meter to expresse howe dogges deuoure paunches then to be inculked in speakyng of this high mysterye Wherin I wil make the issue with this auctour An issue that no Catholique teaching is so fourmed with suche termes as though we should eate Christes moste precious bodye grossely carnaly ioynyng those wordes so together For els carnally alone may haue a good signification as Hilarye vseth it but contrarywise spekyng in the Catholique teachyng of the maner of Christes presence they call it a spiritual maner of presence and yet there is present by gods powre the very true natural body bloud of Christ hole God man without leuyng his place in heauen in the holy supper meÌ„ vse their mouthes and teathe followyng Christes commaundement in the receiuyng of that holy Sacrament beyng in fayth sufficiently instructe that they do not ne can not teare consume or violate that moste precious body and bloud but vnworthely receiuyng it are cause of theyr owne iugement and condempnation Nowe I wil touche shortely what maye bee sayd to the particuler auctorities brought in by this auctor Origen is noted among other writers Origenes of the churche to drawe the texte to allegories who doth not therby meane to destroye the truth of the lettre therfore wheÌ„ he speketh of a figure sayth not there is a only figure whiche exclusiue only beyng away as it is not found by any auctor Catholike taught that the spech of Christ of the eatyng of his fleshe to be only a figure This auctor hath nothyng auaunced his purpose As for spiritual vnderstandyng meaneth not any destruction of the lettre where the same may stande with the rule of our fayth All Christes wordes be life and spirite containyng in the lettre many tymes that is aboue our capacite as specially in this place of the eatyng of his flesh to discusse the particularities of howe and yet we must beleue to be true that Christ sayth although we can not tell howe For wheÌ„ we go about to discusse of gods misterye howe then we fall from fayth and waxe carnall men and would haue Gods wayes like ours Sainete Chrisostome declareth himselfe Chrisosto howe mysteries must be considered with inwarde eyes whiche is a spirituall vnderstandyng wherby the truth of the mysterye is not as it were by a figuratiue spech empayred but with an humilitie of vnderstandyng in a certaine fayth of the truth merueyled at And here thauetor of the boke vseth a sleight to ioyn figuratiuely to spiritually as though they were alwayes all one whiche is not so Sainct Augustine accordyng to his rules Augustinus of a figuratiue and propre speche taketh this speche Excepte ye eate c. for a figuratiue speche because it semeth to commande in the lettre carnally vnderstaÌ„ded an heynous and a wicked thyng to eate the fleshe of a man as mans carnall imaginacion conceyueth it as appeared by the Capharnites who murmured at it And therfore because only faithfull men can by fayth vnderstande this mysterye of the eatyng of Christes fleshe in the Sacrament in whiche we eate not the carnal fleshe of a commen man as the lettre soundeth but the very spiritual flesh of Christ God man as fayth teacheth It is in that respecte well noted for a figuratiue speche for that it hath suche a sence in the lettre as is hidden froÌ„ the vnfaithfull So as the same lettre beyng to faithful meÌ„ spirite life who in humilitie of fayth vnderstand the same is to the vnfaithful a figure as conteinyng such a mystery as by the outward barke of the lettre they vnderstand not vpon which consideracioÌ„ it semeth probable that the other fathers also signifiyng a great secrecie in this mysterye of the sacrameÌ„t wherin is a worke of god ineffable suche as the Ethnike eares could not abide theitermed it a figure not therby to diminish the truth of the misterye as the propre special name of a figure doth but by the name of a figure reuerently to couer so great a secrecie apte only to be vnderstaÌ„ded of men beleuyng therfore the said fathers in some part of their workes in plaine wordes expresse declare the truth of the mysterye the
plaine doctrine therof accordyng to the Catholique fayth in the other part passe it ouer with the name of a figure whiche consideracioÌ„ in S. Augustins writinges may be euideÌ„tly gathered for in some place no maÌ„ more plainly openeth the substance of the SacrameÌ„t then he doth speakyng expressely of the very body bloud of Christ conteyned in it yet therwith in other places noteth in those words a figure not therby to coÌ„trary his other playne â—aiyngs doctrin but meanyng by the word figure to signifie a secrete depe mistery hid deÌ„ froÌ„ carnal vnderstaÌ„dyng For auoyding expellyng of whiche carnalitie he geueth this doctrine here of this texte Excepte ye eate c. whiche as I sayd before in the bare litteral sence implyeth to carnal iudgemeÌ„t other carnal circunstances to atteyne the same flesh to be eateÌ„ which in that carnal sence can not be but by wickednes But what is this to the obeiyng of Christes coÌ„maundemet in th institucioÌ„ of his supper when himselfe deliuereth his body bloud in these mysteryes and byddeth Eate drinke there can be no offence to do as Christ biddeth therfore S. Augustins rule perteyneth not to Christes supper wher in when Christ willeth vs to vse our mouth we ought to dare do as he biddeth for that is spirituall vnderstandyng to do as is coÌ„manded without carnall thought or murmuryng in our sensuall diuise howe it can be so And sainct Augustine in the same place speakyng de communicaÌ„do passionibus Christi declareth plainely he meaneth of the Sacrament Tertullian speakyng of there present acioÌ„ Tertul. of Christes very body in which place he termeth it the same body speaketh catholiquely in suche phrase as S. Hierome speaketh and theÌ„ TertulilaÌ„ saith afterwarde as this auctor therin truely bryngeth him forth that Christ made the bred his body which bread was in the mouth of the pphet a figure of his body Wherfore it foloweth by Tertullians coÌ„fession when Christ made the bread his body that Christ ended the figure and made it the truth making now his body that was before the figure of his body For if Christ did no more but make it a figure styl theÌ„ did he not make it his body as Tertullian himself saith he did And Tertullian therfore beyng red thus as appeareth to be most probable that that is to say in Turtullian should be onely referred to the explicacioÌ„ of the first this as when TurtulliaÌ„ had alleged Christs words saiyng this is my body putteth to of his owne that is to say the figure of my body these wordes that is to say should serue to declare the demonstracion this in this wise that is to say this which the prophet called the figure of my body is nowe my body so Tertullian sayd before that Christ had made bread his body which bread was a figure of his body with the prophete nowe endeth in the very truth beyng made his body by conuersioÌ„ as CypriaÌ„ sheweth of the nature of bread into his body Tertullian reasoned against the Marcionistes because a figure in the prophete signifieth a certayne vnfayned truth of that is signified seyng Christes bodye was figured by bread in the prophete Hieremy It appeareth Christ had a true body And that the bread was of Christ approued for a figure he made it nowe his very body And this may be sayd euideÌ„tly to Tertullian who reasonyng against heretiques vseth the commoditie of arguyng and geueth no doctrine of the Sacrament to further this auctors purpose And what aduaÌ„tage should theretiques haue of Tertullian if he should meane that these wordes This is my body had only this sence This is the figure of my body hauing himself sayd before that Christ made bread his body If so plaine speache to make bread his body conteineth no more certaintie in vnderstandyng but the figure of a body why should not they say that a body in Christ should euer be spoken of a body in a figure and so no certaintie of any true body in Christ by Tertullians wordes This place of Tertullian is no secrete poynte of lernyng hath been of Decolampadius other alleged by other catholique men answered vnto it wherof this auctor may not thinke nowe as vpon a wranglyng argument to satisfie a coniecture diuised therby to confirme a newe teachyng Fynally Tertullian termeth it not an onely figure whiche this auctor muste proue or els he doth nothyng Cyprian shal be touched after when we CypriaÌ„ speake of him againe Chrisostome shall open himselfe hereafter Chrysosto Hiero. plainely Saint Hierome speketh here very pithely vsyng the worde represent which signifieth a true real exhibicioÌ„ for sainct Hierome speaketh of the representacion of the truth of Christes body which truth excludeth an only figure For howsoeuer the visible matter of the sacrament be a fignre the inuisible parte is a truth Whiche saincre Hierome sayth is here represented that is to say made preseÌ„t which only signification doth not Sainct Ambrose shall after declare himselfe Ambrosius it is not denyed but thauctors in spekyng of the Sacrament vsed these wordes signe figure similitude tokeÌ„ but those speaches exclude not the veritie truth of the body bloud of Christ for no approued auctor hath this exclusiue to say an onely signe an only tokeÌ„ an only similitude or an only significacion whiche is the issue with this auctor As for Sainct Augustine ad Bonifacium Augustinus thauctor shall perceiue his faulte at Martyn Bucers hand who in his epistel dedicatorye of his enarracions of the gospels reherseth his mynde of Sainct Augustine in this wise Est scribit diuus Augustinus SecunduÌ„ queÌ„dam Bucerê° modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi sacrameÌ„tum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi At secunduÌ„ quem moduÌ„ Vt significet tantum corpus sanguineÌ„ Domini absentia Absit Honorari enim percipi in Symbolis visibilibus corpus sanguineÌ„ Domini ideÌ„ passim scribit These wordes of Bucer may be thus englished Saincte Augustine writeth the Sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certaine maner the body of Christ the SacrameÌ„t of the bloud of Christ the bloud of Christ But after what maner that it should signifie onely the body bloud abseÌ„t Absit In no wise For the same S. Augustin writeth in many places the body and bloud of Christ to be honored to be receiued in those visible tokens Thus sayth Bucer who vnderstandeth not S. Augustine to say the sacrameÌ„t of Christes body to be Christes body after a certaine maner of spech as this auctor doth nor S. Augustine hath no suche wordes but only secundum quendaÌ„ moduÌ„ after a certaine maner whervnto to put of speche is an addition more then truth required of necessite In these words of Bucer may appeare his whole iugemeÌ„t coÌ„cernyng S. Augustin who affirmeth the very true presence of the thing signified in the
sacrameÌ„t whiche truth established in the matter the callyng it a signe or a token a figure a similitude or a she wyng maketh no matter wheÌ„ we vnderstaÌ„d the thyng really preseÌ„t that is signified Which it wer not in dede in the SacrameÌ„t why shuld it after Bucers true vnderstaÌ„ding of S. Augustine be honored there Arguyng vpoÌ„ mens speaches may be without ende thauctor vpoÌ„ diuerse respectes speake of one thyng diuersely Therfore we should resorte to the pyth and knot of the matter and see what they saye in expoundyng the speciall place without contencioÌ„ not what they vtter in the heat of their disputacioÌ„ ne to serch the darke ambiguous places wherwith to coÌ„founde that they speake openly plainely Thauctor bringeth in Theodoret a greke Theodoretê° whom to discusse particulerly wer long and tedious one notable place there is in him whiche toucheth the poynte of the matter which place Peter martyr allegeth in greke then translateth it into Latin not exactely as other haue done to the truthe but as he hath done I will write in here And then wil I write the same translate into Englishe by one that hath traÌ„slate Peter Martyrs boke and then will I adde the translation of this auctor and finally the very truth of the Latyn as I will abyde by ioyne an issue with this auctor in it wherby thou reder shalt perceiue with what sinceritie thinges be haÌ„dled Peter Martyr hath of Theodorete this in Latyn whiche the same Theodorete in a disputacion P. Martyr with an heretique maketh the Catholique man to say Captusies ijs quae tetenderas retibus Neque enim post sanctificationeÌ„ mystica symbola illa propria sua natura egrediuntur manent enim in priori sua substaÌ„cia figura specie adeoque videntur palpantur qucÌ„admodum antea Intelliguntur autem quae facta sunt creduntur adoraÌ„tur tanquam ea existentia quae creduntur He that traÌ„slated Peter martyr in Englishe dothe expresse these wordes thus Lo thou art now caught in the same net whiche thou haddest set to catche me in For those same mystical signes do not departe awaie out of their owne propre nature after the halowyng of theÌ„ For they remayne styll in their former substaunce and their former shape and their former kinde and are euen aswell seen and felt as they were afore But the thynges that are done are vnderstanded and are beleued and are worshipped euen as though they were in verye dede the thinges that are beleued This is the common translation in to Englishe in Peter martyrs booke translated whiche this auctor doth traÌ„slate after his facion thus Thou arte taken with thine owne nette for the SacrameÌ„tal signes go not from their owne nature after the sanctification but continue in their former substaunce forme and figure and bee seen and touched aswel as before Yet in our myndes we considre what they be made dorepute and esteme them and haue them in reuerence accordyng to the same thynges that they be taken for Thus is the translation of this auctor Myne Englishe of this Latyn is thus Thou art takeÌ„ with the same nettes thou diddest lay forth For the mystical tokens after the sanctification go nota way out of their propre nature For they abyde in their former substance shape and forme so farfurth that they may bee seen and felt as they might before But they be vnderstanded that they be made are beleued are worshipped as beyng the same thynges whiche be beleued This is my translation who in the first seÌ„teÌ„ce meane not to vary from the other translations touchyng the remayne of substaunce shape forme or figure I will vse all those names But in the seconde parte where Theodorete speaketh of oure beleef what the tokeÌ„s be made and where he saith those tokens be worshipped as beyng the same thynges which be beleued thou mayst see reader howe this auctour flyeth the wordes beleue and worship whiche the coÌ„mon translation in englishe dothe playnely and truely expresse howe soeuer that translator swarued by colour of the word taÌ„quam which there after the greke signifieth the truth not the similitude only like as in samet Paule Vocat ea quae non sunt taÌ„quam sint which is to make to be in dede not as though they were And the greke is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it were an absurditie to beleue thynges otherwise theÌ„ they be as though they wer very Idolatrie to worship that is not as though it were in dede And therfore in these two wordes that they be beleued that they bee made be worshiped is declared by Theodorete his fayth of the very true real preseÌ„ce of Christes glorious fleshe whervnto the deite is vnite which fleshe S. Augustine coÌ„sonaÌ„tly to this Theodorete said must be worshipped before it be receyued The worde worshippyng put here in Englishe is to expresse the worde AdoraÌ„tur put by Peter in latyn signifiyng adoring beyng the verbe in greke of suche signifycation as is vsed to expresse godly worshippe with bowyng of the knee Now reader what should I say by this auctor that conueyeth these two wordes of beleuyng and worshippyng and in stede of theÌ„ coÌ„meth in with reuerence takyng reputyng estemyng wherof thou mayst esteme howe this place of Theodorete pinched this auctor who could not but se that adoryng of the. SacrameÌ„t signifieth the presence of the body of Christ to be adored which els were an absurditie therfore thauctor toke paine to ease it with other wordes of callyng beleuyng reputyng estemyng for AdoratioÌ„ ReuereÌ„ce Consider what prayse this auctor geueth Theodorete which prayse condempneth this auctor sore For Theodorete in his doctrine would haue vs beleue the mistery adore the sacrameÌ„t where this auctor after in his doctrine professeth ther is nothyng to be worshipped at al. If one should nowe say to me yeasyr but this Theodorete semeth to condeÌ„pne transubstantiation because he speketh so of the bread Thervnto shal be answered when I speake of transubstanciation whiche shal be the laste For before the truth of the presence of the substaunce of Christes body may appeare what should we talke of transubstanciation I will trauaile no more in Theodoret but leaue it to thy iudgement reader what credite this auctor ought to haue that haÌ„dleth the mater after this sorte As for the vse of figuratiue speches to be accustumed in scripture is not denyed But Philip Melancton in an epistel to Decolampadius Melancton of the Sacrement geueth one good note of obseruation in difference betwene the speches in gods ordinaunces commaundementes and otherwise For if in thunderstaÌ„dyng of gods ordinaunces and commaundementes figures may be often receyued truth shall by allegories be shortely subuerted and all our religion reduced to significations There is no speache so plaine and simple but it hath soÌ„ne peice of
whiche this auctor nowe calleth representyng but is also spiritually geueÌ„ in the table as these words sounde to me But whither this auctor will say very Christ himselfe is geuen spiritually in the meat or by the meat or with the meat what scripture hath he toê“ue that he saith if the words of christ be only a figuratiue spech the bread only signifie Christs body For if the wordes of the institucioÌ„ be but in figure maÌ„ caÌ„not adde of his diuise anyother substaÌ„ce or effect theÌ„ the words of christ purport so this supper after this auctors teachyng in other places of his boke wher hewould haue it but a significatioÌ„ shal be a bare memorie of christsdeath signifie oniy such coÌ„municacioÌ„ of Christ as we haue otherwise by faith in that benefite of his passioÌ„ without any special coÌ„munication of the substance of his flesh in this Sacrament beyng the same only a figure if it were true that this auctor would persuade in the conclusion of this booke although by the waye he sayth otherwise for fear percase treÌ„bling that he coÌ„ceiueth eueÌ„ of an Epistle which him self sayth is fayned This auctor sayth he passeth ouer Ignatiê° Ignatiê° Ireneê° ireneus why because thei make nothing he sayth for the papists purposed with the word papist thauctor plaieth at his pleasure But it shal be euideÌ„t that Irene doth plainly coÌ„fouÌ„de this auctors purpose in the denial of the true preseÌ„ce of Christs very flesh in the sa crameÌ„t who although he vse not the wordes real substaÌ„cial yet he doth effectually coÌ„pre heÌ„d in his speach of the sacrameÌ„t the vertue sireÌ„ght of those words And for the truth of the sacrameÌ„t is Ireneus specially alleged in so much as Melanghton wheÌ„ he writeth to â—ip 〈…〉 ict OccolaÌ„padius that he will allege none but such as speake plainly he allegeth Ireneus for one as appereth by his said Epistle to OecolaÌ„padius And OecolaÌ„padius him self is not trubled somuch with answeryng any other to shape any maner of euasioÌ„ as to answer Ireneus in whoÌ„ he notably stuÌ„bleth And Peter Martyr in his worke graunteth Irene to be specially alleged to whoÌ„ wheÌ„ he goeth about to answer a maÌ„ may euideÌ„tly see how he masketh him self And this auctor bryngeth in ClemeÌ„ts epistel of which no great count is made although it be not coÌ„teÌ„pned passeth ouer ireneus that speaketh euidently in the matter was as old as ClemeÌ„t or not much yoÌ„ger And because Ignatiê° was of that age is alleged by Theodorete to haue writeÌ„ iÌ„ his Epistle ad Theodorete Dialogo .iij. SmirneÌ„ses wherof may appere his faith of the mistery of the SacrameÌ„t it shal serue to good purpose towrite iÌ„ the words of the same ignatius hervpoÌ„ the credite of the said Theodorer whoÌ„ this auctor so much coÌ„meÌ„deth the words of ignatius be these Eucharistias oblationes noÌ„ admittuÌ„t ê™ noÌ„ confiteaÌ„tur eucharistiaÌ„ esse carneÌ„ seruatoris nostri Iesu Christi qÌ„ pro peccatis nostris passa est quam pater sua benignitate suscitauit Which words be thus much iÌ„ English They do not admit Eucharistias oblatioÌ„s be cause they do not coÌ„fesse EucharistiaÌ„ to be the flesh of our sauiour iesu Christ which flesh sufred for our sines which flesh the the father by his beniguitie hath stirred vp These be Ignatiue words which I haue not throughly englished because the word Eucharistia caÌ„ not be wel Englished beyng a word of mistery and as Ireneus openeth both the partes of the sacrameÌ„t heueÌ„ly earthly visible inuisible But in that ignatius openeth his fayth thus as he taketh Eucharistia to be the flesh of our sauior Christ that suffred for vs he declareth the sence of Christs wordes this is my body not to be figuratiue only but to expresse the truth of the very flesh there geuen therfore Ignatius sayth Eucharistia is the fleshe of our sauior Christ the same that suffred the same that rose agayn which words of Ignatius so pithely opeÌ„ the matter as they declare therwith that fayth also of Theodorete that doth allege him so as if this auctor would make so absolute a worke as to peruscal the fathers saiynges he shuld not thus lepe ouer Ignatiê° nor Irene neither as I haue before declared But this is a color of Rhethorike called reiectioÌ„ of that is hard to answer is her a pretie shift or slaight wherby thou reader maist consider how this matter is handled As touching Dionisius a wise reader may Dionysius without any note of mine se how this auctor is troubled in him calleth for ayde the help of him that made the greke coÌ„mentaries vpoÌ„ dionisius pledeth therwith the forme of the words really corporally seÌ„sibly naturally wherof two that is to say really seÌ„sibly the olde auctors in sillables vsed not for somuch as I haue red but corporally naturaly they vsed spekyng of this sacrameÌ„t This dionise spake of this mystery after the dignitie of it not contendyng with any other for the truth of it as we do nowe but extollynge it as a merueilous high misterie which if the bread be neuer the holier and were only a signification as this auctor teacheth were no high mistery at all As for the thynges of the Sacrament to be in heauen the church teacheth so and yet the same thynges be in dede present in the SacrameÌ„t also which is a misterie so deape and darke from mannes natural capacitie as is onely to be beleued supernaturally without askyng of the question how whereof S. Chrisostome makethe an Chrysostomus de Sacerdo li. 3. exclamation in this wise O greate bene volence of God towardes vs he that sitteth aboue with the father at the same houre is holdeÌ„ here with the haÌ„des of all men and geueth himselfe to them that will clapse and embrace him Thus sayth Chrisostome coÌ„fessyng to be aboue and here the same thynges at ones not onely in mens brestes but haÌ„des also to declare the inward worke of God in the substaunce of the visible Sacrament wherby Christ is present in the middes of our sences and so may be called sensibly present although mannes seÌ„ces can not comprehende and feale or taste of him in theyr propre nature But as for this dionise doth without argument declare his fayth in thadoration he maketh of this Sacrament whiche is openly testified in his workes so as we nedde not doubte what his fayth was As for this auctors notes be descaunt voluntarie without the tenor parte beyng be lyke asshamed to allege the text it self leâ—t his .iii. notes might seme fayned without grounde as before in Sainct Clementes epistel and therfore I wyllnot truble the reader with them Of Tertullian I haue spoken before and Terâ—ullian so hath this auctor also and forgotten here one notable thyng in TertulliaÌ„ where TertulliaÌ„ saiâ—th that Christ made the bread his bodye not onely called it
so as may appeare by Tertullianes words reported by this auctor before This note that I make nowe of TertuliaÌ„ makethe against this auctors purpose but yet it makethe with the truthe which this auctor should not impugne The seconde note gathered of Tertulian by this auctor is not true for Christ called it his body made it his body as Tertullian sayth And the thirde note of this auctor is in coÌ„trauersy of readyng must be so vnderstaÌ„ded as maye agree with the rest of Tertullians saynges which after my readyng doth euidently proue at the lest dothe not improue the Catholique doctrine of Christes churche vniuersally receiued althoughe it improueth that which this auctor calleth here our Catholique doctrine most impudently and vntruely reportynge the same Origens wordes be verie plaine and meanynge Origenes also whiche speake of manifestation and exhibition whiche be two thynges to be verified thre wayes in our religioÌ„ that is to say in the worde re generatioÌ„ the Sacrament of bread and wyne as this auctor ter 〈…〉 i the it which Origene speaketh not so but â—hus the fleshe of the word of god not meaâ—yng in euerie of these after one sorte but â—fter the truth of Scripture in eche of them Christ in his word is manifested exhibited vnto vs and by faieth that is of hearynge dwelleth in vs spirituallye for so we haue his spirite Of Baptisme S. Paule sayth as manny as be Baptized be clade in Christe Nowe in the SacremeÌ„t of bread wyne by OrigeÌ„s rule Christ shuld be manifestie exhibitie vnto vs after the scriptures So as the SacremeÌ„t of bread wyne should not onely signifie Christ that is to say preach him but also exhibite him seÌ„sible as Origenes words be reaported here to be so as Christes words this is my body should be wordsnot of figure sheuyng but of exhibityng Christes body vnto vs sensibly as this auctor allegeth him whiche should signifie to be receiued with our moueth as christ coÌ„mauÌ„ded wheÌ„ he said take eat c. diuersly froÌ„ thother two waies in whiche by Christes spirite we be made participaunt of the benefit of his passion wroght in his manhode But in this Sacrament we be made participaunt of his Godhode by his humanite exhibite vnto vs for fode so in this mysterie we receyue him man god in thother by meane of his god head be participat of the effect of his passion suffred in his manhead In this Sacrament Christes manhead is represeÌ„ted truely preseÌ„t wher vnto the godhead is moste certainly vnited whereby we receyue a pledge of the regeneratioÌ„ of our fleshe to be in the general resurrection spiritual with oure soule as we haue been in Baptisme made spirituall by regeneration of the soule which in the full redemption of our bodies shal be made perfite And therfore this auctor may not compare Baptisme with the SacrameÌ„t throughly in whiche Baptisme Christes manhode is not really present althoughe the vertue effecte of his most precious bloude be there but the truth of the mysterie of this SacrameÌ„t is to haue Christes body his flesh and bloud exhibited wherevnto eatyng drinkyng is by Christ in his supper appropriate In whiche supper Christ said This is my body which Bucer noteth and that Christ sayd not this is my sprit this is my vertue wherfore after Origens teachyng if Christ be not only manifested but also exhibitie seÌ„sibly in the Sacrament then is he in the SacrameÌ„t in dede that is to say really and then is he there substanetally because the substaunce of the bodye is there and is there corporally al so because the very bodye is there naturallâ— because the natural body is there not vnderstandyng corporally and naturally in the maner of presence nor sensibly nother For then wer the maner of preseÌ„ce with in mans capacitie and that is false and therfore the Catholique teachyng is that the maner of Christes presence in the Sacrament is spiriâ—ual and supernatural not corporal not car 〈…〉 all not naturall not sensible not percepti 〈…〉 le but onely spirituall the howe maner whereof God knoweth and we assured by his worde knowe onely the truthe to be so that it is there in dede and therfore really to be also receyued with our handes and monthes so seÌ„sibly there the body that suffred and therfore his naturall body there the body of very fleshe and therfore his carnal body the body truely and therfore his corporal bodye there But as for the maner of presence that is only spiritual as I sayd before and here in the inculcation of these wordes I am tedious to a lerned reader but yet this auctor enforeth me thervnto who with these wordes carnally corporally grosly sensibly naturally appliyng theÌ„ to the maner of presence dothe craftely carie away the reader from the simplicitie of his fayth and by such absurdities as these wordes grosly vnderstanded importe astonneth the simple reader in consideration of the matter and vseth these words as dust afore their eyes which to wipe away I am enforced to repete thuÌ„derstandyng of these wordes oftener theÌ„ els wer necessarie these thynges wel coÌ„sidered no man dothe more plainely confounde this auctor then this saiyng of Origene as he allegeth it whatsoeuer other sentencies he woulde pyke out of Origene when he vseth libertie of allegories to make him seme to say otherwise and as I haue declared afore to vnderstand Christes wordes spiritually is to vnderstand them as the spirite of God hath taught the churche and to esteme gods mysteries moste true in the substaunce of the thing so to be althoughe the maner excedeth our capacites whiche is a spirituall vnderstandyng of the same and here also this auctor putteth in for spiritually figuratiuely to deceyue the reader As touching CyprtaÌ„ this auctor maketh an exposition of his owne diuise whiche he Cypria nus would haue taken for an answer vnto him Where as Cyprian of all other like as he is ancient within 25. yeres of Christe so did he write very openly in the matter therfore MelaÌ„thon in his Epistle to Occolampadius did those hym for one whose wordes in Melanthon thaffirmation of Christes true preseÌ„ce in the SacrameÌ„t had no ambiguitie And lyke iudgement doth Hippinus in his booke before Hippinê° alleged geue of Cyprianus fayth in the SacrameÌ„t whiche two I allege to contrauaile the iudgement of this auctor who speaketh of his owne head as it liketh him playnge with the wordes grosse and carnal vsyng the worde represent as though it expressed a figure only Hippinus in the sayd booke allegeth Cyprian to saye libro 3. ad quirinum Cyprianus lib. 3. ad Quirinum that the bodye of our lorde is our sacrifice in fleshe meanyng as hippinus sayth Eucharistiam wherin S. Augustine as hippinus sayth further in the prayor for his mother speakynge of the bread and wyne of Eucharistia sayth that in it
is dispensed the holy hoste and sacrifice wherby was cancelled the byl obligatory that was against vs further hippinus sayth that the olde men called the bread wyne of our Lords supper a sacrifice an hoste oblatioÌ„ for that specially because they beleued and taught the true bodye of Christe and his true bloud to be distribute in the bread and wyne of Eucharistia and as Augustinus Hippinê° S. Augustine sayth ad Ianuarium to entre in and be receyued with the mouthe of them that eate These be hippinus verye wordes who because he is I thynke in this auctors opinion taken for no Papist I rather speake in his wordes then myne owne whom in an other parte of this worke this auctor dothe as it were for charitie by name slaunder to be a Papiste wherfore the sayd hippinus wordes shal be as I thynke more weighty to oppresse this auctors talke theÌ„ myne be and therfor howe soeuer this auctor handlethe before the wordes of sainct Cyprian De vuctione Chrismatis and the word shewyng out of epistels yet the same Cyprians fayth appeareth so certaine otherwise as those places shal nede no further answer of me heâ— hauyng brought furth the iudgemeÌ„t of Hippinus Melancton howe they vnderstand sainct Cyprians fayth whiche thou reader oughtest to regarde more then the assertion of this auctor specially wheÌ„ thou hast redde howe he hath handled Hilarie Cyril Theophilact and Damassene as I shal hereafter touche This answer to hilarie in the .lxxviii. leef requireth a plaine precise Issue worthy to be tryed and apparaunt at hand ThallegatioÌ„ An issue of Hilarie toucheth specially me who do saye and mainteyne that I cited Hilarie truely as the copie did serue and did traÌ„slate him truly in Englishe after the same wordes in latin This is one Issue which I qualifye with a coppie because I haue Hilarie nowe better correct which better correction sitteth forth more liuely the truth theÌ„ thother did therfore that I did translate was not so much to thaduauntage of that I alleged Hilarie for as is that in the booke that I haue now better correct Hilaries wordes in the booke newly corrected be these Si enim verè verbum caro factum est et nos verè Verbum Hilari ' carnem cibo dominico sumimus quomodò non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est qui naturam carnis nostrae iaÌ„ inâ—eparabilem sibi homo natus assumpsit naturam carnis suae ad naturam eternitatis sub sacrameÌ„to nobis communicandoe carnis admiscuit Ita enim omnes vnum sumus quia in christo pater est christus in nobis est Quisquis ergo naturaliter patrem in christo negabit neget prius non naturaliter vel se in christo vel christum Sibi inesse quia in christo pater christus in nobis vnum in iis esse nos faciunt Si verè igitur carnem corporis nostri christus assumpsit verè homo ille qui ex maria natus fuit Christus est nosque vère sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus per hoc vnum erimus quia pater in eo est ille in nobis quomodo voluntatis vnitas asseritur cum naturalis per Sacramentum proprietas perfectae sacrameÌ„tum sit vnitatis My translation is this If the worde was made verely fleshe we verely receyue the worde beyng fleshe in our lordes meate howe shal not Christ be thought to dwel naturally in vs who beyng borne man hathe taken vnto him the nature of our fleshe that can not be seuered and hathe put together the nature of his fleshe to the nature of his eternitie vnder the Sacrament of the coÌ„muniâ— of his fleshe vnto vs for so we be all one because the father is in Christe and Christe in vs. Wherfore who soeuer will deuye the father to be naturally in Christ he must 〈◊〉 first either him selfe to be naturally in Christ or Christe not to be naturally in him for the beynge of the father in Christ and the beyng of Christ in vs maketh vs to be one in them And therfore if Christ hath taken verely the fleshe of our body and the man that was borne of the virgine Marie is verely Christ and also we verely receyue vnder a mysterie the fleshe of his bodye by meanes wereof we shal be one for the father is in Christe and Christe in vs howe shall that be called the vnitie of will when the naturall proprietie brought to passe by the Sacrement is the Sacrament of perfite vnitie This translation differeth from myne other whereat this auctor findeth faulte but wherein the worde Vero was in the other copie an adiectiue I ioyned it with Mysterio and therfore said the true mysterie whiche worde mysterie neded no suche adiectiue true for euery mysterie is true of it selfe But to say as Hilarie truely correct saythe that we receyue vnder the mysterie truely the fleshe of Christes body that word truely so placed sitteth furthe liuely the reall presence and substantiall presence of that is receyued repeteth againe the same that was before sayd to the more vehemeÌ„cie of it So as this rorrection is better then my first copie and accordyng to this correctioÌ„ is Hilarius alleged by MelaÌ„gton to DecolaÌ„padius for the same purpose I allege him An other alteration in the translation thou scist reader in the worde Perfectae whiche in my copie was Perfecta so was ioyned to Proprictas whiche nowe in the genetiue case ioyned to Vnitatis geueth an excellent sence to the dignitie of the SacrameÌ„t how the naturall proprietie by the Sacrament is a Sacrament of perfite vnitre so as the pecfite vnitie of vs with Christ is to haue his fleshe in vs and to haue Christe bodely and naturally dwellyng in vs by his manhode as he dwelleth in vs spiritually by his god hed and now I speake in such phrase as Hilarie and Cyrill speake and vse the wordes as they vse theÌ„ Whatsoeuer this auctor sayth as I wil iustifie by their plaine wordes And so I ioyne nowe with this auctor an Issue An issue that I haue not peruerlly vsed thaâ— legation of Hilarie but alleged him as one that speaketh most clearly of this matter whiche Hilarie in his 8. booke de Trinitate enâ—â—eath how many diuers wayes we be one in christ among which he accoÌ„pteth faith for one TheÌ„ he coÌ„meth to the vnitie in Baptisme where he handleth the matter aboue some capacities and because there is but one Baptisme and all that be baptized be so regenerate in one dispensation and do the same thynge and be one in one they that be one by the same thynge be as he saythe in nature one From that vnitie in Baptisme he commeth to declare our vnitie with Christe in fleshe whiche he callethe the Sacrament of perfite vnitie declarynge howe it is when Christe who toke truely our fleshe mortall in the virgyns wombe
deliuerethe vs the same fleshe glorified truely to be communicate with our fleshe wherby as we be naturally in Christ so Christ is naturally in vs and wheÌ„ this is brought to passe theÌ„ is the vnitie betwene Christe and vs perfited for as Christ is naturally in the father of the same essence by the diuine nature and God the father naturally in Christ his sonne very God of the same essence in the diuine nature So we be naturally in Christ by our natural fleshe which he toke in the virgyns wombe and he naturally in vs by the same fleshe in him glorified and geuen to vs and receyued of vs in the Sacrement For Hilarie sayth in plaine wordes howe Christes verye fleshe Hilariê° and Christes very bloud receyued and dronken Accepta hausta bryng this to passe And it is notable howe Hilarie compareth together the truely in Christes takynge of our fleshe in the virgyns wombe with the truely of our takynge of his fleshe In cibo dnÌ„ico in our lordes meate by which words he expresseth the Sacrament after reproueth those that sayd we were onely vnitie by obedience and will of religion to Christe and by him so to the father as though by the Sacrement of fleshe and bloud no proprietie of naturall communion were geuen vnto vs wheras both by the honor geuen vnto vs we be the sonnes of god and by the sonne dwellynge carnally in vs and we beynge corporally and inseparably vnitie in him the mysterie of true and natural vnitie is to be preached These be Hilaries wordes for this latter parte where thou hearest reader the sonne of god to dwel carnally in vs not after mannes grosse imagination for we may not so thinke of godly mysteries but carnally is referred to the truth of Christes fleshe geueÌ„ to vs in this SacrameÌ„t and so is naturally to be vnderstanded that we receyue Christes naturall fleshe for the truthe of it as Christe receyued our naturall fleshe of the virgyn although we receyue Christes fleshe glorified incorruptible verye spirituall and in a spiritual maner deliuered vnto vs. Here is mention made of the worde corporall but I shal speake of that in the discussioÌ„ of Cyril This hilarie was before sainct Augustine and was knowen both of him S. Hierom who called him Tubaâ— latini eloquii against tharriaÌ„s Neuer manne founde fault at this notable place of Hilarie Now let vs consider howe the auctor of this booke forgetteth him selfe to call Christe in vs naturally by his godhead whiche were then to make vs all gods by nature whiche is ouer greatan absurditie and Christe in his diuine nature dwelleth onely in his father naturally and in vs by grace But as we reaceiue him in the Sacrament of his fleshe and bloud if we receyue hym worthely so dwelleth he in vs naturally for the mutuall communication of our nature and his And therfore where this auctor reaporteth Hilarie to make no difference betwene our vnyon to Christe in Baptisme and in the supper let hym truste hym no more that told hym so or if this auctor wil take vpoÌ„ him as of his owne knowlege then I would say if he were another an answere in frenche that I will not expresse And here vpoÌ„ wil I wynne the Issue that in Hilarie the matter is so plaine otherwise An issue then this auctour reherseth as it hath no colour of defence to the contrarye And what Hilarie speaketh of Baptisme and our vnitie therin I haue before touched and this vnitie in fleshe is after treated aparte What shall I saye to this so manifest vntruth but that it confirmeth that I haue in other obserued howe therewas neuer one of theÌ„ that I haue red writynge againste the SacrameÌ„t but hath in his writynges sayd somwhat so euidently in the matter or out of the matter discrepaunte from truthe as might be a certaine marke to iudge the qualitie of his spirite Thauctor saythe suche answere as he made to Hilarie wyll serue for Cyrill and Cyrill in deade to saye truthe it is made after the same sorte and hathe euen suche an error as the other had sauyng it maye be excused by ignoraunce For where thauctor trauayleth â—ere to expouÌ„de the worde corporally which is a sore worde in Cyrill against this auctor and therfore taketh labour to teÌ„pere it with the worde corporaliter in sainct Paule applyed to the dwellynge of the diuinitie in Christ and yet not conteÌ„t therwith maketh further serche and would gladly haue somewhat to coÌ„firme his fausye out of Cyril himselfe and seketh in Cyrill where it is not to be founde and sekech not where it is to be founde For Cyrill telleth hymselfe plainely what he meaneth by the worde corporally whiche place and this auctour had founde he might haue spared a greate many of wordes vttered by diuination but then the truthe of that place hindreth and qualeth in maner all the booke I will at my peril bryng for the Cyrils owne wordes truely vpon the xvij Chaptre of sainct Iohn Corporaliter filius per benedictionis mysticam Cyrillê° in IoaÌ„ Cap 17 nobis vt homo Vnitur spiritualiter autem vt deus Whiche be in Englishe thus much to say The sonne is vnitie as man corporally to vs by the mystical benedictioÌ„ spiritually as God These be Cyrils wordes who nameth the Sacrament of the body bloude of Christe the mysticall benediction and sheweth in this sentence howe hym selfe vnderstaÌ„deth the wordes corporally spiritually That is to saye when Christ vniteth hym selfe to vs as man whiche he dothe he doth geuynge his bodye in this Sacrament to suche as worthely receyue it then he dwelleth in them corporally whiche Christe was before in them spiritually orels they could not worthely receyue him to theffecte of that vnitie corporall and corporall dwellynge by whiche worde corporal is vnderstanded no grosues at all whiche the nature of a mysterie excludeth and yet kepeth truthe still beyng the vnderstandyng onely atteined by faythe But where thauctor of the booke allegeth Cyrill in wordes to deny the eatyng of a man and to affirme the receyuinge in this Sacrament to be only by faith It shall appeare I doubt not vpon further discussion that Cyrill say the not so and the translations of Cyrill into latine after the printe of basil in a booke called Antidoton and of hole Cyrils workes prynted at colen haue not in that place suche sentence So as folowynge the testimonye of those bookes set forthe by publique fayth in two sondrie places I shoulde call thallegation of Cyrill made by this auctour in this poynte vntrue as it is in deade in the matter vntrue And yet because the Originall error procedeth from Oecolampadius it shall serue to good purpose to directe thoriginall faulte to hym as he well deseruethe to be as he is noted gyltie of it whose reputacion deceyued many in the matter of the Sacrament and beynge well noted howe the same Oecolampadius corrupteth Cyrill it maye
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
yet a true body very fleshe And it is present in this sacrameÌ„t after a spiritual maner graunted taught of all true teachers whiche we should receiue also spiritually whiche is by hauyng Christ before spiritually in vs to receiue it so worthely Wherfore lyke as in the inuisible substance of the SacrameÌ„t there is nothyng carnal but al spirituall takyng the word carnal as it signifieth grossely in maÌ„s carnal iudgemeÌ„t So where the receyuers of that foode bryng carnal lustes or desirs carnall fansies or imaginatioÌ„s with them they receyue the same precious foode vnworthely to their iudgement and condempnation For they iudge not truely after the simplicitie of a true Christen fayth of the very presence of Christes bodye And this suffiseth to wype out that this auctor hath spoken of Emissene againste the truthe As touchyng S. Ambrose this auctor taketh a great entreprise to wrestel with him whose plaine euident wordes must nedes be a rule to trie his othere wordes by if any might be writhed What caÌ„ be more plainly spoken then S. Ambrose speketh when he sayth these words It is bread before the coÌ„secration but after it is the bodye of Christe By the worde consecration is signified as it is here placed gods omnipoteÌ„t worke wherfore in this place it coÌ„prehendeth asmuch as Emissen said in these wordes he conuerteth by the secrete powre of his word God is the worker so consecratioÌ„ signifith the whole action of his omnipotencie in workynge the substaunce of this high mysterie and therfore the definition of the worde consecratioÌ„ as it is generally taken cannot be a rule to thunderstandyng of it in this high mysterie wher it is vsed to expresse a singuler worke as the circumstaunce of S. Ambrose writyng doth declare For as philip MelaÌ„ctoÌ„ writeth Melancton to OecolaÌ„padius S. Ambrose would neuer haue trauailed to accumulate so many miracles as he doth speaking of this matter to declare gods omnipoteÌ„cie he had not thought the nature of bread to be chaunged in this mysterie These be melanctons very wordes Nowe to answer the questioÌ„ as it were at the worde chaunge this auctor shall come with a sacrameÌ„ral change whiche is a diuise in termes to blind the rude reader S. Ambrose doth expresse plainly what the change is wheÌ„ he writeth the wordes before rehersed It is bread before the consecration but after it is the body of christ CaÌ„ a change be more plainly declared The nerer way for this auctor had ben to haue ioyned Ambrose with ClemeÌ„t called him fained by the Papistes rather then after theffect of consecration so opened by sainct Ambrose himselfe to trauayll to proue what it maye signifie if it were in an other matter And then to admonishe the reader howe the bread and wyne haue no holines whiche forme of speach not vnderstanded of the people engendreth some scruple that nedeth not being no souÌ„de fourme of doctrine for S. Paule speaketh teacheth 1. Ti. 4. thus that the creatures be saÌ„ctified by the worde of God prayour And S. Augustine Augu. de peccatis morta et remiss libro 2. Cap. 26. Cyprian de cena domini writeth of saÌ„ctified bread to be geuen to them that be catechised before they be baptized And this auctor himselfe expoundeth S. Cyprian in the. â—5 leef of his booke howe the diuinitie is poured in to the bread SacrameÌ„tally whiche is a strange phrase not expressynge there Cyprians mynde and farre discrepaunt from the doctrine here And in an other place this auctor sayth Fo. 85. Pagi 2. that as hotte burnyng yron is yron still yet hath the force of fier so the bread wyne be turned in to the vertue of Christes fleshe and bloud By whiche similitude bread may conceyue vertue as yron couceyueth fyere theÌ„ as we call yron burnyng fireye so we may call bread vertuous and holy onies the auctor woulde againe resemble bread to a whetstone that may make sharpe haue no sharpenes in it at al. Which matter I declare thus to shewe that as this auctor dissenteth from truth in other so he disseÌ„teth from that he vttereth for truth him selfe walketh in a maze impugnynge the verye truth in this SacrameÌ„t would haue that takeÌ„ for a Catholique doctrine that is not one the same doctrine through his hole booke so far of is it from the hole of Christen teachynge But nowe let vs considre what speaches of S. Ambrose this auctor bryngeth furth wherewith to altre the truth of the very plain propre speache of S. Ambrose saiyng it is bread before the consecration but after it is the body of Christ Sainct Ambrose as this auctor sayth in an other place sayth thus Before the bene dictioÌ„ of the heueÌ„ly wordes it is called another kynde of thyng but after the consecration is signified the body bloud of Christ And another speache thus Before the consecration it is called an other thyng but after the coÌ„secration it is named the bloud of Christ yet a third speach where the word cal is vsed before and after both as thou reader mayst se in this auctors booke in the. 82 leef Nowe good reader was thereeuer man so ouerseen as this auctor is who seeth not S. Ambrose in these thre latter speaches to speake as plainly as in the first For in the last speache S. ambrose saith it is called bread before the CoÌ„secratioÌ„ called the body of Christ after the coÌ„secration And I wolde Demaunde of this auctor doth not this word call signifie the truth that is bread in dede before the consecration whiche if it be so why shall not the same worde call signifie also the very truth added to the wordes of the bodye of Christe after the coÌ„secratioÌ„ likewise wheÌ„ he saith speakyng of the bodye of Christe the worde signified or named whiche is asmuche as call Thee body of Christ is signified there for Christ sayd This is my bodye c. vsyng the outwarde signes of the visible creatures to signifie the body bloud present not abseÌ„t Was not Christ the true soÌ„ne of God because thangel sayd he shal be called the soÌ„ne of God But in these places of S. Ambrose Luc. 2. to expresse plainly what he ment by calling he putteth that worde Call to the bread before the consecratioÌ„ aswell as to the body of Christ after the coÌ„secratioÌ„ therby to declare howe in his vnderstaÌ„dyng this worde Call signifieth asmuch truth in the thyng where vnto it is added after consecratioÌ„ as before and therfore as it is by sainct Ambrose called bread before consecration signifiyng it was so in dede so it is called signified or named whiche thre thus plated be all one in effect the body of Christ after the consecration and is so in dede agreable to the plaine speache of sainct Ambrose where he sayth It is bread before the consecration and it is the body of Christ after the
bodye of Christ Here vnto I answere that this worde vertue in phrase of speache manny tymes onely filleth the speache and is comprehended in the signification of his genitiue folowyng and therfore as Luke in the .xxij. Chapter sayth à dextris virtutis Dei so in the Actes the same sentence is spoken a dextris Dei both out of one penne and a dextris virtutis Dei is no more to say then à dextris Dei and so is virtutem carnis sanguinis no more to say but in carnem sanguinem whiche sentence the same Theophilacte hath vpon Sainct Iohn before alleged in this sayng The bread is chaunged in â—ofiesh and in marke in this phrase in to the vertue of flesh beyng Like these speaches à dextris Dei à dextris virtutis Dei. Whiche and it had liked this auctor to haue considered he should haue taken Theophilactes speache as Theophilacte vnderstandeth himselfe and sayde the wordes alleged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus were not Theophilactes wordes and then he had sayd for so muche true whiche would do well among and the wordes be not in dede Theophilactes words nor were not alleged for his Nowe when this author sayth they were not Theophilus Alexandrinus wordes that is a large negatiue and wil be hardely proued otherwise then by addition of the auctors knowlege for any thyng that he can fynde and so there shal be no absurdite to grauÌ„te it And thus I retourne to myne Issue with this auctor that Theophilacte himselfe hathe no suche meanynge expressed in wordes as this auctour attributeth vnto him but an euident contrarye meanynge sauyng herein I will agree with this auctour that Theophilacte mente not grossely sensibly and carnally as these wordes sounde in carnarall mennes iudgementes For we maye not so thinke of Gods mysteryes the worke wherof is not carnall nor corporall for the maner of it But the maner spirituall and yet in the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ because Christ is in his very true fleshe present he maye be sayde so carnally present and naturally after Hylary and corporally after Cyrill vnderstandyng the wordes of the truthe of that is present Christes verye body and fleshe and not of the maner of the presence whiche is onely spirituall supernaturall and aboue mannes cappacitie And therfore a highe mysterye a greate myracle a wonderfull worke whiche it is holsome to beleue simplye with a syncere fayth and daungerous to serche and examyne with a curious imaginacion suche as idelines and arrogaunce would tempte a man vnto and by diuisyng of a figure or metaphore bryng it within the compasse of our buysie reason This auctor trauayleth to answer Saint Hierom. Hierome and to make him the easyer for him to deale with he cutteth of that foloweth in the same Saincte Hierome whiche should make the matter open and manifest howe effectually Sainct Hierome speaketh of the SacrameÌ„t of Christes body and bloud Ther is sayth Sainct Hierome as great differeÌ„ce betwene the loues called Panes ê“positiones and the body of Christ as there is betwene the shadowe of a body and the body it selfe and as there is betwene an image and the true thyng it selfe and betwene an example of thynges to come and the thynges that be prefigured by them Therfore as mekenes pacience sobrietie moderation abstinence of gayne hospitalitie also and liberalite should be chiefly in a Byshop and among all laye men an excellencie in them so their should be in him a special chastite and as I should say chastitie that is priestly that he shoulde not onely absteyne from an vncleane worke but also from the caste of his eye and his mynde fre from error of thought that should make the body of Christ These be Sainct HieroÌ„s words in this place By the latter part wherof appeareth playnely how Sainct Hierom meaneth of Christes body in the SacrameÌ„t of whiche the loues that were Panes propositiones were a shadow as Sainct Hierom sayth that bread beyng the image and this the trueth that the example and this that was prefigured So as if Christes body in the Sacrament should be there but figuratiuely as this auctor teacheth then were the bread of proposition figure of a figure and shadowe of a shadowe whiche is ouer great an absurdite in our religion Therfore there cannot be a more playne proufe to shewe that by Saincte Hieroms mynde Christes body is verely in the Sacrament not figuratiuely onely then when he noteth Panes propositiones to be the figure the shadowe of christes body in the Sacrament For as TertulliaÌ„ sayth Figura non esset nisi veritatis Tertullianê° aduersus Marcio libr. 4. esset corpus The other were not to be called a figure if that that answered vnto it were not of truth whiche is the sence of Tertullians wordes And therfore Saincte Hierome could with no other wordes haue expressed his mynde so certainely and playnly as with these to confesse the truth of Christs body in the SacrameÌ„t And therfore regarde not reader what this auctor sayth For S. Hierom affirmeth playnely Christes true body to be in the Sacrament the consecration wherof although Saincte Hierome attributeth to the ministre Yet we must vnderstand him that he taketh God for the auctor and worker not withstandyng by reason of the ministeryâ— in the church the doyng is ascribed to man as ministre because Christ sayde Hoc facite after whiche speache saluation remission of synne and the worke in other Sacramentes is attribute to the ministre beyng neuertheles the same the propre and speciall workes of God And this I adde because some he vninstely offended to hiere that man shoulde make the bodye of Christ and this auctor findeth faulte before at the worde makyng whiche religiously hearde and reuerently spoken shoulde offende no man for man is but a ministre wherein he shoulde not glory and Christ maketh not himselfe of the mattier of bread nor maketh himselfe so ofte of bread a newe body but sittyng in heauen dothe as our inuisible Priest worke in the ministerye of the visible Priesthode of his churche and maketh present by his omnipotencye his glorified body and bloud in this high mistery by conuersion of the visible treatures of bread and wyne as Emissene sayth into the same This auctor of this booke as thou reader maist perceiue applyeth the figure of the breades called Panes propositiones to the body of Christ to coÌ„me where as Saincte Hierome calleth them the figure of Christes body in the Sacrament and therfore dothe fation his argumente in this sence If those breades that were but a figure required so muche clennesse in them that shoulde eate them that they might not eate of them whiche a daye or two before had lien with there wyues what clennesse is required in him that shoulde make the bodye of Christ Wherby thou maist see here this auctor hath reserued this notable place of Saincte Hierome to the latter ende
as I sayd before good men do not eate Christes bodye in the Sacrament vnder the visible signes for because it is not there and then much lesse should euel men reache it In the Catholique teachyng all the doctrine of eatyng of Christ is concluded in two maner of eatynges one in the visible Sacrament Sacramentall another spirituall without the Sacrament And because in the eatynge of the visible Sacrament Sainct Paule speaketh of vnworthy the same true teachynge to open the matter more clerely accordyng to Scripture noteth vnto vs thre maner of eatynges one spirituall onely whiche onely good men do feadyng in fayth without the visible Sacrament Another is bothe spirituall and Sacramentall whiche also good men onely do receiuyng the visible Sacrament with a true sincere charitable fayth The third maner of eatyng is Sacramentall onely whiche after sainct Paule euel men do vnworthely and therfore haue iudgement and condempnation and be gylty of our lordes bodye not estemynge our lordes bodye there And here arristeth the knot of conteÌ„tion with this auctor who sayeth euel men eate but the Sacramental bread whervnto I replie no more do good men neyther if this auctors doctrine of the Sacrament be trewe seyng he will haue it but a figure If this auctor wil say theffecte is other in good men then in euell men I will not stryue therin But to discusse this matter euidently we must righely open the truth and then must considre the visible Sacramentes as they be of gods ordinaunce who directeth vs where to seke for his giftes and howe whose workyng albeit it be not restrayned by his Sacramentes and therfore God maye and dothe inuisibly sanctifie and salue as it pleasith him yet he teacheth vs of his ordinarye workyng in the visible Sacramentes and ordereth vs to seke his giftes of helthe and life there wherupon sainct Augustin noteth howe Baptisme among the Augu. de peccatis meri et remiss libro 4. Cap. â—4 Christen men of Aphrike was verye well called helth and the Sacrament of Christes body called lyfe as in whiche God geueth helthe and lefe if we worthely vse them Thordinance of these sacraments is goddes worke the verye author of them who as he is himselfe vniforme as sainct Iames Iacob 1. sayth without alteration so as Dauid sayth his workes be true whiche is asmuch as vniforme for truth and vniforme answerith together As God is all goodnes so all his workes be good So as consideryng the substaunce of goddes workes and ordinauces as they be themselfe they be always vniforme certain and true in ther substaÌ„ce as God ordred them Among men for whom they be wrought and ordred ther is variete good men euell men worthy vnworthy but as sainct Paule sayeth there is but one Ephe. 4 lorde one fayth one Baptisme And the parable of the sower whiche Christe declared Mat. 5. himselfe sheweth a dyuersite of the groundes where the seed dyd fall but the sede was all one that dyd fall in the good grownde and that did fal in the noughty grownde but yt fructified onely in the good grownde whiche seede Christe calleth his worde And in the sixt of sainct Iohn sayeth Ioan. 6. his worde is spirite and lyfe so as by the teachyng of Christ spirite and lyfe maye fal vpon noughty men although for theire malice it carieth not nor fructifieth not in them And sainct Augustine accordyng hereunto In IoaÌ„ tract 27 noteth howe Christes wordes be spirite and life although thou dost carnally vnderstand them and hast no frute of them yet so they be spirite and life but not to the wherby appeareth the substaunce of gods ordynaunce to be one though we in the vsyng of it vary The promyses of God can not be disapointed by mannes infidelite as S. Paule saith which place Luther allegeth Rom. 3. to shewe the vnitie in the substaÌ„ce of Baptisme whither it be ministred to good or euell But S. Paule to the CorinthiaÌ„s declareth it 2. Cor. 2 notably in these wordes We be the good sauor of Christ in theÌ„ that be salued them that perishe Here S. Paule noteth the sauor good and one to diuerse men but after the diuersite in men of diuerse effectes in them that is to saye the sauor of life and the sauor of deathe whiche sayng of S. Paule the greke scolies gathered by Occumenius open and declare with similitudes in nature very aptely The dowe they say and the betel shall feade both vpon one oyntemeÌ„â— and the betel dye of it and the done strenghthened by it The diuersite in theffecte folouing of the diuersite of them that eate and not of that is â—aten whiche is alway one Accordyng herevnto S. Augustine againste the Donatistes geueth for a rule the sacrameÌ„tes to be one in all although they be not one that receiue vse them And therfore to knytte vp this matter for the purpose I entende and wryte it For wemust considre the substance of the visible SacrameÌ„t of Christes body and bloud to be always as of it selfe it is by Christes ordinaunce in the vnderstandyng whereof this auctor maketh variauÌ„ce and wold haue it by Christes ordinauÌ„ce but a figure which he hath not proued but and he had prowed it then is it in substaunce but a figure and but a figure to good men For it must be in substaunce one to good and bad and so neyther to good nor bad this SacrameÌ„t is otherwise dispensed then it is truely taught to be by preachyng Wherfore if it be more then a figure as it is in deade if by Christes ordynance it hath preseÌ„t vnder the forme of those visible sygnes of the fourme of bread and wyne the very body and bloud of Christ as hath been truly taught hitherto Then is the substaunce of the Sacrament one always as the oyntement was whether doues eate of it or betels And this Issue I ioyne with this An issue auctor that he shall not be able by any learnyng to make any diuersite in the substaunce of this sacrament what soeuer diuersite folowe in theffect For the diuersite of theffect is occasioned in them that receyue as before is proued And theÌ„ to anuswere this auctor I say that onely good men eate and drinke the body and bloud of Christ spiritually as I haue declared but al good euel receiue the visible Sacrament of that substaunce God hath ordeyned it whiche in it hathe no variance but is all one to good and euel And as for the Scriptures and doctours which this auctor allegeth to proue that onely good men receyne the body and bloud of Christ I grant it without contention speakyng of spitituall manducation and with lyuely faythe without the Sacrament But in the visible Sacrament euell men receyue the same that good men do for the substance of the Sacrament is by good ordinance all one And if this auctor would vse for a proufe that in the Sacrament Christes verye bodye is
to ensue of the diuersite of the eatyng not of any diuersite of that whiche is eaten whither the good man or euell man recyue the Sacrament If I would here encoÌ„bre the reader I coulde bryng forth many mo places of saincte Augustine to the confusioÌ„ and reproufe of this auctors purpose and yet notwithstandyng to take awaye that he might saye of me that I waye not Saincte Augustine I thynke good to allege bryng forth the iudgement of Martyn Bucer touchyng saincte Augustine who vnderstandeth saincte Augustine clere contrary to this auctor as maye playnely appeare by that the sayde Bucer writeth in fewe wordes in his Epistell dedicatorye of the greate worke he sente abrode of his enarracions of the Gospelles where his iudgement of Sainct Augustine in this poynte he vttereth thus Quoties scribit etiam Iudam ipsum corpus sanguinem Domini sumpsisse Nemo itaque auctoritate S. patrum dicet christum in sacra coena absentem esse The sence in English is this Howe often wryteth he speakyng of Sainct Augustine Iudas also to haue receiued the selfe body and bloud of our Lorde No man therfore by the auctoritie of the fathers can saye Christe to be absente in the holye soupper Thus sayth Bucer who vnderstandeth Saincte Augustine as I haue before alleaged him and gathereth there of a conclusion that no man can by the fathers saiynges proue Christe to be absente in the holye soupper And therfore by Bucers iudgemente the doctrine of this auctour can be in no wise Catholique as dissentynge frome that hathe been before taught and beleued Whither Bucer wyll styl continue in that he hath so solenly published to the world and by me here alleaged I can not tell and whither he do or no it maketh no matter but thus he hathe taught in his latter iudgement with A great protestation that he speaketh without respecte other then to the truthe wherin because he semed to dissent from his freundes he sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whiche wordes haue an imitation of an older sayng and be thus muche to saye Socrates is my frend Truth is my best beloued Socrates and the churche most regarded with this Bucer closith his doctrine of the sacrameÌ„t after he knewe al that zwinglius OecolaÌ„padius could say in the matter And here I wyl leaue to speke of Bucer bring forth Theodoretus a man much extolled by this Theodorâ—â—us in eplam 1. Cor. 2. auctor who sayth playnly in his commentaryes vpon S. Paule howe Christ delyuered to Iudas his precious bodye and bloud and declareth further therwith in that sacrameÌ„t to be the truthe So as this auctor can haue no foundation vpon eyther to maynten his figuratiue speach or the matter of this fourth booke whiche his wordes playnely impugne sainct Hierome in his commentaties Hierome vpon the prophete Malachie hath first this sentence Possumus panem idest corpus christi quando indigni accedimus ad altare sordidi mundum sanguinem bibimus We defile the bread that is to saye the bodye of christ wheÌ„ we cume vnworthely to thalrare and beynge fylthy drinke the cleane bloud Thus sayth S. Hierome who sayth fylthy men drinke the cleane bloud and in an other place after the same Sainct Hierome sayth Polluit christi mysteria indigne accipiens corpus eius sanguineÌ„ He that vnworthly receyueth the body bloud of Christ defyleth the mysteries Can any wordes be more manifest euideÌ„t to declare S. Hieroms mynde howe in the visible sacrameÌ„t men receyue vnworthely whiche be euil men the bodye and bloud of Christ and yet these playne places of auctoritie dissembled of purpose or by ignoraunce passed ouer this auctor as tough This auctor all thynges were by him clearly discussed to his enteÌ„t would by many coÌ„ceytes furnishe further his matters therfore playeth with our ladyes smyling rocking hir child many good mowes so vnsemely for his persoÌ„ that it maketh me almost forget him my selfe also But with such matterhe filleth his leaues forgettyng himselfe maketh meÌ„tioÌ„ of the cathechisme by him traÌ„slate thoriginall wherof coÌ„futeth these two partes of this booke in few words being prynted in germany wherin besides the matter wryteÌ„ is setforth in pictur the maner of the ministring of this sacra meÌ„t where is the altare with caÌ„del light let forth the priest apparelled after the old sort and the man to receiue kneling barehed holdyng vp his handes whiles the priest myuisâ—reth the host to his mouth a matter as clere contrarye to the matter of this booke as is light and darknesse which nowe this auctor would colour with speaches of auctors in a booke wryten to instructe rude childreÌ„ which is as sclendre an excuse as euer was harde none at al when thoriginall is loked on Emissene to stirre vp mens deuotion cumyng Emissen to receyue this Sacrament requireth the roote and foundatioÌ„ therof in the mynde of man as it ought to be therfore exorteth men to take the sacrameÌ„t with thande of the harte drinke with the dranght of the inwarde man whiche men must nedes do that will worthely repare to this feaste And as Emissene speaketh these deuoute wordes of thin warde office of the receyuer so dothe he in declaration of the mystrie shewe howe the Inuisible priest with his secrete power by his worde doth conuert the visible cratures in to the substance of his body and bloud whereof I haue before entrated This auctor vpon these wordes deuontly spoken by Emissene say the there is required no corporall presence of Christes precious bodye in the Sacrament continuynge in his ignoraunce what the worde corporall meaneth But to speake of Emissene if by his fay the the verye bodye and bloud of Christe were not present vpon the altare why dothe he calle it a reuerend altare why to be fed there with spirituall meates and why should fayth be required to lake vpon the bodye and bloud of Christ that is not there on thaltare but as this auctor teacheth onely in heauen and why should he that cummeth to be fede honnor those mysteries there why should Emissene allude to thande of the harte and draught of the inwarde man if the hande of the bodye and draught of thoutwarde man had none office there All this were vayne cloquence and a mere abuse and illusion if the Sacramentall tokens were only a figure if there were no preseÌ„ce but in figure why should not Emissene reather haue folowed the plaine spech of thaÌ„gel to the women that sought Christ Iesum quaeritis non est hic ye seke Iesus he is not here And say as this auctor doth this is onely a figure do no worship here goo vp to heaueÌ„ and downe with thaltare for feare of illusion which Emissene dyd not but called it a reuerend aulter and inuiteth him that should receyue to honnor that foode with such good wordes as before so far descrepauÌ„te froÌ„
this auctors teaching as may be and yet from him he taketh occasion to speake against adoration As touching thadoratioÌ„ of Christes fleshe in the SacrameÌ„t whiche adoration is a true confession of the holemans soule and body if there be opportunite of the truthe of God in his worke is in my indgement well setforth in the booke of coÌ„moÌ„ prayor where the priest is ordred to knele and make a prayor in his owne and the name of all that shall communicate confessyng therin that is prepared there at whiche tyme neuerthelesse that is not adored that the bodelye eie sceth but that whiche fay the knoweth to be there inuisibly preseÌ„t whiche and there be nothyng as this auctor nowe teacheth it were not well I wyll not answere this auctors eloqueÌ„ce but his matter where it might hurte as in the wronge reporte of Saincte Augustine who speakyng of the adoration of Christes fleshe geuen to be eaten doth so fation his speache as it cannot with any violence be drawen to suche an vnderstandyng as though S. Augustine should meane of thadoryng of Christes fleshe in heauen as this auctor woulde haue it S. Augustine speaketh of the geuyng of Christes flesh to vs to eaâ—e and declareth after that he meaneth in the visible Sacrament whiche must be Inuisibly vnderstaÌ„ded and spiritually not as the Capharnaites did vnderstand Christes wordes carnally to eate that body cutte in piaces and therfore there may be no suche imaginations to eate Christes bodye after the maner he walked here nor drinke his bloud as it was shed vpon the crosse but it is a mystery and sacrament that is godly of gods worke supernaturall aboue mannes vnderstandyng and therfore spiritually vnderstanded shall giue life whiche life carnall vnderstandyng must nedes exclude And by these my wordes I thynke I declare trully sainct Augustines meanynge of the truthe of this Sacrament wherin Christ geueth truely his fleshe to be eaten the fleshe he speake of before taken of the virgin For the spirituall vnderstandynge that sainct Augustine speaketh of is not to exclude the truthe of goddes worke in the Sacrament but to extlude carnall imagination from musyng of the maner of the worke whiche is in mysterye suche as a carnall man can not comprehende In whiche matter yf sainct Augustine had had suche a faythe of the visible sacrameÌ„t as this auctor sayth himselfe hath nowe of late and calleth it Catholique sainct Augustine would haue vttered it as an expositor playnely in this place and said ther is but a figure of Christs body Christes bodye and fleshe is in heuen and not in this visible SacrameÌ„t Christes speache that was estemed so hard was but a figuratiue speach and where Christ said This is my bodye he ment onely of the figure of his body whiche maner of saynges sainct Augustine vseth not in this place and yet he coulde speake playnly and so doth he declarynge vs firste the truthe of the fleshe that Christ geueth to be eaten that is to saye the same fleshe that he tooke of the virgen And yet because christ geneth it not in a visible maner nor suche a maner as the Capharnaites thought on nor suche a maner as any carnall man can conceyue beynge also the fleshe geuen in the SacrameÌ„t not a common fleshe but a lyuely godly and spirituall fleshe Therfore sainct Augustine vseth wordes and speache wherby he denieth the gift of that bodye of Christ whiche we did see and of the bloude that was shed so as by affirmation and deniall so nere together of the same to be geuen and the same not to be geuen the mysterye shoulde be thus far opened that for the truthe of the thynge geuen it is the same and touchynge the maner of the geuynge and the qualitie of the fleshe geuen it is not the same And because it is the same Sainct Angustine sayeth before we muste worshippe it and yet because it is nowe an hidden godly mysterye we maye not haue carnall Imaginations of the same but godly spiritually and inuisibly vnderstande it And because sainct Hierome who was of sainct Augustines tyme writeth in his commentaries Hierony mus ad Ephesios 〈◊〉 vpon sainct Paule Ad Ephesios that maye serue for the better openynge hereof I wyll write it in here The wordes be these The bloude and fleshe of Christe is two wayes vnderstanded eyther the spiritually godly of whiche him selfe said my fleshe is verely meat and my bloud is verely drynke and onlesse ye eat my fleshe and drinke my bloud ye shal not haue euerlasting life Or the fleshe whiche was crucified and bloud whiche was shed with the spere Accordyng to this diuisioÌ„ the diuersite of fleshe and bloud is taken in Christes sainctes that there is one fleshe that shall see the salnatioÌ„ of God an other fleshe and bloud that can not possesse the kyngdome of heauen These be S. Iheromes wordes In which thowe seest reader a denyall of that fleshe of Christ to be geuen to be eaten that was crucified but the fleshe geuen to be eaten to be a godly and spirituall fleshe and a distinction made betwene them as is in oure fleshe of whiche it may be sayde that the fleshe we walke in here shall not see God that is to say as it is corruptible accordyng to the text of S. Paul fleshe and bloud shal not possesse heauen and yet not withstanding we muste beleue and hope with Iob truely that the same oure fleshe shal see god in heauen after whiche diuision likewise we receyue not in the Sacrament Christes fleshe that was crucified beyng so a visible and mortall fleshe but Christes fleshe glorified incorruptible impassible a godly and spirituall fleshe And so that is but one in substaunce and alwayes so the same one is neuerthelesse for thalteration in the maner of the beyng of it diuided so called not the same wherin sainct Hierome and saincte Augustine vsed both one maner of speakinge and sainct Hierome resemblinge the diuisioÌ„ that he rehersith of christes flesh to the diuision of oure flesh in the resurrection dothe more plainely open howe the same maye be called not the same because we beleue certainlye the resurrection of the same flesh we walke in and yet it shall be by the garment of incorruptibilite not the same in qualite and so be verified the scriptures that flesh shall not possess heauen and I shall see god in my flesh And here I will note to the reader by the waye sainct Hierome wrireth this distinctioÌ„ of Christs flesh as a matter aggreed on and then in catholique doctrine receyued not of his inuention but in the catholique faythe as aprincipal established whiche declareth the belef to haue ben of that very godly and spirituall fleshe geuen really in the Sacrament For ells to eate onely in fayth is spiritually to remembre Christ flesh as it was visiblie crucified wherin was accoÌ„plished thoblacon for oure sinnes and sainct Poule willeth vs in the supper to shew forth and to professe
then to passe the lippes of suche an auctor to plaie whiche the syllables after this sorte for although he maie rede in sum blinde glose that in the instante af the laste syllable gods work is to be accompted wrought beyng a goode lesson to admonishe the ministre to pronouÌ„ce al. Yet it is so but a priuate opinion and reuerently vttred not to putte the vertue in the Laste syllable nor to sâ—orne the Catholique faith after which maner takyng example of this Auctor If an Ethnike iest of Fiat lux at fi was nothynge and then at at was yet nothinge at lu was nothinge but a lytel litell peringe put an x to it and it was sodenly Lux and then light what Christen man would handle eyther place thus and therfore reader let this entre of the matter serue for an argument with what spirite this matter is handled but to answere that this auctor noteth with an exclamacon Oh goode lorde howe would they haue bragged if christ had said this is no bread Here I would questioÌ„ with this auctor whither Christe saide so or no and reason thus Christes body is no materiall breade Christ saide This is my body ergo he saide this is not bread And the firste parte of this reason this auctor affirmeth in the 59 leafe And the seconde parte is Christ wordes and therfore to auoyd this coÌ„clusion thonly waye is to say that Christes speache was but a figure which the catholik doctrine saieth is false and therfore by the catholique doctrine Christes sayinge This is my bodie sayth in effecte This is no breade wherat this auctor sayth they wolde brage if Christe had saide soo In speach is to be consydered that euery yea coÌ„teineth an nayin it naturaly so as whosoeuer saith This is bread sayth it is no wine whosoeuer sayth thys is wine sayth it is no breade If a lapidarie saith this is a diamoÌ„de he saithe it is no glasse he saith it is no crystall he sayth it is no white safyer So Christ saying this is my body faith it is no breade whiche plainnes of speache caused Suinglius to saye plainlye if there be present the substaunce of the bodie of Christe there is transubstantiacion that is to saye not the substaunce of breade and therfore who will plainelye denie transubstantiacion must denie the true presence of the subsâ—ance of Christes bodie as this auctor doth wherein I haue first conuynced him and therfore vse that victorie for his ouerthrowe in transubstantiacion I haue shewed before how Christes wordes were not figuratiue when he saide this is my bodie and yet I will touche here suche testimonie as this anctor bringith oute of Hilarie for the purpose of transubstantiacion in the xxv leefe of this booke in thiese wordes There is a figure saith Hâ—â—arie for bread and wine be out wardly seen there is also a trueth of that figure for the bodye and bloud of Christe be of a trueth inwardelye beleued Thiese be Hilaries wordes as this auctor allegith theÌ„ who was he saith within 350 yeres of christ Nowe I call to thy Iudgment goode reader coulde any maÌ„ diuise more pithiewordes for the proufe of the real presence of Christes body bloud the coÌ„deÌ„pnacioÌ„ of this auctor that wolde haue an onely figure Here in hilaries wordes is a figure coÌ„pared to trueth sight but wardly to belief inwardly Nowe our beliefe is grounded vppoÌ„ goddes worde which is this This is my body in which wordes hilarie testifieth that is inwardly beleued is a trueth the figure is in that is seeÌ„ outwardly I take hilarie here as this auctor allegith him wherby I aske the reader is not this auctor auerthroweÌ„ that christ speache is not figuratiue but true proper beinge inwardly trewe that we byleue Ye will saye vnto me what is this to traÌ„substaÌ„tiacioÌ„ to the reproufe wherof it was brought in because he saith bread wine are seen First I saye that it ouerthroweth this auctor fortruth of the preseÌ„ce of christes body euery ouerthrow therin ouerthroweth this auctor in traÌ„substaÌ„tiacioÌ„ not by auctorite of the churche of Rome but by coÌ„sequence in truth as Suinglius saith who shal serue me to auoyde papistrie If one aske me what say ye theÌ„ne to hilarie that bread wine areseeÌ„ I say they be in dead seeÌ„ for they appere so therfore be callid so as Isaac sayd of Iacob it was his voice yet by his sence of feling denied him Esau which was not Esau Gene. 27. but was Iacob as the voyce froÌ„ within did declare him If ye will aske me howe canne there according to hilaries wordes be in the outwarde visible creatures any figure onles the same be in deade as they appeare bread wine I will answer euen as well as this out ward obiecte of the seÌ„sible hearynes of Iacob reseÌ„blinge Esau was a figure of christes humanite of the ve ry humanite in deade Thus may Hilarie be answered to anoyde hys auctorite from contraryinge traÌ„substaÌ„tion But this auctor shall neuer auoide that him self hath brought out of hilarie which ouerthro weth hiÌ„ in his figuratiue speache consequeÌ„tly in his denyall of traÌ„substantiation also as shal appere in the further handling of this matter Where this auctor in the 18 leaf coÌ„parith these S. Poules wordes The breade that we breake is it not the coÌ„munion of the bodye of christ to be thexpoâ—mdyng of christes wordes This is my body I deny that for christ wordes declared the substance of the sacrameÌ„t wheÌ„ he said This is my body S. Paule declarith the worthie vse of it according to Christes institucion by the words the bread that we breake doth signifie the hole vse of the supper wherin is breakyng blessyng thauckes geuing dispeÌ„sing receiuiÌ„g eatyng So asonely breakyng is not the coÌ„munioÌ„ yet by that parte in a figure of speach S. Paule meaneth all beyng the same as appeareth by the scripture a terme in spech to go breake bread althoughe it be not alwaies so takeÌ„ wherby cosignifie to go celebrate our lordes supper therfore bread in that place may signifie the commen breade as it is adhibite to be consecrate whiche by the secrete power of god turned in to the bodye of Christe so distribute receyued is the coÌ„munioÌ„ of the body of christ as the cuppe is likirise of the bloud of Christ after the benediction whiche benediction was not spoken of in the bread but yet must be vnderstanded As for Christes callynge of bread his bodye is to make it his bodye who as sainct Paule sayth calleth that is not as it were and so makethe it to be Primo Thargumentes this auctor vseth in 19. and. 20. leef of thordre of Christes speaches as the euangelistes reherse them be captious diuises of this auctor in cace he knowethe what sainct Augustine writeth or els ignoraunce if he hathe not red sainct Augustine De doctrina Christiana
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
called it wherin also remaynethe true sauor and taste withe true propriete to corrupte or putrifie and also nurrishe God for ordrynge fayth of the true manhode in Chrâ—ste is truely byleued by true preachinge ther of and by the scriptures not by the outwarde senses of mene which al togither we must confesse coulde be no certaine ineuiâ—able prouf ther of And therfore Christe appearinge to his disciples goinge in to EmaÌ„s opened the scriptures to them for the prouf of his deathe that he suffred as very man and yet he vsed also in some parte to preache to there senses with sensible exhibition of himself vnto theÌ„ and so all Christes doinges which were moste true do beare testimonie to the trueth but in there degree of testimonie and the fealinge of sainct Thomas beinge as sainct Gregorie saithe miraculeuse serueth for prouf of an other thinge that goddes workein miracle dothe not empaire the truth of the thinge wrought and so sainct Thomas touched then Christ as truely by miracle after his resurrection in his bodye glorified as if he had touched his bodye before glorificacion Fynally in Christes actes or his ordinaunces be no illusions all is truth and perfite trueth and our senses in the visible formes of bread and wine be not illuded but haue there proper obiectes in those accidentes and reason in carnall vnderstandinge brought and subdued in obsequie to fayth doth in the estimacion of the hoste coÌ„secrate yelde to faith accordinge wheâ—unto we confeâ—â—ruely the same to be the body of Christe Where this auctors woulde al the Papistes to laye their heades together c. I knowe no suche Papistes but this I saye without further counsaile whiche this auctor with al his counsaile shall not auoyde We beleue most certainely the resurrection of our flesh and be persuaded by Catholique teachyng that the same flesh by participation of Christes godly flesh in the Sacrament shal be made incorruptible Ioan. 6. yet not after the iudgemeÌ„t of our senses conclusions gathered of them consideryng the maner of the continuall consumptioÌ„ of the sayd bodies wherof sum philosophers haue at lenght after their reasoÌ„ declared their mynde whom Christen men coÌ„temâ—e withal thexperieÌ„ce of senses which they allege being vehemeÌ„t in that matter we reade in scripture of the fedyng of Angels wheÌ„â—oth receyued Gen. 18. them I will spend no mo wordes herein but hauyng auoyded this authors reasonyng against traÌ„substantiacioÌ„ Now let vs examine his authorities First he begynneth with Iustine the Martyr Whose words be not truly by this authour here reported which be these truely translate out of the greke When the Iustinê° Prieast hath ended his thankes geuyng and prayours all the people hath sayde Amen they whom we cal deacons geue to euery one then present a parte of the breade and of the wyne and water consecrated and cary parte to those that be absente this is that foode whâ—che is amonge vs called Eucharistia wherof it is lawfull for no man to be partaker except he be persuaded those thinges to be true that be taught vs and be baptized in the water of regeneracion in remissioÌ„ of synnes and ordreth his lifâ— after the maner whiche Christ hath taught For we do not take these for commen breade or dryncke but like as Iesus Christe our Sauyour incarnate by the worde of God had fleshe and bloud for our saluacion euen so we be taught the fode wherwith our fleshe and bloud be nourrisshed by alteracion when it is consecrate by the prayour of his worde to be the flesh and bloude of the same Iesus incarnate For the Apostelles in those there workes whiche be called Gospelles teache that Iesus dyd so commande them and after he had taken the breade and ended his geuyng tankes sayd do this in my remembraunce This is my body And like wise takyng the cuppe after he had geuen thankes sayde This is my bloud and dyd geue them to his Apostels onelye And here I make an issue with this author An issue that he wittyngly corrupteth Iustine in the allegacion of him who wryteth not in such forme of wordes as this authour allegeth owt of his seconde Appologie nor hath any suche speache The bread vvater and vvyne in this Sacrament ar meates ordeyned purposely to geue thankes to God and therfore be called Eucharistia nor hath not these wordes they be called the body and bloud of Christ but hath in playue wordes that we be taught this foode consecrate by gods worde to be the flesh and bloud of Christ as Christ in his incarnatioÌ„ toke flesh and bloud nor hath not this forme of wordes placed to haue that vnderstandyng hovve the same meate and drinke is chaunged into our fleshe and bloud for the wordes in Iustine speakyng of alteracion of the fode haue an vnderstandyng of the fobe as it is before the couse cracion shewyng how Christ vsed those creatures in this mysterie whiche by alteracion nurrish our flesh and bloud For the body of Christ which is the verye celestiall substauce of the hoste consecrate is not chaunged but without al alteracion spiritually nurrisheth the bodyes soules of them that worthely receyue the same to immortalite wherby appeareth this authors coÌ„clusion that bread vvyne remayne stil vvhich is turned into our flesh bloud is not deduced vpoÌ„ Iustines wordes truly vnderstanded but is a glose inuented by this auctor a peruertyng of Iustines words there true meaninges Whervpon I may saye conclude euen as this au ctor erreth in his reasonyng of mother wytte against transubstaÌ„tiacion eueÌ„ so erreth he in the first allegatioÌ„ of his auctorites by plaine mysceportynge let it be further named or thought on as the thinge deserueth Next Iustine is Iren in thallegatioÌ„ of whoÌ„ this auctor maketh also an vntrue report who hathe not this forme of wordes in the fourth boke contra ValeÌ„tinu that the bread wherin we geue thaÌ„kes vnto God although it be of the earth yet when the name of God is called vpon it is not then commen bread but the bread of thankes geuyng hauynge two thinges in it one earthely and the other heauenly This is Irene alleged by this auctor who I saye wryteth not in suche forme of wordes For his wordes be these Like as the bread which is of the earth receyuing the calling of God is now no commen bread but Eucharistia consistynge of two thynges earthely and heauenly so oure bodyes receyuynge Eucharistia be no more corrupâ—â—bâ—e This be Irenes wordes where Irene doth not call the bread receyuinge the callynge of God the bread of thankes geuyng but Eucharistia and in this Eucharistia he sheweth how that that he calleth the heauely thing is the body and bloud of Christ and therfore sayth in his first booke when the chalice mixt and the breade broken receyue the worde of God it is made Eucharistia of the body and bloud of Christ of whiche the substaunce of our fleshe is stayed and encreased
two persons and the Eutichians by confusion of the humaine nature Then cummeth Gelasius to the argument of example from the Sacrament of the bodye and bloude of Christ and noteth the person of Christ to be a principall mysterye and the Sacrament an image and similitude of that mysterye which sence his wordes muste nedes haue because he calleth Christe the principall mysterye and as in one place he sayth the image and similitude of the bodye and bloud of Christe so by and by he calleth the Sacramente the image of Christe And here the wordes image and similitude expresse the maner of presence of the truth of the thinges represented to be vnderstanded onely by faith as inuisibly present And Saincte Ambrose by this worde mage signifieth thexhibition of truth to man in this life And to shewe the Sacrament to be suche an image as conteyneth the verye truthe of the thinge whereof it is the image Gelasius declareth in framynge his argumente in these wordes As breade and wyne go into the diuine substaunce the holy gooste bringyng it to passe and yet remayne in the proprietie of there nature so that principall mysterye those natures remayninge whereof it is declared vnto vs true and hole Christ to continue In these wordes of Gelasius where he saith the breade and wyne go into the diuine substaunce is playnely declared the presence of the diuine substaunce and this diuine substaunce can signifie none other substaunce but of the body and bloude of Christe of whiche heauenly nature and earthely nature of the breade and wyne consisteth this Sacrament the image of the principall mysterye of Christes person And therfore as in the image be two diuers natures and different remayninge in there proprietie So likewise in the person of Christ whiche is the conclusion of Gelasius argumente should remayne two natures And here were a greate daunger if we shoulde saye that Christes body whiche is the celestiall nature in the Sacramente were there present but in a figure for it shoulde then implye that in Christes personne the principall mysterye it were also but in a figure And therfore as in the mysterye of Christes personne ordened to redeme vs beynge the principal mistery there is no figure but truth in consideracion of the presens of the two natures wherof Christ is So in the SacrameÌ„t beyng a misterye ordred to feade vs the image of that principal mistery ther is not an onely figure but truth of the presens of the natures earthely celestiall I speake of the truth of presence and meane suche an integritie of the natures present as by the rules of our faith is consonante and agreable to that mistery that is to say in the person of Christ perfit God perfit maÌ„ perfite God to be incarnate perfit man to be deitate as Gregory Nazianzene termeth it In the SacrameÌ„t the visible matter of the earthely creature in his proprietie of nature for the vse of significacioÌ„ is necessariely required also according to the truth of Christ his wordes his very body bloud to be inuisibly with integrite present which Gelasius calleth the diuine substaunce And I thinke it worthy to be noted that Gelasius speking of the bread wyne reciteth not precisely the substaÌ„ce to remaine but saith the substaÌ„ce or nature which nature he calleth after proprietie the disiuÌ„ctiue may be verified in the last it is not necessary thexaÌ„ples to be in al partes equal as rusticus diacomâ—s handleth it very lernedly coÌ„tra Acephalos And Gelasius in opening the mystery of the Sacrament speaketh of traÌ„sitioÌ„ of the bread wyne into the godly substaÌ„ce whiche worde transition is mete to expresse transubstantiacioÌ„ therfore S. Thomas expressed traÌ„substantiacioÌ„ with the same word transire writyng Dogma datur Christianis quod in carneÌ„ traÌ„sit panis vinuÌ„ in sanguineÌ„ But in the mysterie of Christes person there is no traÌ„sition of the deitie into the humanite or humanite into the deitie but onely assumption of the humanite with adunacioÌ„ of those two natures of two perfit natures so differeÌ„t one person one Christ who is God incarnate man deitate as Gregory Nazianzene saith withoutmutation coÌ„uetsion trausitioÌ„ transelementation or transubstantiation whiche wordes be propre special to expresse howe Eucharistia is coÌ„stitute of two distreÌ„t natures an heauenly earthly nature a mystery institute after the exaÌ„ple of the principal mysterie wherwith to feade vs with the substaÌ„ce of the same glorious body that hath redemed vs. And because in the coÌ„stitution of this mysterie of the sacrameÌ„t there is a traÌ„sitioÌ„ of the earthly creature into the diuine substaÌ„ce as Gelasius S. Thomas terme it mutacion as Cyprian Ambrose teache it which Theophilactus expresseth by the worde traÌ„selemeÌ„tacion Emissen by the conuersion all these wordes reduced into there one propre sence expressed in one worde of transubstantiacion it cannot be coÌ„uenient where the maner of the constitution of two mysteries be so different there to require a like remayning of the two natures whereof the mysteryes be In the mysterye of Christes person because there was not of any of the two different natures eythex mutation transition conuersioÌ„ or trauselementation but onely assumption of the humanitie and adunation in the virgyns wombe we cannot say the godhed to haue suffred in that mysterye which were an absurditie but to haue wrought the assumption and adunation of mans nature with it nor mans nature by that assumption and adunation diminished and therfore professe truly Christ to be hole God and whole man and God in that mysterye to be made man and man God where as in the Sacrament because of transition mutation and conuersion of there earthely creatures wrought by the holy goost which declareth those earthly creatures to suffer in this conuersion mutation and transition we knowledge no assumption of those creatures or adunation with the heauthly nature and therfore saye not as we do in the principal mysterye that eche nature is holly the other and as we professe God incarnate so the bodye of Christe breaded and as man is deitate so the bread is corporate whiche we should say if the rules of our fayth could permitte the constitution of eche mysterye to be taught a lyke which the truth of gods morde doth not suffre Wherfore although Gelasius and other argue froÌ„ the Sacrament to declare the mysterye of Christes person yet we maye not presse the argument to distroy orcoÌ„founde the proprietie of eche mysterye and so violate the rules of our fayth and in the authours not presse the wordes otherwise then they maye agree with the Catholique teachynge as those did in the wordes of Cyrill when he speake of nature and subsistence whereof I made mention before to be remembred here in Gelasius that we presse not the worde substance and nature in him but as maye agree with the transition he speaketh of by which word other expresse
all beynge and adnihilacion is a defection of the creature from God and yet Christes bodye is not augmeÌ„ted by the substaÌ„ce of bread in which body it endeth by coÌ„nersioÌ„ as in the better without adnihilatioÌ„ which is a changyng by miracle And when this auctor knoweth this or shoulde haue known it or hath forgotten it he wryteth like one that were ignoraunt and had red no thing in the matter as it were to make himselfe populer to ioyne himselfe in ignoraunce with the rude vnlerned people A thirde reason this auctor frameth himselfe werby to take occasion to afferme howe the .vi. chaptre of sainct Iohn shuld not apperteyne to the SacrameÌ„tal maÌ„ducation the contrary wher of apperith aswell by the wordes of Christ in that .vi. chaptre saing I will gyue not I do gyue which promise was fullfilled in the supper as also hy the catholique wryters and specially by Cyril and therfore I will not Ioh. 6. further stryue with this auctour in that matter but see howe he can assoyle thauctorites wherunto he entreth with greate coÌ„fidence First in Cyprian who speketh playnelie in the matter this auctor fyndetha fault that he is not holly alleged wherupon this auctor bryngeth in the sentence followinge not necessary Cyprianus to be rehersed for the matter of transubstantiacioÌ„ and hansom to be rehersed for the ouerthrowe of the rest of this auctours newe catholique faith whither that nowe shall be added was materiall in the matter of transubstanciacion I require the Iudgement of the o reader The first wordes of Cyprian be these This breade whiche our lorde gaue to his disciples chaunged in nature but not in outwarde forme is by the oÌ„mnipotencye of gods worde De câ—â—na dnÌ„i made fleshe These be Cyprianus wordes then folowe thies As in the person of Christ the humanite was seen the diuinite hiddeÌ„ euen so the diuinite ineffably infused it selfe in to the visible Sacrament Thus saith Cyprian as I can englishe hym to expresse the worde infudit by latin englishe not liking theÌ„ glishe worde shed because in our englishe tonge it resembleth spillyng and euacuation of the hole and much lesse I can agree to vse the worde powrynge although infunde in laten maye in the vse of earthly thynges signifie so because powring noteth a successiue workyng wheras gods worke is in an instant and for that respecte neuer sheddynge But this auctor had a faÌ„sye to vse the sounde of the worde powryng to serue in stede of an argumeÌ„t to improue transubstantiacion meanyng the hearer or reader in the conceyuyng of the sence of Cypryan thus termed should fansye the bread in the visible Sacrament to be like a soppe wherupon lyquor were powred which is a kynde of deprauation as thou reader by consideration of Cyprians wordes meanyng may est perceyue which CypriaÌ„ hath sheued howe the bread is made fleshe by the omnipoteÌ„cie of gods worde and made by chaÌ„ge TheÌ„ because this mysterie of the SacrameÌ„t in coÌ„sideration of the two natures celestial earthly resembleth the principal misterie of Christes persoÌ„ne S CypriaÌ„ saith in seÌ„ce that as in the persoÌ„ of Christ the humanite was seen the diuinite hidden so likewise in this SacrameÌ„t visible is also the diuine nature hidden This is the seÌ„ce where for declaracioÌ„ of the worke of god presetyng his diuine nature there is vsed the verbe infudit in latyn by whiche worde the motion of the diuine nature is spokeÌ„ of in scriptures not because it is a liquide substaÌ„ce to be poured as thauctor of this booke englishethit signifiyng a successiue operation but rather as a worde if we should scanne it as this auctor would signifiyng the coÌ„tinuaÌ„ce of the terme feoÌ„ whence to the terme whervnto with out leauyng the one by motion to the other for there is in the godly nature no local motion therfor we say christ not leauing his father desceÌ„ded froÌ„ heaueÌ„ being in earth was also in heueÌ„ which coÌ„fusioÌ„ in sum parte reseÌ„bleth but maÌ„s words caÌ„ not expresse gods diuine operacioÌ„s To the purpose the first word of CypriaÌ„ shewe the maner of the coÌ„stitucion of this sacrameÌ„t to be by muracioÌ„ of the earthly creatures in to the body blod of christ And the by the wordes folowing sheueth the truth of the substaÌ„ce of the sacrameÌ„t to thinteÌ„t we might vse our repayre to it and frame our deuotioÌ„ according to the dignite of it este ming as S. Paule saith our lordes body for the more euident declaratioÌ„ wherof S. CypriaÌ„ by example of the mysterye in Christes person sheueth Christes humanite and diuinite present in the visible sacrameÌ„t of which diuinite there is speciall mencion againste such whiche fansied the flesh of Christ to begyuen to be eaten as diuided from the diuine nature whiche was the heresie of the NestoriaÌ„s and such other denying therby the perfite vnite of the two natures in Christ which the holy Sinode of Ephesus did specially coÌ„dempne as other fathers in there wrytinge did specially preueÌ„te with distincte wryting against that errour and therfore sainct Cyprian not content to shew the presence of Christes fleshe by mutacon of the bread doth after make speciall mencion of Christes diuinite not correcting that he had said before but further openynge it And so vtterby condempneth the teachynge of thauctor of this booke towching the presence of Christ to be onely figura tiuely Cyprian saith that in the sacrament is the truth and then there is present the true fleshe of Christ and the godhed truly whiche deuotion should knowelege as for transubstaÌ„ciation according to the first wordes of sainct CypriaÌ„ the bread is chaunged not informe but in nature whiche is not in the proprietes of nature nor in the operacion of nature neither in quantite or qualite of nature and therfore in the inwarde nature whiche is properly substaunce This is the playne directe vnderstandynge not by way of addition as this auttor of his ymaginatioÌ„ diuiseth who vseth the worde spirituall as a stop and opposition to the catholique teaching whiche is not so and clerelye without earnyng compareth with this Sacrament the water of Baptisme of whiche we reade not wryten that it is chaunged as we reade of the breade and therfore the resemblaunce of water in Baptisme is vsed onely to blinde the rude reader and serueth for a shifte of talke to wynde out of that matter that cannot be answered and as euill debters shake of there creditours with a by communicacion so this auctor conueyeth himselfe awaye at a backe dore by water not doynge first as he promised to answere so as he would auoyde Cyprian directly by laude Answerynge to Chrisostome this auctor Chryso complayneth as he did in Cyprian of malicyous leauyng out of that whiche when it is brought in doth nothing empayre that went before Chrisostome woulde we shoulde consider the secrete truth of this mysterie where Christe is the Inuisible Prieste and ministreth in
the accideÌ„tes be by miracle without substaÌ„ce as they be in the visible ê‘t of the sacrameÌ„t theÌ„ the same accideÌ„tes to be brokeÌ„ cateÌ„ droÌ„keÌ„ with al thaditioÌ„s this auctor for his pleasur maketh theriÌ„ is no miracle or meruaile as for absur dite no poiÌ„t at al for by quaÌ„tite which remaineth is al diuisioÌ„ we ought to coÌ„fesse good christen men do professe the mysterye of the SacrameÌ„t to be supernatural and aboue the ordre of nature therfore it is a trauayle in vayne to frame the consideratioÌ„ of it to agree with the termes of philosophye But where this auctor saith that nothyng can be answered to be brokeÌ„ but the accideÌ„tes yes verely for in tyme of conteÌ„cioÌ„ as this is to him that would aske what is brokeÌ„ I would in other termes answere thus That thou seest is broken And theÌ„ if he would aske further what that is I would tell him the visible matter of the Sacrament vnder whiche is present Inuisibly the substance of the most precious body of Christ if he will aske yet further Is that bodye of Christ broken I will say no. For I am lerned in fayth that that glorious body nowe impassible can not be broken or diuided and therfore it is holy in euery parte of that is broken as the substaunce of bread is in comen bread in euery parte that is broken accordyng wherunto it is in the booke of comen prayour setforth howe in eche part of that is broken is the hole body of our sauiour Christ If this questioner be further curious and saye is not that that is broken breade I woulde answere as a beleuynge man by fayth truely no For in fayth I must call it because it is truely so the bodye of Christe inuisibly there and the breakynge to be not in it but in the visible signe Yea ye will call it so sayth this questioner but yet it is bread Nay quod I my sayth is a most certaine truth and beleueth thinges as they verily be for Christes worde is of strenght not onely to shewe and declare as other mens wordes do but therwith effectual to make it so to be as it is by him called And this I write because howsoeuer clerkes soberly entreate the matter such as mynde well I meane to consider accideÌ„tes and substaÌ„ce whiche termes the rude vnderstaÌ„de not it is not necessarye therfore in those termes to make answere to suche as be coÌ„tentiously curious who labour with questioÌ„s to dissolue the truth of the misterie in declaracioÌ„ wherof we as men stumble and terme it otherwise then we shuld that is no IncoÌ„uenieÌ„ce in the misterie but an imparfection in vs that be not able to expresse it not hauinge such giftes of god as other haue nor studyinge to atteyne lernyng as other haue done And whatsoeuer in scoles with a deuoute mynde to aus were al captious questions hath for thexercitation of mennes senses bene moued soberly and by way of argument obiected that is nowe picked out by this auctor and brought to the comen peoples cares in which it might sounde euill they not beinge able to make answere theruÌ„to wherby they might be snarled and intaÌ„gled with vayne fanses against that truth which before without curiosite of questions they truely and coÌ„stantly beleued Finally the doctrine of the sacrament is simple and playne to haue the visible fourmes of breade and wyne for significatioÌ„ the thing wherof in the verye bodye bloud of Christ which beyng the truth of the hole it is no absurdite to coÌ„fesse truely the partes as they be if occasioÌ„ require howesoeuer it soundeth to the Ethnike or carualic mannes eares for whose satisfaction there is no cause why the truth should be altred into alye wherwith to make melody to ther vnderstaÌ„dinges For howsoeuer carnall reason be offended with spiritual truth it forceth not but against the hole consent of the auncient doctors no doctrine caÌ„ be instified with whose restimonie howe the fayth of the church in the sacrameÌ„t nowe agreeth it is manifest howsoeuer it liketh this auctor to reaporte the contrarye Secondly these TransubstaÌ„tiators do say contrarye to all lernynge that accidentes of bread and The auctor wyne do hange alone in th aire without any substance wherin they may be stayed and what may be sayd more folyshelye The maister of the sentences she winge diuers meÌ„s sayinges in discussioÌ„ as they can The answer sententia 〈◊〉 di 〈…〉 t. 9. q. 10. of this mysterie telleth what sume say that had reather saye sum what then nothinge which this auctor rehersith as a determinacion of the church that in dede maketh no doctrine of that pointe so but acknowlegith the misterie to excede our capacite And as for the accidentes to be stayed that is to saye to remayne without there natural substance is without difficultie beleued of men that haue sayth consideryng thalmightie power of Christ whose diuine body is there present And shall that be accompted for an inconuenience in the misterie that any one man saith whose sayinge is not as a full determinacioÌ„ approued If that man should encontre with this auctor if he were a lyue so to do I thinke he would saye it were more tollerable in him of a zeale to agree with the true doctrine to vtter his coÌ„seyte foÌ„dly then of a malice to disseÌ„t froÌ„ the true doctrine this auctor so fondly to improwe his sayinge But if he should oppose this auctor in lernynge and aske him howe he wyll vnderstand Fiat lux in the creatioÌ„ of the world where the light stayed that was then create But I will procede to peruse the other absurdities Thirdly that the substance of Christes body is there The auctor really corporally and naturally present without any accidentes of the same And so the papistes make accidentes to be with out substance and substance without accidentes Howe Christes bodye in circuÌ„staÌ„ce preseÌ„t The answer no man caÌ„ define but that it is truely preseÌ„t therfore really preseÌ„t corporally also but yet supper naturally with relation to the truth of the body preseÌ„t not to the maner of preseÌ„ts which is spiritual excedyng our capacitâ— therfore therin with out drawyng awaye accideÌ„tes or adding we byleue simplie the 〈◊〉 howsoeuer it liketh this auctor with out the booke to 〈◊〉 it at his pleasur to speke of substaÌ„ce without accideÌ„tes accideÌ„tes without substaunce whiche perplexite in wordes cannot ieste out the truth of the catholique bilyefe And this is on thauctours part nothinge but iestinge with a wroÌ„ge surmise and supposall as though men had inuiÌ„ted and ymagined that whiche by force and truth of the scripture all good men haue and must byleue that is to saye the true presence of the substance of the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament accordinge to the wordes of Christ This is my body whiche exclude the substance of breade declaringe the substance of the body of
an others learnynge with wordes none controlleth an others lyuing with better dedes Let all endeuoure themselfe to do that God commauÌ„deth and the good occupation thereof shall exclude all suche idelnesse as is cause and occasion of this vayne and noysome curiosite And nowe to retourne to this auctour whiles he seath a more in an other mannes eye he fealeth not a beame in his owne Who recommendeth vnto vs specially Theodorete whom he calleth an holly Bishop and with him doth bringe forth a peace of an Epistle of Saincte Chrisostome The doctrine of whiche two ioyned with the doctrine of this auctor in suche sence as this auctour woulde haue all vnderstanded to be called Catholique touchynge the faith of the Sacrament hath suche an absurdite in it as was neuer hearde of in religion For this auctour teacheth for his parte that the body of Christe is onely reallye in heauen and not in dede in the Sacrament according wherunto this auctor also teacheth the bread to be very bread still which doctrine if it be true as this auctour will nedes haue it then ioyne vnto it the doctrine of the secrete Epistle of Chrysostome Theodorete whose doctrine is that after the consecracion that is consecrate shal be called no more bred but the oâ—dy of christ By these two doctrines ioyned together it shall appeare that we must call that is consecrate by a name of that we be learned by this auctour it is not and may not by the doctrine of Theodorete call it by the name of that which this auctor teacheth vs in dede it is As thus It is in dede bread quod this auctor but call it not so quod this Theodorete It is not in dede the body of Christ quod this auctor but yet in anywise cal it so quod Theodorete Here is playne simulacion and dissimulacion both together For by forberynge the name of breade accordynge to Theodoretes teachynge we dissemble hide that it is by this auctors teachinge and by vsinge the name of our Lordes body accordyng to Theodoretes teachyng we fayne it to be that it is not by this auctors teachynge whiche sayth there is only a figure and by this meanes in so high a mysterye we shoulde vse vntruthes on both sides in simulacion and dissimulacioÌ„ which is a meruelous teachyng I denye not but thinges signifiyng may haue the name of that they signifie by a figure of speache but we reade not in any doctrine geuen that the thynge signifiynge shoulde haue the name by figure and be deliuered from the name of that it is in dede And yet this is nowe the teaching of this auctour in defence of his newe Catholique fayth ioyned with the teachynge of Theodorete and the secrete Epistel of S. Chrisostome as this auctor would haue theÌ„ vnderstanded But those men Theodorete Chrisostome in the sence they mente as I vnderstand theÌ„ taught a true doctrine For they take the name of the body of Christ in the sacrament to be a reall namynge of the body of Christe there presente in dede and therfore a true perfite name which as S. Chrisostomes secrete Epistel saith the thyng is worthy to haue declaryng by that worthynes the thing named to be their in dede And likewise I vnderstande the other name of bread worthely done awaye because the substaunce Wherupon in reason the name was grounded is chaunged accordynge to the true doctrine of transubstantiacion therfore that name of bread in there doctrine is truely layde away although Theodorete wryteth the visible matter of bread and wyne to be seen and felt as they were before and therfore saith there substance which there signifieth the outward nature is seen and felt to remayne which termes with conuenient vnderstandynge maye thus agree with the Catholique teachyng of traÌ„substantiacion and so in the SacrameÌ„t on euery part both in the heaueÌ„ly earthely part to be a ful hole perfit truth as the high mistery beyng the sacrameÌ„t of our perfit vnite in bodye and soule with Christe doth require Wherby in my Iudgement as this auctour hath against his owne determinacion in this enterprise vttred that confermeth the truth of the reall presence of Christs most precious body in the Sacrament which he doth in speciall entreatyng the worâ—es of Saincte Augustine in the .xxvij. leafe of his booke besides that in diuers other places he dothe the like so bringynge vs forth this Theodorete and his secret Epistle of Saincte Chrysostome he hathe brought forth that maye serue to conuince him in transubstantiacion Howbeit as for transubstantiacion Suinglius taketh it truely for a necessary consequeÌ„ce of the truth if there be in the Sacrament the real presence of Christes bodye as there is in dede For as a carnall man not instructe by fayth aswel after consecracion as before as he is of the earth speaketh and calleth it breade and askynge him what it is wyll neuer answere otherwise and if one asked him whither it were the bodye of Christ woulde thinke the questioner mocked him so the faythfull spirituall man answeryng to that questioÌ„ what it is woulde after consecracion accordyng to fayth answere the bodye of Christe and thinke himselfe mocked if he were asked is it not breade onles he had been taught Christ to haue sayde it had been both his bodye and bread As for callyng it by the name of bread which it was he wold not greatly sâ—ike one thyng may haue many names but one thing is but one substaunce wherby to answere to the question what it is sauynge onely in the person of Christe wherin we knowe vnited the two substaÌ„ces of god and man And this matter I repete and sumaryly touch againe to leaue in the readers brest the principall pointe of our biliefe of this misterye to be of the reall preseÌ„ce that is to say vnfayned substantial preceÌ„ce and therfore the true preseÌ„ce of Christes most precious body in the SacrameÌ„t whiche hath bene in all ages taught bene as it is the Catholique faith of Christendom as appeareth by the testimonie of the olde auctors in all ages in whose particuler wordes although there maye be sum tyme cau 〈…〉 lacions yet I wyll note vnto the reader fouer markes and tokens emprinted raither in those old auctors dedes theÌ„ words which be certaine testimonies to the truth of there fayth of real presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament The first marke is in the processe of arguyng vsed by them to the conuiction of heretiques by the truth of this SacrameÌ„t wherin I note not their particuler sentences whiche somtyme be dangerous speaches but their hole doinges As Irene who was in the begynnynge of the churche argueth agaynst the valentinians that denyed the resurrection of our fleshe whom Irene reproueth by the feadynge of our soules and bodies with the diuine glorified flesh of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t whiche flesh it be their but a figure then it shoulde haue proued the resurrection of oure fleshe
slenderly as it were but figuratyuely And if the Catholique fayth had not bene then certenly taught and constaÌ„tly beleued without variaunce Christes very fleshe to be in dede eaten in that mistery it would haue bene answered of the heretiques it had bene but a figure but that appeareth nor and the other appeareth whiche is a testymonye to the truth of matter in dede Hilarie reasonynge Hilarius 8. libro de â—â—tim of the naturall coniuction betwene vs and Christ by meane of this Sacrament expresseth the same to com to passe by the receyuynge truely the verie fleshe of our lorde in our lordes meate and therupon argueth against the ArriaÌ„s whiche Arrians if it had not bene so really in dede but all was spiritually so as there was no suche naturall and corporall coÌ„munion in dede as Hilarie supposed but as this auctor teacheth a figure it had bene the Catholike doctrine so that argumeÌ„t of Hilarie had bene of no force S. Chrisostom Belasius and Theodorete argue of the truth of this misterie to conuince the Appollinaristes and Eutichians which were noon argument if Christes verie body were not as really present in the SacrameÌ„t for the truth of presence as the godhed in the person of Christ beynge theffect of thargument this that as the presence of Christes body in this misterie doth not altre the properties of the visible natures no more doth the godhode in the person of Christ extinguishe his humanite whiche againste those heretiques serued for an argument to exclud confusion of natures in Christ and had bene a daungerous argument to be embrased of the Nestorians who woulde hereby haue furdred ther heresie to proue the distinction of natures in Christ without any vnion for they woulde haue said As the earthly heaueÌ„ly natures be so distincte in the SacrameÌ„t as the one is not spoken of the other so be the natures of the humanite godhod not vnited in Christ whiche is false and in the comparynge we may not loke that all should answere in equalite but onely for the point it is made for that is as in the Sacrament the visible clement is not extinguished by the presence of Christes most precious body no more is Christes humanite by his godhode and yet we may not say that as in the SacrameÌ„t be but onely accideÌ„tes of the visible earthly matter that therfore in the person of Christ be onely accideÌ„tes of the humanite For that misterye requireth the hole truth of mannes nature and therfore Christe toke vppon him the hole man bodie and soule The mysterye of the Sacrament requirethe the truthe of the accidentes onelye beynge the substaunce of the visible creatures conuerted into the body bloude of Christ And this I write to preuent suche cauillations as some would serch fore But to retourne to our matter all these argumeÌ„tes were vayne if there were not in the Sacrament the true presence of Christes very bodye as the celestiall parte of the SacrameÌ„t beynge the visible formes therthly thyng Which earthly thyng remaineth in the former proprietie with the verye presence of the celestial thyng And this suffiseth concernyng the first marke An other certaine token is the wondryng and great meruelyng that the olde auctours make howe the substance of this Sacrament is wrought by goddes omnipotencie Baptisme is merueled at for the wonderfull effecte that is in man by it howe man is regenerat not howe the water or the holy ghoost is there But the wondre in this Sacrament is specially directed to the worke of God in the visible creatures howe they be so changed into the body and bloud of Christ which is a worke of god wrought before we receyue the Sacrament Whiche worke Cyprian sayth is inestable that is to say not speakable whiche is not so Cyprian de coena dnÌ„i if it be but a figure for then it may easely be spoken as this auctour speaketh it with ease I thynke he speaketh it so often Of a preseÌ„ce by signification if it may so be called euery man maye speake and tell howe but of the verye presence in dede and therfore the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament no creature can tell howe it maye be that Christ ascended into heauen with his humaine body and therwith coutinually reignying there should make present in the Sacrament the same body in dede whiche Christ in dede worketh beynge neuerthelesse then at the same houre present in heauen as S. Chrisosostom doth with a maruayle say If the maruayle were onely of godes worke in man in theffect of the Sacrament as it is in Baptisme it were an other matter but I said before the wrondre is in the worke of God in the substaunce of the Sacrament before it be receyued which declareth tholde auctours that so wondre to vnderstande the reall presence of Christes verye bodye and not an onelye signification whiche hathe no wondre at all And therfore seyng S. Cyprian wondreth at it and calleth the worke inestable S. Chrisostom wondreth at it S. Ambrose wondreth at it Emissen wondreth at it Cyrill wondreth at it What should we nowe doubt whether their fayth were of a signification onely as this auctour woulde haue it which is no wondre at all or of the reall presence whiche is in dede a wonderfull worke Wherfore where this manifest token and certaine marke appeareth in the olde fathers their can no constructioÌ„ of sillables or words dissuade or peruerte the truth thus testified A third token their is by declaration of figures as for example S. Hierom when he declareth vpon thepistel Ad Titum so aduisedly at lenght howe Panes prepositiones were the figure of the bodie of Christ in the SacrameÌ„t that processe declareth the mynds of that auctor to be that in the Sacrament is present the verie truth of Christes body not in a figure again to ioyne one shadowe to an other but euen the very truth to answere the figure and therfore no particuler wordes in S. Hierome can haue any vnderstandynge contrarye to his mynde declared in this processe Fourthly an other certaine marke is where the olde auctours wryte of the addration of this Sacrament whiche can not be but to the thynges godly really present And therfore S. Augustine wrytynge in his booke de Catechizandis rudibus howe the Inuisible thynges be honored in this SacrameÌ„t meanyng the bodie and bloud of Christ and in the. 98. Psalme speaketh of adoratioÌ„ Theodoretus also spekyng specially of adoration of this SacrameÌ„t These auctours by Theodoretus Dialogo 3. this marke that is most certaine take awaye all suche ambiguite as men might by suspitions diuination gather sumtyme of their seuerall wordes and declare by this marke of adoratioÌ„ playnely their faith to haue bene and also their doctrine vnderstanded as they ment of the reall presence of Christes verye bodye and bloud in the Sacrament and Christ himselfe God and man to be their present to whose diuine nature and the humanite
vnite thervnto adoration may onely be directed of vs. And so to conclude vp this matter forasmuch as one of these foure markes and notes maye be founde testified and apparaunte in the anucient wryters with other wordes and sentences conformable to the same this shuld suffise to exclude al argumeÌ„tes of any by sentences ambiguons speaches and to vpholde the certeynte of the true Catholique fayth in dede whiche this auctour by a wronge name of the Catholique fayth impugneth to the greate slaunder of the truth and his owne reproch The confutation of the fift booke AS touchynge the fift booke the title wherof is of thoblation and sacrifice of our Sauiour Christ somwhat is by me spoken before whiche although it be suffitieÌ„t to the matter yet somewhat more must also be nowe said whetwyth to encountre thauctors imaginations and surmises with the wronge construyng of the Scriptures and Auctors to wrest them besides the truth of the matter and ther meanynge This is agreed and by the Scriptures playnelie taught that the oblation and Sacrifice of our Sauiour Christe was and is a perfite worke ones consummate in perfection without necessitie of reiteration as it was neuer taught to be reiterate but a mere blasphemie to presuppose it It is also in the Catholike teachyng grounded vpon the scripture agreed that the same sacrifice ones consomate was ordeyned by Christes institution in his most holye supper to be in the churche often remembred and shewyd forth in suche forte of shewyng as to the faythfull is sene present the most precious bodye and bloude of our Sauiour Christ vnder the fourmes of bread wyne which body bloud the faithfull churche of Christen people graunte confesse accordyng to Christes wordes to haue been betrayed shed for the sins of the world so in the same supper represented deliuered vnto them to eate feade of it accordyng to Christes commandement as of a most precyous acceptable sacrifice acknolegyng the same precious body bloud to be the sacrifice propitiatorie for all the sinnes of the worlde wherunto they onely resorte and onelye accompt that the verye perfite oblacion sacrifice of Christen people through which all other sacrifices necessariely be accepted pleasaunt in the sight of God And this maner of shewyng Christes death kepyng the memorye of it is grounded vpoÌ„ the scriptures wryteÌ„ by the EuaÌ„gelistes S. Paul accordyng therunto preached beleued vsed â—requeÌ„ted in the churche of Christ vniuersally froÌ„ the beginnyng This auctor vttering many wordes at large besides scripture agenst scripture to depratie the Catholike doctrine doth in a fewe wordes which be in dede good wordes true coÌ„fonde ouerthrowe al his enterprise that issue wil I ioinewith him which shall suffise for the coÌ„futacion of this booke The fewe good wordes of the auctor which wordes I saye confounde the reste consiste in these two poyntes One in that the auctor alloweth the Iudgement of Petrns Lombardus touchyng thoblacion and sacrifice of the churche An other in that thauetor confesseth the Counsaill of Nice to be an holye concell as it hath bene in dede coÌ„fessed of al good Christen men UpoÌ„ these two confessions I will declare the whole enterprise of this fifte boke to be ouerthrowen First to begyn with the councel of Nice the same hath opened the mysterye of the Sacrament of the bodye and bloude of Christe in this wise that Christen men beleue the lambe that taketh awaye the synnes of the worlde to be situate vpon gods borde and to be sacrificed of the Priestes not after the maner of other Sacrifices This is the doctrine of the councell of Nice and must then be called an holy doctrine and therby a true doctrine consonante to the Scriptures the foundacion of all truth If thauctor will denye this to haue been the teachyng of the counsaill of Nice I shal alleage therfore the allegacion of the same by Decolampadius who beyng an aduersarye to the truth was yet by gods prouidence ordered to beare testimonie to the truth in this poynte and by his meane is published to the worlde in greke as foloweth which neuerthlesse may otherwise appeare to be true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iterum etiam hic in diuina mensa ne humiliter intenti simus ad propositum panem poculum sed mente exaltata fide intelligamus situm esse in sacra illa mensa illum Dei agnum qui tollit peccata mundi sacrificatum à sacerdotibus non victimarum more nos praeciosum illius corpus sanguinem verè sumentes credere haec esse resurrectionis Symbola Ideo non multum accipimus sed parum vt cognoscamus quoniaÌ„ non in satietatem sed sanctificationem These wordes maye be Englished thus Agayne in this godlye table we should not in base and loue consideracion direct oure vnderstanding to the breade and cuppe set forth but hauing oure mynde exalted we shoulde vnderstand by fayth to be situate in the table the lambe of God whiche taketh awaye the syunes of the worlde Sacrificed of the Priestes not after the maner of other Sacrifices and we receauynge trulye the preciouse bodye and bloude of the same lambe to beleue these to be the tokens of oure resurrection And for that we receaue not muche but a litle because we shoulde knowe that not for saturitie and fillynge but for sanctification This holy Councell of Neece hath been beleued vniuersally in declaration of the mysterye of the Trinitie and the Sacramentes also And â—o them that confesse that councell to be holy as thauctor here doth and to such as professe to beleue the determinacioÌ„ of that councell in the openynge of the mysterye of the Trinitie with other wordes the Scripture vseth although they expresse such sence as in the Scripture is contayned Why shoulde not all suche likewise beleue the same councell in explicacion of the Sacramentes whiche to do thauctor hath bound him selfe grauntyng that councell holye And then we muste beleue the verye presence of Christes bodye and bloude on goddes borde and that Priestes do their sacrifice and be therfore called sacrificers So as those names termes be to be honoured and religiously spoken of beyng in an holy councell vttered and confessed because it was so seen to them and the holye goost without whose presente assistynge and suggession beleued to be there the councel coulde not nor ought not to be called holy Nowe if we conferre with that councell of Nice the testimonye of the Churche begynnyng at S. Dionise who was in the time of the apostelles after him comyng to Irene who was nere thapostels theÌ„ Tertulliane And so S. CypriaÌ„ S. Chrisostome S. Cyril S. Hierome S. Augustine from that age to Petrus LoÌ„bardus all spake of the sacrameÌ„t to the same effecte termed it for the word sacrifice and oblacion to be frequented in the church of the body bloud of
Lōbardus al his sift bookee of this 〈◊〉 is cler 〈…〉 defaced And if he wil nowe cal back that againe he might more cōpendionsiye do the same in the hoole treatice beynge so far ouerseene as he is therin The Catholike doctrine reacheth not the dailie sacrifice of Christes most precious body and bloud to be an iteration of the ones perfited sacrifice on the crosse but a sacrifice that representeth that sacrifice sheweth it also before the faythful eyes refreshyth the effectual memorie of it so as in the dailie sacrifice withowt weddyng of bloud we may see with the eye of faith the very body bloud of Christ by gods mightie power without dinision distinctly exhibite the same body bloud that suffered was shed for vs whiche is a liuely memorial to stir vppe our faith to cōsider brefly therin the great charitie of God towardes vs declared in Christ The Catholique doctrine teacheth the dailye sacrifice to be the same in essence that was of fered on the Crosse ones assured thereof by Christes wordes whē he saide This is my body that shal be betrayed for you The offring on the Crosse was is propiciatorye satisfactorie for our redēption remissiō of sinne wherby to destroye the tyrāny of sinne theffect wherof is geuen and dispēsed in the sacramēt of Baptisme ones likewise ministred neuer to be it erate no more thē Christ can be crucified again yet by vertue of the same offering such as fal be reieued in the sacramēt of penance The daylie offering is propitiatorie also but not in that degre of propitiatiō as for redēption regeneraciō or remission of deadlye sinne which was ones purchassed by force therof is in the sacramērs ministred but for the encrease of gods fauor the mitigaciō of gods displeasure prouoked by our infirmities the subduyng of tēptacions the perfectiō of vertue in vs. All good workes good thoughtes good meditacions may be called sacrifices the same be called sacrifices propitiatorie also for so much as in ther degre god accepteth and taketh them throughe the effecte and strenghte of the verye Sacrifice of Christes death whiche is the reconciliacion betwene God and man ministred dispensed particularlye as God hath appoynted in suche measure as he knoweth But Saincte Paul to the Hebrues exortyng men to charitable Hebr. 13. deades saith with suche sacrifices God is made fauorable or God is propitiate if we shall make new Englishe Wherupon it foloweth because the Prieste in the daylye Sacrifice doth as Christ hath ordered to be done for shewynge forthe and remembraunce of Christes death that acte of the Priest done accordynge to goddes commauudement must nedes be propitiatorye and prouoke goddes fauour and ought to be trusted one to haue a propitiatorye effecte with God to the membres of Christes bodye particularly beynge the same done for the whole bodye in suche wise as God knoweth the dispensacion to be mette and conuenient accordynge to whiche measure God worketh most iustlye and most mercyfullye otherwise then man can by his iudgement discusse and determine To cal the daylye offeryng a Sacrifice satisfactory must haue an vnderstāding that signifieth not the actiō of the Priest but the presence of Christs most precious body bloud the verye Sacrifice of the worlde ones perfytely offered being propiciatorie satisfactorie for al the world Or elles the worde satisfactorie must haue a significaciō meanyng as it hath sometyme that declareth thacceptiō of the thynge done not the propre contreuaile of thactiō after which sorte man maye satisfie God that is so mercifull as he will take in good worthe for Christes sake mannes imperfite endeuor so the dailie offeryng may be called a sacrifice satisfactorie because God is pleased with it beynge a maner of worshipping of Christes passiō accordyng to Christes institutiō But otherwise the dailie sacrifice in respect of the actiō of the priest can not be called satisfactorye and it is a worde in dede that soundeth not well so placed althowgh it might be saued by a signification therfore thinke that worde rather to be well expounded thē by captius vnderstādyng brought in slander whē it is vsed and this speache to be frequentide that thonlie immolaciō of Christ in him selfe vpon th aulter of the Crosse is the very satisfactorye Sacrifice for reconciliacion of man kynde to the fauor of God And I haue not red the daylye sacrifice of Christes most precious body to be called a sacrifice satisfactorye but this speache hath in dede bene vsed that the Priest shoulde synge satisfactorye whiche they vnderstande in the satisfaction of the Priestes duetye to attend the prayer he was required to make and for a distinctiō thereof they had prayer sometime required without speciall limitacion that was called to praye not satisfactorye Finally man by eny his action to presume to satisfie God by waye of counteruail is a verye mad furiouse blasphemie Where the auctor citynge S. Paul englisheth him thus that Christes Hebr. 7. Priesthode cannot passe frō him to an other This wordes thus framed be not the simple sincere expression of the trueth of the texte Whiche sayth that Christ hath a perpetuall Prieasthode and the greke hathe a worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whiche the greke scholes expresse exponde by the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifiyng the Priesthode of Christe endeth not in him to go to an other by succession as in the tribe of leui where was among mortall men succession in thoffice of Priesthode but Christe lyueth euer therfore is a perpetuall euerlastyng Priest by whose auctoritie Priesthode is now in this visible Churche as S. Paule 1. Tim. 4. et ad Titū 1. ordred to Timothe Tite and other places also confirme whiche Priestes visible ministers to our inuisible Prieste offer the daylye Sacrifice in Christes churche that is to saye with the very presence by goddes omnipotēcye wrought of the most precious bodye and bloud of our sauiour Christ shewynge forth Christes death celebratyng the memory of his supper and death accordinge to Christes institucion so with daylie oblacion sacrifice of the selfe same Sacrifice to kendle in vs a thankfull remembrance of all Christes benefittes vnto vs. And where thauctor woulde auoyde all the testimonye of the fathers by presence yt should be but a maner of speach the Canon of the Councell of Nice before rehersed and the wordes of it where mysteries be spoken of in propre termes for doctrine auoydeth all that shifte and it hath no absurditie to confesse that Christ in his supper did institute for a remēbrance of the only sacrifice the presence of the most precious substāce to be as the Canon of the concell in propre termes teacheth sacrificed by the Priestes to be the pure sacrifice of the church ther offred for the effect of thencrease of life in vs as it was offered on the Crosse to atcheue life vnto vs.
¶ An explicatioÌ„ and assertion of the true Catholique fayth touchyng the moost blessed Sacrament of the aulter with confutacion of a booke written agaynst the same Made by Steuen Byshop of Wynchester and exhibited by his owne hande for his defence to the kynges maiesties Commissioners at Lambeth Anno. 1551. ¶ Certayne faultes escaped in the prentyng The rest thou mayst geÌ„tle reader easely correcte thy selfe Leafe Pag. Thelyne â—o 2. 2. pag. Lin. 15. for yet it shuld read yet if it shuld 7 1 penul for to purpose read to the purpose 21 1 30 for accasion reade occasion 25 2 29 for dimishe reade diminishe 52 1 25 for shepe reade slepe 42 1 23 for coÌ„municaÌ„do read coÌ„municandis 54 1 13 for manifestye reade manifested 54 1 14 for exhibetie reade exhibited 55 1 19 for enforeth reade enforceth 59 1 20 for Tubax reade Tuba 62 1 13 for fram reade â—rame 81 1 3 for cunclusion reade conclusion 81 2 20 for pretens reade presence 81 1 30 for freundes reade frendes 81 1 31 for possumus reade polluimus 88 1 22 for cratures reade creatures 88 1 24 for entrated reade intreated 88 2 3 for lake read loke 88 2 6 for fede read fed 90 2 6 for speake read spake 91 2 30 for andeleth read handeleth 92 1 8 for hahing read hauyng 92 1 10 for sumuch read so muche 92 1 12 for ityn read it 92 1 15 for wrere read were 92 1 15 for â—e read be 94 1 1 for Ethinkes read Ethnikes 94 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for af read of 96 1 〈◊〉 for 〈…〉 se read likewise 96 2 â—4 〈◊〉 read geueth 97 2 10 for extlude read exclude 105 1 1 for auctors read auctor 106 2 16 for this read these 107 1 3 for commency read commenly 110 1 6 for hatue read hath 119 1 31 for deipara 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deipara 121 2 26 for mage read image 126 2 18 for dowe read doue 131 2 10 for ther read thre 131 2 22 for we read me 134 1 4 for which read with 134 2 5 for obdy read body 136 1 11 for improw read improue 136 1 21 for circuÌ„staÌ„ce pÌ„seÌ„t read circuÌ„staÌ„ce is pÌ„seÌ„t 136 1 23 for supernaturally read naturally 137 1 4 for endureth read abhorâ—ith 138 2 1 for disorowe read improue 142 1 14 for godhod read godhed 143 2 2 for propositiones read ê“positionis 145 2 29 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 145 2 vlt. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 146 1 2 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 146 1 5 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 148 1 19 for saue read sawe 151 2 9 for Ephesine read Ephesin Finis Tabulae ¶ The preface FOr asmuch as amoÌ„ges other mine allegations for defence of my selfe in this matter moued agà ynst me by occasion of my Sermon made before the kynges moost excellent Maiestye touchyng partely the. Catholique faith of the moost precious sacrameÌ„t of thaltare which I see now impugned by a booke set furth vnder the name of my lord of Cauntorburies grace I haue thought expedieÌ„t for the better opening of the matter coÌ„sideryng I am by name touched in the sayde boke the rather to vtter partely that I haue to say by confutatioÌ„ of that boke wherein I thinke neuerthlesse noâ— requisite to directe any speache by speciall name to the person of him that is entitled autor because it may possible be that his name is abused wherwith to set furth the matter beyng him selfe of such dignitie auctorite in the coÌ„men welth as for that respect should be inuiolable For which coÌ„sideracion I shal in my speache of suche reproufe as the vntruth of the matter necessariely requireth omitting the speciall title of the auctor of the boke speake onely of thauctor in generall beyng a thing to me greatly to be me 〈…〉 ed at that such matter shuld nowe be published out of my lord of CaÌ„torburies penne but because he is a man I wil not wondre because he is such a maÌ„ I will reuereÌ„rly vse him forbearyng further to name him talke onely of the auctor by that generall name The confutation of the first booke THis auctor denieth the real preseÌ„ce of Christes most precious bodie bloud in the SacrameÌ„t This auctor denieth Transubstanciation This auctor denieth euil men to eat drinke the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament These thre denials only impugne tende to distroy that faith whiche this auctor termeth the popishe to erre in callyng nowe all popishe that beleue either of these thre articles by him denied the truth whereof shall hereafter be opened Nowe because fayth affirmeth some certaintee if we aske this auctor what is his fayth which he calleth true and catholique it is only this as we may lerne by his boke that in our Lordes supper be coÌ„secrate bread and wyne and deliuered as tokens onely to signify Christes bodie and bloud he calleth them holye tokens but yet noteth that the bread and wyne be neuer the holyer he saith neuerthelesse they be not bare tokeÌ„s and yet concludeth Christ not to be spiritually present in them but onely as a thing is present in that which signifieth it whiche is the nature of a bare token saiyng in another place ther is nothyng to be worshipped for ther is nothing present but in figure and in a signe whiche who so euer sayth calleth the thyng in dede absente And yet the auctor sayth Christe is in the man that worthely receaueth spiritually preseÌ„t who eateth of Christes fleshe and his bloud reignyng in heaueÌ„ whether the good beleuyng man ascendeth by his faith And as oure bodie is norished with the bread wyne receiued in the supper so the true beleuyng man is fedde with the bodie bloud of Christ And this is the summe of the doctrine of that faith whiche this auctor calleth the true catholique faith Nowe a catholique faith is an vniuersall faith taught and preached through all and so receaued and beleued agreablie and consonant to the scriptures testified by such as by all ages haue in their writynges geuen knowlege therof which be the tokens and markes of a true Catholique faith wherof no one can be founde in the faith this auctor calleth catholique Firste there is no scripture that in lettre mainteineth the doctrin of this auctorsboke For Christ saith not that the bread doth only signify his bodie absent nor sainct Paul sayth not so in any place ne any other canonical scripture declareth Christes wordes so As for the sence vnderstaÌ„dyng of Christes wordes there hath not been in any age any one approued and knowen learned maÌ„ that hath so declared expounded Christes wordes in his supper that the bread did onely signify Christes bodie the wyne his bloud as thynges absent And to the intent euery notable
disagrement from the truth may the more euidently appeare I will here in this place as I will hereafter likewise when the case occurreth ioyne as it were an issue with An issue this auctor that is to saye to make a staye with him in this poynte triable as they say by euidence sone tried For in this point the scriptures be alreadie by thauctor brought forth the leterwherof proueth not his faith And albeit he traueyleth and bryngeth forth the saiyng of many approued writers yet is there no one of them that writeth in expresse woordes the doctrine of that fayth which this auctor calleth the faith catholike And to make the issue plaine and to ioyne it directly thus I say No auctor knowen and approued that is to say Ignatius Policarpe Iustine Irene Tertullian Cyprian Chrisostome Hilarie Gregorie Nazianzen Basill Emissen Ambrose Cyril Hierome Augustine DamasceÌ„ Theophilacte none of these hath this doctrine in plaine termes that the bread onely signifieth Christes bodie absent nor this sentence that the bread and wyne be neuer the holier after consecration nor that Christes bodie is none otherwise present in the Sacrament but in a signification nor this sentence that the Sacrament is not to be worshipped because there is nothing present but in a signe And herein what the truth is may soone appeare as it shal by their workes neuer appeare to haue been taught and preached receaued and beleued vniuersally and therfore can be called no Catholique fayth that is to say allowed in the whol through and in outwarde teaching preached and beleued If this auctor settyng apart the word Catholique would of his owne wytte go aboute to proue howsoeuer scripture hath been vnderstanded hitherto yet it should be vnderstanded in dede as he nowe teacheth he hath herein diuers disauaÌ„tages and hynderaunces worthy consideracions whiche I will particularly note Firste the preiudice and sentence geuen as it were by his owne mouthe against him selfe now in the boke called the Catechisme in his name set forth Secondly that about .vij. C. yere ago one Bertrame if the booke set forth in his name be his entreprised secretly the like as appereth by the said booke yet preuayled not Thirdely Berengarius beyng in dede but an Archedeacon about .v. C. yeres past after he had openly attempted to set forth suche like doctrine recanted and so fayled in his purpose Fourthely Wykclif not muche aboue an hundreth yeres past enterprised the same whose teachyng God prospered not Fyftely how Luther in his workes handeled theÌ„ that would haue in our tyme raysed vp the same doctrine in Germany it is manifest by his and their writynges wherby appeareth the enterprise that hath had so many ouerthrowes so many rebukes so often reprofes to be desperate and suche as God hath not prospered and fauored to be receiued at any tyme openly as his true teachyng Herein whether I say true or no let the stories trye me and it is matter worthy to be noted because Gamaliels obseruacion writen in the Actes of the Apostels is allowed Actes 5. to marke howe they prospere go forward in their doctrine that be auctors of any new teachyng But all this set aparte and puttyng a side al testimonies of tholde churche and resortyng onely to the letter of the scripture there to serche out an vnderstandyng And in doyng therof to forget what hath been taught hitherto How shall this auctor establishe vpoÌ„ scripture that he would haue beleued What other text is therin scripture that encountreth with these wordes of scripture This is my body Wherby to altre the signification of them There is no scripture sayth Christ did not geue his bodie but the figure of his bodie nor the geuyng of Christes bodie in his supper verely and really so vnderstaÌ„ded doth not necessaritly impugne and contrarie any other speache or doyng of Christ expressed in scripture For the great power and omnipotencie of God excludeth that repugnaunce whiche mannes reason would deame of Christes departyng from this worlde and placyng his humanitie in the glorie of his father Iâ— this auctor without force of necessitie would induce it by the like speaches as when Christ sayd I am the dore I am the â—yne he is Helias and suche other and because it is a figuratiue speache in them it may be so here whiche maketh no kinde of profe that it is so here But yet if by way of reasonyng I would yelde to him therin and cal it a figuratiue speache as he doth What other poynte of fayth is there then in the matter but to beleue the storie that Christ did institute suche a supper wherin he gaue bread and wyne for a token of his bodie and bloud whiche is nowe after this vnderstandyng no secrete mysterie at all or any ordinaunce aboue reasoÌ„ For commenly men vse to ordaine in sensible thinges remembraunces of them selfe whan they dye or departe the countrie So as in thordinaunce of this supper after this vnderstandyng Christ shewed not his omnipotencie but onely beneuolence that he loued vs and would be remembred of vs. For Christ did not say whosoeuer eateth this token eateth my bodie or eateth my fleshe or shal haue any profite of it in speciall but doo this in remembraunce of me And albeit this auctor would not haue them bare tokens yet and they be onely tokens they haue no warrant signed by scripture for any apparell at all For the sixt of John speaketh not of any promise made to the eatyng of a token of Christes fleshe but to the eatyng of Christes verie fleshe wherof the bread as this auctor would haue it is but a figure in Christes wordes when he sayd This is my body And if it be but a figure in Christes wordes it is but a figure in sainct Paules wordes when he sayd The bread whiche wee breake is it not the communicacion of Christes bodie that is to say a figure of the communicacioÌ„ of Christes bodie if this auctors doctrine be true and not the communicacion in dede Wherfore if the verie bodie of Christ be not in the supper deliuered in dede the eatyng there hath no speciall promise but onely commaundement to do it in remembraunce After whiche doctrine why should it be noted absolutely for a Sacrament and speciall mysterie that hath nothyng hidden in it but a plaine oâ—en ordinaunce of a token for a remembraunce to the catyng of whiche token is annexed no promyse expressely ne any holynes to be accompted to be in the bread or wyne as this auctor teacheth but to be called holie because they be deputed to an holy vse If I aske the vse he declareth to signify If I should aske what to signifye There muste be a sorte of good wordes framed without scripture For scripture expresseth no matter of significacion of speciall effecte And therfore like as the teachyng is new to say it is an onely figure or onely signifieth so the matter of signification must be newly diuised