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