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
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
to brynge in the creatioÌ„ of the worlde wherby to induce mannes fayth in this mystery to the belife of it As for th example Baptisme to shewe the chaunge in mannes soule wherof I haue spoken declaryng Emissene serueth for an induction not toleaue to our owtward seÌ„ces ne to mistrust the great miracle of God in eyther because we see none outwarde experieÌ„ce of it but els it is not necessarie the resemblance shall answere in qualitie otherwise then as I saide afore eche parte answeryng his conuenient proportion and as for there comparison of resemblaunce Baptisme with the Sacrament this auctour in his doctrine specially reproueth in that he can not I thynke denye but man by regeneration of his sowle in Baptisme is the partaker of holines but as for the bread he specially admonisheth it is not par taker of holynes by this consecracion but howe soeuer this auctor in his owne doctrine snarleth himselfe the doctrine of S. Ambrose is playne that before the consecration it is bread and after the coÌ„secration the body of Christ whiche is an vndowbted affirmacion then to be no bread howe so euer the accidentes of bread do remayne In the. 26. leef this auctor bryngeth forth two sayinges of S. Augustine which whau Augustinus this auctor wrot it is lik he neither thought of the thirde or first booke of this worke For these two sayinges declare moste euidently the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in the sacrameÌ„t affirmyng the same to be the sacrifice of the Churche wherby apperith it is no figure onely In the first sayinge of S. Augustine is written thus howe fayth shewith me that brede is the body of Christ nowe what soeuer faithe shewith is a truth and then it foloweth that of a truth it is the body of Christ whiche speache breade is the body of Christ is as muche to say as it is made the body of Christ and made not as of a matter but as Emissen wrote by conuersion of the visible creature in to the substaunce of the body of Christ and as S Austen in the same sentence writeth it is bread before the consecration and after the fleshe of Christ As for the seconde sayinge of saincte Austen howe could it with more playne wordes be wryten then to saye that there is bothe the SacrameÌ„t and the thinge of the SacrameÌ„t whiche is Christs body calling the same sacrifice of the Churche Nowe if Christ is body be there it is trulither iÌ„ dede ther which is real Marke 〈◊〉 reader If ther as for there in a figure wer to say not there in truth and in dede but onely signified to be abseÌ„t which is the nature a of figure in his propre and speciall speache But sainct Austen saith euen as the auctour bringeth hiforth yet he haue his priuy nyppe by the waye thus It is saide of S. Augustine there be two thinges in this sacrifice whiche be conteyued in it wherof it coÌ„sisteth so as the body of Christ is conteyued in this sacrifice by S. Augustines mynde According wherunto sainct Augustine is alleged to saye in the same booke from wheÌ„s the auctour tooke this saynge Also these wordes followynge vnder the kindes of bread and wyne whiche we see we honour thiÌ„ges inuisible that is to saye the flesshe and bloud of Christ nor we do not likewise esteme these two kindes as we did bifore the consecration for we muste faithefully confesse before the consecracion to be bread and wyne that nature formed and after consecracion the fleshe and bloud of Christ which the benediction hath coÌ„secrate Thus saith sainct Augustine as he is alleged owt of that booke which in dede I haue not but he hath the like seÌ„ce in other places and for honoringe of the inuisible heauenly thinges there which declare the true and real presence sainct Augustine hathe like in his booke de Cathechisandis rudibus and in the 98. psalme where he speaketh of adoration This may be notable to the reader howe this author concludeth him selfe in the real preseÌ„ce of Christes bodye by his owne collection of saincte Augustines mynde whiche is as he coÌ„fesseth in his owne wordes notynge sainct Augustine that as the person of Christ consistethe of two natures so the Sacrament consisteth of two natures of thellemeÌ„tes of breade and wyne and of the body and bloude of Christ and therfore both these natures do remayne in the Sacrament Thes be this autours owne wordes who trauaylynge to coÌ„founde transubstantacion confoundeth euideÌ„tly himselfe by his owne wordes towching the reall presence For he saieth the nature of the body and bloud of Christ muste remayne in the Sacrament and as truly as the natures of the maÌ„hode godhode were in Christ for thervpon he argueth And nowelet this auctor chose whether he will saie any of the natures the manhod or the godhode were but figuratiuely in Christ whiche and he do then may he the better saâ—e for the agrement of this doctrine the nature of the body the bloud of Christ is but figuratiuely in the SacrameÌ„t And if he saie as he muste nedes saie that the two natures be in Christes person really naturally substantially then must he graunt by his owne collectioÌ„ the truth of the beyng of the nature of the body and bloud of christ to be like wise in the sacrameÌ„t therby call backe all that he hath writteÌ„ against the real preseÌ„ce of Christes body in the sacrameÌ„t and abandon his diuise of a presence by signification which is in truth a playne absence as himselfe spekith also openly which open speche caÌ„not stande and is improued by this opeÌ„ spech of his owne likewise wher he saith the nature of the body and bloud of Christ remayne in the sacrament the worde remaine being of such signification as it betokenith not onely to be there but to cary there and so there is declared the sacrifice of the Churche whiche misterie of sacrifice is perfited before the perceptioÌ„ so it must be euideÌ„t howe the body of Christ is ther that is to saie on thal tere before we receyue it to which aulter S. Augustine saith we cum to receyue it There was neuer maÌ„ouerturned his owne assertioÌ„s more euideÌ„tly then this authour doth here in this place the like wherof I haue obserued in other that haâ—ue writteÌ„ against this sacrameÌ„t who haue by the waye said sum what for it or they haue brought ther treatise to an ende It will be saide here howsoeuer this auctor doth ouerthrowe hiÌ„self in the real pÌ„â—eÌ„ce of christes very body yet he hathe pulled downe traÌ„substaÌ„tiatioÌ„ â—oas crafty wresteles do falling them self on ther bake to throwe ther felowe ouer theÌ„ But it is not like for as loÌ„ge as the true faith of the reall presence staÌ„dith so loÌ„ge standith traÌ„substaÌ„tiatioÌ„ not by aucthoritie of determinatioÌ„ but by a necessary coÌ„sequeÌ„ce of the truth as I said before as zuinglius defeÌ„deth playnely as
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
liue for euer And thus I haue declared the sence of Christes wordes brought forth out of the Gospell of Sainct Iohn Wherby appeareth how euidentely they set forth the doctrine of the mysterie of the eatyng of Christes fleshe drinkyng his bloud in the Sacrament whiche must nedes be vnderstanded of a corporall eatyng as Christ did after ordre in thinstitucion of the sayd Sacrament accordyng to his promise and doctrine here declared Now where thauctor to exclude the mysterie of corporall manducacion bryngeth forth of Sainct Augustine suche wordes as entreat of theffect and operacion of the worthy receauyng of the Sacrament the handelyng is not so syncere as this matter requireth For as hereafter shal be intreated that is not worthely and well done may because the principall entent fayleth be called nor done as so Sainct Augustine sayth Let him not thinke to eat the bodie of Christ that dwelleth not in Christ not because the body of Christ is not receaued whiche by Sainct Augustines mynde euill men do to their condempnacion but because theffecie of life fayleth And so thauctor by sleight to exclud the corporall manducacion of Christes most precious bodie vttreth suche wordes as myght sounde Christ to haue taught the dwellyng in Christ to be an eatyng whiche dwellyng may be without this corporal manducacion in him that can not attaine the vse of it and dwellyng in Christ is an effecte of the worthy manducacion and not the manducacion it selfe whiche Christ doth ordre to be practised in the moost precious Sacrament institute in his supper Here thou reader mayst see how this doctrine of Christ as I haue declared it openeth the corporall manducacion of his moost holie fleshe and drinkyng of his moost precious bloud whiche he gaue in his supper vnder the formes of bread and wyne Nowe let vs considre the textes of the Euangelistes and Sainct Paule whiche be brought in by thauctor as foloweth Whē they wee catyng Iesus toke bread Mat. 26 and when he had geuē thankes he brake it gaue it to his disciples and sayd Take eat this is my bodie And he toke the cup and when he had geuen thankes he gaue it to them saiyng drinke ye all of this for this is my bloud of the new testament that is shed for many for the remission of synnes But I say vnto you I wyll not drinke henceforth of this frute of the vine vntill that daye when I shall drinke it new with you in my fathers kingdome As they did eat Iesus toke bread and Mar. 14 when he had blessed he brake it and gaue it to them sayd Take eat This is my bodie taking the cup whē he had geuē thankes he gaue it to them and they dranke of it And he said to them This is my bloud of the new Testament whiche is shed for many Uerely I say vnto you I will drinke no more of the frute of the vine vntill that daye that I drinke it newe in the kyngdome of God When the houre was come he sat doune Luc. 22. and the .xij. Apostels with him And he sayd vnto them I haue greatly desired to eat this Pascha with you before I suffre For I say vnto you henceforth I will not eat of it any more vntill it be fulfylled in the kyngdome of God And he toke the cup and gaue thankes and sayd Take this and deuide it among you For I say vnto you I will not drinke of the frute of the vine vntill the kyngdome of God come And he toke bread and whē he had geuen thankes he brake it and gaue it vnto them saiynge This is my bodie whiche is geuen for you This do in remēbrance of me Likewise also when he had supped he toke the cup saiyng This cup is the new Testamēt in my bloud which is shed for you Is not the cuppe of blessyng whiche we 1. Cor. 10 blesse a communion of the bloud of Christ Is not the bread whiche we breake a communion of the bodie of Christ We beyng many are one bread and one bodie for we are all partakers of one bread and of one cuppe That whiche I deliuered vnto you I 1. Cor. 11 receaued of the Lord. For the Lorde Iesus the same night in the whiche he was betrayed toke bread and when he had geuen thankes he brake it and sayd Take eate this is my bodie whiche is broken for you do this in remembraunce of me Likewise also he toke the cup when supper was done saiyng This cup is the new Testament in my bloud do this as often as ye drinke it in remembraunce of me For as often as you shall eate this bread drinke of this cup ye shew forth the Lordes death till he come wherfore whosoeuer shall eat of this bread or drinke of this cuppe vnworthely shal be giltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lorde But let a man examine him selfe and so eat of the bread and drinke of the cup for he that eateth drynketh vnworthely eateth and drynketh his owne damnacion because he maketh no difference of the Lordes bodie For this cause many are weake and sycke among you and many do slepe After these textes brought in thauctor doth in the fourth chapter begyn to trauers Christes intent that he intēded not by these wordes This is my bodie to make the bread his body but to signify that suche as receiue that worthely be membres of Christes bodie The Catholique church acknowlegyng Christ to be verie God and verie man hath frō the beginnyng of these textes of scripture cōfessed truely Christes intent and effectual myraculous woorke to make the bread his body and the wyne his bloud to be verely meate verely drinke vsyng therin his humanitie wherwith to fead vs as he vsed the same wherwith to redeame vs as he doth sanctify vs by his holy spirite so to sanctify vs by his holy diuine fleshe and bloud and as life is renewed in vs by the gift of Christs holy spirite so life to be encreased in vs by the gift of his holy fleshe So as he that beleueth in Christ and receaueth the Sacrament of beleif whiche is baptisme receiueth really Christes spirite So he that hauyng Christs spirite receaueth also the Sacrament of Christes bodie and bloud doth really receaue in the same and also effectually Christes verie bodie and bloud And therfore Christ in thinstitucion of this Sacramēt sayd deliueryng that he consecrated This is my bodie c. And likewise of the cuppe This is my bloud And although to mans reason it semeth straunge that Christ standyng or sittyng at the table should deliuer them his bodie to be eaten yet when we remembre Christ to be verie God we muste graunt him omnipotent and by reason therof represse in oure thoughtes all imaginacions how it might be and considre Christes intent by his will preached vnto vs by scriptures and beleued vniuersally in his church But if it may now be thought semely for
vs to be so boulde in so high a mysterie to begynne to discusse Christes intent what should moue vs to thinke that Christ would vse so many wordes without effectuall and reall significacion as be rehersed touchyng the mysterie of this Sacrament First in the .vi. of Iohn whan Christ had taught of the eatyng of him beyng the bread descended from heauen and declaring that eating to signify beleuing wherat was no murmuryng that then he should entre to speake of geuyng of his fleshe to be eaten and his bloud to be dronken and to say he would geue a bread that is his fleshe whiche he would geue for the life of the worlde In whiche wordes Christ maketh mention of two giftes and therfore as he is truth must needes intend to fulfill them both And therfore as we beleue the gift of his fleshe to the Iewes to bee crucified So we must beleue the gift of his fleshe to be eaten of that gift lyuerie and seisme as we say to be made of him that is in his ê“mises faithful as Christ is to be made in both And therfore whan he sayd in his supper Take eat This is my bodie he must nedes intend plainely as his wordes of promise required these woordes in his supper purport to geue as really then his bodie to be eaten of vs as he gaue his bodie in dede to be crucified for vs aptely neuerthelesse and conueniently for eche effect and therfore in maner of geuyng diuersely but in the substaunce of the same geuen to be as his wordes beare wytnes the same and therfore sayd This is my bodie that shal be berrayed for you expressyng also the vse wheÌ„ he sayd Take eat which wordes in deliueryng of materiall bread had been superfluous For what should men do with bread when they take it but eat it specially when it is broken But as Cyrill saith Christe opened there vnto theÌ„ the practise of that doctrine he spake of in the .vi. of Sainct Iohn because he sayd he would geue his fleshe for foode whiche he would geue for the life of the worlde he for fulfillyng of his promise sayd Take eate this is my bodie whiche wordes haue been taught beleued to be of effecte and operatorie and Christe vnder the forme of bread to haue been his verie bodie Accordyng wherunto S. Paule noreth the receauer to be giltie when he doth not esteme it our Lordes bodie wherwith it pleaseth Christ to fede such as be in him regenerate to thintente that as man was redemed by Christ sufferyng in the nature of his humanitie so to purchace for man the kingdome of heauen ioste by Adams fall Euen likewise in the nature of the same humanitic giuyng it to be eaten to norishe man make him strong to walke and continue his iorney to emoye that kingdome And therfore to set forth liuely vnto vs the communication of the substance of Christes most precious bodie in the Sacrament and the same to be in dede deliuered Christ vsed plaine wordes testified by the EuaÌ„gelistes S. Paule also rehersed the same wordes in the same plain termes in the .xi. to the Corinthians and in the tenth geuyng as it were an exposion of theffecte vseth the same propre wordes declaryng theffecte to be the coÌ„municatioÌ„ of Christes bodie and bloud And one thing is notable touching the scripture that in suche notable speaches vttered by Christ as might haue an ambiguitie the Euangelistes by some circumstaunce declared it or some tyme opened it by plaine interpretacion as when Christ sayd he would dissolue the temple and within three daies buylde it againe The EuaÌ„gtlistes by and by addeth for interpretacioÌ„ This he said of the temple of his bodie And when Christe sayd he is Helias and I am the true vine the circumstaunce of the text openeth the ambiguitie But to shew that Christ should not meane of his verie bodie when he so spake Neither S. Paule after ne the EuaÌ„gtlistes in the place adde any wordes or circumstauÌ„ces wherby to take away the propre significacion of the wordes bodie and bloud so as the same might same not in dede geueÌ„ as the Catholique faith reacheth but in significacion as thauctor would haue it For as for the wordes of Christ The spirit geueth life the fleshe profiteth nothing be to declare the two natures in Christ eche in their propertie apart considered but not as they be in Christes persoÌ„ vnited the mysterie of which vnioÌ„ suche as beleued not Christ to be God could not consider and yet to insinuate that vnto them Christ made mention of his descension from heauen and after of his ascension thither againe wherby they might vnderstand him verie God whose fleshe taken in the virgyns wombe and so geuen spiritually to be eaten of vs as I haue before opened viuisike and geueth life And this shall suffice here to shew how Christes inteÌ„t was to geue verely as he did in dede his precious bodie and bloud to be eaten and drunken accordyng as he taught theÌ„ to be verely meat and drinke and yet gaue and geueth them so vnder fourme of visible creatures to vs as we may conueniently and without horror of our nature receaue theÌ„ Christ therin condiscendyng to our infirmitie As for such other wranglyng as is made in the vnderstandyng of the wordes of Christ shall after be spoken of by further occasion The auctor vttereth a great meny wordes from the .viii. to the .xvii. chapter of the first booke declaryng spirituall hungre and thurst and the releuyng of the same by spirituall feadyng in Christ and of Christ as we constantly beleue in him to the confirmacioÌ„ of which beleif the auctor would haue the Sacramentes of Baptisme and of the bodie and bloud of Christ to be adminicles as it were and that we by them be preched vnto as in water bread and wyne and by them all our sences as it were spoken vnto or proprely touched whiche matter in the grosse although ther be some wordes by the way not tollerable yet if those wordes set apart the same were in the summe graunted to be good teachyng and holesome exhorcacion it conteyneth so no more but good matter not well applyed For the Catholique churche that professeth the truth of the presence of Christes bodie in the Sacrament would therewith vse that declaration of hungre of Christ and that spirituall refreshyng in Christe with the effect of Christes passion and death and the same to be thonely meane of mans regeneracion and feadyng also with the differences of that feadyng froÌ„ bodiely feadyng for continuyng this yearthly life But this toucheth not the principal point that should be entreated Whether Christ so ordered to fede suche as be regenerate in him to geue to them in the Sacrament the same his bodie that he gaue to be crucified for vs. The good man is fedde by faith and by the merites of Christes passion beyng the meane of the gift of that faith other giftes also and by
the sufferyng of the bodie of Christ sheddynge of his moost precyous bloud on thaultar of the Crosse whiche worke and passion of Christ is preached vnto vs by wordes and sacramentes and the same doctrine receiued of vs by faith the effecte of it also And thus farre goeth the doctrine of this auctor But the Catholique teachyng by the scriptures goth futher confessing Christ to feade such as be regenerate in him not onely by his bodie and bloud but also with his bodie and bloud deliuered in this sacrament by him in dede to vs whiche the faythfull by his institucion and commaundement receiue with their faith and with their mouth also and with those specyall deynties be fed specially at Christes table And so God doth not onely preach in his sacraments but also worketh in them and with them and in sensible thynges geueth celestiall giftes after the doctrine of eche sacrament as in baptisme the spirite of Christ and in the sacrament of thaultar the verie bodie bloud of Christe accordyng to the plaine sence of his woordes whiche he spake This is my bodie c. And this is the Catholique faith against the which how thauctor wil fortify that he would haue called Catholique and confute that he improueth I intend hereafter more particularly to touche in discussion of that is sayd wherein I will kepe this ordre First to considre the thirde booke that speaketh against the fayth of the real presence of Christes most precious bodie bloud in the sacrament then against the fourth so returne to the second speakyng of TransubstaÌ„tiation wherof to talke the real presence not beyng discussed were clearly superfluous And finally I wyll somewhat say of the fift booke also The confutation of the thyrd booke IN the beginyng of the thyrde booke thauctor hath thought good to note certaine differences whiche I will also particularly consider It foloweth in him thus They teache that Christ is in the bread and wyne But we say accordyng to The auctor the truth that he is in them that worthely eat and drinke the bread and wyne Note here Reader euen in thenâ—re of the The answer comparison of these differeÌ„ces how vntruly the true fayth of the Churche is reported whiche doth not teache that Christ is in the bread and wyne which was the doctrine of Luther But the true fayth is that Christes most precious bodie bloud is by the might of his worde and determinacion of his will which he declareth by his worde in his holie supper preseÌ„t vnder forme of bread wyne the substaunce of whiche natures of bread wyne is conuerted into his most precious bodie and bloud as it is truely beleued and taught in the Catholique Church of whiche teachyng this auctor can not be ignoraunte So as thauctor of this booke reporteth an vntruth wittyngly against his conscience to say they teache callyng theÌ„ Papistes that Christ is in the bread wyne but they agre in forme of teachyng with that the Churche of England teacheth at this day in the distribution of the holie communion in that it is there sayd the bodie and bloud of Christ to be vnder the forme of bread and wyne And thus much serueth for declaracion of the wrong and vntrue reporte of the fayth of the Catholique church made of this auctor in the settyng forth of this difference on that part whiche it pleaseth him to name Papistes And nowe to speake of the other parte of the difference on thauctors side when he would tell what he and his say he conueyeth a sence craftely in wordes to serue for a difference suche as no Catholique man would deny For euery Catholique teacher graunteth that no man can receaue worthely Christes precious bodie and bloud in the Sacrament onlesse he hath by fayth and charitie Christ dwellyng in him for otherwise suche one as hath not Christ in him receaueth Christes bodie in the Sacrament vnworthely to his condempnacioÌ„ Christ can not be receaued worthely but in to his owne temple whiche be ye S. Paule sayth yet he that hath not Christes spirit in him is not his As for callyng it bread and wyne a Catholique man forbereth not that name signifiyng what those creatures were before the consecracion in substaunce Wherfore appeareth how thauctor of this boke in the lieu and place of a difference whiche he pretendeth he would shew bringeth in that vnder a But which euery Catholique man must nedes confesse that Christ is in them who worthely eate and drinke the sacrameÌ„t of his bodie bloud or the bread and wyne as this auctor speaketh But and this auctor would haue spoken plainely and compared truely the difference of the two teachynges he should in the second part haue sayd somewhat contrarie to that the Catholique churche teacheth which he doth not and therfore as he sheweth vntruth in the first reporte so he sheweth a sleight and shifte in the declaracion of the second part to say that repungneth not to the first matter that no Catholique man will deny consideryng that the sayd two teachynges be not of one matter nor shote not as one might say to one marke For the first part is of the substaunce of the Sacrament to be receaued where it is truth Christ to be present God and man The second part is of Christes spiritual presence in the man that receaueth which in dede must be in him before he receaue the sacrameÌ„t or he can not receyue the Sacrament worthely as afore is sayd whiche two partes may stand well together without any repugnaunce and so both the differences thus taught make but one catholique doctrine Let vs se what the auctor sayth further They say that when any maÌ„ eateth the bread and The auctor drynketh the cup Christ goeth into his mouth or stomoke with the bread and wyne and no further But we say that Christ is in the hole man both in body and soule of him that worthely eateth the bread and drynketh the cup and not in his mouth or stomoke onely In this comparison thauctor termeth the The answer true Catholique teachyng at his pleasure to bryng it in contempte Whiche doyng in rude speache would be called otherwise then I wyll terme it Truth it is as Sainct Augustine sayth we receaue in the Sacrament the body of Christ with our mouthe and suche speache other vse as a booke set forth in the archbisshoppe of Cantorburies name called a Cathechisme willeth children to be taught that they receaue with their bodely mouth the body and bloud of Christ whiche I allege because it shall appeare it is a teachyng set forth among vs of late as hath been also and is by the booke of comen prayor beyng the moost true Catholique doctrine of the substaunce of the Sacrament in that it is there so Catholiquely spoken of whiche booke this auctor doth after specially allow how so euer all the summe of his teachyng doth improue it in
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 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
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
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
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
is onelye appoynted to signifie an holye thynge And therfore this auctours answere garnished with these there gaye wordes of astate nature and condicion is diuised but for a shifte suche as agreeth not with other places of this booke nor in it selfe neyther And where Saincte Ambrose merueyleth at goddes worke in the substaunce of the Sacrament this auctour shifteth that also to the effecte in him that receyueth whiche is also meruelous in deade but the substaunce of the Sacramente is by Saincte Ambrose spiritually merueyled at howe breade is made the bodye of Christ the visible matter outwardely remayninge and onelye by an inwarde chaunge whiche is of the inwarde nature called properlye substaunce in learnynge and a substaunce in dede but perceyued onely by inwarde vnderstandynge as the substaunce present of Christes moste precious body is a very substance in dede of the bodye inuisiblye presente but present in dede and onelye vnderstanded by moste true and certen knowledge of fayth And although this auctor noteth howe in the examples of mutacion brought in by Sainct Ambrose the substaunces neuer the lesse remayned the same that skilleth not for the wonder of those meruelles serue for an induction to releaue the weake fayth of man in this miracle of the Sacramente and to represse the arrogancie of reason presumynge to serche suche knowledge in goddes secrete workes whereof if there might be a reason geuen it neded no fayth And where there is a like there is no singularite as this miracle in the Sacramente in notablye singuler and therfore none other founde like vnto it The Sacramentall mutation which this auctor newly so termeth is a mere shifte to auoyde amonge suche as be not lerned the truthe of goddes miracle in this chaunge whiche is in dede suche as Sainct Ambrose speaketh of that of bread is made the bodye of Christe whiche Sainct Ambrose in an other place termeth it the grace of the body of Christe and all is one for it is a greate grace to haue the bodye of Christ for our foode present there And out of Christes mouth callynge the bodye of Christe is makynge the bodye of Christe whiche wordes callyng signifiynge namynge vsed in sainct Ambrose wrytynges do not limite Christes wordes and restrayne them to anonely callyng an only signifiyng or an only naming but geue an vnderstaÌ„dyng agreable to other of Sainrt Ambrose wordes that shewe the breade after consecracion to be the bodye of Christ the callyng to be vnderstanded a real callynge of the thynge that so is made and likewise a reall signifiynge of the thynge in dede present and a reall namynge as the thynge is in dede As Christe was named Iesus because he is the sauiour of his people in dede And thus perusynge this auctors answers I trust I haue noted to the reader with howe small substaunce of matter this auctor impugneth transubstanciation and howe slenderly he goeth about to answere suche auctors as by their seueral writynges conferme the same besides the consent of ChristeÌ„dom vniuersally receyuyng the same And howe in the meane waye this auctor hath by his owne handes pulled downe the same vntrue doctrine of the figuratiue speache that himselfe so lately hath diuised or rather because this matter in his book goeth before he hath in this seconde booke marred his frame or euer he cummeth to the thirde booke to set it vp In the seconde volume of the. 43. leef the auctor goeth about to note 6. absurdites in the doctrine of transubstantiation whiche I entende also to peruse This first is this First if the Papistes be demanded what thyng it The auctor is that is broken what is eaten and what is chawed with the teath lippes mouth in this SacrameÌ„t they haue nothynge to answere but thaccidentes For as they say bread and wyne be not the visible elementes in this Sacrament but onely ther accidentes and so they be forsed to saye that accidentes be broken eaten Dronken chawed and swalowed without any substaunce at all whiche is not onely againste all reason but also againste the doctrine of all auncient auctors This is accompted by this auctor the The anâ—wer first absurdire inconuenience whiche is by him rhetorically setforth with uppes and mouth and chawynge not substanciall termes to the matter but accidentall For opeuynge of whiche matrer I will repete sum parte agayne of that I haue wryten before when I made the scoler answere the rude man in declaration of substaunce whiche is that albeit that sensible thynge whiche in speache vttered after the capacite of comen vnderstandyng is called substaunce be comprehended of oure sences yet the inwarde nature of euery thyng whiche is in lernynge properly called substance is not so distinctly knowen of vs as we be able to shewe it to the sences or by wordes of difference to distincte in diuers kyndes of thynges one substaunce from another And herin as Basill Basilius homil 1. Hâ—x a He 〈…〉 eron sayth if we should go about by separation of all the accidentes to discerâ—e the substance by it selfe alone we should in the experience fayle of our purpose and ende in nothyng in dede There is a natural consideration of the abstractes that can not be practised in experience And to me if it were asked of comen bread when me breeke it whether we breke the substaunce or onely the accidentes first I must lernedly say if the substaunce be broken it is by meane of the accident in quantite and then if it like me to take my pleasour without lernyng in philosophie as this auctor doth in diuinite against the catholike fayth to say in diuision we breke not the substaÌ„ce of bred at all the heresie in philosophie were not of suche absurdite as this auctor maynteyneth in diuinite For I haue some probable matter to say for me wher he hath none For my straÌ„ge answere I would saye that albeit a natural thing as bread coÌ„sisting of matter essencial forme whiche quaÌ„tite therby other accidentes cleauyng annexed may be wel said to be in the hole broken as we see by experience it is yet speakyng of the substaÌ„ce of it alone if one shold aske whether that be broken it should be answered yee theÌ„ should the substaÌ„ce appeare brokeÌ„ hole al at one tyme seyng in euery broken piece of breade a hole substance of bread wher the piece of bread brokeÌ„ is so lytell a crumme as can no more in dede be deuided we say neuerthelesse the same to be one substaunce verie bread for want of coÌ„uenieÌ„t quaÌ„tite bread in diuisible thus I write to shewe that such an answer to say the accideÌ„ts be brokeÌ„ hath no such clere absurdite as this auctor would haue it seme But leauynge of the matter of philosophie to the scoles I wil grauÌ„t that accideÌ„tes to be without substaÌ„ce is against the comeÌ„ course of natural thiÌ„ges thefore theriÌ„ is a special miracle of god But wheÌ„
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
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
chayne is broken the lynkes sparkle abroade and all is brought in daungier to be scattered and scambled at Truthes haue been abused but yet they be true as they were before For no man can make that is true false abuse is mannes faulte not the thynges Scripture in speache geueth to man as gods ministre the name of that actiō which God specially worketh in that ministery So it pleaseth God to honor the ministery of man in his churche by whom it also pleaseth him to worke effectually And Christ sayd they that beleue in me shall do the workes that I do and greater When all this honour is geuen to man as spiritually to regenerate when the ministre sayth I Baptize the and to remitte synne to suche as fall after to be also a ministre in consecration of Christes most precious body wyth the ministration of other sacramentes benedictions prayour If man should then waxe proude glorye as of himselfe and extolle his owne deuotion in these ministeries suche men should bewraye their owne noughtie hypocrisye yet therby empayre not the very dignitie of the ministery ne the very true frute effecte therof And therfore when the church by the ministre prayeth that the creatures of bread and wyne set on thaultare as the booke of commen prayour in this realme hath ordred may be vnto vs the body bloud of our sauior Christ we require then the celebration of the same supper whiche Christ made to his Apostels for to be the continual memory of his death with all frute and effecte suche as the same had in the first institutiō Wherfore when the ministre pronounseth Christes wordes as spoken of his mouth it is to be beleued that Christ doth nowe as he did then And it is to be noted that although in the sacramēt of baptisme the ministre saith I baptize the yet in the celebratiō of this supper the wordes be spoken in Christs person as saiyng himselfe This is my body that is broken for you which is not to vs only a memory but an effectuall memory with the very presence of Christes body bloud our very sacrifice who doyng now as he did then offreth himselfe to his father as he did thē not to renewe that offryng as though it wer imperfite but continually to refreshe vs that dayly fall and decay And as S. Iohn sayth Christ is our aduocate entreateth for vs or 1. Ioā 2. pleadeth for vs not to supplye any wante on gods behalfe but to releaue our wantes in edificatiō wherin the ministery of the church trauayleth to brynge manne to perfection in Christ whiche Christ himselfe dothe assiste and absolutely perfourme in his churche his mystical body Nowe whē we haue Christes body thus presente in the celebration of the holy supper and by Christes mouth present vnto vs saying This is my body whiche is betrayed for you Then haue we Christs body recommended vnto vs as oure sacrifice and a sacrifice propiciatory for al the synnes of the worlde beynge the onely sacrifice of Christes church the pure and cleane sacrifice whereof the prophete Malachie spake and Malach. wherof the fathers in Christes churche haue synce the beginnyng contynually writen the very true presence wherof most constantely beleued hath encreased from tyme to tyme suche ceremonyes as haue been vsed in the celebration of that supper in which by Christes owne mouth we be ascertayned of his most glorious death and passion and the selfe same body that suffred deliuered vnto vs in mysterye to be eaten of vs therfore so to be worshipped acknowledged of vs as our very only sacrifice in whom by whom and for whom our other priuate giftes sacrifices be acceptable and none otherwise And therfore as Christ declareth in the supper himselfe an offryng sacrifice for our synne offryng himself to his father as our mediatour so therwith recommendeth to his father the church his body for which he suffreth so the churche at the same supper in their offryng of laudes and thankes with suche other giftes as they haue receyued frō God ioyne thē selfe with their head Christ presentyng offryng him as one by whom for whom in whom all that by gods grace man can do wel is auaylable acceptable without whom nothing by vs done can be pleasaunce in the sight of God wherupon this persuasion hath been truely conceyued whiche is also in the booke of commen prayour in the celebration of the holy supper retayned that it is very profitable at that tyme when the memory of Christs death is solempnized to remēbre with prayour all astates of the church to recommende thē to God which S. Paule to Timothe semeth 1. Tim. 2. to require At whiche tyme as Christ signifyeth vnto vs the certayntie of his death geueth vs to be eaten as it were in pledge the same his precious body that suffred So we for declaratiō of our cōstdēce in that death sacrifice do kindely remembre with thākes his special giftes charitably remembre the rest of the membres of Christes churche with prayour as we are able shoulde with our bodely goods remēbre at that tyme specially to releaue such as haue nede by pouertie And agayne as Christ putteth vs in remēbraunce of his great benefite so we should throughly remēbre him for our parte with the true confessiō of this mystery wherin is recapitulate a memorial of al giftes misteryes that God in Christ hath wrought for vs. In the cōside ratiō estimatiō wherof as there hath been a faulte in the securite of suche as so their names wer remēbred in this holy time of memory they cared not how muche they forgat themselfe so there may be a faulte in such as neglectyng it care not whither they be remēbred there at al therfore would haue it nothyng but a plaine eatyng drinkyng How much the remēbrance in prayour may auayle no mā mā prescribe but that it auayleth euery christē mā must cōfesse Mā may nothing and gate to his deuotiō But s Iames sayd truly Iaco. 5. multum valet oratio iusti assidua It is to be abhorred to haue hypocrites that counterfecte deuotion but true deuotion is to be wisshed of God and prayed for whiche is Gods gifte not to obscure his glorye but to set it forth not that we should then trust in mens merites prayers but laud glorify God in thē Qui talem potestatem dedit hominibus one to be iudged able to releue an other with his prayour referryng all to procede from God by the mediation of our sauiour redemer Iesus Christ I haue taryed long in this matter to declare that for theffect of al celestial or worldly giftes to be obteined of God in the celebratiō of Christs holy supper whē we call it the cōmunion is now prayed for to be present is present with Gods fauour shal be obteyned if we
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
wordes of the Epistell in the parte here alleged name no bread at all If this auctor hath red so much mencion of bread in any other parte of the Epistel why bryngeth he not that forth to fortifie his note I haue red after in the same Epistel panes sanctuarij but they would not helpe this auctors note and yet for the other matter ioyned with them they would slaundre an other way And therfore feyng this auctor hath lefte them out I will go no further theÌ„ is here alleged The callyng of bread by enunciation for a name is not material because it signifieth that was but in that is here alleged is no mention of bread to proue the note and to faythfull men the wordes of the Epistel reuerently expresse the remayne of the mysteryes in which wheÌ„ many hostes be offered in the aultare accordynge to the multitude that shoulde communicate those many hostes after consecracion be not many bodyes of Christe but of many breades one body of Christ yet as we teach in England nowe in the booke of comoÌ„prayour in euery parte of that is broken is the hole body of our sauiour Christ Mannes wordes can not suffice to expresse gods mysteryes nor caÌ„not vttre them so as frowarde reason shall not fynde matter to wrangle And yet to staye reason maye suffise that as in one loofe of bread broken euery piece brokeÌ„ is a piece of that bread euery piece of the bread brokeÌ„ is in it selfe a whole piece of bread for euery piece hath an hole substaunce of bread in it So we truely speake of the hooste coÌ„secrate to auoyde the fansie of multiplicacioÌ„ of Christes body which in al the hostes all partes of the hoostes is but one not brokeÌ„ nor distribute by pieces yet in a spech to tel signifie that is brokeÌ„ called in name the leauing pieces of the body portioÌ„ of the body residue of the body in which neuerthlesse eche one pece is christs hole body So as this spech hauing a figure hath it of necessitie to auoyde the absurditie wherby to signifie a multitude of bodyes which is not so the souÌ„de of the spech christen eares do abhorre But this I aske where is the mater of this auctors note that bread is called Christs body where there is no worde of bread in the words alleged if there were as ther is not it were worthy no note at all For that name is not abhorred the catholique faith teacheth that the fractioÌ„ is in the outwarde signe not in the body of Christ inuisibly present signified so to be present by that visible signe The secoÌ„de note of this auctor is touchyng reseruyng which ClemeÌ„t might seme to denye because he ordred the remaine to be receiued of the clerks thinkyng so best not declaryng expressly that nothyng might be reserued to the vse of theÌ„ that be abset The coÌ„trary wherof appereth by Iustine the Martyr who testifieth a reseruacioÌ„ Iustinê° apol ij to be seÌ„t to theÌ„ that were sycke who they dwell far from the church as they do in suÌ„me places it may by chauÌ„ce in the way or trouble in the sicke maÌ„ tary till the morning or it be receiued And Cyril writech expressly Cyrillê° ad CalosiriuÌ„ that in case it so doth the mystical benedictioÌ„ by which termes he calleth the sacrameÌ„t remayneth stil in force WheÌ„ this auctor findeth faulte at haÌ„gyng vp of the sacrameÌ„t he blameth only his owne couÌ„try the Isles hereabout which faulte linnehod after he had traueyled other couÌ„tryes fouÌ„de here beyng the maner of custodye in reseruacioÌ„ otherwise vsed theÌ„ in other partyes But one thyng this auctor should haue noted of ClemeÌ„ts words wheÌ„ he spaketh of fearyng treÌ„blyng which the bread were neuer the holyer as this auctor teacheth but only a signification why shuld any maÌ„ feare or treÌ„ble more in their presence theÌ„ he doth wheÌ„ he heareth of Christs supper the gospel red or himself or an other saiyng his Crede which in words signifie as much as the bread doth if it be but a significacioÌ„ And peter martyr saith that words signifie Peter Martyâ— more clerely then these signes do sayth further in his disputacioÌ„ with Chedsay that we receyue the bodye of Christe no lesse by wordes then by the Sacramentall signes whiche teachyng if it were true why should this Sacrament be trembled at But because this auctor noteth the Epistel of Clement to be fayned I will not make with him any fouÌ„dacion of it but note to the reader the thyrde note gathered by this auctor of Clementes woordes whiche is that Priestes ought not to receyue alone which the wordes of the pistle proue not It sheweth in dede what was done howe the feast is in dede prepared for the people as well as the Priest And I neuer redde any thyng of ordre in lawe or ceremonie for biddyng the people to coÌ„municate with the Priest but all the olde prayours ceremonyes sounded as the people did coÌ„municate with the Priest And when the people is prepared for then come not but fearyng and tremblyng forbere to come that then the Priest might not receyue his parte alone the wordes of this Epistel shewe not And Clement in that he speaketh so of leuynges semeth to thinke of that case of disapointment of the people that should comme prouydyng in that case the clerkes to receyue the residue wherby should appere if there were not store of clerkes but only one clerke as some poore churches haue no mo then a maÌ„ might rather make a note of ClemeÌ„tes mynde that in that case one Priest might receyue alone so vpoÌ„ a chaunce kepe the feast alone But what soener we may gather that note of this auctour remayneth vnproued that the Priest ought not to receiue alone And here I dare therfore ioyne an issue with this auctor that none of An issue his thre fayned notes is grounded of any wordes of this that he noteth a fayned Epistel takyng the only wordes that he allegeth here This auctor vpoÌ„ occasioÌ„ of this Epistel which he calleth fayned speaketh more reuerently of the SacrameÌ„t then he doth in other places whiche me thinke worthy to be noted of me Here he saith that very Christ himself is not only represeÌ„ted but also spiritually geuen vnto vs in this table for so I vnderstaÌ„de the worde wherin And then if very Christ himselfe be represented geuen in the table the auctor meaneth not the material table but by the word table the meate vpoÌ„ the table as the worde Mensa a table doth signifie in the .xvi. of thactes the .x. to the Corinthi Actes 16 i. Co. 10. Now if very Christ himselfe be geuen in the meate theÌ„ is he present in the meate to be geuen So as by this teachyng very Christ himself is not only figuratiuely in the table that is to say the meate of the table
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
not preseÌ„t because euel meÌ„ receiue it that shal be no argument for the good seed when it was sowen did fall in the euell grounde and althought christ dwelleth not in the euel man yet he maye be receyued of the euell man to his condempnation because he receyue him not to glorifie him as of God as S. Paule sayth Non dijudicans corpus domini not estemyng our Lordes bodye And to all that euer this auctor bryngeth to proue that euel men eare not the body of christ may be said wortely that spiritually they eate it not besides the sacrameÌ„t in the sacrameÌ„t they eate it not effectually to lyfe but coÌ„deÌ„pnatioÌ„ And that is may be called a not eating As they be said not to heare the worde of God that heare it not proufitably And because the body of Christ of it selfe is ordeyned to be eateÌ„ for lyfe those that vnworthely eate condempnatioÌ„ although they eate in dede maye be said not eate because they eate vnworthely as a thyng not well done may be in speache called not done in respecte of the good effect Wherfore it was chefly ordred to be done And by this rule thou reader mast discusse al that this auctor bryngeth forth for his purpose eyther out of Scriptures or doctours For euell men eate not the bodye of Christe to haue any frute by it as euell men be said not to heare goddes worde to haue any frute by it and yet as they here the worde of spirite and lyfe and neuer theles perishe so euel men eate in the visible SacrameÌ„â— the bodye of Christ yet perishe And as I said thus answerith the Scripture with the particuler saynges of CypriaÌ„ Athanase Basyl hierome and Ambrose As for sainct Augustine whiche this auctor Augusti allegeth De ciuitate dei the same S. Augustine doth playnly say there in the place alleged howe the good and euell receyue the same sacrement and addith but not with like proffite whiche wordes this auctor suppresseth and therfore dealith not syncerely As for sainct Augustin shal be herafter more playnely declared Finally he that receyueth worthely the body and bloud of Christ hath euerlasting life dwelleth in Christ Christ in him he that receyueth vnworthely which can be onelye in the Sacrament receyueth not life but condempnation But to encouÌ„tre directly with this auctor where he opposith by interrogation and would be anuswered whither an vnrepentant synner that receyueth the SacrmeÌ„t hath Christes body with in him or no. Marke reader this question whiche declareth that auctor talkyth of the Sacrament not as himselfe teacheth but as the true teaching is although he mean other wise for els howe could an vnrepeÌ„taÌ„t synner receyue Christ but onely in the sacrameÌ„t vnworthely howe could he receyue him vnworthely he were not there but to anuswere to the questioÌ„ I answere no for it foloueth not he receyued him Ergo he hathe him in him for the vessel being not mete he departed from him because he was a synner in whom he dwelleth not And where this auctor now become a questioniste maketh two questions of Christes bodye and his spirite as tough Christes body might be deuided from his spirite he supposeth other to be as ignorant as himselfe For the lerned man will answere that the euel man by force of gods ordinance in the substance of the Sacrament receyued in deade Christes very body there preseÌ„t hol Christ god and man but he taryed not nor Dwelled not nor fructified not in him nor Christes spirite entred not into that mannes sowle because of the malice and vnworthynes of him that receyued For Christ wil not dwell with Belial nor abide with synners 2. Cor. 6. And what hath this auctor wonne nowe by his forked question wherin he semethe to glorie as though he had embraced an absurdite that he hunted for wherin he sheweth onely his ignoraunce who putteth no difference bytwen thentryag of Christe into an euell man by goddes ordynance in the SacrameÌ„t and the dwellyng of Christes spirite in an euel man whiche by Scripture can not be ne is by any Catholique man affirmed For sainct Paule saythe In him that receyuethe vnworthely remaynethe iudgement and condempnation And yet Sainct Pauls wordes playnelye importe that those did eate the verye bodye of Christe whiche did eate vnworthely and therfore were gyltie of the body and bloud of Christ Now reader 1. Cor. 11 consider what is before wryten and thou shalt easelie see what a fonde cunclusioÌ„ this auctor gathereth in the. 97. leafe as though the teachyng were that the same maÌ„ should be both the temple of God and the temple of the dewel with other termes wherwith it liketh this auctour to refreshe himselfe and fayneth an aduersarye suche as he woulde haue but hath none For no Catholique man teacheth so nor it is not all one to receyue Christ and to haue Christ dwellyng in him And a figure therof was in Christes conuersation vpon earthe whoÌ„ taryed not with all that receyued him in outward apparance And there is noted a difference that summe beleued in Christ and yet Christ committed Ioh. 3. not himselfe to them And the Gospell prayseth them that heare the worde of God and Luce. 11. kepe it signifiyng many to here the worde of God and not to kepe it as they that receyue Christ by his ordinaunce in the Sacrament and yet because thei receyue him not accordyng to th entent of his ordinance worthely they are so much the worse therby through ther owne malyce And therfore to conclude this place with thauctor who soeuer eateth Christes fleshe and drynketh his bloud hathe euerlastynge life with Saincte Paulles exposition if he dothe it worthely or elles by the same Saincte Paule he hathe condempnacion 1. Cor. 11 In the .xcvij. leafe and the seconde coluÌ„ne thauctor begynneth to trauerse the wordes of Sainct Paul to the Corinthians would distincte vnworthy eatyng in the substaunce of the Sacrament receyued whiche cannot be For oure vnworthynes cannot altare the substance of gods Sacramente that is euermore all one howesoeuer we swarue frome worthines to vnworthines And this I wold aske of this auctor why shoulde it be a faulte in the vnworthye not to esteme the Lordes body when he is taught if this auctors doctrine be true that it is not there at al If this bread after this auctors teachyng be but a figure of Christes body it is then but as MaÌ„na was the eatynge wherof vnworthely and vnfaythfully was no gilte of Christes body Erasmus noteth these wordes of Saincte Erasmê° Paul to be gilty of our Lords body to proue the prefence of Christes body there who com pareth suche an offender to the iewes that did shedde Christes bloud maliciouslye as those do prophane it vnprofitably in which sence the greke commentaryes do also expounde it And where this auctor bryngeth in the wordes of Saincte Paule as it were to poynte out the mattiere Let
a man examyne himselfe and so eate of the bread and 1. Cor. 11 drynke of the cuppe for he that eateth vnworthely c. These wordes of examinyng and so eatyng declare the thyng to be one ordred to be eaten and all the care to be vsed on our syde to eate worthely or els Saincte Paule had not sayd and so eate And when Saincte Paule â—ayth eate iudgemente and this auctour wyll remembre himselfe he muste call iudgement the effecte of that is eaten and not the thyng eaten For iudgement is neyther spirituall meate nor corporall but the effecte of the eatynge of Christe in euell men who is saluation to good and iudgement to euel And therfore as good men eatyng Christ haue saluation so euell men eatyng Christ haue condempnation and so for the diuersitie of the eaters of Christes bodye foloweth as they be worthye and vnworthy the effecte of condempnacion or lyfe Christes Sacrament and his worke also in the substance of that Sacrament beyng alwayes one and what so euer this auctor talketh otherwise in this matter is mere trifles And yet he goth about because he will make all thynge clere to answer suche authours as the Papistes he sayth brynge for there Augusti purpose And first he begynneth with sainct Augustine who wryteth as playuelye against this auctours mynde as I would haue diuised it if I had no conscience of truth more then I see sum haue and might with a secrete wishe haue altred S. Augustineas I had liste And therfore here I make a playne issue with this auctour that in the serchyng An issue of Sainct Augustine he hath trusted his maÌ„ or his frende ouer negligentely in so great a matter or he hath willyngly gone aboute to deceyue the reader For in the place of Saint Augustine againste the Donatistes alleged here by this auctour whiche he would with the rest assoyle Sainct Augustine hath these formal wordes in Latyn Corpus Domini Augu. de baptis li. 5. ca. 8. sanguis Domini nihilominus erat etiam illis quibus dicebat Apostolus qui manducat indigne iudicium sibi maÌ„ducat bibit Which wordes be thus much in English It was neuertheles the body of our Lorde the bloud of our Lorde also vnto them to whom thappostel sayde he that eateth vnworthely eateth and drynketh iudgement to himselfe These be Saincte Augustines wordes who writeth notably and euidently that it was neuertheles the body and bloud of Christ to them that receyued vnworthely declaryng that their vnworthynes doth not aultre the substance of that Sacrament and doth vs to vnderstande therwith the substaunce of the sacrameÌ„t to be the body and bloud of Christ and neuerthelesse so though the receyuers be vnworthy wherin this auctor is so ouersene as I thinke there was neuer learned maÌ„ before that durst in a comen welthe where lerned men be publish suche an vntruth as this is to be answered in a tong that men knowe Yet Peter Martyr wrote in Latyn and reioyseth not I thinke to haue his lyes in English I will bryng in here an other place of sainct Augustine to this purpose Illud etiam De verbis dnÌ„i Ser. 11. quod ait qui manducat carnem meam bibit sanguinem meum in me manet ego in illo quomodo intellecturi sumus Nunquid etiam illos sic poterimus accipere de quibus dixit Apostolus quod iudicium sibi manducant bibant quum ipsam carnem manducent ipsum sangninem bibant Nuuquid Iudas Magistri venditor traditor impius quamuis primum ipsum manibus eius confectum sacramentum carnis sanguinis eius cuÌ„ caeteris discipulis sicut apertius Lucas Euange lista declarat manducaret biberet mansit in Christo Aut Christus in eo Multi denique qui vel corde ficto carnem illam manducant sanguinem bibunt vel cum manducauerint biberint apostatae fiunt nunquid manent in Christo aut Christus in eis Sed profecto est quidam modus manducandi illam carnem bibendi illum sanguinem quomodo qui manducauerit biberit in Christo manet Christus in eo Non ergo quocunque modo quisque manducauerit carnem Christi biberit sanguiuem Christi manet in Christo in illo christus Sed certo quodam modo quem modum vtique ipse videbat quando ista dicebat The englisse of these wordes is this That same that he also sayth who eateth my flesh and drynketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him howe shall we vnderstande it May we vnderstande also them of whome the Apostle spake that they did eate to them selfe and drynke iudgement when they did eate the same flesh and drinke the same bloud the fleshe it selfe the bloud it selfe did not Iudas the mycked seller and betrayer of his maister wheÌ„ he did eate and drynke as Lucas the euangeliste declareth the first Sacrament of the flesh and bloud of Christ made with his owne handes dwell in Christe or Christe in him Finally many that with a fayned hearte eate that flesh and drynke the bloud or when they haue eaten and dronken become apostatas do not they dwell in Christ or Christ in them But vndowtedly there is a certayne maner of eatyng that fleshe and drynkyng that bloud after whiche maner who so euer eateth and drynketh dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him Therfore not in what so euer maner any man eateth the fleshe of Christ and drynketh the bloud of Christ he dwelleth in christ and Christ in him but after a certayne maner whiche maner he sawe when he sayde these wordes This is the sence of Saincte Augustines saiynge in Latyn wherby appeareth the fayth of Sainct Augustine to be in the Sacrament to be eaten and dronken very body and bloud of Christ which for the substance of the Sacrament euel men receyue as good men do that is to say as Sainct Augustin doth poynte it out by his wordes the same flesh and the same bloud of Christ with suche an expresse speache as he would exclude all difference that diuise of figure might imagine and therfore sayth ipsam car nem ipsum sanguinem Whiche signifyeth the selfe same in dead not by name onely as the auctor of the booke would haue Saincte Augustine vnderstanded and when that appeareth as it is moost manifeste that Iudas receyued the same beynge wycked that good men do howe the same is before the recept by gods omnipotencye present in the visible Sacrament and so not receyued by the onely instrument of fayth whiche in euell men is not lyuely but by the instrument of the mouthe wherein it entreth with the visible element And yet as Saincte Augustine sayth dwelleth not in him that so vnworthely receiueth because the effect of dwellyng of Christe is not in him that receyueth by suche a maner of eatyng as wycked men vse Wherby S. Augustine teacheth the diuerse effecte
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
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
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
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.
Christ as maye be in particularitie shewed wherof I make also an issue with the auctor An issue For the other poynte in that thauctor approued the iudgement of Petrus Lombardus in the matter what shoulde I more do but wryte in the wordes of Petrus Lombardus as he hath them which be these in the fourth booke the .xij. Chapter alleaged by thauctor Post haec quaeritur si quod gerit sacerdos pro prie dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio si Christus quotidie immoletur vel semel tantum immolatus sit Ad hoc breuiter dici potest illud quod offertur coÌ„secratur à sacerdote vocari sacrificium oblationem quia memoria est representatio veri sacrificij sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis semel Christus mortuus in cruce est ibique immolatus est in semetipso quotidie auteÌ„ immo latur in sacramento quia in sacramento recor datio fit illius quod factuÌ„ est semel vnde Augustinus Certum habemus quia Christus resurgens ex mortuis iaÌ„ non moritur c. tamen ne obliuiscamur quod semel factuÌ„ est in memoria nostra omni anno fit scilicet quando pascha celebratur Nunqnid totiens Christus occiditur sed tantum anniuersaria recordatio repraesentat quod olim factum est sic nos facit moueri tanq videamus Dominum in eruce Item semel immolatus est Christus in semetipso tameÌ„ quotidie immolatur in sacramento Quod sic intelligendum est quia in manifestatione corporis distinctione meÌ„ brorum semel tantum in cruce pependit offerens se Deo patri hostiam redemptionis efficacem eorum scilicet quos praedestinauit Item Ambrosius In Christo semel oblata est hostia ad salutem potens quid ergo nos NoÌ„ne per singulos dies offerimus Et si quotidie offeramus ad recordationeÌ„ eius mortis fit vna est hostia non multae quomodovna noÌ„ multae quia semel immolatus est christus hoc autem sacrificium exempluÌ„ est illius idipsum semperidipsum offertur proinde hoc ideÌ„ est sacrificiuÌ„ alioquin dicetur quoniaÌ„ in multis locis offertur multi sunt Christi noÌ„ sed vnus vbique est Christus hîe plenus existeÌ„s illic plenus sicut quod vbique offertur vnuÌ„ est corpus ita vnuÌ„ sacrificiuÌ„ Christus hostiam obtulit ipsam offerimus nuÌ„c sed quod nos agimus recordatio eÌ„st sacrificij Nec causa suae infirmitatis reperitur quia perficit hominem sed nostrae quia quotidie peccamus Exhis colligitur esse sacrificiuÌ„ dici quod agitur in altari ChristuÌ„ semel oblatuÌ„ quotidie offerri sed aliter tuÌ„c aliter nuÌ„c etiaÌ„ quae sitvirtus huius sacramenti ostenditur scilicet remissio peccatoruÌ„ venalium perfectiovirtutis The Englishe hereof is this After this it is asked whether that the priest doth maye be sayde properlie a sacrifice or immolacioÌ„ whether christ be daily iÌ„molate or only ones WheruÌ„to it may be shortly answered that which is offred coÌ„secrate of the priest is called a sacrifice oblacioÌ„ because it is a memorie represeÌ„tacion of the true sacrifice holy immolation done in thalter of the crosse And Christ was ones dede on the Crosse ther was offered in him selfe but he is dayly immolate in the sacrameÌ„t because in the sacrameÌ„t ther is made a memory of that is ones done wherupoÌ„ S. Augustine we ar assured that Christ rysing froÌ„ Rom. 6. death dieth not now c. Yet lest we shuld for get that is ones done iÌ„ our memory euery yere is done viz as ofteÌ„ as the pascha is celebrate is Christ as ofteÌ„ killed only a yerly remeÌ„braÌ„ce repreâ—eÌ„teth that was ones done causeth vs to be moued as though we saue our Lorde on the crosse Also Christ was ones offred in him selfe yet is offred daily iÌ„ the sacrameÌ„t which is thus to be vnderstaÌ„ded that in opeÌ„ shewiÌ„g of his body distinctioÌ„ of his meÌ„bres he dede haÌ„ge only ones vpoÌ„ the crosse offring himself to god the father an host of redeÌ„ptioÌ„ effectual for theÌ„ whoÌ„ he hath predestinate also S. Ambrose in christ the host was ones offred being of power to helth what do we theÌ„ do we not The same wordes hath Chrisostome homel 17. ad hebr offre eueri day if we offre eueri day it is done in the remeÌ„braÌ„ce of the death of him the host is one not many how one not many because christ is ones offred This sacrifice is thexeÌ„ple of that the same alwaies the same is offred therfor this is the same sacrifice or els it may be sayd because it is offered in manye places ther be manye Christes whiche is not so but one Christ is eche where here full and their ful so as that which is offered euery where is one body so also one Sacrifice Christ hath offred the host we do offre the same also now But that we do is a remembraunce of the sacrifice Nor their is no cause fouÌ„d of the owne inuaiy ditie because it perâ—teth the man but of vs because we daylie sinne Hereof it is gathered that to be a sacrifice and to be so called that is done in thaltare and Christ to be ones offered daylie offered but otherwise then otherwise nowe also it is shewed what is the vertue of this SacrameÌ„t that is to saye remissioÌ„ of verâ—al synne perfectioÌ„ of vertue This wryteth Petrus Lombardus whose iudgement because this auctor alloweth he must grant that the visible church hath Priestes in ministery that offre dayly Christs most precius body bloud in mysterie then must it be graunted that Christ so offered him selfe in his supper For otherwise then he did cannot nowe be done And by the iudgement of Petrus Lombardus the same most precious body bloud is offered daylye that ones suffered and was ones 〈…〉 ede And also by the same Petrus iudgment which he confirmeth with the saynges of other this daylie offryng by the priest is daylie offred for synne not for eny imperfectioÌ„ in the first offring but because we dailie fall And by Petrus iudgemeÌ„t appeareth also howe the priest hath a speciall function to make this offerynge by whose mouth god is praied vnto as hesithius saith to make this sacrifice which Emissene notech Homâ—l de cowore et SaÌ„guine domini to be wrought by the power of the inuisible priest By Petrus LoÌ„bardus also if his iudgemeÌ„t be true as it is in dede and thauctor coÌ„fesseth it so to be that is done in th aulter is not onlie called a sacrifice but also is so the same that is offered ones and dailie to be the same but otherwise then offerid otherwise nowe But to the purpose if thauctor will stande to the iudgemeÌ„t of Petrus