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
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
that point So much is he contrarie to him selfe in this worke and here in this place not caryng what he sayth reporteth suche a teachyng in the first parte of this difference as I haue not hearde of before There was neuer man of learnyng that I haue red termed the matter so that Christ goeth into the stomoke of the maÌ„ that receaueth and no further For that is writteÌ„ contra Stercoronistas is nothyng to this teachyng nor the speache of any glose if there be any such were herein to be regarded The Catholique doctrine is that by the holy coniunction in the Sacrament we be ioyned to Christ really because we receaue in the holy supper the most precious substaunce of his glorious body whiche is a fleshe geuyng life And that is not digested into our fleshe but worketh in vs and attempereth by heauenly nurrttor our body and soule beyng partakers of his passyon to be conformable to his will and by suche spiritual foode to be made more spirituall In the receauyng of whiche foode in the most blessed Sacrament our body and soule in them that duelie coÌ„municate worketh together in due ordre without other discussyon of the mysterie then God hath ordred that is to say the soule to beleue as it is taught and the body to do as God hath ordred knowyng that gloryous fleshe by our eatyng can not be consumed or suffre but to be most profitable vnto such as do accustonie worthely to receiue the same But to say that the churche teacheth how we receaue Christ at our mouth and he goeth into our stomoke and no further is a reporte which by the iust iudgemente of God is suffred to come out of the mouthe of them that fyght against the truth in this most high mysterie Now where this auctor in the secoÌ„de part by an aduersiteue with a But to make the comparison telleth what he and his say he telleth in effect that which euery Catholique man must nedes and doth confesse For such as receaue Christes most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament worthly they haue Christ dwellyng in theÌ„ who conforteth both body and soule whiche the church hath euer taught most plainely so as this comparison of differeÌ„ce in his two parties is made of one open vntruth a truth disguised as though it were now first opened by this auctor and his whiche maner of handelyng declareth what sleyght and shift is vsed in the matter They say that Christ is receyued in the mouth The auctor entreth in with the bread and wyne We say that he is receyued in the heart and entreth in by faith Here is a pretie slaight in this coÌ„parison The answer where both partes of the comparison may be vnderstanded on bothe sydes and therfore here is by thauctor in this coÌ„parison no issue ioyned For the worthy receauyng of Christs body and bloud in the Sacramente is both with mouth heart both in facte faith After whiche sorte S. Peter in the last supper receaued Christes body wheras in the same supper Iudas receaued it with mouth in fact only wherof S. Augustin speketh in this wise Non dicunt ista nisi qui de meÌ„sa domini August contra li teras pe til lib. 2 cap. 47. vitaÌ„sumunt Sicut Petrus non iudicium sicut Iudas et tamen ipsa vtrique fuit vna sed non vtrique valuit ad vnum quia ipsi noÌ„ erant vnuÌ„ Whiche wordes be thus muche to say That they say not so as was before entreated but suche as receaue life of our Lordes table as Peter did not iudgment as Iudas and yet the table was all one to them both but it was not to all one effect in theÌ„ both because they were not one Here S. Augustine noteth the difference in the receauer not in the Sacrament receaued whiche beyng receaued with the mouth onely and Christ entryng in mysterie only doth not sanctify vs but is the stone of stumblyng and our iudgement and condempnacion but if he be receaued with mouthe and body with hearte and fayth to such he bryngeth life and nurrishemeÌ„t wherfore in this comparison thauctor hath made no difference but with diuers termes the catholique teachyng is deuided into two membres with a But facioned neuertheles in an other phrase of speache then the church hath vsed whiche is so commen in this auctor that I will not hereafter note it any more for a faulte Let vs go further They say that Christ is really in the SacrameÌ„tall The auctor bread beyng reserued an whole yere so long as the forme of bread remaineth but after the receauyng therof he flieth vp they say from the receyuer vnto heauen as sone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or chaunged in the stomoke But we say that Christ remayneth in the man that worthely receaueth it so long as the man remayneth a membre of Christ This comparison is like the other before The answer wherof the first parte is garnished and emblossed with vntruth and the second parte that the church hath euer taught most truly that al must beleue and therfore that pece hath no vntruth in the matter but in the maner only beyng spokeÌ„ as though it diffred froÌ„ the continuall open reachyng of the churche which is not so wherfor in the maner of it in vtteraunce signifieth an vntruth whiche in the matter it selfe is neuerthelesse most true For vndoutedly Christ remaineth in the maÌ„ that worthely receiueth the sacrameÌ„t so loÌ„g as that man remayneth a membre of Christ In this first part there is a fault in the matter of the speache for explicacion wherof I wil examin it particularly This auctor saith they say that Christ is really in the SacrameÌ„tal bread beyng reserued an hole yere c. The church geuyng faith to Christes worde wheÌ„ he sayd This is my body c. techeth the body of Christ to be present in the SacrameÌ„t vnder the forme of bread vnto which words wheÌ„ we put the worde really it serueth only to expresse that truth in open wordes which was afore to be vnderstaÌ„ded in sence For in Christ who was the body of al the shadowes figures of the law who did exhibit geue in his sacrameÌ„tes of the new law the things promised in his sacramentes of tholde lawe We must vnderstaÌ„d his wordes in the institucion of his sacraments without figure in the substance of the celestial thyng of theÌ„ therfore when he ordred his most precious bodye bloud to be eateÌ„ drunken of vs vnder the formes of bread wyne we professe beleue that truely he gaue vs his most precious body in the SacrameÌ„t for a celestial foode to coÌ„fort strength vs in this miserable life And for the certayntie of the truth of his worke therin we ê“fesse he geueth vs his body realy that is to say in ded his body the thing it self Which is the heauenly part of the SacrameÌ„t
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
so as may appeare by Tertullianes words reported by this auctor before This note that I make nowe of TertuliaÌ„ makethe against this auctors purpose but yet it makethe with the truthe which this auctor should not impugne The seconde note gathered of Tertulian by this auctor is not true for Christ called it his body made it his body as Tertullian sayth And the thirde note of this auctor is in coÌ„trauersy of readyng must be so vnderstaÌ„ded as maye agree with the rest of Tertullians saynges which after my readyng doth euidently proue at the lest dothe not improue the Catholique doctrine of Christes churche vniuersally receiued althoughe it improueth that which this auctor calleth here our Catholique doctrine most impudently and vntruely reportynge the same Origens wordes be verie plaine and meanynge Origenes also whiche speake of manifestation and exhibition whiche be two thynges to be verified thre wayes in our religioÌ„ that is to say in the worde re generatioÌ„ the Sacrament of bread and wyne as this auctor ter 〈…〉 i the it which Origene speaketh not so but â—hus the fleshe of the word of god not meaâ—yng in euerie of these after one sorte but â—fter the truth of Scripture in eche of them Christ in his word is manifested exhibited vnto vs and by faieth that is of hearynge dwelleth in vs spirituallye for so we haue his spirite Of Baptisme S. Paule sayth as manny as be Baptized be clade in Christe Nowe in the SacremeÌ„t of bread wyne by OrigeÌ„s rule Christ shuld be manifestie exhibitie vnto vs after the scriptures So as the SacremeÌ„t of bread wyne should not onely signifie Christ that is to say preach him but also exhibite him seÌ„sible as Origenes words be reaported here to be so as Christes words this is my body should be wordsnot of figure sheuyng but of exhibityng Christes body vnto vs sensibly as this auctor allegeth him whiche should signifie to be receiued with our moueth as christ coÌ„mauÌ„ded wheÌ„ he said take eat c. diuersly froÌ„ thother two waies in whiche by Christes spirite we be made participaunt of the benefit of his passion wroght in his manhode But in this Sacrament we be made participaunt of his Godhode by his humanite exhibite vnto vs for fode so in this mysterie we receyue him man god in thother by meane of his god head be participat of the effect of his passion suffred in his manhead In this Sacrament Christes manhead is represeÌ„ted truely preseÌ„t wher vnto the godhead is moste certainly vnited whereby we receyue a pledge of the regeneratioÌ„ of our fleshe to be in the general resurrection spiritual with oure soule as we haue been in Baptisme made spirituall by regeneration of the soule which in the full redemption of our bodies shal be made perfite And therfore this auctor may not compare Baptisme with the SacrameÌ„t throughly in whiche Baptisme Christes manhode is not really present althoughe the vertue effecte of his most precious bloude be there but the truth of the mysterie of this SacrameÌ„t is to haue Christes body his flesh and bloud exhibited wherevnto eatyng drinkyng is by Christ in his supper appropriate In whiche supper Christ said This is my body which Bucer noteth and that Christ sayd not this is my sprit this is my vertue wherfore after Origens teachyng if Christ be not only manifested but also exhibitie seÌ„sibly in the Sacrament then is he in the SacrameÌ„t in dede that is to say really and then is he there substanetally because the substaunce of the bodye is there and is there corporally al so because the very bodye is there naturallâ— because the natural body is there not vnderstandyng corporally and naturally in the maner of presence nor sensibly nother For then wer the maner of preseÌ„ce with in mans capacitie and that is false and therfore the Catholique teachyng is that the maner of Christes presence in the Sacrament is spiriâ—ual and supernatural not corporal not car 〈…〉 all not naturall not sensible not percepti 〈…〉 le but onely spirituall the howe maner whereof God knoweth and we assured by his worde knowe onely the truthe to be so that it is there in dede and therfore really to be also receyued with our handes and monthes so seÌ„sibly there the body that suffred and therfore his naturall body there the body of very fleshe and therfore his carnal body the body truely and therfore his corporal bodye there But as for the maner of presence that is only spiritual as I sayd before and here in the inculcation of these wordes I am tedious to a lerned reader but yet this auctor enforeth me thervnto who with these wordes carnally corporally grosly sensibly naturally appliyng theÌ„ to the maner of presence dothe craftely carie away the reader from the simplicitie of his fayth and by such absurdities as these wordes grosly vnderstanded importe astonneth the simple reader in consideration of the matter and vseth these words as dust afore their eyes which to wipe away I am enforced to repete thuÌ„derstandyng of these wordes oftener theÌ„ els wer necessarie these thynges wel coÌ„sidered no man dothe more plainely confounde this auctor then this saiyng of Origene as he allegeth it whatsoeuer other sentencies he woulde pyke out of Origene when he vseth libertie of allegories to make him seme to say otherwise and as I haue declared afore to vnderstand Christes wordes spiritually is to vnderstand them as the spirite of God hath taught the churche and to esteme gods mysteries moste true in the substaunce of the thing so to be althoughe the maner excedeth our capacites whiche is a spirituall vnderstandyng of the same and here also this auctor putteth in for spiritually figuratiuely to deceyue the reader As touching CyprtaÌ„ this auctor maketh an exposition of his owne diuise whiche he Cypria nus would haue taken for an answer vnto him Where as Cyprian of all other like as he is ancient within 25. yeres of Christe so did he write very openly in the matter therfore MelaÌ„thon in his Epistle to Occolampadius did those hym for one whose wordes in Melanthon thaffirmation of Christes true preseÌ„ce in the SacrameÌ„t had no ambiguitie And lyke iudgement doth Hippinus in his booke before Hippinê° alleged geue of Cyprianus fayth in the SacrameÌ„t whiche two I allege to contrauaile the iudgement of this auctor who speaketh of his owne head as it liketh him playnge with the wordes grosse and carnal vsyng the worde represent as though it expressed a figure only Hippinus in the sayd booke allegeth Cyprian to saye libro 3. ad quirinum Cyprianus lib. 3. ad Quirinum that the bodye of our lorde is our sacrifice in fleshe meanyng as hippinus sayth Eucharistiam wherin S. Augustine as hippinus sayth further in the prayor for his mother speakynge of the bread and wyne of Eucharistia sayth that in it
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
as I sayd before good men do not eate Christes bodye in the Sacrament vnder the visible signes for because it is not there and then much lesse should euel men reache it In the Catholique teachyng all the doctrine of eatyng of Christ is concluded in two maner of eatynges one in the visible Sacrament Sacramentall another spirituall without the Sacrament And because in the eatynge of the visible Sacrament Sainct Paule speaketh of vnworthy the same true teachynge to open the matter more clerely accordyng to Scripture noteth vnto vs thre maner of eatynges one spirituall onely whiche onely good men do feadyng in fayth without the visible Sacrament Another is bothe spirituall and Sacramentall whiche also good men onely do receiuyng the visible Sacrament with a true sincere charitable fayth The third maner of eatyng is Sacramentall onely whiche after sainct Paule euel men do vnworthely and therfore haue iudgement and condempnation and be gylty of our lordes bodye not estemynge our lordes bodye there And here arristeth the knot of conteÌ„tion with this auctor who sayeth euel men eate but the Sacramental bread whervnto I replie no more do good men neyther if this auctors doctrine of the Sacrament be trewe seyng he will haue it but a figure If this auctor wil say theffecte is other in good men then in euell men I will not stryue therin But to discusse this matter euidently we must righely open the truth and then must considre the visible Sacramentes as they be of gods ordinaunce who directeth vs where to seke for his giftes and howe whose workyng albeit it be not restrayned by his Sacramentes and therfore God maye and dothe inuisibly sanctifie and salue as it pleasith him yet he teacheth vs of his ordinarye workyng in the visible Sacramentes and ordereth vs to seke his giftes of helthe and life there wherupon sainct Augustin noteth howe Baptisme among the Augu. de peccatis meri et remiss libro 4. Cap. â—4 Christen men of Aphrike was verye well called helth and the Sacrament of Christes body called lyfe as in whiche God geueth helthe and lefe if we worthely vse them Thordinance of these sacraments is goddes worke the verye author of them who as he is himselfe vniforme as sainct Iames Iacob 1. sayth without alteration so as Dauid sayth his workes be true whiche is asmuch as vniforme for truth and vniforme answerith together As God is all goodnes so all his workes be good So as consideryng the substaunce of goddes workes and ordinauces as they be themselfe they be always vniforme certain and true in ther substaÌ„ce as God ordred them Among men for whom they be wrought and ordred ther is variete good men euell men worthy vnworthy but as sainct Paule sayeth there is but one Ephe. 4 lorde one fayth one Baptisme And the parable of the sower whiche Christe declared Mat. 5. himselfe sheweth a dyuersite of the groundes where the seed dyd fall but the sede was all one that dyd fall in the good grownde and that did fal in the noughty grownde but yt fructified onely in the good grownde whiche seede Christe calleth his worde And in the sixt of sainct Iohn sayeth Ioan. 6. his worde is spirite and lyfe so as by the teachyng of Christ spirite and lyfe maye fal vpon noughty men although for theire malice it carieth not nor fructifieth not in them And sainct Augustine accordyng hereunto In IoaÌ„ tract 27 noteth howe Christes wordes be spirite and life although thou dost carnally vnderstand them and hast no frute of them yet so they be spirite and life but not to the wherby appeareth the substaunce of gods ordynaunce to be one though we in the vsyng of it vary The promyses of God can not be disapointed by mannes infidelite as S. Paule saith which place Luther allegeth Rom. 3. to shewe the vnitie in the substaÌ„ce of Baptisme whither it be ministred to good or euell But S. Paule to the CorinthiaÌ„s declareth it 2. Cor. 2 notably in these wordes We be the good sauor of Christ in theÌ„ that be salued them that perishe Here S. Paule noteth the sauor good and one to diuerse men but after the diuersite in men of diuerse effectes in them that is to saye the sauor of life and the sauor of deathe whiche sayng of S. Paule the greke scolies gathered by Occumenius open and declare with similitudes in nature very aptely The dowe they say and the betel shall feade both vpon one oyntemeÌ„â— and the betel dye of it and the done strenghthened by it The diuersite in theffecte folouing of the diuersite of them that eate and not of that is â—aten whiche is alway one Accordyng herevnto S. Augustine againste the Donatistes geueth for a rule the sacrameÌ„tes to be one in all although they be not one that receiue vse them And therfore to knytte vp this matter for the purpose I entende and wryte it For wemust considre the substance of the visible SacrameÌ„t of Christes body and bloud to be always as of it selfe it is by Christes ordinaunce in the vnderstandyng whereof this auctor maketh variauÌ„ce and wold haue it by Christes ordinauÌ„ce but a figure which he hath not proued but and he had prowed it then is it in substaunce but a figure and but a figure to good men For it must be in substaunce one to good and bad and so neyther to good nor bad this SacrameÌ„t is otherwise dispensed then it is truely taught to be by preachyng Wherfore if it be more then a figure as it is in deade if by Christes ordynance it hath preseÌ„t vnder the forme of those visible sygnes of the fourme of bread and wyne the very body and bloud of Christ as hath been truly taught hitherto Then is the substaunce of the Sacrament one always as the oyntement was whether doues eate of it or betels And this Issue I ioyne with this An issue auctor that he shall not be able by any learnyng to make any diuersite in the substaunce of this sacrament what soeuer diuersite folowe in theffect For the diuersite of theffect is occasioned in them that receyue as before is proued And theÌ„ to anuswere this auctor I say that onely good men eate and drinke the body and bloud of Christ spiritually as I haue declared but al good euel receiue the visible Sacrament of that substaunce God hath ordeyned it whiche in it hathe no variance but is all one to good and euel And as for the Scriptures and doctours which this auctor allegeth to proue that onely good men receyne the body and bloud of Christ I grant it without contention speakyng of spitituall manducation and with lyuely faythe without the Sacrament But in the visible Sacrament euell men receyue the same that good men do for the substance of the Sacrament is by good ordinance all one And if this auctor would vse for a proufe that in the Sacrament Christes verye bodye is
the death of Christ for so Christ wolde haue his death continually expressed till his cumminge And if sainct Hierome with other shoulde haue ment of the eatinge of Christ as he sitteth in heauen reigninge this distinction of Christes flesh were an idle mattier and oute of purpose to compare the distinction in it to be like the dinstinction of our flesh to entre into heauen and not to entre in to heauen the same and not the same And thus I saye that this place of sainct Hierome sheweth so euidently both his and sainct Augustines fayth that writ at the same tyme as there cannot be desired a more euident matter But to retourne to saincte Augustine touchinge adoration if the very flesh of Christe were not in the Sacrament truely present whiche is as moche to saye as in substaunce present if it were not in deade present that is to saye reallye present if it wer not corporallye preseÌ„t that is to saye the very body of Christe there present god and man If thiese truthes consentinge in one were not there saincte Augustine wolde neuer haue spoken of adoracion there Nomore he doth sayth this auctor there but in heaueÌ„ let sainct Augustines wordes quod I be indge whiche be thiese no man eatith that fleshe but he firste worshipith it It is founde out howe suche a 98. Psal fote stole of the lordesfote sholde be worshipped not onely that we do not sinne in worshippinge but we do sinne in not worshippinge it Thiese be saincte Augustines wordes whiche before caÌ„not be draiwen to an vnderstandinge of the worshippinge of Christes flesh in heauen where it remayneth coÌ„tinuallye glorified and is of all men Christened coÌ„tinually worshipped For as sainct Poule sayth Christe is so e 〈…〉 that euery range shuld coÌ„fess that oure 〈◊〉 Christieis in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 glory of his father So 〈◊〉 the 〈…〉 of Christe there in thaâ—â— are 〈◊〉 glory 〈…〉 re he reigneth hath neither afore â—e after but an euer continuall worshipping in glory Wherfore sainct Augustine speakinge of a before muste be vnderstanded of the worshipping of Christes flessh preseÌ„t in the Sacrament as in the dispensation of his humilite whiche Christe cessith not to do reigninge in glory for although he hathe fynished his humble patible coÌ„uersation yet he coÌ„tinueth his humble dispensation in the parfection of his mystycall body and as he is our inuisible priest for euer and our aduocate with his father and so for vs to him a mediator to whoÌ„ he is equall so dothe he vouchesaulf in his supper which continueth to make an effectuall remembraunce of his offringe for vs of the new testament coÌ„firmed in his blond and by his power makith himselfe present in this visible Sacrament to be therin of vs truely eaten and his bloud truely droncken not onely in faythe but with the truth and ministerie of our bodely mouth as god hath willed and commanded vs to do whichâ— pre 〈…〉 of Christe in this 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 to releaue vs 〈◊〉 vs spiritually we 〈◊〉 〈…〉 Augustine sayed before we â—ake we 〈◊〉 syne 〈…〉 ing but we 〈…〉 not adoring remembringe the diuine nature vnite to Christs flesh and therfore of flesh not seuerid from the godhed which admonishmeÌ„t of sainct Augustine declarith he ment not of the worshippinge of Christs flesh in heauen where can be no daungier of suche a thought where all tungs confesse Christe to be in the glory of his father of which christ as he is there in glory continually to be worshhipped it were a colde sayinge of saincte Augustine to saye we do not sinne in worshippinge Christ in heauen but synne in not worshippinge as though any coulde haue dowbted whither Christ shulde be worshipped in his humanite in heauen beinge inseperable vnite to the diuinite And when I saye in his humanite I speake not properly as that misterie requireth for as Christs person is but one of two perfite natures so the adoration is but one as Cyrill declareth it and therfore abhorreth thadition of a syllable to speake of coadoration And will this auctor attribute to sainct Augustine such a grossnesse to haue written and giuen for a lesson that no man synneth to worshippe Christs flesh in heaueÌ„ reiguinge in glory wherfore takinge this to be soo far from all probabilite I sayde before these wordes of sainct Augustine cannot be drawen with any teynters to stretche so far as to reache to heauen where euery Christen man knowith and professith the worshippinge of Christ in glory as they be taught also to worshippe him in this dispe 〈…〉 tion of 〈◊〉 humilitie when he maketh present himselfe in this Sacrament whom we should not receyue into oure mouth before we adore him and by sainct Augustines rule we not onely not sinne in adoringe but also synne in not adoringe him And for the more manifeste coÌ„firmation that saincte Augustine ought thus to be vnderstanded I shall bringe in sainct Ambrose saynge of whom it is probable S. Augustine to haue learned that he writethe in this matter sainct Ambrose wordes in his Ambrosi de spuÌ„ caÌ„cto libr. 3. cap. 12. booke de spiritu sancto lib. 3. cap. 12. Non mediocris igitur questio ideo diligentius coÌ„sideremus quid sit scabelluÌ„ Legimus enim alibi Caelum mihi thronus terra auteÌ„ scabellum pedum meorum Sed nec terra adoranda nobis quia creatura est dei videamus tamen ne terram illam dicat adorandam propheta quam dominus Iesus in carnis assumptione suscepit Itaque per scabellum terra iutelligatur per terram autem caro christi quam hodie quoque in mysteriis adoramus quam apostoli in Domino Iesu vt supra diximus adoraruut neque emÌ„ diuisus christus sed vnus whiche wordes may be englished thus It is therfore no meane question and therfore we shoould the more diligently consyder what is the foote stoole For we reade in an other place heauen is my throne and the earth the foote stoole of my feete But yet the earth is not to be worshipped of vs bicause it is a creature of god And yet let vs see thoughe leste the prophete meane that earth to be worshipped whiche oure Lorde Iesus toke in the takinge of fleshe So then by the fote stole let the earthe be vnderstanded and then by the earth the flesh of Christ vhiche we do nowe Worshippe also in the mysteries and whiche the apposteles as we haue before saide worshipped in oure lorde I hesu for Christe is not deuided but one Hitherto S. Ambrose whereby maye appere howe saincte Ambrose and sainct Augustine toke occasioÌ„ to open there fayth and doctrine touchinge adoracion vppon discussion of the self same wordes of the prophete dauid â–ª And S. Ambrose expressely notith oure adoracion in the mysteries where we worshippe christes flesh I nuisiblie present as the appostelles did when Christe was visibly present with theÌ„ And thus with thiese so playne wordes of
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„