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
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