¶ An explicatioÌ„ and assertion of the true Catholique fayth touchyng the moost blessed Sacrament of the aulter with confutacion of a booke written agaynst the same Made by Steuen Byshop of Wynchester and exhibited by his owne hande for his defence to the kynges maiesties Commissioners at Lambeth Anno. 1551. ¶ Certayne faultes escaped in the prentyng The rest thou mayst geÌ„tle reader easely correcte thy selfe Leafe Pag. Thelyne â—o 2. 2. pag. Lin. 15. for yet it shuld read yet if it shuld 7 1 penul for to purpose read to the purpose 21 1 30 for accasion reade occasion 25 2 29 for dimishe reade diminishe 52 1 25 for shepe reade slepe 42 1 23 for coÌ„municaÌ„do read coÌ„municandis 54 1 13 for manifestye reade manifested 54 1 14 for exhibetie reade exhibited 55 1 19 for enforeth reade enforceth 59 1 20 for Tubax reade Tuba 62 1 13 for fram reade â—rame 81 1 3 for cunclusion reade conclusion 81 2 20 for pretens reade presence 81 1 30 for freundes reade frendes 81 1 31 for possumus reade polluimus 88 1 22 for cratures reade creatures 88 1 24 for entrated reade intreated 88 2 3 for lake read loke 88 2 6 for fede read fed 90 2 6 for speake read spake 91 2 30 for andeleth read handeleth 92 1 8 for hahing read hauyng 92 1 10 for sumuch read so muche 92 1 12 for ityn read it 92 1 15 for wrere read were 92 1 15 for â—e read be 94 1 1 for Ethinkes read Ethnikes 94 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for af read of 96 1 〈◊〉 for 〈…〉 se read likewise 96 2 â—4 〈◊〉 read geueth 97 2 10 for extlude read exclude 105 1 1 for auctors read auctor 106 2 16 for this read these 107 1 3 for commency read commenly 110 1 6 for hatue read hath 119 1 31 for deipara 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deipara 121 2 26 for mage read image 126 2 18 for dowe read doue 131 2 10 for ther read thre 131 2 22 for we read me 134 1 4 for which read with 134 2 5 for obdy read body 136 1 11 for improw read improue 136 1 21 for circuÌ„staÌ„ce pÌ„seÌ„t read circuÌ„staÌ„ce is pÌ„seÌ„t 136 1 23 for supernaturally read naturally 137 1 4 for endureth read abhorâ—ith 138 2 1 for disorowe read improue 142 1 14 for godhod read godhed 143 2 2 for propositiones read ê“positionis 145 2 29 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 145 2 vlt. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 146 1 2 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 146 1 5 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 148 1 19 for saue read sawe 151 2 9 for Ephesine read Ephesin Finis Tabulae ¶ The preface FOr asmuch as amoÌ„ges other mine allegations for defence of my selfe in this matter moued agà ynst me by occasion of my Sermon made before the kynges moost excellent Maiestye touchyng partely the. Catholique faith of the moost precious sacrameÌ„t of thaltare which I see now impugned by a booke set furth vnder the name of my lord of Cauntorburies grace I haue thought expedieÌ„t for the better opening of the matter coÌ„sideryng I am by name touched in the sayde boke the rather to vtter partely that I haue to say by confutatioÌ„ of that boke wherein I thinke neuerthlesse noâ— requisite to directe any speache by speciall name to the person of him that is entitled autor because it may possible be that his name is abused wherwith to set furth the matter beyng him selfe of such dignitie auctorite in the coÌ„men welth as for that respect should be inuiolable For which coÌ„sideracion I shal in my speache of suche reproufe as the vntruth of the matter necessariely requireth omitting the speciall title of the auctor of the boke speake onely of thauctor in generall beyng a thing to me greatly to be me 〈…〉 ed at that such matter shuld nowe be published out of my lord of CaÌ„torburies penne but because he is a man I wil not wondre because he is such a maÌ„ I will reuereÌ„rly vse him forbearyng further to name him talke onely of the auctor by that generall name The confutation of the first booke THis auctor denieth the real preseÌ„ce of Christes most precious bodie bloud in the SacrameÌ„t This auctor denieth Transubstanciation This auctor denieth euil men to eat drinke the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament These thre denials only impugne tende to distroy that faith whiche this auctor termeth the popishe to erre in callyng nowe all popishe that beleue either of these thre articles by him denied the truth whereof shall hereafter be opened Nowe because fayth affirmeth some certaintee if we aske this auctor what is his fayth which he calleth true and catholique it is only this as we may lerne by his boke that in our Lordes supper be coÌ„secrate bread and wyne and deliuered as tokens onely to signify Christes bodie and bloud he calleth them holye tokens but yet noteth that the bread and wyne be neuer the holyer he saith neuerthelesse they be not bare tokeÌ„s and yet concludeth Christ not to be spiritually present in them but onely as a thing is present in that which signifieth it whiche is the nature of a bare token saiyng in another place ther is nothyng to be worshipped for ther is nothing present but in figure and in a signe whiche who so euer sayth calleth the thyng in dede absente And yet the auctor sayth Christe is in the man that worthely receaueth spiritually preseÌ„t who eateth of Christes fleshe and his bloud reignyng in heaueÌ„ whether the good beleuyng man ascendeth by his faith And as oure bodie is norished with the bread wyne receiued in the supper so the true beleuyng man is fedde with the bodie bloud of Christ And this is the summe of the doctrine of that faith whiche this auctor calleth the true catholique faith Nowe a catholique faith is an vniuersall faith taught and preached through all and so receaued and beleued agreablie and consonant to the scriptures testified by such as by all ages haue in their writynges geuen knowlege therof which be the tokens and markes of a true Catholique faith wherof no one can be founde in the faith this auctor calleth catholique Firste there is no scripture that in lettre mainteineth the doctrin of this auctorsboke For Christ saith not that the bread doth only signify his bodie absent nor sainct Paul sayth not so in any place ne any other canonical scripture declareth Christes wordes so As for the sence vnderstaÌ„dyng of Christes wordes there hath not been in any age any one approued and knowen learned maÌ„ that hath so declared expounded Christes wordes in his supper that the bread did onely signify Christes bodie the wyne his bloud as thynges absent And to the intent euery notable
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
in substance agreed with our hauyng al one Christ mediatour whiche they loked for to come we acknowledge to be already coÌ„me Come to come as S. Augustine sayth differeth But Christ is one by whom all was create mans fal repared from whom is all fedyng corporall spirituall in whom al is restored in heauen in earth In this fayth of Christ the fathers were fedde with heauenly spiritual foode whiche was the same with ours in respecte of the restitution by Christ redemption by them hoped whiche is atchieued by the mystery of the body and bloud of Christ by reason wherof I denye not but it may be sayd in a good sence howe they dyd eate the body and bloud of Christ before he was incarnate but as I sayd before scripture speaketh not so and it is no holsome facion of speache at this tyme which furthereth in sounde to the eares of the rude the pestilent heresy wherin Ione of kent obstinately Ione of KeÌ„tes obstinacye dyed that is to say that Christ toke nothyng of the virgyn but brought his body with him froÌ„ aboue beyng a thyng worthy to be noted how the old heresi deniyng the true takyng of the fleshe of Christ in the virgyns woÌ„de at the same tyme to reuiue When the true deliuerance of Christes fleshe in the holy supper be of vs eateÌ„ is also denyed For as it is a mere truth without figure yet an high mistery godsworke in thincarnatioÌ„ of Christ wherin our fleshe was of Christ truly takeÌ„ of the virgyns substance So is it a mere truth without figure yet an high mistery gods worke in the geuyng of the same true fleshe truly to be in the supper eateÌ„ WheÌ„ I exclude figure in the Sacrament I meane not of the visible parte whiche is called a figure of the celestial inuisible parte whiche is truly there without figure wherby to empayre the truth of that preseÌ„ce which I adde to auoyde cauillatioÌ„ And to make an ende of this coÌ„parison this I say that this article declareth waÌ„tones to make a differeÌ„ce in wordes where none is in the sence rightly taken witâ— a noueltie of speache not necessary to be vttred nowe They say that the body of Christ is euery day many The auctor tymes made as often as there be masâ—es sayd and that then and there he is made of breade and wyne we say that Christes body was neuer but ones made and then not of the nature substaunce of bread and wyne but of the substaunce of his blessed mother The body of Christ is by goddes omnipotency The answer who so worketh in his worde made present vnto vs at suche tyme as the churche prayeth it may please him so to do whiche prayour is ordred to be made in the booke of common prayour now set forth Wherin we require of God the creatures of bread and wyne to be sanctified and to be to vs the body and bloud of Christ whiche they can not be onles God worketh it make them so to be In whiche mistery it was neuer taught as this auctor willyngly mysreporteth that Christes most precious body is made of the matter of bread but in that ordre exhibitie made present vnto vs by coÌ„uersion of the substaunce of bread into his precious body not a new body made of a newe matter of bread wyne but a newe presence of the body that is neuer old made preseÌ„t there wher the substaÌ„ce of bread wine was before So as this coÌ„parison of differeÌ„ce is mere wraÌ„glyng so euideÌ„t as it nedeth no further answer but a note â—o how they be not ashamed to trifle in so great a matter without cause by wrong termes to bring the truth in slaunder if it were possible May not this be accompted as a parte of Gods punishement for men of knowlege to wryte to the people such matter seriously as were not tollerable to be by a scoffer diuised in a play to supply when his felowe had forgotten his parte They say that the masse is a sacrifice satisfactory for synne by the deuocion of the priest that offreth The auctor and not by the thyng that is offred But we say that their â—aiyngs a most haynous yea and detestable errour agaynst the glorye of Christ For the satisfaction of our synnes is not the deuotion nor offryng of the priest but thonly host and satisfaction for al the synnes of the world is the death of Christ and thoblation that Christ himselfe offred ones vpon the crosse and neuer but ones nor neuer none but he And therfore that oblation whiche the priestes make dayly in their papisticall masses can not be satisfaction for other mennes synnes by the priestes deuotion but is a mere illusion and subtyll craft of the deuill wherby Antichrist hath many yeres blinded and deceyued the world This comparison is out of the matter of the presence of Christes most precious body The answer in the Sacrament whiche presence this auctor in the first part of his coÌ„parison semeth by implication to graunte when he findeth faulte that the priestes deuotion should be a sacrifice satisfactorie and not the thyng that is offred whiche maner of doctrine I neuer red and I thinke it myselfe it ought to be improued if any such there be to make the deuotioÌ„ of the priest a satisfactioÌ„ For vndoubtedly Christ is our satisfactioÌ„ wholly fully who hath payde our hole debte to god the father for thappesing of his iust wrath against vs and hath caÌ„celled the byll obligatory as S. Paule sayth that was against vs. For further openyng wherof if it be asked howe he satisfyed we aniwere as we be taught by the scriptures by thaccomplishement of the wyl of his father in his innoceÌ„t suffryng his willyng obedieÌ„t suffering the miseryes of this worlde without synne the violent persecution of the worlde euen to the death of the crosse sheddyng of his most precious bloud Wherin was perfited the willyng sacrifice that he made of himselfe to God the father for vs of whom it was writen in the beginnyng of the booke that he should be the body perfyte accoÌ„plishmeÌ„t of al sacrifices as of whom all other sacrifices before were shadowes figures And here is to be coÌ„sidered howe the obedient wyl in Christes sacrifice is specially to be noted who suffred because he would Whiche S. Paule setteth forth in declaratioÌ„ of Christes humilitie And although that willyng obedieÌ„ce was ended perfited on the crosse to the whiche it coÌ„tinued froÌ„ the begining by reasoÌ„ wherof thoblatioÌ„ is in S. Paules speach attribute ther vnto yet as in the sacrifice of abrahaÌ„ wheÌ„ he offred Isaac the ernest wil of offryng was accoÌ„pted for the offryng in dede wherpoÌ„ it is sayd in scripture that AbrahaÌ„ offred Isaac the declaration of the wil of AbrahaÌ„ is called the offryng So the declaration of Christes wil
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
supper to their coÌ„dempnacion only And the learned men in Christes churche say that the ignorauÌ„ce want of obseruacion of these thre maner of eatynges causeth the errour in thunderstandyng of the scriptures suche fathers saiynges as haue written of the Sacrament And when the churche speaketh of these thre maner of eatynges what an impudeÌ„cy is it to say that the church teacheth good meÌ„ only to eat the body of Christ and drinke his bloud when they receyue the Sacrament beyng the truth otherwise and yet a diuersitie there is of eatyng spiritually onely eatyng spiritually sacramentally because in the supper they receyue his very fleshe and very bloud in dede with theffectes of all graces and giftes to suche as receyue it spiritually and worthely where as out of the supper wheÌ„ we eat only spiritually by faith God that worketh without his sacrameÌ„tes as semeth to him doth releaue those that beleue and trust in him suffreth them not to be destitute of that is necessary for them wherof we may not presume but ordenarely seke god wher he hath ordred himself to be sought there to assure our selfe of his couenauntes and promyses whiche be most certaynely annexed to his sacrameÌ„tes wherunto we ought to geue most certayne trust confideÌ„ce wherfore to teache the spirituall manducacioÌ„ to be equal with the spiritual manducation sacramental also that is to dimishe theffecte of the institution of the SacrameÌ„t whiche no Christen man ought to do They say that the body of Christ that is in the The 〈◊〉 SacrameÌ„t hath his owne propre tourme quantitie We say that Christ is there sacramentally and spiritually without fourme or quantitie In this coÌ„parison is both sleight crafte The answer In the first part of it which is that they say there is mention of the body of Christ which is propre of thumanitie of Christ In the seconde parte whiche is of we say there is no mention of Christes body but of Christ who in his diuine nature is vnderstanded present without a body Nowe the Sacrament is institute of Christes body and bloud and because the diuine nature in Christicontinueth the vnitie with the body of Christ we must nedes confesse where the body of Christ is there is whole Christ God man And whe we speake of Christes body we must vnderstande a true body whiche hath both fourme and quantitie and therfore suche as confesse the true Catholique fayth they affirme of Christes body all truth of a naturall body whiche although it hath all those truthes of fourme and quantitie yet they say Christes body is not present after the maner of quantitie nor in a visible fourme as it was conuersaunt in this present life but that there it is truely in the SacrameÌ„t the very true body of Christ which good men beleue vpon the credite of Christ that sayd so knowlege therwith the maner of that preseÌ„ce to be an high mystery and the maner so spirituall as the â—arnall man can not by discourse of reason reache it but in his discourse shal as this auctor doth thinke it a vanitie and folishenesse Whiche folishenesse neuerthelesse ouercommeth the wisdome of the worlde And thus I haue opened what they say on the Catholique parte Now for the other parte wherof this auctor is and with his fayth we saye the wordes seme to imply that Christes humayne body is not in the SacrameÌ„t in that it is sayd Christ to be there sacramentally spirituallye without fourme or quantitie whiche saiyng hath no scripture for it For the scripture speaketh of Christs body which was betrayed for vs to be geuen vs to be eaten Where also Christes diuinitie is present as accompaniyng his humanitie which humanitie is specially spoken of the presence of whiche humanite when it is denyed then is there no text to proue the presence of Christes diuinitie specially that is to say otherwise then it is by his omnipotencye presente euery where And to conclude this piece of comparison this maner of speache was neuer I thinke redde that Christ is present in the SacrameÌ„t without fourme or quantitie And S. Paule speaketh of a fourme in the godhead Qui quum in forma dei esset Who Phil. 2. when he was in the fourme of God So as if Christ be present in the Sacrament without all fourme then is he there neither as God nor man whiche is a straunger teachyng theÌ„ yet hath been heard or redde of but into such absurdities in dede do they fall who entreat irreuerently and vntruely this high misterie This is here worthy a speciall note how by the maner of the speache in the latter parte of this difference the teachyng semeth to be that Christ is spiritually present in the Sacrament because of the worde there which thou reader mayest compare how it agreeth with the rest of this auctors doctrine Let vs go to the next They say that the fathers and Prophetes of the The auctor old testament did not eate the body nor drinke the bloud of Christ We say that they did eat his body and drinke his bloud although he wer not yet borne nor incarnated This comparison of difference is clerkely The answer conceyued as it wer of a ryddle wherin nay yea when they be opened agree consent The fathers did eate Christes body drinke his bloud in truth of promyse whicht was effectual to theÌ„ of redemption to be wrought not in truth of presence as we do for confirmation of redemption already wrought They had a certayne promyse and we a certayne present payment they did eate Christ spiritually beleuing in him that was to come but they did not eate Christes body present in the Sacrament sacramentally and spiritually as we do Their sacramentes were figures of the thynges but out conteyne the very thinges And therfore albeit in a sence to the learned men it may be verefyed that the fathers did eat the body of Christ drink his bloud yet there is no suche forme of wordes in scripture it is more agreable to the simplicitie of scripture to say the fathers before Christes natiuite did not eate the body and bloud of Christ whiche body bloud Christ himselfe truely toke of the body of the virgin Marie For although S. Paule in the tenth to the Corinthians be so vnderstanded of some as the fathers should eat the same spiritual meat drinke the same spiritual drinke that we do to which vnderstaÌ„dyng al do not agree yet folowyng that vnderstaÌ„dyng we may not so presse the words as there should be noÌ„ differeÌ„ce at al this one special differeÌ„ce S. Augustine noteth how their sacramentes conteyned the promyse of that whiche in our sacramentes is geueÌ„ Thus he sayth this is euideÌ„t of it selfe how to vs in the holy supper Christ sayth This is my body that shall be betrayed for you Take eate which was neuer sayd to the fathers although their fayth
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
called it wherin also remaynethe true sauor and taste withe true propriete to corrupte or putrifie and also nurrishe God for ordrynge fayth of the true manhode in Chrâ—ste is truely byleued by true preachinge ther of and by the scriptures not by the outwarde senses of mene which al togither we must confesse coulde be no certaine ineuiâ—able prouf ther of And therfore Christe appearinge to his disciples goinge in to EmaÌ„s opened the scriptures to them for the prouf of his deathe that he suffred as very man and yet he vsed also in some parte to preache to there senses with sensible exhibition of himself vnto theÌ„ and so all Christes doinges which were moste true do beare testimonie to the trueth but in there degree of testimonie and the fealinge of sainct Thomas beinge as sainct Gregorie saithe miraculeuse serueth for prouf of an other thinge that goddes workein miracle dothe not empaire the truth of the thinge wrought and so sainct Thomas touched then Christ as truely by miracle after his resurrection in his bodye glorified as if he had touched his bodye before glorificacion Fynally in Christes actes or his ordinaunces be no illusions all is truth and perfite trueth and our senses in the visible formes of bread and wine be not illuded but haue there proper obiectes in those accidentes and reason in carnall vnderstandinge brought and subdued in obsequie to fayth doth in the estimacion of the hoste coÌ„secrate yelde to faith accordinge wheâ—unto we confeâ—â—ruely the same to be the body of Christe Where this auctors woulde al the Papistes to laye their heades together c. I knowe no suche Papistes but this I saye without further counsaile whiche this auctor with al his counsaile shall not auoyde We beleue most certainely the resurrection of our flesh and be persuaded by Catholique teachyng that the same flesh by participation of Christes godly flesh in the Sacrament shal be made incorruptible Ioan. 6. yet not after the iudgemeÌ„t of our senses conclusions gathered of them consideryng the maner of the continuall consumptioÌ„ of the sayd bodies wherof sum philosophers haue at lenght after their reasoÌ„ declared their mynde whom Christen men coÌ„temâ—e withal thexperieÌ„ce of senses which they allege being vehemeÌ„t in that matter we reade in scripture of the fedyng of Angels wheÌ„â—oth receyued Gen. 18. them I will spend no mo wordes herein but hauyng auoyded this authors reasonyng against traÌ„substantiacioÌ„ Now let vs examine his authorities First he begynneth with Iustine the Martyr Whose words be not truly by this authour here reported which be these truely translate out of the greke When the Iustinê° Prieast hath ended his thankes geuyng and prayours all the people hath sayde Amen they whom we cal deacons geue to euery one then present a parte of the breade and of the wyne and water consecrated and cary parte to those that be absente this is that foode whâ—che is amonge vs called Eucharistia wherof it is lawfull for no man to be partaker except he be persuaded those thinges to be true that be taught vs and be baptized in the water of regeneracion in remissioÌ„ of synnes and ordreth his lifâ— after the maner whiche Christ hath taught For we do not take these for commen breade or dryncke but like as Iesus Christe our Sauyour incarnate by the worde of God had fleshe and bloud for our saluacion euen so we be taught the fode wherwith our fleshe and bloud be nourrisshed by alteracion when it is consecrate by the prayour of his worde to be the flesh and bloude of the same Iesus incarnate For the Apostelles in those there workes whiche be called Gospelles teache that Iesus dyd so commande them and after he had taken the breade and ended his geuyng tankes sayd do this in my remembraunce This is my body And like wise takyng the cuppe after he had geuen thankes sayde This is my bloud and dyd geue them to his Apostels onelye And here I make an issue with this author An issue that he wittyngly corrupteth Iustine in the allegacion of him who wryteth not in such forme of wordes as this authour allegeth owt of his seconde Appologie nor hath any suche speache The bread vvater and vvyne in this Sacrament ar meates ordeyned purposely to geue thankes to God and therfore be called Eucharistia nor hath not these wordes they be called the body and bloud of Christ but hath in playue wordes that we be taught this foode consecrate by gods worde to be the flesh and bloud of Christ as Christ in his incarnatioÌ„ toke flesh and bloud nor hath not this forme of wordes placed to haue that vnderstandyng hovve the same meate and drinke is chaunged into our fleshe and bloud for the wordes in Iustine speakyng of alteracion of the fode haue an vnderstandyng of the fobe as it is before the couse cracion shewyng how Christ vsed those creatures in this mysterie whiche by alteracion nurrish our flesh and bloud For the body of Christ which is the verye celestiall substauce of the hoste consecrate is not chaunged but without al alteracion spiritually nurrisheth the bodyes soules of them that worthely receyue the same to immortalite wherby appeareth this authors coÌ„clusion that bread vvyne remayne stil vvhich is turned into our flesh bloud is not deduced vpoÌ„ Iustines wordes truly vnderstanded but is a glose inuented by this auctor a peruertyng of Iustines words there true meaninges Whervpon I may saye conclude euen as this au ctor erreth in his reasonyng of mother wytte against transubstaÌ„tiacion eueÌ„ so erreth he in the first allegatioÌ„ of his auctorites by plaine mysceportynge let it be further named or thought on as the thinge deserueth Next Iustine is Iren in thallegatioÌ„ of whoÌ„ this auctor maketh also an vntrue report who hathe not this forme of wordes in the fourth boke contra ValeÌ„tinu that the bread wherin we geue thaÌ„kes vnto God although it be of the earth yet when the name of God is called vpon it is not then commen bread but the bread of thankes geuyng hauynge two thinges in it one earthely and the other heauenly This is Irene alleged by this auctor who I saye wryteth not in suche forme of wordes For his wordes be these Like as the bread which is of the earth receyuing the calling of God is now no commen bread but Eucharistia consistynge of two thynges earthely and heauenly so oure bodyes receyuynge Eucharistia be no more corrupâ—â—bâ—e This be Irenes wordes where Irene doth not call the bread receyuinge the callynge of God the bread of thankes geuyng but Eucharistia and in this Eucharistia he sheweth how that that he calleth the heauely thing is the body and bloud of Christ and therfore sayth in his first booke when the chalice mixt and the breade broken receyue the worde of God it is made Eucharistia of the body and bloud of Christ of whiche the substaunce of our fleshe is stayed and encreased
two persons and the Eutichians by confusion of the humaine nature Then cummeth Gelasius to the argument of example from the Sacrament of the bodye and bloude of Christ and noteth the person of Christ to be a principall mysterye and the Sacrament an image and similitude of that mysterye which sence his wordes muste nedes haue because he calleth Christe the principall mysterye and as in one place he sayth the image and similitude of the bodye and bloud of Christe so by and by he calleth the Sacramente the image of Christe And here the wordes image and similitude expresse the maner of presence of the truth of the thinges represented to be vnderstanded onely by faith as inuisibly present And Saincte Ambrose by this worde mage signifieth thexhibition of truth to man in this life And to shewe the Sacrament to be suche an image as conteyneth the verye truthe of the thinge whereof it is the image Gelasius declareth in framynge his argumente in these wordes As breade and wyne go into the diuine substaunce the holy gooste bringyng it to passe and yet remayne in the proprietie of there nature so that principall mysterye those natures remayninge whereof it is declared vnto vs true and hole Christ to continue In these wordes of Gelasius where he saith the breade and wyne go into the diuine substaunce is playnely declared the presence of the diuine substaunce and this diuine substaunce can signifie none other substaunce but of the body and bloude of Christe of whiche heauenly nature and earthely nature of the breade and wyne consisteth this Sacrament the image of the principall mysterye of Christes person And therfore as in the image be two diuers natures and different remayninge in there proprietie So likewise in the person of Christ whiche is the conclusion of Gelasius argumente should remayne two natures And here were a greate daunger if we shoulde saye that Christes body whiche is the celestiall nature in the Sacramente were there present but in a figure for it shoulde then implye that in Christes personne the principall mysterye it were also but in a figure And therfore as in the mysterye of Christes personne ordened to redeme vs beynge the principal mistery there is no figure but truth in consideracion of the presens of the two natures wherof Christ is So in the SacrameÌ„t beyng a misterye ordred to feade vs the image of that principal mistery ther is not an onely figure but truth of the presens of the natures earthely celestiall I speake of the truth of presence and meane suche an integritie of the natures present as by the rules of our faith is consonante and agreable to that mistery that is to say in the person of Christ perfit God perfit maÌ„ perfite God to be incarnate perfit man to be deitate as Gregory Nazianzene termeth it In the SacrameÌ„t the visible matter of the earthely creature in his proprietie of nature for the vse of significacioÌ„ is necessariely required also according to the truth of Christ his wordes his very body bloud to be inuisibly with integrite present which Gelasius calleth the diuine substaunce And I thinke it worthy to be noted that Gelasius speking of the bread wyne reciteth not precisely the substaÌ„ce to remaine but saith the substaÌ„ce or nature which nature he calleth after proprietie the disiuÌ„ctiue may be verified in the last it is not necessary thexaÌ„ples to be in al partes equal as rusticus diacomâ—s handleth it very lernedly coÌ„tra Acephalos And Gelasius in opening the mystery of the Sacrament speaketh of traÌ„sitioÌ„ of the bread wyne into the godly substaÌ„ce whiche worde transition is mete to expresse transubstantiacioÌ„ therfore S. Thomas expressed traÌ„substantiacioÌ„ with the same word transire writyng Dogma datur Christianis quod in carneÌ„ traÌ„sit panis vinuÌ„ in sanguineÌ„ But in the mysterie of Christes person there is no traÌ„sition of the deitie into the humanite or humanite into the deitie but onely assumption of the humanite with adunacioÌ„ of those two natures of two perfit natures so differeÌ„t one person one Christ who is God incarnate man deitate as Gregory Nazianzene saith withoutmutation coÌ„uetsion trausitioÌ„ transelementation or transubstantiation whiche wordes be propre special to expresse howe Eucharistia is coÌ„stitute of two distreÌ„t natures an heauenly earthly nature a mystery institute after the exaÌ„ple of the principal mysterie wherwith to feade vs with the substaÌ„ce of the same glorious body that hath redemed vs. And because in the coÌ„stitution of this mysterie of the sacrameÌ„t there is a traÌ„sitioÌ„ of the earthly creature into the diuine substaÌ„ce as Gelasius S. Thomas terme it mutacion as Cyprian Ambrose teache it which Theophilactus expresseth by the worde traÌ„selemeÌ„tacion Emissen by the conuersion all these wordes reduced into there one propre sence expressed in one worde of transubstantiacion it cannot be coÌ„uenient where the maner of the constitution of two mysteries be so different there to require a like remayning of the two natures whereof the mysteryes be In the mysterye of Christes person because there was not of any of the two different natures eythex mutation transition conuersioÌ„ or trauselementation but onely assumption of the humanitie and adunation in the virgyns wombe we cannot say the godhed to haue suffred in that mysterye which were an absurditie but to haue wrought the assumption and adunation of mans nature with it nor mans nature by that assumption and adunation diminished and therfore professe truly Christ to be hole God and whole man and God in that mysterye to be made man and man God where as in the Sacrament because of transition mutation and conuersion of there earthely creatures wrought by the holy goost which declareth those earthly creatures to suffer in this conuersion mutation and transition we knowledge no assumption of those creatures or adunation with the heauthly nature and therfore saye not as we do in the principal mysterye that eche nature is holly the other and as we professe God incarnate so the bodye of Christe breaded and as man is deitate so the bread is corporate whiche we should say if the rules of our fayth could permitte the constitution of eche mysterye to be taught a lyke which the truth of gods morde doth not suffre Wherfore although Gelasius and other argue froÌ„ the Sacrament to declare the mysterye of Christes person yet we maye not presse the argument to distroy orcoÌ„founde the proprietie of eche mysterye and so violate the rules of our fayth and in the authours not presse the wordes otherwise then they maye agree with the Catholique teachynge as those did in the wordes of Cyrill when he speake of nature and subsistence whereof I made mention before to be remembred here in Gelasius that we presse not the worde substance and nature in him but as maye agree with the transition he speaketh of by which word other expresse
a man examyne himselfe and so eate of the bread and 1. Cor. 11 drynke of the cuppe for he that eateth vnworthely c. These wordes of examinyng and so eatyng declare the thyng to be one ordred to be eaten and all the care to be vsed on our syde to eate worthely or els Saincte Paule had not sayd and so eate And when Saincte Paule â—ayth eate iudgemente and this auctour wyll remembre himselfe he muste call iudgement the effecte of that is eaten and not the thyng eaten For iudgement is neyther spirituall meate nor corporall but the effecte of the eatynge of Christe in euell men who is saluation to good and iudgement to euel And therfore as good men eatyng Christ haue saluation so euell men eatyng Christ haue condempnation and so for the diuersitie of the eaters of Christes bodye foloweth as they be worthye and vnworthy the effecte of condempnacion or lyfe Christes Sacrament and his worke also in the substance of that Sacrament beyng alwayes one and what so euer this auctor talketh otherwise in this matter is mere trifles And yet he goth about because he will make all thynge clere to answer suche authours as the Papistes he sayth brynge for there Augusti purpose And first he begynneth with sainct Augustine who wryteth as playuelye against this auctours mynde as I would haue diuised it if I had no conscience of truth more then I see sum haue and might with a secrete wishe haue altred S. Augustineas I had liste And therfore here I make a playne issue with this auctour that in the serchyng An issue of Sainct Augustine he hath trusted his maÌ„ or his frende ouer negligentely in so great a matter or he hath willyngly gone aboute to deceyue the reader For in the place of Saint Augustine againste the Donatistes alleged here by this auctour whiche he would with the rest assoyle Sainct Augustine hath these formal wordes in Latyn Corpus Domini Augu. de baptis li. 5. ca. 8. sanguis Domini nihilominus erat etiam illis quibus dicebat Apostolus qui manducat indigne iudicium sibi maÌ„ducat bibit Which wordes be thus much in English It was neuertheles the body of our Lorde the bloud of our Lorde also vnto them to whom thappostel sayde he that eateth vnworthely eateth and drynketh iudgement to himselfe These be Saincte Augustines wordes who writeth notably and euidently that it was neuertheles the body and bloud of Christ to them that receyued vnworthely declaryng that their vnworthynes doth not aultre the substance of that Sacrament and doth vs to vnderstande therwith the substaunce of the sacrameÌ„t to be the body and bloud of Christ and neuerthelesse so though the receyuers be vnworthy wherin this auctor is so ouersene as I thinke there was neuer learned maÌ„ before that durst in a comen welthe where lerned men be publish suche an vntruth as this is to be answered in a tong that men knowe Yet Peter Martyr wrote in Latyn and reioyseth not I thinke to haue his lyes in English I will bryng in here an other place of sainct Augustine to this purpose Illud etiam De verbis dnÌ„i Ser. 11. quod ait qui manducat carnem meam bibit sanguinem meum in me manet ego in illo quomodo intellecturi sumus Nunquid etiam illos sic poterimus accipere de quibus dixit Apostolus quod iudicium sibi manducant bibant quum ipsam carnem manducent ipsum sangninem bibant Nuuquid Iudas Magistri venditor traditor impius quamuis primum ipsum manibus eius confectum sacramentum carnis sanguinis eius cuÌ„ caeteris discipulis sicut apertius Lucas Euange lista declarat manducaret biberet mansit in Christo Aut Christus in eo Multi denique qui vel corde ficto carnem illam manducant sanguinem bibunt vel cum manducauerint biberint apostatae fiunt nunquid manent in Christo aut Christus in eis Sed profecto est quidam modus manducandi illam carnem bibendi illum sanguinem quomodo qui manducauerit biberit in Christo manet Christus in eo Non ergo quocunque modo quisque manducauerit carnem Christi biberit sanguiuem Christi manet in Christo in illo christus Sed certo quodam modo quem modum vtique ipse videbat quando ista dicebat The englisse of these wordes is this That same that he also sayth who eateth my flesh and drynketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him howe shall we vnderstande it May we vnderstande also them of whome the Apostle spake that they did eate to them selfe and drynke iudgement when they did eate the same flesh and drinke the same bloud the fleshe it selfe the bloud it selfe did not Iudas the mycked seller and betrayer of his maister wheÌ„ he did eate and drynke as Lucas the euangeliste declareth the first Sacrament of the flesh and bloud of Christ made with his owne handes dwell in Christe or Christe in him Finally many that with a fayned hearte eate that flesh and drynke the bloud or when they haue eaten and dronken become apostatas do not they dwell in Christ or Christ in them But vndowtedly there is a certayne maner of eatyng that fleshe and drynkyng that bloud after whiche maner who so euer eateth and drynketh dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him Therfore not in what so euer maner any man eateth the fleshe of Christ and drynketh the bloud of Christ he dwelleth in christ and Christ in him but after a certayne maner whiche maner he sawe when he sayde these wordes This is the sence of Saincte Augustines saiynge in Latyn wherby appeareth the fayth of Sainct Augustine to be in the Sacrament to be eaten and dronken very body and bloud of Christ which for the substance of the Sacrament euel men receyue as good men do that is to say as Sainct Augustin doth poynte it out by his wordes the same flesh and the same bloud of Christ with suche an expresse speache as he would exclude all difference that diuise of figure might imagine and therfore sayth ipsam car nem ipsum sanguinem Whiche signifyeth the selfe same in dead not by name onely as the auctor of the booke would haue Saincte Augustine vnderstanded and when that appeareth as it is moost manifeste that Iudas receyued the same beynge wycked that good men do howe the same is before the recept by gods omnipotencye present in the visible Sacrament and so not receyued by the onely instrument of fayth whiche in euell men is not lyuely but by the instrument of the mouthe wherein it entreth with the visible element And yet as Saincte Augustine sayth dwelleth not in him that so vnworthely receiueth because the effect of dwellyng of Christe is not in him that receyueth by suche a maner of eatyng as wycked men vse Wherby S. Augustine teacheth the diuerse effecte
substaunce of bread as in the soule of man both these chaunges be meruelous bothe be in the truth of there chaunge whervnto they be chaunged of like truthe and realite to be done in dede they resemble one an other in the secrecie of the mysterie and the ignoraunce of our sences for in neyther is any outwarde chaunge at all and therfore there was neuer man tryppyd himselfe more hansomely to take a fall then this auctour doth in this place not onely in corruptyng euydently and notably the words of Emissene with owâ— purpose wher by neuerthelesse shewed his good will but also by setting forth such matter as ouerturneth all his teachynge at ones For nowe thauctor must say the chaunge in mans soule by Bapâ—isme to be there made the sonne of God is but in figure and signification not true and reall in dede or els graunte the true Cathelique doctrine of the turne of the visible creatures in to the bodye and bloude of Christ to be likewise not in figure and significatioÌ„ but truly really and in dede And for the thyng chaunged as the soule of man in mannes inwarde nature is chaunged so the inwarde nature of the bread is changed And then is that euasion taken awaye whiche this authour vseth in an other place of Sacramentall chaunge whiche should be in the outwarde parte of the visible creatures to the vse of signification This author noteth thage of Emissen and I note with all howe playnely he writeth for confirmation of the Catholique teachynge who in dede because of his auncientie and playne writynge for declaracioÌ„ of the matter in forme of teachyng with owt conteÌ„tion is one whose authorite the churche hath much in allegation vsed to the conuiction of such as haue impugned the Sacrament eyther in truthe of the presence of Christes very body or transubstantiation for the speakynge of the inwarde chaunge doth poynte as it were the change of the substaunce of bread with resemblyng thervnto the soule of man changed in Baptisme This one authour not beynge of any reproued and of so many approued and by this in thallegacion after this maner corrupte might suffice for to conclude all brablyng agaynste the sacrament But I wil exameÌ„ mo particularities I haue before answered to Hilarie to Hilarie whom neuertheles I should aptely haue said sumwhat nowe to note howe he distincteth owtwardly inwardly by beleue corporal sight For owtwardly as Emissene saieth we â—e no chaunge and therfore we see after consecration as before whiche we may therfore call bread but we beleue that inwardly is whiche as Emissene saieth is the substance of the bodye of Christe whervnto the chaunge is made of the inwarde nature of bread as by the comparison of Emissen doth appeare Theise wordes of Epiphanius do Epiphanins playnely ouer turne this auctors doctrine of a figuratiue speache for a figure can not geue lyfe onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lyfe and the speache of this 〈◊〉 of the Sacrament doth necessaryly implye beary true presence of Christes bodye auctor or life And then as often as the authour is ouer throune in the truth of the presence so often is he by zuinglius rule ouerthrowen in traÌ„substanciation As for the name of bread is graunted because it was so and transubstantiation doth not take awaye but it is meate because of the visible matter remaynynge This sayinges be sought owt by this authour onely to wrangle not taken owt where the mysterie is declared and preached to be taught as a doctrine thereof but onely signified by the waye and spoken of vpon occasion the sence wherof faythfull men knowe otherwise then appeareth at the first readynges to the carnall man but by suche like speaches the Arrians impugned the diuinite of Christ Chrisostome speaketh in this place of Chrisostome wyne as Cyprian dyd before against those that offre no wyne but water Chrisostome saiethe thus Christ vsed wyne I graunte he did so For he dyd coÌ„secrate that creature as Emissene sayth turned it in the celebration dispensation of these mysteries But this sayng towcheth nothing the doctrine of traÌ„substantiatioÌ„ The second saying of Chrisostome which I neuer red but in Peter martyrs booke who saieth it is not printed this sentence toucheh this auctours doctrine muche If the breade by consecration be deliuered from the name of breade exalted to the name of our lordes body Nowe consider reader if this maner of speache by Chrisostome here meaneth an effectual namynge to make the substaunce of the body of Christ present as Chrisostome in his publique approued workes is vnderstaÌ„ded of all to teache then is the deliueraunce from the name of breade of like effecte to take a waye the reason of the name of bread whiche is the chaunge in substaunce therof Or if this auctor will say that by the name of breade Chrisostome vnderstaÌ„deth the bare name howe can that staÌ„de without reprouse of sainct Paule who after this authours mynde calleth it bread after consecration and so do many other by this authour alleged here percace may be saide what shuld I reason what he ment when he saieth playnely the nature of bread still remayneth To this I saie that as Chrisostome in this place of an epistell not published by credite saith that the nature of breade remayneth so Cyprian that was older then he saieth the nature of bread is chaunged which Chrisostome in his other workes by publique credite set a brode semeth not to denye Nowe the worde nature signifieth both the substaunce and also propriete of the nature The substaunce therfore after CypriaÌ„ by the worde of god is chaunged but yet the proper effecte is not chaunged but in th accidentes remayne with out illusion by whiche diuers signification acception of the worde nature both the sayinges of S. Cyprian and Sainct Chrisostome if this be his saying may be accorded and not with standynge the contrariete in lettre agre neuerthelesse in sence by twene themselfe and agree with the true doctrine of transubstantiacion Adde to this howe the wordes of Chrisostome next folowyng this sentence alleged by this auctor and as it semeth of purpose lefte here owt doth both confounde this authors enterprise and coÌ„firme the true doctrine whiche wordes be these and is not called two bodyes but one bodye of the sonne of God of Chrisostome I shall speake againe herafter Sainct Ambrose doth not as this author Ambrosius would haue it impugne transubstantiacion but confirmeth it most playnely because he teacheth the true preseÌ„ce of Christes body in the SacrameÌ„t whiche he sayth is by change and thynges still remayning and that maye be verified in the owtwarde visible matter that is to say the accideÌ„tes remayning with there propre effectes whiche therfore maye worthly be called thinges And here I wold aske this authour if his teachyng as he preteÌ„deth wer the catholique fayth the bread onely signified Christes bodye what should neade this force of gods worde that S. Ambrose speaketh of
to brynge in the creatioÌ„ of the worlde wherby to induce mannes fayth in this mystery to the belife of it As for th example Baptisme to shewe the chaunge in mannes soule wherof I haue spoken declaryng Emissene serueth for an induction not toleaue to our owtward seÌ„ces ne to mistrust the great miracle of God in eyther because we see none outwarde experieÌ„ce of it but els it is not necessarie the resemblance shall answere in qualitie otherwise then as I saide afore eche parte answeryng his conuenient proportion and as for there comparison of resemblaunce Baptisme with the Sacrament this auctour in his doctrine specially reproueth in that he can not I thynke denye but man by regeneration of his sowle in Baptisme is the partaker of holines but as for the bread he specially admonisheth it is not par taker of holynes by this consecracion but howe soeuer this auctor in his owne doctrine snarleth himselfe the doctrine of S. Ambrose is playne that before the consecration it is bread and after the coÌ„secration the body of Christ whiche is an vndowbted affirmacion then to be no bread howe so euer the accidentes of bread do remayne In the. 26. leef this auctor bryngeth forth two sayinges of S. Augustine which whau Augustinus this auctor wrot it is lik he neither thought of the thirde or first booke of this worke For these two sayinges declare moste euidently the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in the sacrameÌ„t affirmyng the same to be the sacrifice of the Churche wherby apperith it is no figure onely In the first sayinge of S. Augustine is written thus howe fayth shewith me that brede is the body of Christ nowe what soeuer faithe shewith is a truth and then it foloweth that of a truth it is the body of Christ whiche speache breade is the body of Christ is as muche to say as it is made the body of Christ and made not as of a matter but as Emissen wrote by conuersion of the visible creature in to the substaunce of the body of Christ and as S Austen in the same sentence writeth it is bread before the consecration and after the fleshe of Christ As for the seconde sayinge of saincte Austen howe could it with more playne wordes be wryten then to saye that there is bothe the SacrameÌ„t and the thinge of the SacrameÌ„t whiche is Christs body calling the same sacrifice of the Churche Nowe if Christ is body be there it is trulither iÌ„ dede ther which is real Marke 〈◊〉 reader If ther as for there in a figure wer to say not there in truth and in dede but onely signified to be abseÌ„t which is the nature a of figure in his propre and speciall speache But sainct Austen saith euen as the auctour bringeth hiforth yet he haue his priuy nyppe by the waye thus It is saide of S. Augustine there be two thinges in this sacrifice whiche be conteyued in it wherof it coÌ„sisteth so as the body of Christ is conteyued in this sacrifice by S. Augustines mynde According wherunto sainct Augustine is alleged to saye in the same booke from wheÌ„s the auctour tooke this saynge Also these wordes followynge vnder the kindes of bread and wyne whiche we see we honour thiÌ„ges inuisible that is to saye the flesshe and bloud of Christ nor we do not likewise esteme these two kindes as we did bifore the consecration for we muste faithefully confesse before the consecracion to be bread and wyne that nature formed and after consecracion the fleshe and bloud of Christ which the benediction hath coÌ„secrate Thus saith sainct Augustine as he is alleged owt of that booke which in dede I haue not but he hath the like seÌ„ce in other places and for honoringe of the inuisible heauenly thinges there which declare the true and real presence sainct Augustine hathe like in his booke de Cathechisandis rudibus and in the 98. psalme where he speaketh of adoration This may be notable to the reader howe this author concludeth him selfe in the real preseÌ„ce of Christes bodye by his owne collection of saincte Augustines mynde whiche is as he coÌ„fesseth in his owne wordes notynge sainct Augustine that as the person of Christ consistethe of two natures so the Sacrament consisteth of two natures of thellemeÌ„tes of breade and wyne and of the body and bloude of Christ and therfore both these natures do remayne in the Sacrament Thes be this autours owne wordes who trauaylynge to coÌ„founde transubstantacion confoundeth euideÌ„tly himselfe by his owne wordes towching the reall presence For he saieth the nature of the body and bloud of Christ muste remayne in the Sacrament and as truly as the natures of the maÌ„hode godhode were in Christ for thervpon he argueth And nowelet this auctor chose whether he will saie any of the natures the manhod or the godhode were but figuratiuely in Christ whiche and he do then may he the better saâ—e for the agrement of this doctrine the nature of the body the bloud of Christ is but figuratiuely in the SacrameÌ„t And if he saie as he muste nedes saie that the two natures be in Christes person really naturally substantially then must he graunt by his owne collectioÌ„ the truth of the beyng of the nature of the body and bloud of christ to be like wise in the sacrameÌ„t therby call backe all that he hath writteÌ„ against the real preseÌ„ce of Christes body in the sacrameÌ„t and abandon his diuise of a presence by signification which is in truth a playne absence as himselfe spekith also openly which open speche caÌ„not stande and is improued by this opeÌ„ spech of his owne likewise wher he saith the nature of the body and bloud of Christ remayne in the sacrament the worde remaine being of such signification as it betokenith not onely to be there but to cary there and so there is declared the sacrifice of the Churche whiche misterie of sacrifice is perfited before the perceptioÌ„ so it must be euideÌ„t howe the body of Christ is ther that is to saie on thal tere before we receyue it to which aulter S. Augustine saith we cum to receyue it There was neuer maÌ„ouerturned his owne assertioÌ„s more euideÌ„tly then this authour doth here in this place the like wherof I haue obserued in other that haâ—ue writteÌ„ against this sacrameÌ„t who haue by the waye said sum what for it or they haue brought ther treatise to an ende It will be saide here howsoeuer this auctor doth ouerthrowe hiÌ„self in the real pÌ„â—eÌ„ce of christes very body yet he hathe pulled downe traÌ„substaÌ„tiatioÌ„ â—oas crafty wresteles do falling them self on ther bake to throwe ther felowe ouer theÌ„ But it is not like for as loÌ„ge as the true faith of the reall presence staÌ„dith so loÌ„ge standith traÌ„substaÌ„tiatioÌ„ not by aucthoritie of determinatioÌ„ but by a necessary coÌ„sequeÌ„ce of the truth as I said before as zuinglius defeÌ„deth playnely as
the visible churche by his visible minister the visible Prieste whereof Chrisostome woulde by his wordes put vs in remeÌ„brance not deniyng therby the visible ministerye no more then he doth in his other wordes denye the visible forme of bread and yet woulde we should not loke onely vpon that but whither fayth directeth vs that is to saye vpon the very bodye of Christ there inuisiblye present whiche fayth knoweth and knoweth it to be there the very bodye and there therfore to be no breade which breade this true confession of Christes body present by fayth excludeth But touchyng the Priest Sainct Chrisostomes words do by no meane teach vs that there is no visible Prieste but to thinke that the bodye of Christe is delyuered of Christes handes which excludeth not in like sorte the ministre visible as fayth doth the substaunce inuisible of bread in the Sacrament The one saiynge of Chrisostome is a godlye exhortacion accordynge to the truth the other is a doctrine of fayth in the truth we be not taught that the Prieste is Christ but we be taught that the substaunce of the breade is made Christes body And then the questioÌ„ in the wordes of Chrisostome Seest thou breade is as muche to saye as remembrest thy fayth as beynge one of the faythfull that knowe whiche terme Saincte Augustine vsed And then Chrisostome to conferme oure fayth in so high a mysterye declareth howe we shoulde thinke Christe to delyuer his bodye himselfe as a thynge farre excedynge mannes power to do it And with other heauenlye wordes setteth forthe the greatenesse of that mysterye with wordes of godlye and good meditacion conueniente for so high a matter to adourne it accordynglye whiche because they be holsome and mete allegoryes wherwith to drawe and lifte vp our myndes to celestiall thoughtes we maye not therby esteme the substaunce of that mysterye to be but in allegorye here in flede of a solution the auctor fylieth thre whole leaues with proâ—fe of thaâ— is not necessarye howe a deniall by comparison is not vtterlye a deniall whiche is in dede true and as one was answeâ—ed aâ— Cambridge when he pressed the responâ—all what saye ye to myne argumente whiche was not in dede of his owne makynge The responsall lesâ—e his Latyn and toulde the opp 〈…〉 before all his countrye frindes in playne Englishe It is a good argumente syr quod he but no thynge to the purpose and so is of this matrier the entreatynge of deniall by comparison good but nothynge to the purpose here and it is an obseruacion that requireth good iudgemente or elles maye therby be induced many absurdities Chrysostome as I sayde before speakynge to the Christen man semeth to aske whither he vseth his fayth or no For if he seeth breade he seeth not with faith whiche seeth the bodye of Christ there presence and so no breade If the Christen man thinke of passage throughe him of the celestiall fode he hathe therein no spirituall thoughte suche as fayth engendreth and therfore sayth Chrysostome absit here in these wordes of Chrisostome is no denyall with comparison and therfore this auctour mighte haue spared his treatise in these thre leaues For in those wordes when Chrisostome saith Thinke not thou receyuest the bodye of Christe by a man c. There this auctour so neglecteth his owne rule as in his thirde booke he maketh a solemne argument that by those Chrisostomes wordes we receyue not the bodye of Christ at all seyng Chrisostome sayth we may not thinke we receyue it by man So lytell substancially is this matter handled as a man might saye here were many accidentall wordes withoute a substaunce or myracle howe strange so euer the same seme to this auctor otherwise Nowe let vs here what this auctor will saye to Saincte Ambrose He reherseth him at good lenght but translateth him for aduantage As among other in one place where Saincte Ambrose sayth This Sacramente whiche thou receyuest is made by the worde of Christ this auctor translateth is done by the worde of Christ because makynge muste be vnderstanded in the substaunce of the Sacrament chiefly before it is receyued and doynge maye be referred to the effecte chieflye for whiche purpose it shoulde seme thauctor of this booke cannot awaye with the worde made where at it pleaseth him in an other place of this booke to be merye as at an absurditie in the Papistes when in dede both Saincte Ambrose here Saincte Cyprian and Sainct Hierome also in there places vse the same worde speakynge of this Sacrament and of the wonderfull worke of God in ordenyng the substance of it by such a conuersion as breade is made the bodye of Christe But as touchynge thanswere of this auctor to Sainct Ambrose it is diuerse For first he doth trauerse thauctoritie of the booke whiche allegation hath been by other here to fore made and answered vnto in such wise as the booke remayneth Saincte Ambroses still and MelaÌ„cton saith it semeth not to him vnlike his and therfore allegeth this verye place out of him against Oecolampadius This auctor will not sticke in that allegation but for answere sayth that Saincte Ambrose saith not that the substaunce of the breade and wyne is gone and that is true he sayth not so in syllables but he sayth so in sence because he speaketh of a chaunge so playnelye in the breade into that it was not wherunto this auctor for declaration of change sayth the breade and wyne be changed into an higher astate nature and condition whiche thre wordes of astate nature and condition be good wordes to expresse the chaunge of the breade into the bodye of Christe whiche bodye is of an other nature an other state and condition then the substaunce of the breade without coÌ„parison hygher But then this auctor addeth to be taken as holye meates and drinkes wherein if he meaneth to be taken so but not to be so as his teachynge in other places of this boke is the breade to be neuer the holyer But to signifie an holy thynge then is the chaunge nothynge in dede touchynge nature but onelye as a cowarde maye be channged in apparell to playe Hercules or Sampsons parte in a playe himselfe therby made neuer the hardyer man at all but onelye appoynted to signifie an hardye man of whiche mannes chaunge althoughe his astate and condition might in speache be called chaunged for the tyme of the playe yet no man woulde terme it thus to saye his nature were changed whither he mente by the worde nature the substaunce of the mannes nature or propertie for in these two poyntes he were still the same man in Hercules coote that he was before the playe in his owne so as if there be nothynge but a figure in the bread then for so much this auctors other teaching in this booke where he sayth the breade is neuer the holyer is a doctrine better then this to teache a chaunge of the breade to an higher nature when it