[Page] ¶An explicatiō 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 gētle reader easely correcte thy selfe.

Leafe.Pag.Thelyne.
[...]o. 2.2. pag.Lin. 15.for yet it shuld, read yet if it shuld
71penul.for to purpose, read to the purpose
21130for accasion, reade occasion.
25229for dimishe, reade diminishe.
52125for shepe, reade slepe.
42123for cōmunicādo, read cōmunicandis.
54113for manifestye, reade manifested.
54114for exhibetie, reade exhibited.
55119for enforeth, reade enforceth.
59120for Tubax, reade Tuba.
62113for fram. reade [...]rame.
8113for cunclusion, reade conclusion.
81220for pretens, reade presence.
81130for freundes, reade frendes.
81131for possumus, reade polluimus.
88122for cratures, reade creatures.
88124for entrated, reade intreated.
8823for lake, read loke.
8826for fede, read fed.
9026for speake, read spake.
91230for andeleth, read handeleth.
9218for hahing, read hauyng.
92110for sumuch, read so muche.
92112for ityn, read it.
92115for wrere, read were.
92115for [...]e, read be.
9411for Ethinkes, read Ethnikes.
94 [...] [...]for af, read of.
961 [...]for [...]se, read likewise.
962 [...]4 [...], read geueth.
97210for extlude, read exclude.
10511for auctors, read auctor.
106216for this, read these.
10713for commency, read commenly.
11016for hatue, read hath.
119131for deipara [...], read [...] deipara
121226for mage, read image.
126218for dowe, read doue.
131210for ther, read thre.
131222for we, read me.
13414for which, read with.
13425for obdy, read body.
136111for improw, read improue.
136121for circūstāce p̄sēt, read circūstāce is p̄sēt
136123for supernaturally, read naturally.
13714for endureth, read abhor [...]ith.
13821for disorowe, read improue.
142114for godhod, read godhed.
14322for propositiones, read ꝓpositionis.
145229for [...], read [...].
1452vlt.for [...], read [...].
14612for [...], read [...].
14615for [...], read [...].
148119for saue, read sawe.
15129for Ephesine, read Ephesin.
Finis Tabulae.

¶The preface.

FOr asmuch as amōges other mine allegations for defence of my selfe in this matter, moued agàynst me by occasion of my Sermon made before the kynges moost excellent Maiestye, touchyng partely the. Catholique faith of the moost precious sacramēt of thal­tare, which I see now impugned, by a booke set furth, vnder the name of my lord of Caun­torburies grace: I haue thought expediēt for the better opening of the matter, & cōsideryng I am by name touched in the sayde boke, the rather to vtter partely that I haue to say by confutatiō of that boke, wherein I thinke neuerthlesse no [...] 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 cōmen welth, as for that respect should be inuiolable. For which cōsideracion, 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 Cātorburies penne, but because he is a man, I wil not wondre, & because he is such a mā, I will reuerērly 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 presēce of Christes most precious bodie & bloud in the Sacramēt.

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 cōsecrate 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 tokēs / and yet concludeth, Christ not to be spiritually pre­sent in them / but onely as a thing is present [Page] 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 presēt, who eateth of Chri­stes fleshe and his bloud reignyng in heauē, 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 & vnderstādyng of Christes [Page 2] wordes, there hath not been in any age any one approued and knowen learned mā, 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 disagrement from the truth may the more euidently appeare, I will here in this place (as I will hereafter likewise when the case occurreth) ioyne as it were an issue with An issue. this auctor, that is to saye, to make a staye with him in this poynte triable (as they say) by euidence & sone tried. For in this point the scriptures be alreadie by thauctor brought forth, the leterwherof proueth not his faith. And albeit he traueyleth and bryngeth forth the saiyng of many approued writers, yet is there no one of them that writeth in ex­presse woordes the doctrine of that fayth, which this auctor calleth the faith catholike And to make the issue plaine and to ioyne it directly, thus I say.

No auctor knowen and approued, that is to say, Ignatius, Policarpe, Iustine, Irene, Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrisostome, Hilarie, Gregorie, Nazianzen, Basill, Emissen, Am­brose, Cyril, Hierome, Augustine, Damascē. Theophilacte, none of these hath this do­ctrine in plaine termes, that the bread onely signifieth Christes bodie absent, nor this sentence, that the bread and wyne be neuer the holier after consecration, nor that Christes [Page] bodie is none otherwise present in the Sa­crament, but in a signification: nor this sen­tence, that the Sacrament is not to be wor­shipped, because there is nothing present but in a signe. And herein what the truth is, may soone appeare, as it shal by their workes ne­uer appeare to haue been taught, and prea­ched, receaued, and beleued vniuersally, and therfore can be called no Catholique fayth (that is to say) allowed in the whol, through and in outwarde teaching, preached and be­leued. If this auctor settyng apart the word (Catholique) would of his owne wytte go a­boute to proue, howsoeuer scripture hath been vnderstanded hitherto, yet it should be vnderstanded in dede as he nowe teacheth, he hath herein diuers disauātages and hyn­deraunces worthy consideracions, whiche I will particularly note.

Firste the preiudice and sentence, geuen as it were by his owne mouthe against him selfe, now in the boke called the Catechisme in his name set forth.

Secondly that about .vij. C. yere ago, one Bertrame (if the booke set forth in his name be his) entreprised secretly the like, as appe­reth by the said booke, & yet preuayled not.

Thirdely Berengarius beyng in dede but an Archedeacon about .v. C. yeres past, after he had openly attempted to set forth suche like doctrine, recanted and so fayled in his purpose.

[Page 3] Fourthely Wykclif not muche aboue an hundreth yeres past enterprised the same, whose teachyng God prospered not.

Fyftely how Luther, in his workes, han­deled thē that would haue in our tyme ray­sed vp the same doctrine in Germany, it is manifest by his and their writynges wher­by appeareth the enterprise that hath had so many ouerthrowes, so many rebukes, so of­ten reprofes, to be desperate, and suche as God hath not prospered and fauored, to be receiued at any tyme openly as his true tea­chyng.

Herein whether I say true or no, let the stories trye me, and it is matter worthy to be noted, because Gamaliels obseruacion wri­ten in the Actes of the Apostels is allowed Actes. 5. to marke, howe they prospere & go forward in their doctrine that be auctors of any new teachyng. But all this set aparte, and put­tyng a side al testimonies of tholde churche, and resortyng onely to the letter of the scri­pture, there to serche out an vnderstandyng. And in doyng therof, to forget what hath been taught hitherto: How shall this auctor establishe vpō scripture that he would haue beleued? What other text is therin scripture that encountreth with these wordes of scri­pture (This is my body) Wherby to altre the signification of them? There is no scripture sayth, Christ did not geue his bodie, but the figure of his bodie, nor the geuyng of Chri­stes [Page] bodie in his supper, verely and really so vnderstāded, doth not necessaritly impugne and contrarie any other speache or doyng of Christ, expressed in scripture. For the great power and omnipotencie of God, excludeth that repugnaunce, whiche mannes reason would deame of Christes departyng from this worlde, and placyng his humanitie in the glorie of his father.

I [...] this auctor, without force of necessitie, would induce it, by the like speaches, as when Christ sayd: I am the dore, I am the [...]yne, he is Helias, and suche other, and be­cause it is a figuratiue speache in them, it may be so here, whiche maketh no kinde of profe, that it is so here: But yet if by way of reasonyng I would yelde to him therin, and cal it a figuratiue speache, as he doth. What other poynte of fayth is there then in the matter, but to beleue the storie, that Christ did institute suche a supper, wherin he gaue bread and wyne for a token of his bodie and bloud, whiche is nowe after this vnderstan­dyng no secrete mysterie at all, or any ordi­naunce aboue reasō. For commenly men vse to ordaine in sensible thinges remembraun­ces of them selfe whan they dye or departe the countrie. So as in thordinaunce of this supper, after this vnderstandyng Christ she­wed not his omnipotencie, but onely bene­uolence, that he loued vs, and would be re­membred of vs. For Christ did not say who­soeuer [Page 4] eateth this token / eateth my bodie / or eateth my fleshe / or shal haue any profite of it in speciall / but doo this in remembraunce of me. And albeit this auctor would not haue them bare tokens / yet, and they be onely to­kens / they haue no warrant signed by scri­pture, for any apparell at all. For the sixt of John, speaketh not of any promise made, to the eatyng of a token of Christes fleshe / but to the eatyng of Christes verie fleshe / wher­of the bread (as this auctor would haue it) is but a figure in Christes wordes / when he sayd, (This is my body). And if it be but a fi­gure in Christes wordes / it is but a figure in sainct Paules wordes / when he sayd: The bread whiche wee breake / is it not the com­municacion of Christes bodie, that is to say, a figure of the communicaciō of Christes bo­die (if this auctors doctrine be true) and not the communicacion in dede. Wherfore if the verie bodie of Christ be not in the supper de­liuered in dede, the eatyng there hath no speciall promise, but onely commaundement to do it in remembraunce. After whiche doctrine why should it be noted absolutely for a Sa­crament and speciall mysterie, that hath no­thyng hidden in it, but a plaine o [...]en ordina­unce of a token, for a remembraunce: to the catyng of whiche token, is annexed no pro­myse expressely, ne any holynes to be accom­pted to be in the bread or wyne (as this au­ctor teacheth) but to be called holie, because [Page] they be deputed to an holy vse. If I aske the vse, he declareth, to signify. If I should aske what to signifye? There muste be a sorte of good wordes framed without scripture. For scripture / expresseth no matter of significa­cion of speciall effecte. And therfore like as the teachyng is new / to say it is an onely fi­gure, or onely signifieth: so the matter of si­gnification must be newly diuised / and new wyne haue new bottelles, and be throughly new, after .xv. C. l. yeres in the verie yere of Iubile (as they were wount to call it) to be newly erected and builded in Englishe mens heartes. Whiche new teachyng, whether it procedeth from the spirite of truth, or no, shall more plainely appeare by suche matter as this auctor vttereth wherewith to im­pugne the true faith taught hitherto. For a­mong many other profes, whereby trueth after much trauaile in contencion / at the last preuayleth, and hath victorie, there is none more notable, then when the verie aduersa­ries of truth (who pretend neuertheles to be truthes frendes) do by some euident vntruth bewray themself. According wherunto, whē the two women contended before kyng Sa­lomon for the childe yet aliue. Salomon de­scerned 3. Reg. 3. the true naturall mother from the o­ther, by their speaches and saiynges. Which in the verie true mother, were euer confor­mable to nature, and in the other, at the last euidently against nature. The verie true mo­ther [Page 5] speake alwaies like her selfe, and neuer disagreed from the truth of nature, but ra­ther then the childe should be killed, as Sa­lomon threatened, whē he called for asword, required rather it to be geuen whole aliue to the other woman. The other woman, that was not the true mother cared more for vi­ctorie, then for the childe, and therfore spake that was in nature an euidence, that she lied callyng her selfe mother, and saiyng (let it be deuided) whiche no true naturall mother could say of her owne childe, wherupon pro­ceded Salomons most wise iudgmēt, which hath this lesson in it, euer where contention is, on that parte to be the truth, where all saiynges and doynges appeare vniformely consonante to the truth pretended, and on what side a notable lye appeareth, the rest may be iudged to be after the same sorte, for truth nedeth no ayde of lyes, craft or slayte, wherwith to be supported and maynteined. So as in the intreatyng of the truth, of this high and ineffable mysterie of the Sacra­ment, on what parte thou reader seest traft, slayte, shift, obliquitie, or in any one pointe, an open manifest lye, there thou maist consi­der, whatsoeuer pretence be made of truth, yet the victorie of truth not to be there in­tended, whiche loueth simplicitie, plainenes, directe speache, without admixcion of shift or coloure. And that thou reader mightest by these markes iudge of that is here intreated, [Page] by thauctor, against the most blessed Sacratment, I shall note certaine euident and ma­nifest vntruthes, whiche this auctor is not affrayed to vtter (a matter wounderfull, con­sideryng his dignitie, if he that is named, be the auctor in dede) whiche should be a great stay of contradiction if any thyng wer to be regarded against the truth.

First I will note vnto the reader, howe this auctor termeth the fayth of the real and substanciall presence of Christes bodie and bloud in the Sacramēt, to be the fayth of the Papistes: whiche saiyng, what foundaciō it hath, thou maiest consider of that foloweth.

Luther that professed openly to abhore al that might be noted Papish, defēded stoutly the presence of Christes bodie in the Sacra­ment, and to be present really and substan­cially, euen with the same wordes and termes.

Bucer that is here in Englād, in a solēpne worke that he wryreth vpon the Gospels, professeth the same fayth of the real and substāciall presence of Christes bodie in the Sa­crament, whiche he affermeth to haue been beleued of all the churche of Christ from the beginnyng hitherto.

Iustus Ionas hath trāslate a Catechisme out of Douch into Latin, taught in the citie of Noremberge in Germanye / where Ho­siander is cheife preacher, in whiche Cate­chisme / they be accompted for no true Chri­stian [Page 6] men that denye the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament. The wordes really and substancially / be not expressed / as they be in Bucer / but the worde (truely) is there: and as Bucer sayth / that is substancially. Which Catechisme was translate into Englishe in this auctors name about two yeres paste.

Philipp Melancton no Papist / nor priest writeth a verie wise Epistle in this matter / to Oecolāpadius / and signifiyng soberly his beleif of the presence of Christes verie bodie in the Sacrament: and to proue the same to haue been the faith of the olde churche from the begīnyng / allegeth the saynges of Irene / Cyprian / Chrisostome / Hilarie / Cyrill / Am­brose / and Theophilacte / whiche auctors / he estemeth both worthy credite / and to affirme the presence of Christes bodie in the Sacra­mēt plainly without ambiguitie. He answe­reth to certaine places of S. Augustine and sayth, all Oecolampadius enterprise / to de­pend vpon coniectures / and argumentes ap­plausible to Idle wittes, with muche more wise matter / as that Epistle doth purporte / whiche is set out in a booke of a good volume amonge the other Epistles of Oecolampa­dius / so as no man may suspect any thyng counterfecte in the matter. One Hippi­nus or Oepinus of Hamborough, greatly estemed among the Lutherians / hath writ­ten a booke to the kinges maiesty that now is / publisshed abrode in prynt / wherin muche [Page] inueiyng against the churche of Rome, doth in the matter of the Sacrament write as fo­loweth. Eucharistia is called by it selfe a sacrifice, because it is a remēbraunce of the true sacrifice, offered vpō the crosse, and that in it is dispēsed the true bodie and true bloud of Christ, whiche is plainely the same in es­sence (that is to say, substaunce) and the same bloud in essēce signifiyng, though the maner of presence be spirituall, yet the substaunce of that is present, is the same with that in heauen.

Erasmus, noted a man that durst, and did speake of all abuses in the church liberally, taken for no Papist, and among vs so muche estemed, as his Paraphrases of the gospell is ordred to be had in euery church of this Realme, declareth in diuers of his workes most manifestly, his faith of the presence of Christes bodie in the Sacrament, and by his Epistles, recommendeth to the worlde the worke of Algerus in that matter of the Sa­crament, whom he noteth well exercised in the scriptures, and the olde doctors, Cypriā, Hilarie, Ambrose, Hierome, Augustine, Ba­sil, Chrysostom, And for Erasmus own iuge­mēt, he sayth we haue an inuiolable founda­cion of Christes owne woordes (This is my body,) rehersed agayn by S. Paule, he sayth further: the bodie of Christ is hidden vnder those signes, and sheweth also vpon what occasions mē haue erred in readyng the olde [Page 7] fathers, and wysheth that they which haue folowed Berengarius in error, would also folowe him in repētaunce. I will not (reader) encombre the, with mo wordes of Erasmus.

Peter Martyr of Oxforde taken for no Papist, in a treatyse he made of late of the Sacrament, whiche is now translated into English, sheweth how as touchyng the real presence of Christes bodie, it is not onely the sentence of the Papistes, but of other al­so, whom the sayd Peter, neuerthelesse doth with as many shyftes & lyes as he may im­pugne, for that poynte aswell as he doth the Papistes for transubstanciation, but yet he doth not as this auctor doth impute that fayth of the real presence of Christes bodie and bloud to thonly Papistes. Wherupon reader here I ioyne with thauctor an issue that the fayth of the real and substantiall An issue. presence of Christes bodie and bloud in the Sacrament, is not the diuise of Papistes or their fayth onely as this auctor doth consi­deratly slander it to bee, and desire therfore that accordyng to Salomons iudgemēt this may serue for an note and marke, for to geue sentence for the true mother of the childe. For what should this meane, so without shame openly and vntruly to call this fayth papishe, but onely with the enuyous worde of Papist to ouermatche the truth.

It shalbe now to purpose to considre the scriptures touchyng the matter of the Sa­crament [Page] / which thauctor pretēdyng to bring forth faithfully as the maiestie therof requi­reth / in the rehersal of the wordes of Christ out of the gospel of saint Iohn / he begynneth a litle to lowe and passeth ouer that pertey­neth to the matter and therfore should haue begon a litle hygher at this clause. And the bread whiche I shall geue you is my fleshe / whiche I wyll geue for the life of the world? The Iewes therfore striued betwene theim self saiyng: How can this mā geue his fleshe to be eaten? Iesus therfore sayd vnto them. Uerely verely I say vnto you / except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud ye haue no life in you. Who so eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud hath eter­nal life & I wyl rayse him vp at the last day. For my fleshe is verie meat / and my bloud ve­rie drinke. He that eateth my flesh & drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me & I in him. As the liuyng father hath sent me / and I liue by the father: Euen so he that eateth me shal liue by me. This is the bread which came doune frō heauen. Not as your fathers did eat Manna and are dead: He that eateth this bread shall lyue for euer.

Here is also a faulte in the translacion of the texte / whiche should be thus in one place. For my fleshe is verely meat and my bloud is verely drinke. In whiche speache / the verbe that cuppleth the wordes (fleshe) and (meat) [Page 8] together: knitteth them together in their pro­pre significacion / so as the fleshe of Christ is verelymeat as thauctor would persuade. And in these words of Christ may appere plainly how Christ taught the mysterie of the fode of his humanitie / whiche he promised to geue for foode / euen the same fleshe / that he said he would geue for the life of the worlde and so expresseth the first sentence of this scripture here by me holly brought forth, that is to say. And the bread whiche I shall geue you is my fleshe whiche I shall geue for the life of the worlde. And so it is plaine that Christ spake of fleshe in the same sence that Sainct Ihon speaketh in, saiyng: The worde was made fleshe, signifiyng by fleshe the hole humani­tie. And so did Cyrill agre to Nestorius, when he vpon these textes, reasoned howe this eatyng is to be vnderstanded of Chri­stes humanitie, to whiche nature in Chri­stes person is properly attribute, to be eaten as meate spiritually to norishe man, dis­pensed and geuen in the Sacrament. And betwene Nestorius and Cyrill, was this diuersitie in vnderstandyng the mysterie, that Nestorius estemyng of eche nature in Christe a seuerall personne (as it was obie­cted to him) and so dissoluyng the inef­fable vnitie, did so repute the bodie of Christe to be eaten as the bodie of a man [Page] seperate. Cyrill maynteyned the bodie of Christ to be eaten as a bodie inseperable vni­ted to the godhed, and for the ineffable my­sterie of that vnion, the same to be a fleshe that geueth life. And then as Christ sayth, if wee eate not the fleshe of the sonne of man, we haue not life in vs, because Christ hath ordered the Sacrament of his most precious bodie and bloud to norishe suche as be by his holy spirite regenerate. And as in Baptisme we receaue the spirite of Christ, for the re­newyng of our life, so do we in this Sacra­ment of Christes moost precious bodie and bloud receaue Christes verie fleshe & drynke his verie bloud, to continus and preserue, in­crease / and augment the life receaued, And therfore in the same forme of wordes Christ spake to Nycodemus of Baptisme: that he speaketh here, of the eatyng of his bodie and drinkyng of his bloud, and in both the Sa­cramentes geueth / dispenseth and exhibiteth in dede those celestial gyftes, in sensible ele­mentes as Chrisostome sayth. And because the true faithfull beleuyng men do onely by fayth know the sonne of man to be in vnitie of person the sonne of God, so as for the vni­tie of the two natures in Christ in one per­son, the fleshe of the sonne of man is the pro­pre fleshe of the soone of God. Saincte Au­gustine sayd well when he noted these wor­des of Christ, verely verely / onlesse ye eat the fleshe of the sonne of man &c. to be a figura­tiue [Page 9] speache, because after the bare lettre, it semeth vnprofitable, consideryng, that flesh profiteth nothyng in it selfe, estemed in thowne nature alone, but as the same fleshe in Christ is vnited to the diuine nature, so is it, as Christ sayd, (after Cyrilles exposition) spirite and life, not chaunged into the diuine nature of the spirite, but for the ineffable v­nion in the person of Christ therunto, it is vi­uificatrix (as Cyrill sayd) and as the holy E­phesine councel decreed: a fleshe geuyng life, accordyng to Christes wordes: who eateth my fleshe, and drinketh my bloud, hath eter­nall life, and I will raise him vp at the latter day. And then to declare vnto vs, how in ge­uyng this life to vs, Christ vseth the instru­mēt of his verie humaine bodie: it foloweth. For my fleshe is verely meat, and my bloud verely drinke. So like as Christ sanctifieth, by his godlye spirite: so doth he sanctifye vs by his godlie fleshe, and therfore, repeteth againe, to inculcate the celestial thing of this mysterie, and sayth: he that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me and I in him, whiche is the natural and corporal vnion, betwene vs and Christ. Wherupō fo­loweth, that as Christ is naturally in his fa­ther, and his father in him: so he that eateth verely the fleshe of Christ, he is by nature in Christ, and Christ is naturally in him, and the worthy receauer, hath life encreased, [Page] augmented, and confirmed by the participa­cion of the fleshe of Christe. And because of thin effable vnion of the two natures, Christ sayd: This is the foode that came doune / frō heauen, because God, whose proper fleshe it is, came downe from heauen, and hath an other vertue, then Manna had, because this geueth life to them that worthely receaue it: whiche Manna, beyng but a figure therof, did not, but beyng in this foode Christes ve­rie fleshe inseperably vnite to the godhed, the same is of suche efficacie, as he that worthely eateth of it, shall liue for euer. And thus I haue declared the sence of Christes wordes, brought forth out of the Gospell of Sainct Iohn. Wherby appeareth, how euidentely they set forth the doctrine of the mysterie of the eatyng of Christes fleshe & drinkyng his bloud in the Sacrament, whiche must nedes be vnderstanded of a corporall eatyng, as Christ did after ordre, in thinstitucion of the sayd Sacrament, accordyng to his promise and doctrine here declared.

Now, where thauctor to exclude the my­sterie of corporall manducacion, bryngeth forth of Sainct Augustine, suche wordes as entreat of theffect and operacion of the wor­thy receauyng of the Sacrament: the hande­lyng is not so syncere, as this matter requi­reth. For as hereafter shalbe intreated, that is not worthely and well done, may, because [Page 10] the principall entent fayleth, be called nor done, as so Sainct Augustine sayth. Let him not thinke, to eat the bodie of Christ, that dwelleth not in Christ, not because the body of Christ is not receaued, whiche by Sainct Augustines mynde, euill men do to their con­dempnacion, but because theffecie of life fay­leth. And so thauctor by sleight, to exclud the corporall manducacion of Christes most pre­cious bodie, vttreth suche wordes as myght sounde Christ to haue taught, the dwellyng in Christ to be an eatyng, whiche dwellyng may be without this corporal manducacion, in him that can not attaine the vse of it, and dwellyng in Christ is an effecte of the wor­thy manducacion, and not the manducacion it selfe, whiche Christ doth ordre to be pra­ctised, in the moost precious Sacrament in­stitute in his supper. Here thou reader mayst see, how this doctrine of Christ, as I haue declared it, openeth the corporall manduca­cion of his moost holie fleshe, and drinkyng of his moost precious bloud, whiche he gaue in his supper vnder the formes of bread and wyne.

Nowe let vs considre the textes of the E­uangelistes, and Sainct Paule, whiche be brought in by thauctor as foloweth.

Whē they wee catyng, Iesus toke bread, Mat. 26 and when he had geuē thankes, he brake it, gaue it to his disciples, and sayd: Take, eat, [Page] this is my bodie. And he toke the cup, and when he had geuen thankes, he gaue it to them, saiyng: drinke ye all of this, for this is my bloud of the new testament, that is shed for many, for the remission of synnes. But I say vnto you, I wyll not drinke henceforth, of this frute of the vine, vntill that daye, when I shall drinke it new with you in my fathers kingdome.

As they did eat, Iesus toke bread, and Mar. 14 when he had blessed, he brake it, and gaue it to them, & sayd: Take, eat, This is my bodie, & taking the cup, whē he had geuē thankes, he gaue it to them, and they dranke of it. And he said to them, This is my bloud of the new Testament, whiche is shed for many. Ue­rely I say vnto you, I will drinke no more of the frute of the vine, vntill that daye, that I drinke it newe in the kyngdome of God.

When the houre was come, he sat doune, Luc. 22. and the .xij. Apostels with him: And he sayd vnto them I haue greatly desired to eat this Pascha with you before I suffre. For I say vnto you henceforth, I will not eat of it any more, vntill it be fulfylled in the kyng­dome of God. And he toke the cup, and gaue thankes, and sayd: Take this and de­uide it among you. For I say vnto you, I will not drinke, of the frute of the vine, vntill the kyngdome of God come And he toke bread and whē he had geuen thankes, [Page 11] he brake it and gaue it vnto them saiynge: This is my bodie, whiche is geuen for you: This do in remēbrance of me. Likewise also, when he had supped, he toke the cup, saiyng: This cup, is the new Testamēt, in my bloud which is shed for you.

Is not the cuppe of blessyng, whiche we 1. Cor. 10 blesse, a communion of the bloud of Christ? Is not the bread, whiche we breake, a com­munion of the bodie of Christ: We beyng many are one bread, and one bodie, for we are all partakers of one bread and of one cuppe.

That whiche I deliuered vnto you, I 1. Cor. 11 receaued of the Lord. For the Lorde Iesus, the same night, in the whiche he was be­trayed, toke bread, and when he had geuen thankes, he brake it and sayd: Take eate, this is my bodie whiche is broken for you: do this in remembraunce of me. Likewise also, he toke the cup when supper was done, saiyng: This cup, is the new Testament in my bloud: do this, as often as ye drinke it, in remembraunce of me: For as often as you shall eate this bread & drinke of this cup, ye shew forth the Lordes death till he come, wherfore, whosoeuer shall eat of this bread, or drinke of this cuppe vnworthely, shalbe giltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lorde. But let a man examine him selfe, and so eat of the bread, and drinke of the cup, for he that eateth, & drynketh vnworthely, eateth [Page] and drynketh his owne damnacion, because he maketh no difference of the Lordes bodie: For this cause, many are weake and sycke a­mong you, and many do slepe.

After these textes brought in, thauctor doth in the fourth chapter, begyn to trauers Christes intent, that he intēded not by these wordes (This is my bodie) to make the bread his body: but to signify, that suche as receiue that worthely, be membres of Christes bo­die. The Catholique church acknowlegyng Christ to be verie God and verie man, hath frō the beginnyng of these textes of scripture cōfessed truely Christes intent, and effectual myraculous woorke, to make the bread his body, and the wyne his bloud, to be verely meate, & verely drinke, vsyng therin his hu­manitie wherwith to fead vs, as he vsed the same, wherwith to redeame vs, & as he doth sanctify vs by his holy spirite, so to sanctify vs by his holy diuine fleshe and bloud, and as life is renewed in vs by the gift of Christs holy spirite: so life to be encreased in vs, by the gift of his holy fleshe. So as he that be­leueth in Christ, and receaueth the Sacra­ment of beleif, whiche is baptisme, receiueth really Christes spirite: So he, that hauyng Christs spirite, receaueth also the Sacra­ment of Christes bodie and bloud: doth real­ly receaue in the same, and also effectually Christes verie bodie and bloud. And ther­fore Christ in thinstitucion of this Sacramēt [Page 12] sayd, deliueryng that he consecrated: This is my bodie. &c. And likewise of the cuppe: This is my bloud. And although, to mans reason it semeth straunge, that Christ stan­dyng or sittyng at the table, should deliuer them his bodie to be eaten: yet when we re­membre Christ to be verie God, we muste graunt him omnipotent, and by reason ther­of, represse in oure thoughtes, all imagi­nacions how it might be, and considre Chri­stes intent, by his will preached vnto vs by scriptures, and beleued vniuersally in his church. But if it may now be thought semely for vs to be so boulde, in so high a myste­rie, to begynne to discusse Christes intent: what should moue vs to thinke that Christ would vse so many wordes, without ef­fectuall and reall significacion, as be re­hersed touchyng the mysterie of this Sa­crament?

First, in the .vi. of Iohn, whan Christ had taught of the eatyng of him, beyng the bread descended from heauen, and decla­ring, that eating to signify beleuing, wherat was no murmuryng, that then he should entre to speake of geuyng of his fleshe to be eaten, and his bloud to be dronken, and to say he would geue a bread, that is his fleshe, whiche he would geue for the life of the worlde. In whiche wordes, Christ maketh mention of two giftes, and ther­fore [Page] 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 ꝓmises 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 shalbe berrayed for you, expressyng also the vse whē 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 thē 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 [Page 13] 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 Euāgelistes. 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 cō ­municatiō 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 [Page] buylde it againe: The Euāgtlistes by and by addeth for interpretaciō: 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 Euāgtlistes in the place, adde any wordes or circumstaū ­ces, wherby to take away the propre signi­ficacion of the wordes (bodie) and (bloud) so as the same might same not in dede geuē (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 persō vnited, the mysterie of which vniō, 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 intēt was to geue verely (as he did in dede) his precious bodie and bloud to be eaten and drun­ken, accordyng as he taught thē to be verely [Page 14] 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 thē, 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 confir­maciō 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 [Page] 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 frō bodiely feadyng for continuyng this yearthly life. But this toucheth not the principal point that should be entreated. Whether Christ so ordered to fede suche as be regenerate in him, to geue to them in the Sacrament, the same his bodie, that he gaue to be crucified for vs. The good man is fedde by faith, and by the merites of Christes passion, beyng the meane of the gift of that faith, & other giftes also, and by the sufferyng of the bodie of Christ, & sheddynge of his moost precyous bloud on thaultar of the Crosse: whiche worke and passion of Christ is preached vnto vs / by wordes and sacramentes, and the same doctrine receiued of vs by faith / & the effecte of it also. And thus farre goeth the doctrine of this auctor.

But the Catholique teachyng, by the scriptures, goth futher, confessing Christ to feade such as be regenerate in him, not onely by his bodie and bloud: but also with his bodie and bloud deliuered in this sacrament by him in dede to vs, whiche the faythfull, by his institucion and commaundement, re­ceiue with their faith and with their mouth also, and with those specyall deynties, be fed specially at Christes table. And so God doth not onely preach in his sacraments, but [Page 15] 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 Tran­substātiation, 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 then [...]re of the The answer. comparison of these differēces, 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 presēt, 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 [Page 16] 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 thē 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 condempnaciō. Christ can not be receaued worthely, but in to his owne temple, whiche be ye (S. Paule [Page] 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 sacramēt 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 sacramēt, or he can not [Page 17] 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 mā 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 [Page] allow, how so euer all the summe of his tea­chyng doth improue it in that point. So much is he contrarie to him selfe in this worke, and here in this place not caryng (what he sayth) reporteth suche a teachyng in the first parte of this difference, as I haue not hearde of before: There was neuer man of learnyng that I haue red, termed the matter so, that Christ goeth into the stomoke of the mā that receaueth and no further. For that is writtē, contra Stercoronistas, is nothyng to this tea­chyng, nor the speache of any glose if there be any such, were herein to be regarded. The Catholique doctrine is, that by the holy con­iunction in the Sacrament, we be ioyned to Christ really, because we receaue in the holy supper, the most precious substaunce of his glorious body, whiche is a fleshe geuyng life: And that is not digested into our fleshe, but worketh in vs and attempereth, by heauenly nurrttor, our body and soule beyng parta­kers of his passyon to be conformable to his will and by suche spiritual foode to be made more spirituall. In the receauyng of whiche foode, in the most blessed Sacrament our bo­dy and soule in them that duelie cōmunicate, worketh together in due ordre without other discussyon of the mysterie then God hath or­dred (that is to say) the soule to beleue as it is taught, and the body to do as God hath or­dred, knowyng that gloryous fleshe by our eatyng can not be consumed or suffre, but to [Page 19] be most profitable vnto such as do accustonie worthely to receiue the same. But to say that the churche teacheth how we receaue Christ at our mouth, and he goeth into our stomoke and no further, is a reporte which by the iust iudgemente of God is suffred to come out of the mouthe of them that fyght against the truth in this most high mysterie.

Now where this auctor in the secōde part by an aduersiteue with a (But) to make the comparison, telleth what he and his say, he telleth in effect that which euery Catholique man must nedes, and doth confesse: For such as receaue Christes most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament worthly, they haue Christ dwellyng in thē, who conforteth both body and soule, whiche the church hath euer taught most plainely, so as this comparison of differēce in his two parties, is made of one open vntruth, & a truth disguised, as though it were now first opened by this auctor and his, whiche maner of handelyng declareth what sleyght and shift is vsed in the matter.

They say, that Christ is receyued in the mouth, & The auctor. entreth in with the bread and wyne: We say, that he is receyued in the heart / and entreth in by faith.

Here is a pretie slaight in this cōparison, The answer. where both partes of the comparison may be vnderstanded on bothe sydes, and therfore, here is by thauctor in this cōparison no issue ioyned: For the worthy receauyng of Christs body and bloud in the Sacramente, is both [Page] with mouth, & heart, both in facte & faith, Af­ter whiche sorte (S. Peter) in the last supper, receaued Christes body, wheras, in the same supper, Iudas receaued it with mouth, & in fact only, wherof S. Augustin speketh in this wise. Non dicunt ista, nisi qui de mēsa domini August. contra li teras pe til. lib. 2 cap. 47. vitāsumunt, Sicut Petrus, non iudicium sicut Iudas, et tamen ipsa vtrique fuit vna, sed non vtri (que) valuit ad vnum, quia ipsi nō erant vnū. Whiche wordes be thus muche to say: That they say not so (as was before entreated) but suche, as receaue life of our Lordes table (as Peter did) not iudgment, (as Iudas) and yet the table was all one to them both, but it was not to all one effect, in thē both, because they were not one. Here (S. Augustine) no­teth the difference in the receauer, not in the Sacrament receaued, whiche beyng receaued with the mouth onely, and Christ entryng, in mysterie only, doth not sanctify vs, but is the stone of stumblyng and our iudgement and condempnacion, but if he be receaued with mouthe and body, with hearte and fayth, to such he bryngeth life and nurrishemēt, wher­fore in this comparison, thauctor hath made no difference, but with diuers termes, the ca­tholique teachyng is deuided into two mem­bres with a (But) facioned neuertheles, in an other phrase of speache then the church hath vsed, whiche is so commen in this auctor that I will not hereafter note it any more for a faulte. Let vs go further.

[Page 19] They say that Christ is really in the Sacramē ­tall The auctor. bread beyng reserued an whole yere, so long as the forme of bread remaineth, but after the receauyng therof, he flieth vp (they say) from the receyuer, vnto heauen, as sone as the bread is chawed in the mouth, or chaunged in the stomoke. But (we say) that Christ remayneth in the man that worthely receaueth it, so long as the man remayneth a membre of Christ.

This comparison is like the other before, The answer. wherof the first parte is garnished and em­blossed with vntruth, and the second parte, that the church hath euer taught most truly, & that al must beleue, and therfore that pece hath no vntruth in the matter, but in the ma­ner only, beyng spokē as though it diffred frō the continuall open reachyng of the churche which is not so, wherfor in the maner of it in vtteraunce signifieth an vntruth, whiche in the matter it selfe is neuerthelesse most true. For vndoutedly, Christ remaineth in the mā, that worthely receiueth the sacramēt, so lōg as that man remayneth a membre of Christ. In this first part, there is a fault, in the mat­ter of the speache, for explicacion wherof, I wil examin it particularly. This auctor saith (they say) that Christ is really in the Sacra­mētal bread beyng reserued an hole yere. &c. The church geuyng faith to Christes worde, whē he sayd: This is my body. &c. techeth the body of Christ to be present in the Sacramēt vnder the forme of bread: vnto which words whē we put the worde really, it serueth only to expresse that truth in open wordes, which [Page] was afore to be vnderstāded in sence. For in Christ, who was the body of al the shadowes & figures of the law, & who did exhibit & geue in his sacramētes of the new law, the things promised in his sacramentes of tholde lawe. We must vnderstād his wordes in the institucion of his sacraments without figure in the substance of the celestial thyng of thē, & therfore when he ordred his most precious bodye & bloud to be eatē & drunken of vs vnder the formes of bread & wyne, we professe & beleue that truely he gaue vs his most precious bo­dy in the Sacramēt for a celestial foode, to cō fort & strength vs in this miserable life. And for the certayntie of the truth of his worke therin, we ꝓfesse he geueth vs his body realy that is to say, in ded his body the thing it self: Which is, the heauenly part of the Sacramēt called (Eucharistia) hauyng the visible forme of bread & wyne, & cōteinyng inuisibly the verie body & bloud of our sauiour Christ, which was not wont to be reserued other wise, but to be ready for such as in danger of death call for it, & the same so lōg, as it may be vsed, is still the same sacramēt, which only, tyme al­tereth not, wherof Cyril wrote to this sence, Cyrillꝰ ad Calo syriū epi scopum. Hesichiꝰ in leuit. li. 2. ca. 8 many hundred yeres past, & Hesichius also, & what ought to be done when by negligēce of the ministre, it wer reserued ouerlong. Mary where it liketh thauctor of these differēces, to saye the church teacheth, Christ to flye vp frō the receauer vnto heauē, so sone as the bread [Page 21] is chawed in the mouth, or chaunged it rite stomake, this maner of speache implyeth as though Christ lefte the seate of his maiestie in heauen, to be present in the Sacrament, which is most vntrue. The churche acknow­ledgeth, beleueth, and teacheth truely, that Christ sytteth on the right hāde of his father in glory, from whence he shall come to iudge the world, & also teacheth Christes very bo­dy & bloud, & Christ himselfe God & man, to be present in the Sacrament, not by shifryng of place, but by the determinatiō of his will, declared in scriptures & beleued of the Catholique church, which articles be to reason im­possible, but possible to God omnipotent. So as beyng taught of his wil, we should hūbly submitte al our sences & reason to the faith of his wil & worke declared in his scriptures. In the beleif of which mysteries is great benefit & consolacion, & in the vnreuerent serche & cu­rious discussiō of thē, presumptuous boldnes & wicked temerite. I knowe by fayth, Christ to be present, but the particularite, how he is present, more then I am assured, he is truely present, & therfore in substaunce present, I cā not tell, but present he is, & truely is, & verely is, and so in dede, that is to say, really is, and vnfaynedly is, and therfore in substaunce is, and as we terme it, substancially is present. For all these aduerbes, really, substancially with the rest, be conteyned in the one worde (is) spoken out of his mouthe, that speaketh [Page] as he meaneth, truely & certaynely as Christ did, saiyng: This is my body that shalbe be­trayed for you, who then caryed himselfe in his handes after a certayne maner (as sainet Augustine sayth) whiche neuer man besides August. Psal. 33. him could do, who in that his last super gaue himselfe to be eaten without cōsumyng: The wayes & meanes wherof, no man can tell, but humble spirites, as they be taught must con­stantly beleue it, without thinkyng or tal­kyng of fliyng or sliyng of Christ agayne vn­to heauen, where Christ is in the glory of his father continually, and is neuerthelesse, be­cause he will so be present in the Sacramēt, whole God and man, and dwelleth corpo­rally in him that receyueth him worthely. Wherfore (reader) when thou shalt agayne well consider this cōparison, thou shalt finde true, howe the first parte is disguised with vntrue reporte of the commen teachynge of the churche, howsoeuer some glose, or some priuate teacher might speake of it, and the secōd part, suche as hath been euer so taught. One thyng (I thinke) good to admonishe the reader, that whatsoeuer I affirme, or pre­cisely denye, I meane within the compasse of my knowlege, which I speake not because I am in any suspiciō, or dout of that I affirme or deny, but to auoyde the temerite of deniyng (as neuer) or affirmyng (as euer) which he ex­tremities. And I mean also of publike doctrin by consent receyued, so taught & beleued, and [Page 21] not that any one man might blindely write as vtteryng his fansye as this auctor dothe for his pleasure. There foloweth in the auctor thus.

They say that in the Sacrament the corporall The auctor. membres of Christ, be not distante in place on from an other, but that whersoeuer the hede is, there be the fee [...]e, & whersoeuer the armes be, ther be the legges, so that in euery parte of the bread and wyne is all together, whole hede, whole feete, whole fleshe, whole bloud, whole hearte, whole longes, whole breaste, whole backe, and al togither whole, confused and mixte without distinction, or diuersite. O what a fo­lishe and an abhominable inuentiō is this? to make of the most pure and persite bodye of Christ, suche a confuse and monstrouse bodye, And yet can the Papistes imagyne nothyng so folishe, but al christē people, must receyue the same, as an oracle of God, & as a most certayne article of theyr fayth, without whisperyng to the contrarye.

This is merueylous Rhetorique, & suche The answer. as thauctor hath ouersene himselfe in the vt­teraunce of it, & cōfesseth himself pretely abused, to the latter ende of his yeres to haue be­leued that, he now calleth so folishe. But to the purpose. In the booke of commen prayor (now at this tyme) set forthe in this realme: At is ordred to teache the people, that in eche parte of the bread consecrate, broken, is the hole body of our sauior Christ, which is agre­able to the Catholique doctrine: Upō accasiō hereof, it liketh this auctor to multiply lan­guage by enumeraciō of partes, and because [Page] reason without fay the, directeth the bodely eye, to so litle a visible quātitie in the hooste. This auctor beareth in hand, the Catholique churche to say, and teache, al that fonde rea­son diuiseth, where as the churche, in the do­ctrine of this mistery, denyeth al that reason without fayth diuiseth: And therfore, when we acknowledge by faythe, Christes body present, although we say, it is presēt truely, really, substancially, yet we say, our senses be not priuy to that presence, ne the maner of it, but by instruction of fayth, and therfore we saye, Christes body to be not locally pre­sent, not by maner of quantite but inuisibly, and in no sensible maner, but meruelously in a Sacramēt and mistery truely, and in suche a spiritual maner, as we can not defyne and determyne, & yet by faith, we know his body present, the partes of whiche, be in them self distincte one frō an other, in their swne sub­stance, but not by circumscription of seuerall places to be comprehended of our capacitie, which partes, we can not by demonstracion place, nor by imaginaciō displace, diminishe, altre, or cōfound (as this auctor) for his pleasure reporteth, who writeth mōst rously in so high a mistery, & impudētly beareth in hand the Catholique churche, to teache that he ly­steth to beare in hād (may by wanton reasō) be deduced of their teachyng, wher as altrue christiā men beleue simply Christes wordes, & trouble not their heades with suche conse­quēces, [Page 22] as seme to stryue with reasō. This is in th auctor no whisperyng, but plainly ray­lyng, wherin (if he had remembred himselfe wel) he would not haue spokē of all christian men in the receypt of that he entēdeth to dis­proue. And if (he would say) he spake it by an Ironie or skorne, yet it implyeth that all had receyued that he thus mocketh. Whiche after the sorte he writeth, was neuer diuised by Papiste, or other to be so taught, other­wise then, as this auctor might rede it, as an idle argument, to shewe absurdite in reason. For in gods workes, as the sacramentes be, we must thinke al semelynes in dede without deformite, euē as we beleue al gods iudgemē tes iust & true, although reasō cōclude in thē euidēt īiquitie. Mās reasō whē it semeth most galaūt is ful of sportes & folie. Gods workes be al semelynes, without confusion, monstre or any such absurditie, as this auctor suppo­seth. Although I cā not, in the sacramēt with the eye of my reasō, locally distincte Christes head frō his foote, his legge, frō his arme, & wher in the boke of cōmon prayor, it is truly sayd, ī eche part of the bread cōsecrat brokē to be Christs hole body, if one of curiosite wold questiō with me, & I of foly wold answer him first wher is Christs head? I should say here (pointyng with my finger) he would thinke it first a lytle head. Thē he would aske, wher is his foote, & I shold say ther, & pointe in the same place agayne, for there is noone other left. If he replyed that I poynted before the [Page] same for the head, might not the thyrd, a Catholique mā, that stode by, (trowe you) wise­ly caiie vs both madde, to goo aboute to dis­cusse, that we must graūt we see not, & whē by faythe, we knowe only the beyng present of Christes most preciouse body, thē by blynd reason, to discusse the maner of beyng in the situacion of suche partes, as we do not see? Now if there came among vs a fourth man as a mediator, & would do as kyng Alexan­der did when he could not open the knot of Quintꝰ Cur [...]us maketh mencion of this facte of Alexan­der. Gordius, he did cutte it with his sworde, if this mā should say, I wyll releaue this mat­ter, you beleue Christes body is present in dede really, and substācially, leue out really and substantially, and say his body is presēt in significacion, & then it may be easely con­ceyued, by reason that Christes body beyng neuer so great, may be aswell signifyed, by a lytle peece of bread, as by a great peece of breade: euen as a manne may wryte a great mans name, aswell in smallettres shorte, as in great letters at lenght. And to commende further his diuise vnto vs, would percase tell how many absurdities as he thinketh and inconueniences might be auoyded by it. This fourth man I speake of, makyng him selfe a mediatour vnmete therfore, because he hath no participatiō with fayth: yet if our religion and fayth wer mans inuention, as that of Numa Pompilius was, should not vtter thys his conceyte all idelly. For [...] [Page 23] speaketh of a ioly easye way without any misterye or meruayle at all. But our fayth, is of hearyng, as hath been preached conty­nually from the beginnyng, grounded vpon the most sure truthe of the worde of God, and therfore can not be attempered as man would diuise it, to exclude trauayle in carnal reason. For then the Sabellians wer to be Sabel­lians. herkened vnto. Who by their heresy toke away all the harde and difficile questions in the mistery of the trinitie.

The Arrians also releued muche mannes Arrians. reason in consideration of Christes death, deniyng hym to be of the same substaunce with his father, whiche was a pestilent he­resye. Now in the Sacramēt to say Christes bodye is present only by signification, as it releueth in some mennes indgementes the absurdities in reason, which ought not to be relieued: So it condempneth al the true pu­blique fayth testified in the churche from the beginyng hitherto, & sheweth the lerned ho­ly men, to haue wondred in their writynges at that whiche hath no wounder at al: to or­deyne one thyng to be the signification of an other, which is practised dayly among men. But from the beginnyng the mistery of the Sacrament hath been with wounder mer­ueyled at, how Christ made bread his body, and wyne his bloud, and vnder the figure of these visible creatures, gaue inuisibly his precious body and bloud presently there.

[...]

[Page] tedly, S. Augustyne sayth: We may not of mens maners esteme the sacramentes, they Contra li [...]eras [...]eti. lib. 20. be made by him whose they be, but worthely vsed they bryng reward, vnworthely hand­led they bring indgemēt. He that dispenseth the Sacrament worthely and he that vseth it vnworthely, be not one, but that thyng is one, whither it be handeled worthely or vn­worthely, so as it is neyther better ne worse but life or deathe of them that vse it. Thus sayth S. Augustyne and therfore be the re­ceyuer worthy or vnworthy, good or euil, the substaunce of Christes Sacrament is all one as beyng goddes worke, who worketh vniformely, and yet is not in all that receyue of like effecte, not for any alteracion or dimi­nution in it, but for the diuersitie of him that receyueth: So as the report made here of the doctrine of the Catholique churche vnder the name of Papistes, is a very true reporte, and for want of grace reproued by thauctor as no true doctrine. And the seconde part of the comparison on thauctors side, conteyned vn­der (we say) by them that in hypocrisye pre­tēd to be truthes frendes, conteyneth an vn­truth, to the simple reader, and yet hath a matter of wranglyng to the learned reader, because of the worde (very) which referred to thefecte of eatyng the body of Christ, wher­by to receyue life, may be so spokē, that none receyue the body of Christe with the very ef­fecte of life, but suche as eate the sacrament [Page 25] spirituallye, that is to saye with true fayth worthely. And yet euill men as Iudas, re­ceiue the same very body, touchyng the truth of the presence therof, that S. Peter did. For in the substaunce of the Sacrament, whiche is Goddes worke is no variete, who ordey­neth all (as afore) vniformely, but in man is the variete, amonges whō he that receyueth worthely Christes body, receyueth life, and he that receyueth vnworthely, receyueth cō ­dempnacion. There foloweth further.

They say that good men eate the body of Christ The auctor. and drinke his bloud only at that tyme when they receyue the Sacrament: we say that they eate / drinke and fede of Christ continually / so long as they be membres of his body.

What forehede, I pray you, is so heatde­ned, The answer. that can vtter this among them, that know any thing of the learnyng of Christes churche? In whiche it is a most cōmon distin­ction, that there is thre maner of eatynges of Christes body and bloud: one spiritual only, whiche is here affirmed in the seconde parte (we say) wherein the auctor and his say, as the churche sayth. Another eatyng is bothe sacramentally & spiritually, whiche is when men worthely communicate in the supper. The thyrd is sacramentally only, whiche is by men vnworthy, who eate and drynke in the holy supper to their cōdempnacion only. And the learned men in Christes churche say that the ignoraūce, & want of obseruacion of [Page] 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 impudēcy is it, to say that the church tea­cheth good mē 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, whē we eat only spiritually by faith, God that worketh without his sacramētes, 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 sacramētes, wherunto we ought to geue most certayne trust & confidēce. wher­fore to teache the spirituall manducaciō to be equal with the spiritual manducation & sacramental also, that is to dimishe theffecte of the institution of the Sacramēt, whiche no Chri­sten man ought to do.

They say that the body of Christ that is in the The [...]. [Page 26] Sacramēt, hath his owne propre tourme & quantitie: We say that Christ is there sacramentally and spi­ritually without fourme or quantitie.

In this cōparison 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 Sacramēt the very true body of Christ, which good men beleue vpon the cre­dite of Christ that sayd so, & knowlege ther­with the maner of that presēce, to be an high mystery, and the maner so spirituall, as the [...]arnall man can not by discourse of reason [Page] 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 Sacramēt, 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 Sacramēt 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 thē yet hath been heard or redde of, but into such [Page 27] 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 thē 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 [Page] 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 vnderstādyng, al do not agree, yet folowyng that vnderstādyng, we may not so presse the words, as there should be nō differēce at al, & this one special differēce S. Augustine noteth how their sacramentes conteyned the promyse of that, whiche in our sacramentes is geuē. Thus he sayth; & this is euidēt of it selfe, how to vs in the holy supper Christ sayth: (This is my body that shall be betrayed for you (Take, eate) which was ne­uer sayd to the fathers, although their fayth in substance agreed with our, hauyng al one Christ & mediatour, whiche they loked for to come, & we acknowledge to be already cōme. (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 [Page 28] 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 Kētes obstinacye. dyed, that is to say, that Christ toke nothyng of the virgyn, but brought his body with him frō aboue, beyng a thyng worthy to be noted, how the old heresi, deniyng the true takyng of the fleshe of Christ in the virgyns wōde, at the same tyme to reuiue. When the true deliuerance of Christes fleshe in the holy supper be of vs eatē, is also denyed. For as it is a mere truth without figure, & yet an high mistery, godsworke in thincarnatiō of Christ wherin our fleshe was of Christ truly takē 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 eatē. Whē 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 presēce, which I adde to auoyde cauillatiō. And to make an ende of this cōparison, this I say, that this article declareth wātones [Page] to make a differēce in wordes, where none is in the sence rightly taken, wit [...] 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 mas [...]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 cōuersion 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 presēt there, wher the substāce of bread & wine was before. So as this cōparison of differēce is mere wrāglyng & so euidēt, as it nedeth no further answer, but a note: [...]o how they be not ashamed to trifle in [Page 29] 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 [...]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 cōparison, 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 [Page] improued, if any such there be to make the de­uotiō of the priest a satisfactiō. For vndoub­tedly Christ is our satisfactiō wholly & fully, who hath payde our hole debte to god the fa­ther, for thappesing of his iust wrath against vs, and hath cācelled 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 innocēt suffryng, his willyng & obediēt 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 accōplishmēt of al sacrifices, as of whom all other sacrifices before, were shadowes & figures. And here is to be cōside­red, howe the obedient wyl in Christes sacri­fice, is specially to be noted, who suffred be­cause he would. Whiche S. Paule setteth forth in declaratiō of Christes humilitie. And although that willyng obediēce was ended & perfited on the crosse, to the whiche it cōti­nued frō the begining, by reasō wherof, tho­blatiō is in S. Paules speach, attribute ther vnto: yet as in the sacrifice of abrahā, whē he offred Isaac, the ernest wil of offryng, was [Page 30] accōpted for the offryng in dede, wherpō it is sayd in scripture that Abrahā offred Isaac, & the declaration of the wil of Abrahā, is called the offryng. So the declaration of Christes wil in his last supper, was an offryng of him to God the father, assuryng there his Apo­stels, of his wil & determination, & by thē al the worlde, that his body should be betrayed for thē & vs, & his precious bloud shedde for remissiō of synne, which his worde he cōfer­med thē, with the gift of his precious body to be eaten, & his precious bloud to be dronken. In which mistery, he declared his body and bloud to be the very sacrifice of the worlde, by him offred to God the father, by the same wil, that he sayd his body shuld be betrayed for vs. And therby ascertayned vs to be in him willyng, that the Iewes on the crosse semed to execute by violence & force against his wil. And therfore as christ offred himself on the crosse, in the execution of the worke of his wil, so he offred himselfe in his supper, in declaration of his wil, wherby we might be the more assured of the effect of his deth which he suffred willyngly & determinatly, for the redemptiō of the worlde, with a most perfite oblation & satisfaction for the synnes of the worlde, exhibite & offred by him to God the father, for the recōciliatiō of mannes nature to gods fauor & grace. And this I wryte be­cause this auctor speaketh so precisely, howe Christ offred himself neuer but ones, wherby (if he meane by ones offryng) the hole action [Page] of our redēption, whiche was consummate & perfited vpon the crosse: Al must confesse the substaunce of that worke of redemption, by thoblation of Christes body on the crosse, to haue been absolutly finished, & so ones offred for al. But there is no scripture, wherupō we myght conclude, that Christ dyd in this mor­tall life, but in one particuler momēt of tyme offre himselfe to his father. For S. Paule describeth it to the Philippians, vnder the Phil. 2. worde of humiliation, to haue continued the hole tyme of Christes conuersation here, euē to the death, the death of the crosse. And that thys obedience to God in humilitie is called offeryng, appeareth by S. Paule when he exhorteth vs to offre our bodies, which mea­neth a continual obedience in thobseruation of Gods will, & he calleth (Oblationem gen­tium) Rom. 12 to bryng them to fayth. And Abrahās willyng obedience, ready at Gods commaū ­dement to offre Isaac, is called the offerynge of Isaac, and is in very dede a true offeryng and eche man offreth himselfe to God, when he yeldeth to gods callyng, and presenteth himselfe ready to do gods wyl and cōmaun­dement, who then may be say de to offre his seruyce (that is to say) to place his seruice in sight and before him, before whom, it should be done. And because our sauiour Christ, by the decree of the hole trinite roke mannes na­ture vpon him, to suffre death for our redem­ption, whiche death, in his last supper, he [Page 31] declared playnly, he would suffre. We reade in S. Cyprian how Christ offred himselfe in his supper. fulfillyng the figure of Melchi­sedech, who by thoffryng of bread and wyne signifyed that high mistery of Christes sup­per, in which Christ vnder the forme of bread and wyne, gaue his very body and bloud to be eaten and dronken, and in the geuynge therof, declared the determination of his glorious Passion, and the fruite and effecte therof, Whiche doyng was a swete, & plea­saunte oblatiō to God the father, conteinyng a most perfyte obedience to Gods wyll and pleasure. And in the mistery of this supper, was writen, made and sealed a most per­fyte testimonie, for an effectuall memorye of Christes offeryng of himselfe to his father, and of his death and passion with the fruite therof. And therfore Christ ordeyned this supper, to be obserued and continued for a memory to his cummyng: So as we that sawe not, with our bodely eyes Christes death and passion, may in the celebration of the supper, be most suredly ascertayned of the truth, out of Christes owne mouth. Who styl speaketh in the person of the ministre of the church: This is my body that is betrayed for you: This is my bloud that is shedde for you in remission of synne: and therwith ma­keth his very body truely present, and his precious bloud truely present, to be taken of vs, eaten and dronken. Wherby we be assu­red, [Page] that Christ is the same to vs, that he was to them, and vseth vs as familiarly as he did them, offreth himself to his father for vs, aswel as for thē, declareth his wil in the fruit of his death, to perteyn aswel to vs, as to thē. Of which death we be assured by his own mouth, that he suffred the same to thef: fecte he spake of, & by the continual feadyng in this high mystery, of the same very body that suffed, and feadyng of it without con­sumptiō, beyng continually exhibite vnto vs a liuyng body, and liuely bloud, not only our soule is specially and spiritually comforted, and our body therby reduced to more confor­mable obedience to the soule, but also we by the participation of this most precious body and bloud, be ascertayned of resurrectiō and regeneration of our bodyes & fleshe, to be by gods power made incorruptible, & immortal to lyue & haue fruition in God with our soule for euer. Wherfore hauyng this mystery of Christes supper, so many truthes in it, the churche hath celebrate thē al, and knowled­ged them al, of one certayntie in truth, not as figures, but really in dede, that is to say, as our body shal be in the general resurrectiō regenerate in dede, so we beleue we fede here of Christes body in dede. And as it is true, that Christes body in dede is betrayed for vs, so it is true, that he geueth vs to eate his very body in dede. And as it is true, that [Page 32] Christ was in yearth and dyd celebrate this supper: So it is true that he commaunded it to be celebrate by vs, tyl he come: And as it is true that Christ was very God omnipo­tēt, and very man: So it is true that he could do that he affirmed by his worde himselfe to do, And as he is most sincere truth: So may we be truely assured, that he would, and did as he sayd. And as it is true that he is most iuss: so it is true that he assisteth the doyng of his commaundement in the celebration of the holy supper. And therfore as he is auctor of this most holy Sacrament of his precious body and bloud: so is he the maker of it, & is the inuisible priest, who as Emissene sayth, Emissen by his secrete power, with his worde, chaū ­geth the visible creatures, into the substāce of his body and bloud. Wherin manne the visible priest and ministre by ordre of the churche, is only a dispenser of the mystery, doyng and saiyng, as the holy ghost hath taught the churche to be done and sayd. Fi­nally as we be taught by fayth, all these to be true: so when wanton reasō, (fayth beyng a shepe) goth about by curiositie to empayre any one of these truthes, the chayne is bro­ken, the lynkes sparkle abroade, and all is brought in daungier to be scattered and scambled at. Truthes haue been abused, but yet they be true, as they were before. For no man can make that is true false, [Page] & abuse, is mannes faulte & not the thynges. Scripture in speache geueth to man as gods ministre, the name of that actiō, which God specially worketh in that ministery. So it pleaseth God to honor the ministery of man in his churche, by whom it also pleaseth him to worke effectually. And Christ sayd, they that beleue in me, shall do the workes that I do, and greater. When all this honour is geuen to man, as spiritually to regenerate, when the ministre sayth (I Baptize the) and to remitte synne, to suche as fall after, to be also a ministre in consecration of Christes most precious body, wyth the ministration of other sacramentes, benedictions, & prayour. If man should then waxe proude, & glorye (as of himselfe) and extolle his owne deuo­tion in these ministeries, suche men should bewraye their owne noughtie hypocrisye, & yet therby empayre not the very dignitie of the ministery, ne the very true frute & effecte therof. And therfore when the church, by the ministre prayeth, that the creatures of bread and wyne, set on thaultare (as the booke of commen prayour in this realme hath ordred) may be vnto vs the body & bloud of our sa­uior Christ, we require then the celebration of the same supper, whiche Christ made to his Apostels, for to be the continual memory of his death, with all frute and effecte, suche as the same had in the first institutiō, Wher­fore when the ministre pronounseth Chri­stes [Page 33] wordes, as spoken of his mouth, it is to be beleued, that Christ doth nowe, as he did then. And it is to be noted, that although in the sacramēt of baptisme, the ministre saith: I baptize the, yet in the celebratiō of this supper, the wordes be spoken in Christs person, as saiyng himselfe: This is my body that is broken for you, which is not to vs only a me­mory, but an effectuall memory with the very presence of Christes body & bloud, our very sacrifice, who doyng now as he did then, of­freth himselfe to his father, as he did thē, not to renewe that offryng as though it wer im­perfite, but continually to refreshe vs, that dayly fall and decay. And as (S. Iohn sayth) Christ is our aduocate & entreateth for vs, or 1. Ioā. 2. pleadeth for vs, not to supplye any wante on gods behalfe, but to releaue our wantes in edificatiō, wherin the ministery of the church trauayleth to brynge manne to perfection in Christ, whiche Christ himselfe dothe assiste and absolutely perfourme in his churche his mystical body. Nowe whē we haue Christes body thus presente in the celebration of the holy supper, and by Christes mouth present vnto vs, saying: This is my body whiche is betrayed for you, Then haue we Christs bo­dy recommended vnto vs (as oure sacrifice) and a sacrifice propiciatory for al the synnes of the worlde, beynge the onely sacrifice of Christes church, the pure and cleane sacrifice whereof the prophete Malachie spake, and Malach. [Page] wherof the fathers in Christes churche haue synce the beginnyng contynually writen, the very true presence wherof, most constantely beleued, hath encreased from tyme to tyme suche ceremonyes as haue been vsed in the celebration of that supper, in which by Chri­stes owne mouth we be ascertayned of his most glorious death and passion and the selfe same body that suffred, deliuered vnto vs in mysterye to be eaten of vs, & therfore so to be worshipped & acknowledged of vs as our very only sacrifice, in whom, by whom, and for whom our other priuate giftes & sacrifices be acceptable and none otherwise. And therfore as Christ declareth in the supper himselfe an offryng & sacrifice for our synne, offryng him­self to his father as our mediatour, & so ther­with recommendeth to his father the church his body, for which he suffreth: so the churche at the same supper in their offryng of laudes and thankes, with suche other giftes as they haue receyued frō God, ioyne thē selfe with their head Christ, presentyng & offryng him, as one, by whom, for whom, & in whom all that by gods grace man can do wel, is auay­lable & acceptable, & without whom, nothing by vs done, can be pleasaunce in the sight of God, wherupon this persuasion hath been truely conceyued, whiche is also in the booke of commen prayour, in the celebration of the holy supper retayned, that it is very profita­ble at that tyme when the memory of Christs [Page 34] death is solempnized, to remēbre with pray­our all astates of the church, & to recommende thē to God, which S. Paule to Timothe se­meth 1. Tim. 2. to require. At whiche tyme as Christ si­gnifyeth vnto vs the certayntie of his death, & geueth vs to be eaten, as it were in pledge, the same his precious body that suffred: So we for declaratiō of our cōstdēce in that death & sacrifice, do kindely remembre with thākes his special giftes, & charitably remembre the rest of the membres of Christes churche with prayour, & as we are able, shoulde with our bodely goods remēbre at that tyme specially, to releaue such as haue nede by pouertie, And agayne, as Christ putteth vs in remēbraunce of his great benefite: so we should throughly remēbre him for our parte, with the true con­fessiō of this mystery, wherin is recapitulate a memorial of al giftes & misteryes, that God in Christ hath wrought for vs. In the cōside ratiō & estimatiō wherof, as there hath been a faulte in the securite of suche, as so their names wer remēbred in this holy time of me­mory, they cared not how muche they forgat themselfe: so there may be a faulte in such as neglectyng it, care not whither they be remē ­bred there at al, & therfore would haue it no­thyng, but a plaine eatyng & drinkyng. How much the remēbrance in prayour may auayle no mā mā prescribe, but that it auayleth euery christē mā must cōfesse. Mā may nothing and gate to his deuotiō. But s. Iames sayd truly Iaco. 5. [Page] (multum valet oratio iusti assidua.) It is to be abhorred to haue hypocrites that counter­fecte deuotion, but true deuotion is to be wis­shed of God and prayed for, whiche is Gods gifte, not to obscure his glorye, but to set it forth, not that we should then trust in mens merites & prayers, but laud & glorify God in thē (Qui talem potestatem dedit hominibus) one to be iudged able to releue an other with his prayour, referryng all to procede from God, by the mediation of our sauiour & rede­mer Iesus Christ. I haue taryed long in this matter, to declare that for theffect of al cele­stial or worldly giftes to be obteined of God in the celebratiō of Christs holy supper, whē we call it the cōmunion: is now prayed for to be present, & is present, & with Gods fauour shalbe obteyned, if we deuoutly, reuerently, charitably, & quietly, vse & frequent the same without other Innouacions then thordre of the boke prescribeth. Now to the last diffrēce

They say, that Christ is corporally in many pla­ces The auctor. at one tyme, affirming that his body is corporally & really present in as many places as there be hostes consecrated. We say, that as the sonne corporally is euer in heauen, & no where els, & yet by his operation & vertue, the sonne is here in earth, by whose influēce & vertue all thinges in the world be corporally regene rated, encreased & grow to their perfite state: So like­wise our sauiour Christ bodely & corporally is in he­uen, sittyng at the righthande of his father, although spirituallye he hath promysed to be present with vs vpō yearth vnto the worldes ende. And when so euer [Page 35] two or thre be gathered together in his name, [...] is there in the myddes among them, by whose spiritual grace al godly men be first by him spiritually regene­rate and after encrease and growe to their spirituall perfection in God, spiritually by fayth eatyng his fleshe and drinkyng his bloud, although the same corporally be in heauen.

The true teachyng is, that Christes very The answer. body is present vnder the forme of bread, in as many hoostes as be cōsecrate, in how ma­ny places soeuer the hoostes be cōsecrate, & is there really & substancially, whiche wordes really & substācially be implyed, whē we say truly-presēt. The worde corporally may haue an ambiguite, & doublenes, in respecre & rela­tion. One is to the truth of the body present, & so it may be said, Christ is corporally presēt in the Sacrament, but (if the worde corpo­rally be referred to the maner of the presēce) then we should say Christes body were pre­sent after a corporall maner, whiche we say not, but in a spirituall maner, & therfore not locally, nor by maner of quantitie, but in such a maner as God only knoweth, & yet doth vs to vnderstand by fayth, the truth of the very presence, excedyng our capacite to cōprehend the maner (howe.) This is the very true tea­chyng to affirme the truth of the presence of Christes very body in the Sacramēt, euen of the same bodye that suffred in playne simple euident termes & wordes, suche as can not by cauillatiō be mystaken & construed, so nere as possibly mās infirmitie permitteth & suffreth. [Page] Nowe let vs cōsider in what sorte thauctor & his company which he calleth (we say) do vnderstand the Sacramēt, who go about to ex­presse the same by a similitude of the creature of the sonne, whiche sonne (this auctor saith) is euer corporally in heauen, & no where els, & yet by operation & vertue, is here in year: so Christ is corporally in heauen. &c. In this matter of similitudes, it is to be taken for a truth vndoubted, that there is no creature by similitude, ne any lāguage of man, able to ex­presse God & his mysteries: For and thinges that be seē or herd, might throughly expresse Gods inuisible mysteries, the nature where­of is, that they cānot throughly be expressed, they wer no mysteries, & yet it is true, that of thinges visible, wherin God worketh won­derfully, there may be some resemblaunces, some shadowes, and as it wer inductions, to make a mā astomed, in cōsideraciō of thinges inuisible, when he seeth thynges visible so wonderfully wrought, & to haue so meruey­lous effectes. And diuers good catholike de­uout men haue by diuerse naturall thinges gone about to open vnto vs the mysterye of the trinitie, partely by the sonne, as this au­ctor doth in the Sacrament, partly by fyre, partely by the soule of man, by the Musiciās science, the arte, the touche, with the players fyngers, & the sounde of the corde, wherin, when witte hathe all trauayled the matter yet remayneth darke, ne cannot be throughly [Page 36] set forthe by any similitude. But to the pur­pose of this similitude of the sōne, which sōne this auctor sayth is onely corporally in heauē & no where els, & in the yearth the operation & vertue of the sonne: So as by this auctours supposal, the substaunce of the sonne should not be in yearth: but only by operacion & ver­tue, wherin (if this auctor erreth) he doth the reader to vnderstand, that if he erre in cōsideracion of naturall thinges, it is no merueyle though he erre in heauenly thinges. For be­cause I wil not of my selfe beginne the cōtenciō with this auctor, of the natural worke of the-sonne, I will bryng forthe the saiyng of Martine Bucer nowe residēt at Cambridge, who vehemētly & for so much truly, affirmeth the true real presence of Christes body in the sacramēt: For he sayth Christ sayd not, This Bucer. is my spirite, this is my vertue, but this is my body: wherfore he saith we must beleue Christes body to be there, the same that did hange vpō the crosse, our lord himself, which in som parte to declare he vseth the similitude of the son, for his purpose, to proue christs body presēt really & substācially in the sacramēt, wher this autor vseth the same similitude to proue the body of christ really absēt. I wil write in here as Bucer speketh it in latin, expoūdyng the .xxvi. chap. of Mathewe, & thē I will put the same in english. Bucers wordes be these. Vt sol verè vno in loco coeli visibilis circum­scriptus Bucerꝰ. est, radijs tamen suis, presens verè & [Page] substantialiter exhibetur vbilibet orbis. Ita Dominus etiam si circumscribatur vno loco coeli, arcani & diuini, id est gloriae patris, ver­bo tamen suo, & sacris symbolis, verè & totus ipse deus & homo praesens exhibetur in sacra coena, eo (que) substancialiter: quā praesentiā non minus certo agnoscit mens credēs verbis hijs Dn̄i & symbolis, quam oculi vident & habēt Solem praesentem demonstratum & exhibi­tum sua corporali luce. Res ista arcana est & noui Testamenti, res fidei, nō sunt igitur huc admittēdae cogitationes de praesentatione cor poris, quae constat ratione huius vitae etiā im patibilis & fluxè. Verbo Domini simpliciter inherendum est, & debet fides sensuum de­fectui praebere supplementum. Whiche is thus much in Englishe. As the sonne is truly placed determinately in one place of the visi­ble heauen, and yet is truely & substantially present by meane of his beames elswhere in the worlde abrode: So (our Lorde) although he be comprehended in one place of the secret and diuine heauen, that is to say, the glorye of his father, yet neuer the lesse by his worde and holy tokens, he is exhibite present truly, whole God and man, & therfore in substance in his holy supper, whiche presence mannes mynde geuyng credite to his wordes & tokēs with no lesse certaintie acknowlegeth, then our eyes see, & haue the sōne present exhibite [Page 37] and shewed with his corporal light. This is a depe secrete matter of the newe testamēt, & a matter of faith and therfore herin though­tes be not to be receyued of suche a presenta­tion of the body, as cōsisteth in the maner of this lyfe trāsitorie and subiecte to suffre. We must simply cleaue to the worde of Christ, & fayth must releue the defaulte of our sences. Thus hath Bucer expressed his mynd, wher vnto because the similitude of the sonne doth not answer in all partes, he noteth wisely in thēd, how this is a matter of faith, & therfore vpon the foundatiō of fayth, we must speake of it; therby to supply where our sences faile. For the presence of Christ, and hole Christe God and man is true, althoughe we can not thinke of the maner (howe). The chief cause why I bring in Bucer is this, to shewe how in his iugement we haue not only in earth, the operation & vertue of the sonne, but also the substaunce of the sonne, by meane of the sonne beames, which be of the same sustaūce with the sonne, & can not be deuyded in sub­staunce from it, & therfore we haue in yerth the substācial presence of the sonne, not onely the operation & vertue. And howsoeuer the sonne aboue in the distaunce appereth vnto vs of an other sorte, yet the beames that touche the yerth, be of the same substaunce with it (as clerkes say) or at the lest as Bucer sayth, whom I neuer harde accompted Pa­pist, and yet for the reall and substannciall [Page] presence of Christes very body in the Sacra­ment, wryteth pythely & playnly, & here en­countreth this auctor, with his similitude of the sōne directly, whereby may appeare howe muche soeuer Bucer is estemed otherwise, he is not with this auctor regarded in the truth of the Sacrament, which is one of the highe mysteryes in our religion. And this may su [...]ice for that pointe of the similitude where this auctor would haue Christ noon otherwise present in the Sacrament th [...]n he promised to be in thassemble of suche as be gathered together in his name, it is a plaine abolition of the mysterye of the Sacrament, in the woordes wherof Christes humayne body is exhibite & made presēt with his very fleshe to feade vs, & to that singuler & special effecte which in thother presence of Christ in thassemble made in his name, is not spokē of, & it hath no apparaunce of lernyng in scriptures, to conclude vnder one cōsideratiō a spe­cialtie, & a generalitie. And therfore it was well answered of him that said. If I could tel reasō, ther wer no faith, If I could shewe the like, it wer not singuler, whiche both be notable in this sacramēt, where cōdēpnyng all reason, good men both constantly beleue that Christ sitteth on the right hande of his father very god & mā, & also without chaūge of place, doth neuerthelesse make himselfe by his power presēt, both God & man vnder the forme of bread & wyne, at the prayor of the [Page 38] churche and by the ministery of the same, to geue life to such as with fayth do accord [...]yng to his institutiō in his holy supper wort [...]hely receyue him, & to the condemnatiō of su [...]s do vnworthely presume to receiue him there. For the worthie receiuyng of whō we must come endued with christ, & clothed with him semely, in that garment, to receyue his moste precious body & bloud, Christ whole God & man, whereby he then dwelleth in vs more abundantly, confirmyng in vs the effectes of his Passiō & establishyng oure hope of resur­rection, then to enioye the regeneratiō of our body with a ful redemption of body & soule, to lyue with God in glorye for euer. Thus I haue perused these differences, (whiche well considered) me thinke sufficient to take away & appeace all such difference, as might be moued agaynst the Sacrament, the faith whereof hath euer preuayled againste suche as haue impugned it. And I haue not redde of any that hathe writen againste it, but somewhat hathe agaynste his entreprise in his writynges appeared, whereby to con­firme it, or so euident vntruthes affirmed, as whereby those that be as indifferent to the truthe, as Salamon was, in the iudge­ment of the lyuynge childe. May discerne the verye true mother from the other, (that is to say) who playnely entende the true childe to continue aliue, and who coulde be [Page] content to haue it distroyed by diuision. God of his infinite mercy haue pytie on vs, and graunt the true fayth of this holy mystery, [...]rmely to be conceyued in our vnder­standynges, & in one forme of wordes, to be vttered and preached, which in the booke of common prayor is well termed, not distaunt from the Catholique fayth in my iugement. These differences ende in the .xlviii. leef in the second columne I entende nowe to touch the further matter of the booke with the maner of the handelyng of it, and where an euident vntruth is, ther to ioyne an issue, and where slayte & crafte is ther to note it in the whole.

The matter of the booke, from thēce vnto the .xlvi. liefe touchyng the beyng of Christ in heauen and not in yerth in out of purpose superflous. The article of our Crede that Christ ascēded to heauē & sitteth on the right hand of his father, hath been & is most con­stantly beleued of true Christen men, which the true faith of Christes real presence in the Sacramēt doth not touche or empayre. Nor Christ beyng wholy God and man in the Sacrament is therby either out of heauen, or to be sayd conuersaunt in yearth, because the conuersation is not yearthly, but spiri­tuall, and godly, beyng thascensiō of Christ thend of his cōuersation in yearth, and ther­fore all that reasonyng of thauctor, is clerely voyd to trayuaile to proue that is not denied only for a sleight to make it seme as though [Page 39] it wer denyed.

After this, the auctor occupyeth a great numbre of leaues, that is to say, from the .lvii. leef vnto the .lxxiiii. to proue Christes wordes (This is my body) to be a figuratiue speche. Sleight & shifte is vsed in the matter without any effectuall consecution, to him that is lerned.

First thauctour sayth Christ called bread his body, Christ confessed bread his body. To this is answered, Christes callyng is a ma­kyng, as S. Paule sayth, Vocat ea quae non Rom. 4. sunt tanq ea quae sint, He calleth that be not as they were. And so his callyng (as Chriso­stome and the greke commentaryes say is a making, which also the Catechisme teacheth translate by Iustus Ionas in Germany, & after by this auctor in Englishe. Tertullian Tertul­lianꝰ ad­uersus Marcionē. lib. 4. Cypria­nus de ce na domini. sayth Christ made bread his body, and it is al one speche in Christ beyng God declaring his ordinaunces, whither he vse the worde call, or make, for in his mouthe to call is to make. Cyprian sayth accordyng hereunto howe bread is by Gods omnipotencie made fleshe, wherupon also this speche (bread is fleshe) is asmuche to say as made fleshe, not that bread beyng bread is fleshe, but that was bread is flesh, by Gods omnipotency, & so this auctor entreatyng this matter as he doth, hath partly opened the faith of trāsub­stanciation. For in dede bread beyng bread is not Christes body, but that was bread is [Page] now Christes bod [...]e because bread is made Christes bodye & because Christ called bread his bodye, whiche was in Christ to make bread his body. When Christ made water wyne, the spech is very propre to say, water is made wyne. For after like maner of spech, we say Christ iustifyeth a wicked manne, Christ saueth synners, and the physitiō hath made the sicke man whole, and suche dyet will make an whole man sycke. All these speches be propre and playne, so as constru­ction, but not made captious and Sophi­stical to ioyne that was to that nowe is, for­gettyng the meane worke. When Christe sayd (This is my body) there is no necessitie that the demonstratiō (this) should be refer­red to the outwarde visible matter, but may be referred to the inuisible substaunce. As in the speche of God the father vpon Christ in Baptisme: This is my sonne. And here when this auctor taketh his recreatiō to speake of the fainyng of the papistes I shal ioyne this Issue in this place that he vnderstādeth not An issue. what he sayth, & if his knowlege be no bet­ter then is vttered here in the penne, to be in this poynte clerely cōdēpned of ignoraunce.

In the .lx. leef thauctor entreateth whi­ther it be a plaine spech of christ to say (Eate & drinke) speakyng of his body and bloud. I answer the spech of it selfe is propre, cōmaū ­dyng them presēt to eate and drinke that is proponed for thē, & yet it is not requisite that [Page 40] the nature of mā shuld with like comon effect worke, in eatyng & drinkyng that heauenly meate & drinke, as it doth in earthely & car­nali meates. In this mysterye man doth as Christ ordeyned, that is to say, receyue with his mouth, that is ordred to be receiued with his mouth, graūtyng it neuerthelesse of that dignitie & estimation, that Christes wordes affirme, & whither he so doth or no, Christes ordinaunce is as it is in the substaunce of it self alone, wherof no good man iudgeth car­nally or grossely ne discusseth the vnfayth­fall questiō (how) which he can not cōceyue, but leueth the depenes thereof, & doth as he is bidden. This misterye receyueth no mans thoughtes. Christes institution hath a pro­pertie in it, whiche can not be discussed by mans sensual reasō. Christes wordes be spi­rite & life, which this auctour wresteth with his owne glose, to exclud the truth of the ea­tyng of Christes flesh in his supper. And yet for a shifte, if a man would ioyne issue with him, putteth to this spech the wordes (grossely) & (carnally) which wordes in suche a rude vnderstandyng, be termes meter to expresse howe dogges deuoure paunches, then to be inculked in speakyng of this high mysterye. Wherin I wil make the issue with this au­ctour An issue. that no Catholique teaching is so four­med with suche termes as though we should eate Christes moste precious bodye grossely, carnaly, ioynyng those wordes so together, [Page] For els (carnally) alone may haue a good si­gnification, as Hilarye vseth it, but contra­rywise spekyng in the Catholique teachyng of the maner of Christes presence, they call it a spiritual maner of presence, and yet there is present by gods powre the very true natu­ral body & bloud of Christ, hole God & man, without leuyng his place in heauen, & in the holy supper mē vse their mouthes and teathe followyng Christes commaundement in the receiuyng of that holy Sacrament, beyng in fayth sufficiently instructe, that they do not ne can not teare, consume or violate that moste precious body and bloud but vnwor­thely receiuyng it are cause of theyr owne iugement and condempnation. Nowe I wil touche shortely, what maye bee sayd to the particuler auctorities brought in by this au­ctor. Origen is noted (among other writers Orige­nes. of the churche) to drawe the texte to allego­ries, who doth not therby meane to destroye the truth of the lettre, & therfore whē he spe­keth of a figure, sayth not there is a only fi­gure, whiche exclusiue (only) beyng away, (as it is not found by any auctor Catholike, taught that the spech of Christ of the eatyng of his fleshe to be only a figure.)

This auctor hath nothyng auaunced his purpose. As for spiritual vnderstandyng meaneth not any destruction of the lettre where the same may stande with the rule of our fayth. All Christes wordes be life and [Page 41] spirite containyng in the lettre many tymes that is aboue our capacite, as specially in this place of the eatyng of his flesh, to discusse the particularities of (howe) and yet we must be­leue to be true that Christ sayth (although we can not tell howe:) For whē we go about to discusse of gods misterye (howe,) then we fall from fayth, and waxe carnall men, and would haue Gods wayes like ours.

Sainete Chrisostome declareth himselfe Chri­sosto. howe mysteries must be considered with in­warde eyes, whiche is a spirituall vnderstan­dyng, wherby the truth of the mysterye is not, (as it were by a figuratiue spech empay­red) but with an humilitie of vnderstandyng in a certaine fayth of the truth merueyled at. And here thauetor of the boke vseth a sleight to ioyn figuratiuely to spiritually, as though they were alwayes all one, whiche is not so.

Sainct Augustine accordyng to his rules Augu­stinus. of a figuratiue and propre speche, taketh this speche. Excepte ye eate. &c. for a figuratiue speche, because it semeth to commande in the lettre carnally vnderstāded, an heynous and a wicked thyng to eate the fleshe of a man, as mans carnall imaginacion conceyueth it, as appeared by the Capharnites, who murmu­red at it. And therfore because only faithfull men can by fayth vnderstande this mysterye of the eatyng of Christes fleshe in the Sacra­ment, in whiche we eate not the carnal fleshe of a commen man as the lettre soundeth, but [Page] the very spiritual flesh of Christ God & man as fayth teacheth: It is in that respecte well noted for a figuratiue speche, for that it hath suche a sence in the lettre as is hidden frō the vnfaithfull, So as the same lettre beyng to faithful mē spirite & life (who in humilitie of fayth vnderstand the same) is to the vnfaith­ful a figure, as conteinyng such a mystery as by the outward barke of the lettre they vnderstand not: vpon which consideraciō it semeth probable that the other fathers also signi­fiyng a great secrecie in this mysterye of the sacramēt, wherin is a worke of god ineffable, suche, as (the Ethnike eares could not abide) theitermed it a figure, not therby to diminish the truth of the misterye, as the propre & special name of a figure doth, but by the name of a figure, reuerently to couer so great a secre­cie, apte only to be vnderstāded of men bele­uyng, & therfore the said fathers in some part of their workes, in plaine wordes expresse & declare the truth of the mysterye & the plaine doctrine therof accordyng to the Catholique fayth, & in the other part, passe it ouer, with the name of a figure, whiche consideraciō in S. Augustins writinges may be euidētly ga­thered, for in some place no mā more plainly openeth the substance of the Sacramēt, then he doth, speakyng expressely of the very body & bloud of Christ conteyned in it, & yet ther­with in other places noteth in those words a figure, not therby to cōtrary his other playne [Page 42] [...]aiyngs & doctrin, but meanyng by the word figure, to signifie a secrete depe mistery hid dē frō carnal vnderstādyng: For auoyding & ex­pellyng of whiche carnalitie, he geueth this doctrine here of this texte: Excepte ye eate. &c. whiche (as I sayd before) in the bare litteral sence implyeth to carnal iudgemēt, other car­nal circunstances to atteyne the same flesh to be eatē, which in that carnal sence can not be but by wickednes. But what is this to the o­beiyng of Christes cōmaundemet in th insti­tuciō of his supper, when himselfe deliuereth his body & bloud in these mysteryes, and byd­deth; Eate & drinke, there can be no offence to do as Christ biddeth, & therfore S. Augustins rule perteyneth not to Christes supper, wher in when Christ willeth vs to vse our mouth, we ought to dare do as he biddeth for that is spirituall vnderstandyng to do as is cōman­ded without carnall thought or murmuryng in our sensuall diuise howe it can be so. And sainct Augustine in the same place speakyng de communicādo passionibus Christi, decla­reth plainely he meaneth of the Sacrament.

Tertullian speakyng of there present aciō Tertul. of Christes very body, in which place he ter­meth it (the same body) speaketh catholiquely in suche phrase as S. Hierome speaketh, and thē Tertulilā saith afterwarde as this auctor therin truely bryngeth him forth, that Christ made the bred his body, which bread was in the mouth of the pphet a figure of his body. [Page] Wherfore it foloweth by Tertullians cōfes­sion when Christ made the bread his body, that Christ ended the figure, and made it the truth, making now his body that was before the figure of his body. For if Christ did no more but make it a figure styl, thē did he not make it his body as Tertullian himself saith he did. And Tertullian therfore, beyng red thus, as appeareth to be most probable that (that is to say in Turtullian) should be onely referred to the explicaciō of the first (this) as when Turtulliā had alleged Christs words saiyng (this is my body) & putteth to of his owne (that is to say the figure of my body,) these wordes (that is to say) should serue to declare the demonstracion (this,) in this wise (that is to say) this, which the prophet called the figure of my body, is nowe my body, & so Tertullian sayd before that Christ had made bread his body, which bread was a figure of his body with the prophete, & nowe endeth in the very truth, beyng made his body by conuersiō as (Cypriā sheweth) of the nature of bread into his body. Tertullian reasoned against the Marcionistes, & because a figure in the prophete signifieth a certayne vnfay­ned truth of that is signified, seyng Christes bodye was figured by bread in the prophete Hieremy. It appeareth Christ had a true bo­dy. And that the bread was of Christ appro­ued for a figure, he made it nowe his very bo­dy. And this may be sayd euidētly to Tertul­lian, [Page 43] who reasonyng against heretiques v­seth the commoditie of arguyng, and geueth no doctrine of the Sacrament to further this auctors purpose. And what aduātage should theretiques haue of Tertullian if he should meane, that these wordes, This is my body, had only this sence, This is the figure of my body, hauing himself sayd before, that Christ made bread his body. If so plaine speache to make bread his body, conteineth no more cer­taintie in vnderstandyng but the figure of a body? why should not they say, that a body in Christ should euer be spoken of a body in a fi­gure, and so no certaintie of any true body in Christ by Tertullians wordes. This place of Tertullian is no secrete poynte of lernyng, & hath been of Decolampadius & other alleged & by other catholique men answered vnto it, wherof this auctor may not thinke nowe as vpon a wranglyng argument, to satisfie a coniecture diuised, therby to confirme a newe teachyng. Fynally Tertullian termeth it not an onely figure (whiche this auctor muste proue) or els he doth nothyng.

Cyprian shalbe touched after, when we Cypriā speake of him againe.

Chrisostome shall open himselfe hereafter Chry­sosto. Hiero. plainely.

Saint Hierome speketh here very pithely, vsyng the worde (represent) which signifieth a true real exhibiciō: for sainct Hierome spea­keth of the representacion of the truth of [Page] Christes body, which truth excludeth an only figure. For howsoeuer the visible matter of the sacrament be a fignre, the inuisible parte is a truth: Whiche saincre Hierome sayth is here represented (that is to say) made presēt, which only signification doth not.

Sainct Ambrose shall after declare him­selfe, Ambrosius. & it is not denyed, but thauctors in spe­kyng of the Sacrament vsed these wordes, signe, figure, similitude, tokē, but those spea­ches exclude not the veritie & truth of the bo­dy & bloud of Christ, for no approued auctor hath this exclusiue, to say an onely signe, an only tokē, an only similitude, or an only significacion whiche is the issue with this auctor.

As for Sainct Augustine (ad Bonifacium) Augu­stinus. thauctor shall perceiue his faulte at Martyn Bucers hand, who in his epistel dedicatorye of his enarracions of the gospels, reherseth his mynde of Sainct Augustine in this wise. Est (scribit diuus Augustinus) Secundū quē ­dam Bucerꝰ. modum sacramentum corporis Christi, corpus Christi, sacramētum sanguinis Chri­sti, sanguis Christi: At secundū quem modū? Vt significet tantum corpus & sanguinē Do­mini absentia? Absit, Honorari enim & perci­pi in Symbolis visibilibus corpus & sanguinē Domini, idē passim scribit. These wordes of Bucer may be thus englished. Saincte Augu­stine writeth, the Sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certaine maner, the body of Christ, the Sacramēt of the bloud of Christ, [Page 44] the bloud of Christ, But after what maner? that it should signifie onely the body & bloud absēt? Absit. In no wise: For the same S. Augustin writeth in many places, the body and bloud of Christ to be honored, & to be receiued in those visible tokens. Thus sayth Bucer, who vnderstandeth not S. Augustine to say the sacramēt of Christes body, to be Christes body after a certaine maner of spech, as this auctor doth: nor S. Augustine hath no suche wordes, but only (secundum quendā modū) after a certaine maner, whervnto to put (of speche) is an addition more then truth requi­red of necessite. In these words of Bucer may appeare his whole iugemēt cōcernyng S. Augustin, who affirmeth the very true presence of the thing signified in the sacramēt, whiche truth established in the matter, the callyng it a signe, or a token, a figure, a similitude, or a she wyng, maketh no matter whē we vnder­stād the thyng really presēt that is signified, Which & it wer not in dede in the Sacramēt, why shuld it after Bucers true vnderstāding of S. Augustine be honored there? Arguyng vpō mens speaches, may be without ende, & thauctor vpō diuerse respectes speake of one thyng diuersely. Therfore we should resorte to the pyth and knot of the matter, and see what they saye in expoundyng the speciall place, without contenciō, & not what they vt­ter in the heat of their disputaciō, ne to serch the darke & ambiguous places, wherwith to [Page] cōfounde that they speake openly & plainely.

Thauctor bringeth in Theodoret a greke, Theo­doretꝰ. whom to discusse particulerly, wer long and tedious: one notable place there is in him, whiche toucheth the poynte of the matter, which place Peter martyr allegeth in greke, & then translateth it into Latin, not exactely as other haue done to the truthe, but as he hath done, I will write in here. And then wil I write the same translate into Englishe by one that hath trāslate Peter Martyrs boke, and then will I adde the translation of this auctor, and finally, the very truth of the La­tyn, as I will abyde by, & ioyne an issue with this auctor in it, wherby thou reder shalt per­ceiue with what sinceritie thinges be hādled.

Peter Martyr hath of Theodorete this in Latyn, whiche the same Theodorete in a dis­putacion P. Martyr. with an heretique, maketh the Ca­tholique man to say. Captusies ijs quae teten­deras retibus. Ne (que) enim post sanctificationē, mystica symbola illa propria sua natura egre­diuntur, manent enim in priori sua substācia, & figura, & specie, adeo (que) & videntur, & pal­pantur, quc̄admodum & antea. Intelliguntur autem quae facta sunt, & creduntur, & adorā ­tur, tanquam ea existentia, quae creduntur. He that trāslated Peter martyr in Englishe dothe expresse these wordes thus. Lo thou art now caught in the same net whiche thou haddest set to catche me in. For those same [Page 45] mystical signes, do not departe awaie out of their owne propre nature, after the halo­wyng of thē. For they remayne styll in their former substaunce, and their former shape, and their former kinde, and are euen aswell seen and felt as they were afore. But the thynges that are done are vnderstanded and are beleued, and are worshipped, euen as though they were in verye dede, the thinges that are beleued. This is the common trans­lation in to Englishe in Peter martyrs booke translated, whiche this auctor doth trāslate after his facion thus. Thou arte taken with thine owne nette, for the Sacramētal signes go not from their owne nature after the san­ctification, but continue in their former sub­staunce, forme and figure, and bee seen and touched aswel as before. Yet in our myndes we considre what they be made, & dorepute and esteme them, and haue them in reuerence accordyng to the same thynges, that they be taken for. Thus is the translation of this au­ctor. Myne Englishe of this Latyn is thus.

Thou art takē with the same nettes thou diddest lay forth. For the mystical tokens, after the sanctification go nota way, out of their propre nature. For they abyde in their former substance, shape and forme, & so far­furth, that they may bee seen and felt as they might before. But they be vnderstanded that they be made, & are beleued, & are worship­ped, as beyng the same thynges, whiche be [Page] beleued. This is my translation who in the first sētēce meane not to vary from the other translations touchyng the remayne of sub­staunce, shape, forme, or figure, I will vse all those names. But in the seconde parte where Theodorete speaketh of oure beleef what the tokēs be made, and where he saith those tokens be worshipped, as beyng the same thynges, which be beleued, thou mayst see reader howe this auctour flyeth the wordes (beleue) and (worship) whiche the cōmon translation in englishe dothe playne­ly and truely expresse, howe soeuer that translator swarued by colour of the word (tāquam) which there, after the greke, signi­fieth the truth & not the similitude only, like as in samet Paule (Vocat ea quae non sunt tāquam sint) which is to make to be in dede, not as though they were, And the greke is the [...] as it is here [...]. And it were an absurditie, to beleue thynges other­wise thē they be, as though they wer, & very Idolatrie to worship that is not, as though it were in dede. And therfore in these two wordes that they be beleued, that they bee made & be worshiped, is declared by Theodo­rete, his fayth of the very true real presēce of Christes glorious fleshe, whervnto the deite is vnite: which fleshe. S. Augustine cōsonāt­ly to this Theodorete said, must be worship­ped before it be receyued. The worde wor­shippyng [Page 46] put here in Englishe is to expresse the worde (Adorātur) put by Peter in latyn, signifiyng adoring, beyng the verbe in greke of suche signifycation, as is vsed to expresse godly worshippe with bowyng of the knee. Now reader, what should I say by this au­ctor, that conueyeth these two wordes, of beleuyng, and worshippyng, and in stede of thē, cōmeth in with reuerence, takyng, repu­tyng, & estemyng: wherof thou mayst esteme howe this place of Theodorete pinched this auctor, who could not but se that adoryng of the. Sacramēt signifieth the presence of the body of Christ to be adored, which els were an absurditie, & therfore thauctor toke paine to ease it with other wordes of callyng, bele­uyng, reputyng, & estemyng, & for Adoratiō, Reuerēce. Consider what prayse this auctor geueth Theodorete, which prayse condemp­neth this auctor sore. For Theodorete in his doctrine would haue vs beleue the mistery, & adore the sacramēt: where this auctor after in his doctrine professeth, ther is nothyng to be worshipped at al. If one should nowe say to me, yeasyr, but this Theodorete semeth to condēpne transubstantiation, because he spe­keth so of the bread, Thervnto shalbe answered when I speake of transubstanciation, whiche shalbe the laste. For before the truth of the presence of the substaunce of Christes body may appeare, what should we talke of transubstanciation, I will trauaile no more [Page] in Theodoret, but leaue it to thy iudgement reader, what credite this auctor ought to haue that hādleth the mater after this sorte.

As for the vse of figuratiue speches to be accustumed in scripture is not denyed. But Philip Melancton in an epistel to Decolam­padius Melan­cton. of the Sacrement, geueth one good note of obseruation in difference betwene the speches in gods ordinaunces & commaunde­mentes, and otherwise. For if in thunderstā ­dyng of gods ordinaunces and commaunde­mentes, figures may be often receyued: truth shall by allegories be shortely subuerted and all our religion reduced to significations. There is no speache so plaine and simple, but it hath sōne peice of a figuratiue speache, but such as expresseth the common plaine vnder­standyng, and then the common vse of the fi­gure causeth it to be taken as a common pro­pre speache, As these speches, drinke vp this cup or eate this dishe, is in dede a figuratiue speche, but by custume made so common that it is reputed the plaine spech, because it hath but one only vnderstādyng commonly recey­ued. And when Christ sayd: This cuppe is the newe testament: the propre speche therof in lettre, hath an absurdite in reason & fayth also. But whē Christ sayd, This is my body, although the truth of the litteral sence hath an absurditie in carnall reason, yet hath it no absurditie in humilite of fayth nor repu­gneth not to any other truthe of scripture. [Page 47] And seyng it is a singuler miracle of Christ wherby to exercise vs in the fayth, vnderstā ­ded as the plaine wordes signifie in their propre sence, there can no reasonyng be made of other figuratiue speches to make this to be their felowe and like vnto them. No man denyeth the vse of figuratiue speaches in Christes supper, but suche as be equal with plaine propre spech, or be expoūded by other Euangelistes in plaine speche.

In the .lxxiiii. leef this auctor goth about to geue a general solution to all that may be said of Christes beyng in yearth, in heauē, or the. Sacrament, and geueth instructiōs how these wordes of Christes diuine nature figu­ratiuely, spiritually, really, carnally, corpo­porally, may be placed, and thus he sayth: Christ in his diuine nature may be sayd to be in the earth figuratiuely in the sacramēt, spi­ritually in the man that receiueth, but really, carnally, corporally, only in heauē. Let vs cō ­sider the placyng of these termes. When we say christis in his diuine nature euery wher, is he not also really euery where, accordyng to the true essēce of his godhed in dede euery where, that is to say, not in fansye nor ima­gination, but verely, truely, & therfore really as we beleue so in dede euery where? And when Christe is spiritually in good men by grace, is not Christe in them really by grace? but in fansye and imagination? And therfore whatsoeuer this auctor sayth the worde [Page] really may not haue such restraint, to be re­ferred only to heauē, onles the auctor would deny the substaunce of the godhed, which as it cōprehendeth all beyng incōprehensible, & is euery wher without limitatiō of place, so as it is, truly it is, in dede is, & therfore really is, & therfore of Christ must be sayd, wher­souer he is in his diuine nature by powre or grace, he is ther really, whither we speake of heauē or yearth. As for the termes carnally, & corporaly, as this auctor semeth to vse thē, in other places of his booke, to expresse the maner of presence of the humayne nature in Christ, I meruayle by what scripture he wil proue that Christes body is so carnally and corporally in heauen, we be assured by fayth grounded vpon the scriptures of the truth of the beyng of Christes fleshe and body there, and the same to be a true fleshe, and a true bodye, but yet in suche sence as this auctor useth the termes carnai and corporal against the Sacrament, to implie a grossenes, he can not so attribute those termes to Christes bo­dy in heauen. S. Augustine after the grosse Augu. de ciui tate dei Grego. Naziā ­zenꝰ de baptis­mo. sence of carnally, sayth: Christ reigneth not carnally in heauen. And Gregorie Naziāzen sayth: Although Christ shall come in the last day to iudge, so as he shalbe seen, yet there is in him no grossenes he sayth. And refer­reth the maner of his beyng to his know­lege only. And our resurrection sainct Augu­stine [Page 48] sayth, althoughe it shalbe of our true fleshe: yet it shall not be carnally. And when this auctour hath diffamed as it were the termes carnally, and corporally, as termes of grossenes, to whom he vsed alwaies to put as an aduersatiue, the terme spiritually, as thought carnally, and spiritually might not agre in one. Nowe he would for al that, place them in heauen, where is no carna­litie, but all the maner of beyng, spirituall, where is noo grossenes at all, the secrecie of the maner of whiche life, is hidden from us, and suche as eye hath not seen, or eare herd, or ascended in to the heart and thought of man. I knowe these termes carnally and corporally maye haue a good vnderstan­dyng out of the mouth of him that had not diffamed them with grossenes or made them aduersaryes to spirituall, and a man may saye Christ is corporally in heauen, because the truth of his bodye is there, and carnally in heauen, because his fleshe is truely there, but in this vnderstandyng both the wordes carnally and corporally, may be copled with the worde spiritually, which is against this auctors teaching who appointeth the worde spiritually to be spokē of Christes presēce in the mā that receiued the sacramēt worthely, which speech I do not disalowe, but as Christ is spiritually in the man that dothe receyue worthely the Sacrament: So is he in him spiritually before hereceyue, orels he can not [Page] receiue worthely as I haue before sayd. And by this appereth howe this auctor to frame his general solution hath vsed neither of the termes, really, carnally, corporally, or spiri­tually in a conuenient ordre, but hath in his distribution mysused them notably. For Christe in his diuine nature is really euerye where, and in his humayne nature is carnal­ly and corporally as these wordes signifie substaunce of fleshe and bodye continually in heauen to the daye of iudgement: & neuer­thelesse after that signification presēt in the Sacramēt also. And in those termes in that signification the fathers haue spoken of the Sacrament as in the particuler solutions to [...]tours hereafter shal appeare. Mary as touchyng the vse of the worde figuratiuely, to saye that Christe is figuratiuely in the bread and wyne, is a saiyng whiche this au­cro [...] hath not proued at all, but is a doctrine before this diuerse tymes reproued & nowe by this auctour in England renewed.

Let vs nowe consider what particuler answers this auctor diuiseth to make to the fathers of the church, and first what he saith to sainct Elementes Epistel, his handelyng wherof is worthie to be noted.

First, he sayth the Epistel is not Clemen­tes but fayned as he sayth many other thyn­ges Cle­ment. be for their purpose (he sayth,) whiche solution is shorte and may be sone learned of noughty men and noughtly applied further [Page 41] as they liste: But this I may say, if this Epi­stel wer fayned of the Bapistes, then do they shewe themselfe fooles, that could fayne no better but so as this auctor mighte of their fayned Epistell gather thre notes againste them. This auctors notes be these. First that the bread in the sacramēt is called the Lords body, and that the brokē bread be called the peces and fragmentes of the Lordes body. Marke well reader this note that speaketh so muche of bread, where the wordes of the Epistell, in the parte here alleged name no bread at all. If this auctor hath red so much mencion of bread in any other parte of the Epistel, why bryngeth he not that forth to fortifie his note? I haue red after in the same Epistel (panes sanctuarij) but they would not helpe this auctors note, and yet for the other matter ioyned with them, they would slaun­dre an other way. And therfore feyng this auctor hath lefte them out, I will go no fur­ther thē is here alleged. The callyng of bread by enunciation, for a name is not material, because it signifieth that was, but in that is here alleged, is no mention of bread to proue the note, and to faythfull men, the wordes of the Epistel, reuerently expresse the remayne of the mysteryes, in which whē many hostes be offered in the aultare, accordynge to the multitude that shoulde communicate, those many hostes, after consecracion, be not many bodyes of Christe, but of many breades one [Page] body of Christ, & yet as we teach in England nowe, in the booke of comōprayour, in euery parte of that is broken, is the hole body of our sauiour Christ. Mannes wordes can not suffice to expresse gods mysteryes, nor cānot vttre them so, as frowarde reason shall not fynde matter to wrangle. And yet, to staye reason, maye suffise, that as in one loofe of bread broken, euery piece brokē, is a piece of that bread, & euery piece of the bread brokē, is in it selfe a whole piece of bread, for euery piece hath an hole substaunce of bread in it. So we truely speake of the hooste cōsecrate, to auoyde the fansie of multiplicaciō of Chri­stes body, which in al the hostes, & all partes of the hoostes is but one, not brokē, nor distribute by pieces, & yet in a spech to tel, & signifie that is brokē, called in name the leauing pie­ces of the body, portiō of the body, residue of the body, in which neuerthlesse, eche one pece is christs hole body. So as this spech hauing a figure, hath it of necessitie, to auoyde the absurditie, wherby to signifie a multitude of bodyes, which is not so, & the soūde of the spech christen eares do abhorre. But this I aske, where is the mater of this auctors note, that bread is called Christs body? where, there is no worde of bread, in the words alleged, & if there were, as ther is not, it were worthy no note at all. For that name is not abhorred, & the catholique faith teacheth that the fractiō is in the outwarde signe, & not in the body of Christ, inuisibly present, & signified, so to be [Page 50] present by that visible signe? The secōde note of this auctor is, touchyng reseruyng which Clemēt might seme to denye, because he or­dred the remaine, to be receiued of the clerks, thinkyng so best: not declaryng expressly that nothyng might be reserued, to the vse of thē that be abset. The cōtrary wherof, appereth by Iustine the Martyr, who testifieth a reseruaciō Iustinꝰ apol. ij. to be sēt to thē that were sycke, who, & they dwell far from the church (as they do in sūme places) it may by chaūce in the way, or trouble in the sicke mā, tary till the morning, or it be receiued. And Cyril writech expressly, Cyrillꝰ ad Ca­losiriū. that in case it so doth, the mystical benedictiō (by which termes he calleth the sacramēt) remayneth stil in force. Whē this auctor findeth faulte, at hāgyng vp of the sacramēt, he bla­meth only his owne coūtry & the Isles herea­bout, which faulte, linnehod, after he had traueyled other coūtryes foūde here, beyng the maner of custodye in reseruaciō otherwise v­sed thē in other partyes. But one thyng, this auctor should haue noted of Clemēts words, whē he spaketh of fearyng & trēblyng, which & the bread were neuer the holyer, as this auctor teacheth, & but only a signification, why shuld any mā feare or trēble, more in their presence, thē he doth whē he heareth of Christs supper, the gospel red, or himself, or an other saiyng his Crede, which in words signifie as much as the bread doth, if it be but a significaciō? And peter martyr saith, that words signifie Peter Marty [...] [Page] more clerely, then these signes do, & sayth further in his disputaciō with Chedsay, that we receyue the bodye of Christe, no lesse by wordes, then by the Sacramentall signes, whiche teachyng (if it were true) why should this Sacrament be trembled at? But because this auctor noteth the Epistel of Clement to be fayned, I will not make with him any foū dacion of it, but note to the reader the thyrde note, gathered by this auctor of Clementes woordes, whiche is, that Priestes ought not to receyue alone, which the wordes of the pi­stle proue not. It sheweth in dede what was done, & howe the feast is in dede prepared for the people, as well as the Priest. And I ne­uer redde any thyng of ordre in lawe or cere­monie, for biddyng the people to cōmunicate with the Priest, but all the olde prayours & ceremonyes sounded as the people did cōmu­nicate with the Priest. And when the people is prepared for, & then come not, but fearyng and tremblyng forbere to come, that then the Priest might not receyue his parte alone, the wordes of this Epistel shewe not. And Cle­ment in that he speaketh so of leuynges, se­meth to thinke of that case of disapointment of the people that should comme, prouydyng in that case the clerkes to receyue the residue, wherby should appere (if there were not store of clerkes) but only one clerke, as some poore churches haue no mo, then a mā might rather make a note of Clemētes mynde, that in that [Page 51] case one Priest might receyue alone, & so vpō a chaunce kepe the feast alone. But what soe­ner we may gather, that note of this auctour remayneth vnproued: that the Priest ought not to receiue alone. And here I dare therfore ioyne an issue with this auctor, that none of An issue. his thre fayned notes is grounded of any wordes of this, that he noteth a fayned Epi­stel, takyng the only wordes that he allegeth here. This auctor vpō occasiō of this Epistel, which he calleth fayned, speaketh more reue­rently of the Sacramēt then he doth in other places, whiche me thinke worthy to be noted of me. Here he saith that very Christ himself is not only represēted, but also spiritually ge­uen vnto vs in this table, for so I vnderstāde the worde (wherin.) And then if very Christ himselfe be represented & geuen in the table, the auctor meaneth not the material table, but by the word table, the meate vpō the ta­ble, as the worde Mensa, a table doth signifie in the .xvi. of thactes, & the .x. to the Corinthi. Actes. 16 i. Co. 10. Now if very Christ himselfe be geuen in the meate, thē is he present in the meate to be ge­uen: So as by this teachyng very Christ himself is not only figuratiuely in the table, that is to say, the meate of the table, whiche this auctor nowe calleth representyng, but is also spiritually geuē in the table, as these words sounde to me. But whither (this auctor will say) very Christ himselfe is geuen spiritually in the meat, or by the meat, or with the meat, [Page] what scripture hath he toꝓue that, he saith if the words of christ be only a figuratiue spech & the bread only signifie Christs body? For if the wordes, of the instituciō be but in figure, mā cānot adde of his diuise, anyother substāce or effect, thē the words of christ purport, & so this supper, after this auctors teachyng, in other places of his boke, wher hewould haue it but a significatiō, shal be a bare memorie of christsdeath, & signifie oniy such cōmunicaciō of Christ, as we haue otherwise by faith in that benefite of his passiō, without any spe­cial cōmunication of the substance of his flesh in this Sacrament, beyng the same only a fi­gure, if it were true, that this auctor, would persuade in the conclusion of this booke, al­though by the waye he sayth otherwise, for fear percase, & trēbling, that he cōceiueth euē of an Epistle, which him self sayth is fayned.

This auctor sayth he passeth ouer Ignatiꝰ Ignatiꝰ Ireneꝰ. & ireneus, & why? because thei make nothing (he sayth) for the papists purposed with the word papist thauctor plaieth at his pleasure. But it shalbe euidēt, that Irene doth plainly cōfoūde this auctors purpose, in the denial of the true presēce of Christs very flesh in the sa cramēt: who although he vse not the wordes real, & substācial, yet he doth effectually cōpre hēd in his speach of the sacramēt, the vertue, & sirēght of those words. And for the truth of the sacramēt, is Ireneus specially alleged, in so much, as Melanghton, whē he writeth to [...]ip. [...]ict. Occolāpadius, that he will allege none, but such as speake plainly, he allegeth Ireneus [Page 52] for one, as appereth by his said Epistle to Oe­colāpadius. And Oecolāpadius him self is not trubled somuch with answeryng any other to shape any maner of euasiō, as to answer Ire­neus, in whō he notably stūbleth. And Peter Martyr, in his worke, graunteth Irene, to be specially alleged, to whō (whē he goeth about to answer) a mā may euidētly see how he masketh him self. And this auctor bryngeth in Clemēts epistel, of which no great count is made, although it be not cōtēpned, & passeth ouer ireneus, that speaketh euidently in the matter, & was as old as Clemēt or not much yōger. And because, Ignatiꝰ was of that age, & is alleged by Theodorete, to haue writē ī his Epistle (ad Theodorete Dialogo .iij. Smirnēses) wherof may appere his faith of the mistery of the Sacramēt, it shal serue to good purpose, towrite ī the words of the same ignatius hervpō the credite of the said Theodorer, whō this auctor so much cōmēdeth, the words of ignatius be these, Eucharistias & oblationes nō admittūt, ꝙ nō confiteātur, eucharistiā esse carnē seruatoris nostri Iesu Christi, q̄ pro pec­catis nostris, passa est, (quam) pater sua benignitate suscitauit. Which words, be thus much ī English They do not admit (Eucharistias & oblatiōs) be cause they do not cōfesse, Eucharistiā, to be the flesh of our sauiour iesu Christ: which flesh sufred for our sines, which flesh, the the father by his beniguitie, hath stirred vp. These be Ignatiue words, which I haue not throughly englished, because the word (Eucharistia) cā not be wel Englished, beyng a word of mistery, and [Page] (as Ireneus openeth both the partes of the sacramēt, heuēly & earthly, visible & inuisible. But in that, ignatius openeth his fayth thus as he taketh Eucharistia, to be the flesh of our sauior Christ that suffred for vs, he declareth the sence of Christs wordes: this is my body: not to be figuratiue only, but to expresse the truth of the very flesh there geuen, & therfore (Ignatius sayth) Eucharistia, is the fleshe of our sauior Christ, the same that suffred, & the same that rose agayn, which words of Ignatius so pithely opē the matter, as they declare. therwith that fayth also of Theodorete that doth allege him, so as if this auctor would make so absolute a worke, as to peruscal the fathers saiynges: he shuld not thus lepe ouer Ignatiꝰ, nor Irene neither, as I haue before declared. But this is a color of Rhethorike called (reiectiō) of that is hard to answer, & is her a pretie shift or slaight, wherby (thou reader) maist consider how this matter is handled.

As touching Dionisius, a wise reader may Dionysius. without any note of mine, se how this auctor is troubled in him, & calleth for ayde, the help of him that made the greke cōmentaries vpō dionisius, & pledeth therwith the forme of the words really, corporally, sēsibly, & naturally wherof two, that is to say, really & sēsibly, the olde auctors in sillables vsed not, for somuch as I haue red, but corporally & naturaly they vsed, spekyng of this sacramēt. This dionise spake of this mystery after the dignitie of it, not contendyng with any other for the truth [Page 53] of it, as we do nowe: but extollynge it, as a merueilous high misterie, which if the bread be neuer the holier, and were only a signification, as (this auctor teacheth,) were no high mistery at all. As for the thynges of the Sa­crament to be in heauen, the church teacheth so, and yet the same thynges be in dede pre­sent in the Sacramēt also, which is a miste­rie so deape and darke from mannes natural capacitie, as is onely to be beleued super­naturally, without askyng of the question (how) whereof. S. Chrisostome makethe an Chry­sosto­mus de Sacer­do. li. 3. exclamation in this wise.

O greate bene volence of God towardes vs, he that sitteth aboue with the father, at the same houre, is holdē here with the hādes of all men, and geueth himselfe to them that will clapse and embrace him. Thus sayth Chrisostome cōfessyng to be aboue, and here the same thynges at ones, not onely in mens brestes, but hādes also, to declare the inward worke of God, in the substaunce of the visi­ble Sacrament, wherby Christ is present in the middes of our sences, and so may be called sensibly present, although mannes sēces can not comprehende and feale, or taste of him in theyr propre nature. But as for this dionise doth without argument declare his fayth in thadoration he maketh of this Sacrament, whiche is openly testified in his workes, so as we nedde not doubte what his fayth was. As for (this auctors notes) be descaunt voluntarie, without the tenor parte, beyng [Page] be lyke asshamed to allege the text it self le [...]t his .iii. notes might seme fayned without grounde, as before in Sainct Clementes epistel, and therfore I wyllnot truble the reader with them.

Of Tertullian, I haue spoken before, and Ter [...]ul­lian. so hath this auctor also, and forgotten here one notable thyng in Tertulliā, where Ter­tulliā sai [...]th, that Christ made the bread his bodye, not onely called it so, as may appeare by Tertullianes words reported, by this au­ctor before. This note, that I make nowe of. Tertuliā, makethe against this auctors pur­pose: but yet, it makethe with the truthe which (this auctor) should not impugne. The seconde note gathered of Tertulian by this auctor, is not true, for Christ called it his bo­dy, & made it his body, as Tertullian sayth. And the thirde note of this auctor is in cōtra­uersy of readyng, & must be so vnderstāded, as maye agree with the rest of Tertullians saynges, which after my readyng, doth eui­dently proue, & at the lest dothe not improue the Catholique doctrine of Christes churche vniuersally receiued, althoughe it improueth that which (this auctor) calleth here our Ca­tholique doctrine, most impudently, and vn­truely reportynge the same.

Origens wordes be verie plaine and mea­nynge Orige­nes. also, whiche speake of manifestation and exhibition, whiche be two thynges to be verified, thre wayes in our religiō, that is to [Page 54] say, in the worde & re generatiō, & the Sacra­ment of bread and wyne (as this auctor ter­ [...]ithe it) which Origene speaketh not so, but [...]hus (the fleshe of the word of god) not mea­ [...]yng in euerie of these after one sorte, but [...]fter the truth of Scripture in eche of them. Christ in his word is manifested & exhibited vnto vs, and by faieth (that is of hearynge) dwelleth in vs spirituallye, for so we haue his spirite. Of Baptisme. S. Paule sayth as manny as be Baptized be clade in Christe. Nowe in the Sacremēt of bread & wyne (by Origēs rule) Christ shuld be manifestie & exhibitie vnto vs after the scriptures, So as the Sacremēt of bread & wyne, should not onely signifie Christ (that is to say) preach him, but also exhibite him sēsible (as Origenes words be reaported) here to be. so as Christes words (this is my body) should be wordsnot of figure & sheuyng, but of exhibityng Chri­stes body vnto vs, & sensibly, as this auctor allegeth him, whiche should signifie to be re­ceiued with our moueth, as christ cōmaūded, whē he said, take eat, &c. diuersly frō thother two waies, in whiche by Christes spirite, we be made participaunt, of the benefit of his passion wroght in his manhode. But in this Sacrament, we be made participaunt, of his Godhode, by his humanite exhibite vnto vs for fode, & so in this mysterie, we receyue him man & god, & in thother, by meane of his god head, be participat, of the effect of his passion [Page] suffred in his manhead. In this Sacrament Christes manhead is represēted & truely pre­sēt, wher vnto the godhead is moste certainly vnited, whereby we receyue a pledge of the regeneratiō of our fleshe, to be in the general resurrection spiritual with oure soule, as we haue been in Baptisme made spirituall by re­generation of the soule, which in the full re­demption of our bodies, shal be made perfite. And therfore (this auctor) may not compare Baptisme, with the Sacramēt throughly, in whiche Baptisme, Christes manhode is not really present (althoughe the vertue & effecte of his most precious bloude be there) but the truth of the mysterie of this Sacramēt is to haue Christes body his flesh and bloud exhi­bited, wherevnto, eatyng & drinkyng is by Christ in his supper appropriate, In whiche supper, Christ said: (This is my body) which Bucer noteth, and that Christ sayd not, this is my sprit, this is my vertue wherfore after, Origens teachyng, if Christ be not only ma­nifested, but also exhibitie sēsibly in the Sa­crament: then is he in the Sacramēt in dede (that is to say) really, and then is he there substanetally, because the substaunce of the bodye is there, and is there corporally al so, because the very bodye is there, & naturall [...], because the natural body is there, not vnder­standyng corporally and naturally, in the maner of presence, nor sensibly nother. For then wer the maner of presēce with in mans [Page 55] capacitie, and that is false, and therfore the Catholique teachyng is, that the maner of Christes presence in the Sacrament, is spiri­ [...]ual and supernatural, not corporal, not car­ [...]all, not naturall, not sensible, not percepti­ [...]le, but onely spirituall, the (howe) & maner whereof, God knoweth, and we assured by his worde knowe onely the truthe to be so that it is there in dede, and therfore really to be also receyued with our handes and mon­thes, & so sēsibly there, the body that suffred, and therfore his naturall body there, the bo­dy of very fleshe, and therfore his carnal bo­dy, the body truely, and therfore his corpo­ral bodye there. But as for the maner of pre­sence, that is only spiritual, as I sayd before, and here in the inculcation of these wordes, I am tedious (to a lerned reader) but yet this auctor enforeth me thervnto, who with these wordes carnally, corporally, grosly, sensibly, naturally, appliyng thē to the maner of pre­sence, dothe craftely carie away the reader from the simplicitie of his fayth, and by such absurdities, as these wordes grosly vnder­standed importe, astonneth the simple reader in consideration of the matter, and vseth these words, as dust afore their eyes, which to wipe away, I am enforced to repete thū ­derstandyng of these wordes oftener thē els wer necessarie, these thynges wel cōsidered, no man dothe more plainely confounde this auctor then this saiyng of Origene, as he [Page] allegeth it, whatsoeuer other sentencies he woulde pyke out of Origene, when he vseth libertie of allegories to make him seme to say otherwise, and as I haue declared afore, to vnderstand Christes wordes spiritually, is to vnderstand them, as the spirite of God hath taught the churche, and to esteme gods my­steries moste true in the substaunce of the thing so to be, althoughe the maner excedeth our capacites, whiche is a spirituall vnder­standyng of the same, and here also this au­ctor putteth in for spiritually, figuratiuely, to deceyue the reader.

As touching Cyprtā (this auctor) maketh an exposition of his owne diuise, whiche he Cypria nus. would haue taken for an answer vnto him. Where as Cyprian of all other, like as he is ancient within. 25. yeres of Christe: so did he write very openly in the matter, & therfore Melāthon in his Epistle, to Occolampadius did those hym for one, whose wordes in Melan­thon. thaffirmation of Christes true presēce in the Sacramēt had no ambiguitie? And lyke iud­gement, doth Hippinus in his booke before Hippinꝰ alleged geue of Cyprianus fayth in the Sa­cramēt, whiche two, I allege to contrauaile the iudgement of this auctor, who speaketh of his owne head, as it liketh him, playnge, with the wordes grosse, and carnal, & vsyng the worde represent as though it expressed a figure only. Hippinus in the sayd booke alle­geth [Page 56] Cyprian to saye. libro. 3. ad quirinum, Cyprianus. lib. 3. ad Quiri­num. that the bodye of our lorde is our sacrifice in fleshe, meanyng as hippinus sayth, (Eucha­ristiam), wherin S. Augustine, as hippinus sayth further in the prayor for his mother, speakynge of the bread and wyne of Eucha­ristia, sayth that in it is dispensed the holy hoste and sacrifice, wherby was cancelled the byl obligatory that was against vs, & further hippinus sayth, that the olde men called the bread & wyne of our Lords supper, a sacrifice an hoste & oblatiō, for that specially, because they beleued and taught the true bodye of Christe and his true bloud to be distribute in the bread and wyne of Eucharistia, and as Augu­stinus. Hippinꝰ S. Augustine sayth ad Ianuarium, to entre in and be receyued with the mouthe of them that eate. These be hippinus verye wordes, who because he is I thynke in this auctors opinion taken for no Papist, I rather speake in his wordes then myne owne, whom in an other parte of this worke, this auctor dothe as it were for charitie by name, slaunder to be a Papiste, wherfore the sayd hippinus wordes shalbe as I thynke more weighty to oppresse this auctors talke thē myne be, and therfor howe soeuer this auctor handlethe before the wordes of sainct Cyprian (De vu­ctione Chrismatis) and the word (shewyng) out of epistels: yet the same Cyprians fayth appeareth so certaine otherwise as those places shal nede no further answer of me, he [...] [Page] hauyng brought furth the iudgemēt of Hip­pinus & Melancton, howe they vnderstand sainct Cyprians fayth, whiche thou reader oughtest to regarde more then the assertion of this auctor, specially whē thou hast redde howe he hath handled Hilarie, Cyril, Theo­philact, and Damassene, as I shal hereafter touche. This answer to hilarie in the .lxxviii. leef, requireth a plaine precise Issue, worthy to be tryed and apparaunt at hand. Thalle­gatiō An issue. of Hilarie toucheth specially me, who do saye and mainteyne that I cited Hilarie truely (as the copie did serue) and did trāslate him truly in Englishe after the same wordes in latin. This is one Issue which I qualifye with a coppie, because I haue Hilarie nowe better correct, which better correction sitteth forth more liuely the truth thē thother did, & therfore that I did translate was not so much to thaduauntage of that I alleged Hi­larie for, as is that in the booke that I haue now better correct. Hilaries wordes in the booke newly corrected be these. Si enim verè verbum caro factum est, et nos verè Verbum Hilari'. carnem cibo dominico sumimus, quomodò non naturaliter manere in nobis existiman­dus est? qui & naturam carnis nostrae iā in [...]e­parabilem sibi homo natus assumpsit, & na­turam carnis suae ad naturam eternitatis, sub sacramēto nobis communicandoe carnis ad­miscuit. Ita enim omnes vnum sumus, quia [Page 57] & in christo pater est & christus in nobis est. Quisquis ergo naturaliter patrem in christo negabit, neget prius non naturaliter vel se in christo, vel christum Sibi inesse, quia in chri­sto pater, & christus in nobis vnum in iis esse nos faciunt. Si verè igitur, carnem corporis nostri christus assumpsit, & verè homo ille, qui ex maria natus fuit, Christus est, nos (que) vère sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumi­mus, & per hoc vnum erimus, quia pater in eo est, & ille in nobis: quomodo voluntatis vnitas asseritur, cum naturalis per Sacramen­tum proprietas perfectae sacramētum sit vni­tatis? My translation is this. If the worde was made verely fleshe, & we verely receyue the worde beyng fleshe in our lordes meate, howe shal not Christ be thought to dwel na­turally in vs, who beyng borne man, hathe taken vnto him the nature of our fleshe that can not be seuered, and hathe put together the nature of his fleshe to the nature of his eternitie, vnder the Sacrament of the cōmu­ni [...] of his fleshe vnto vs, for so we be all one, because the father is in Christe, and Christe in vs. Wherfore who soeuer will deuye the father to be naturally in Christ, he must [...] first either him selfe to be naturally in Christ, or Christe not to be naturally in him, for the beynge of the father in Christ and the beyng of Christ in vs, maketh vs to be one in them. [Page] And therfore if Christ hath taken verely the fleshe of our body, and the man that was borne of the virgine Marie is verely Christ, and also we verely receyue vnder a mysterie the fleshe of his bodye, by meanes wereof we shalbe one, for the father is in Christe and Christe in vs: howe shall that be called the vnitie of will, when the naturall pro­prietie brought to passe by the Sacrement, is the Sacrament of perfite vnitie?

This translation differeth from myne other, whereat this auctor findeth faulte, but wherein? the worde (Vero) was in the other copie an adiectiue, & I ioyned it with (Mysterio) and therfore said the true myste­rie, whiche worde (mysterie) neded no suche adiectiue, (true), for euery mysterie is true of it selfe. But to say as Hilarie truely correct saythe, that we receyue vnder the mysterie, truely, the fleshe of Christes body that word (truely) so placed, sitteth furthe liuely the reall presence, and substantiall presence, of that is receyued, & repeteth againe the same that was before sayd, to the more vehemēcie of it. So as this rorrection is better then my first copie, and accordyng to this, correctiō is Hilarius alleged by Melāgton to Decolāpa­dius, for the same purpose I allege him. An other alteration in the translation (thou scist reader) in the worde (Perfectae) whiche in my copie was (Perfecta) & so was ioyned to (Pro­prictas,) whiche nowe in the genetiue case [Page 58] ioyned to (Vnitatis) geueth an excellent sence to the dignitie of the Sacramēt, how the na­turall proprietie by the Sacrament, is a Sa­crament of perfite vnitre, so as the pecfite vnitie of vs with Christ, is to haue his fleshe in vs and to haue Christe bodely and natu­rally dwellyng in vs, by his manhode, as he dwelleth in vs spiritually by his god hed, and now I speake in such phrase as Hilarie and Cyrill speake, and vse the wordes as they vse thē. Whatsoeuer this auctor sayth, as I wil iustifie by their plaine wordes. And so I ioyne nowe with this auctor an Issue, An issue. that I haue not peruerlly vsed tha [...] legation of Hilarie, but alleged him as one that spea­keth most clearly of this matter, whiche Hi­larie in his. 8. booke (de Trinitate) en [...]eath how many diuers wayes we be one in christ, among which he accōpteth faith for one Thē he cōmeth to the vnitie in Baptisme, where he handleth the matter aboue some capaci­ties, and because there is but one Baptisme, and all that be baptized be so regenerate in one dispensation, and do the same thynge, and be one in one, they that be one by the same thynge, be as he saythe, in nature one. From that vnitie in Baptisme he com­meth to declare our vnitie with Christe in fleshe, whiche he callethe the Sacrament of perfite vnitie, declarynge howe it is when Christe who toke truely our fleshe mortall, in the virgyns wombe deliuerethe [Page] vs the same fleshe glorified truely to be com­municate with our fleshe, wherby as we be naturally in Christ, so Christ is naturally in vs, and whē this is brought to passe, thē is the vnitie betwene Christe and vs perfited, for as Christ is naturally in the father of the same essence, by the diuine nature, and God the father naturally in Christ his sonne very God of the same essence in the diuine nature: So we be naturally in Christ by our natural fleshe, which he toke in the virgyns wombe, and he naturally in vs, by the same fleshe in him glorified, and geuen to vs, and receyued of vs in the Sacrement. For Hilarie sayth in plaine wordes, howe Christes verye fleshe, Hilariꝰ. and Christes very bloud receyued and dron­ken (Accepta & hausta) bryng this to passe. And it is notable, howe Hilarie compareth together the (truely) in Christes takynge of our fleshe in the virgyns wombe, with the (truely) of our takynge of his fleshe (In cibo dn̄ico) in our lordes meate, by which words, he expresseth the Sacrament, & after repro­ueth those that sayd: we were onely vnitie by obedience, and will of religion to Christe, and by him so to the father, as though, by the Sacrement of fleshe and bloud, no proprietie of naturall communion were geuen vnto vs, wheras both by the honor geuen vnto vs, we be the sonnes of god, and by the sonne dwel­lynge carnally in vs, and we beynge corpo­rally, [Page 59] and inseparably vnitie in him, the my­sterie of true and natural vnitie is to be prea­ched. These be Hilaries wordes, for this lat­ter parte, where thou hearest reader, the sonne of god to dwel carnally in vs, not after mannes grosse imagination, for we may not so thinke of godly mysteries, but (carnally is referred to the truth of Christes fleshe, geuē to vs in this Sacramēt, and so is (naturally) to be vnderstanded, that we receyue Chri­stes naturall fleshe, for the truthe of it, as Christe receyued our naturall fleshe of the virgyn, although we receyue Christes fleshe glorified incorruptible, verye spirituall, and in a spiritual maner deliuered vnto vs. Here is mention made of the worde (corporall) but I shal speake of that in the discussiō of Cyril. This hilarie was before sainct Augustine, and was knowen both of him & S. Hierom, who called him (Tuba [...] latini eloquii) against tharriās. Neuer manne founde fault at this notable place of Hilarie. Now let vs consi­der howe the auctor of this booke forgetteth him selfe, to call Christe in vs naturally by his godhead, whiche were then to make vs all gods by nature, whiche is ouer greatan absurditie, and Christe in his diuine nature dwelleth onely in his father naturally: and in vs by grace. But as we reaceiue him in the Sacrament of his fleshe and bloud, if we re­ceyue hym worthely: so dwelleth he in vs [Page] naturally, for the mutuall communication of our nature and his. And therfore, where this auctor reaporteth, Hilarie to make no difference betwene our vnyon to Christe in Baptisme, and in the supper, let hym truste, hym no more, that told hym so, or if this au­ctor wil take vpō him (as of his owne know­lege) then, I would say (if he were another) an answere in frenche, that I will not ex­presse. And here vpō wil I wynne the Issue, that in Hilarie, the matter is so plaine other­wise An issue. then this auctour reherseth, as it hath no colour of defence to the contrarye. And what Hilarie speaketh of Baptisme, and our vnitie therin. I haue before touched, and this vnitie in fleshe, is after treated aparte. What shall I saye to this so manifest vn­truth? but that it confirmeth that I haue in other obserued, howe therewas neuer one of thē (that I haue red), writynge againste the Sacramēt: but hath in his writynges, sayd somwhat, so euidently in the matter, or out of the matter, discrepaunte from truthe, as might be a certaine marke to iudge the qua­litie of his spirite.

Thauctor saythe, suche answere as he made to Hilarie, wyll serue for Cyrill, and Cyrill. in deade to saye truthe it is made after the same sorte, and hathe euen suche an error as the other had, sauyng it maye be excused by ignoraunce. For where thauctor trauayleth [Page 60] [...]ere to expoūde the worde (corporally) which is a sore worde in Cyrill against this auctor, and therfore taketh labour to tēpere it with the worde (corporaliter) in sainct Paule, ap­plyed to the dwellynge of the diuinitie in Christ, and yet not contēt therwith, maketh further serche and would gladly haue some­what to cōfirme his fausye out of Cyril him­selfe, and seketh in Cyrill where it is not to be founde, and sekech not where it is to be founde. For Cyrill telleth hymselfe plainely, what he meaneth by the worde (corporally) whiche place and this auctour had founde, he might haue spared a greate many of wordes vttered by diuination, but then the truthe of that place hindreth and qualeth in maner all the booke. I will at my peril bryng for the Cyrils owne wordes truely, vpon the xvij. Chaptre of sainct Iohn.

Corporaliter filius per benedictionis my­sticam Cyrillꝰ in Ioā, Cap, 17 nobis vt homo Vnitur, spiritualiter autem vt deus. Whiche be in Englishe thus much to say. The sonne is vnitie as man cor­porally to vs by the mystical benedictiō, spi­ritually as God. These be Cyrils wordes, who nameth the Sacrament of the body & bloude of Christe the mysticall benediction, and sheweth in this sentence, howe hym selfe vnderstādeth the wordes corporally & spiri­tually, That is to saye, when Christ vniteth hym selfe to vs as man, whiche he dothe, [Page] he doth, geuynge his bodye in this Sacra­ment to suche as worthely receyue it, then he dwelleth in them corporally, whiche Christe was before in them spiritually, orels they could not worthely receyue him to theffecte of that vnitie corporall, and corporall dwel­lynge, by whiche worde (corporal) is vnder­standed no grosues at all, whiche the nature of a mysterie excludeth, and yet kepeth truthe still, beyng the vnderstandyng onely atteined by faythe. But where thauctor of the booke allegeth Cyrill in wordes to deny the eatyng of a man, and to affirme the recey­uinge in this Sacrament to be only by faith. It shall appeare I doubt not vpon further discussion, that Cyrill say the not so, and the translations of Cyrill into latine after the printe of basil in a booke called (Antidoton) and of hole Cyrils workes prynted at colen, haue not in that place suche sentence. So as folowynge the testimonye of those bookes set forthe by publique fayth in two sondrie places. I shoulde call thallegation of Cyrill made by this auctour in this poynte vntrue, as it is in deade in the matter vntrue. And yet because the Originall error procedeth from Oecolampadius, it shall serue to good purpose, to directe thoriginall faulte to hym: as he well deseruethe to be, as he is noted gyltie of it, whose reputa­cion deceyued many in the matter of the [Page 61] Sacrament, and beynge well noted, howe the same Oecolampadius corrupteth Cy­rill: it maye percase somewhat worke with this auctor to considre howe he hath in this place been deceyued by him. I will write here, the verye wordes of Cyrill in greke, as they be of Oecolampadius broughte forth and publis [...]hed in his name, wherby the rea­der that vnderstandeth the greke (as many do at this tyme) maye iudge of Oecolampa­dius conscience in handlyng this matter. The wordes of Cyrill, be alleged of Oecolampa­dius to be these in greke. [...] Cyril­lus. [...]. These wordes be by Oecolāpadius translate in this wise. Nōne igitur, eū qui vi­detur filium & Christum, alium a deo verbo, qui ex deo esse affirmant: cui apostolatus fun­ctio tributa sit? Non enim sacramentum no­strum hominis manducationem asserit, men­tes credeutium ad crassas cogitationes irreli­giosè introtrudēs, & humanis cogitationibus subijcere enitens: ea quae sola, & pura, & in­exquisita fide capiuntur. This is Oecolampadius translacion of the greke, as the same is by Oecolampadius alleged. Whiche, compa­red [Page] with the greke, and the congruetie and phrase of the greke tonge considered, doth plainely open a corruption in the greke texte. First in the word [...], which shoulde bea participle in the singuler nūber [...], as [...], and [...], all which participles, depend of the third persone reproued of Cy­rill, and nominatiue case to the verbe [...], whiche hath the nowne [...] his accusati­ue case, for congruite wyll not suffer [...] to be the nominatiue case, as Decōlāpadius maketh it: because [...], and [...] should then depend on it, whiche be the masculine gender, and [...], the newtre, and besides that, the sence hath so no good reason, to at­tribute assertion to the mysterye by waye of declaratiō, the mysterie of nature secret hath nede of declaration, and maketh none but hi­deth rather: and the mysterie cannot declare properly, that should leade or subdue men to vaine imaginacion. But Cyrill entendyng to reproue the conclusiō of him that attributeth to that is seen in Christ, the nature of his hu­manite, thoffice of thappostle, and so therby semeth to make in Christ two seuerall per­sons, estemyng that is sene, another sōne frō the secōd person: sheweth howe that man so, [...]. cōcludyng doth affirme an absurditie, that is to say, [...] declareth [...] that [...] mysterye [...] of our (humanā cōmixtionē) for so hath the publique trāslacion, and not [...], which should signifie catyng of a man, as Decolā ­padius [Page 62] would haue it, & cannot with this cō ­struction to make [...] the accusatiue case, haue any sence, and then that man so conclu­dyng, may be sayd therewith [...] leadyng the mynde of thē that beleue, in to slender & darke imaginaciōs or thoughes, & so [...] going about to bryng vnder mās reasonyngs, such things as be [...] taken or vnderstaunded by an onely simple, bare & no curious faith. And this is vt­tered by Cyrill by interrogation: [...], which continueth on to the laste worde of all that is here writē in greke, endyng in the worde [...]. But Decolāpadiꝭ to fram these words to his purpose, corrupteth the participle [...], and maketh it [...], whereby he might cut of the interrogatiue, and then is he yet fayne to adde euidently that is not in the greke, a copulatiue causall (enim) and then when [...] is by the cuttyng of thinterro­gation & thaddition of (enim) made the nomi­natiue case, then [...], and [...], depend of it, because of the gender, and [...] be­cause of tharticle determineth the principall mysterie in Christes person, and after the pu­blique translacion, it should seme the greke worde was not [...], but [...] which (in the publique trāslatiō) is expressed with these two wordes humanā cōmixtionē.

This one place, and their were no molike, maye shewe with what conseieuce Decolam­padius handled the matter of the Sacramēt: who was lerned in the greke tongue, moost [Page] exercised in translacions, and had ones writ­ten a grāmer of the greke, & yet in this place abuseth him selfe, and the reader in peruer­ting Cyril, against al cōgruites of the speach against the propre significatiō of the words, against the conuenient connectiō of the mat­ter, with deprauacion of the phrase, and cor­ruption of certaine wordes all againste the common and publique translacion, and when he hath done all this, cōcludeth in thend that he hath translate the greke faythfully, when there is by him vsed no good fayth at all, but credite and estimacion of learnyng by him a­bused, to deceyue well meanyng simplicite, & serueth for some defence to suche, as be bold to vse and folowe his auctorites in this mat­ter. As the auctor of the booke semeth to haue folowed him herein, for els the publique au­tentique translations, whiche be abrode, as I said of the printes of basell and colen, haue no suche matter, and therfore the faulte of the auctor is to leue publique truth, and serche matter whispired in corners. But thusmuche must be graunted, though in the principall matter, that in the mysterye of the sacramēt, we must exclude all grossenes, and yet for the truth of gods secrete worke in the sacramēt, that in suche, as receyue the Sacramente worthely, Christ dwelleth in them corporal­ly, as Cyrill sayth, and naturally, and car­nally as Hilarye sayth. And with this true vnderstādyng, after the simplicite of a Chri­sten [Page 63] faith, whiche was in these fathers, Hil­larie, and Cyrill, the contencion of these thre enuyous wordes, in grosse capacites grosly taken, naturall, carnall, and corporall, which carnalite hath engēdred, might sone be much assuaged, and this auctor also consideryng with him selfe, how muche he hath been ouer seen in the vnderstandyng of them, and the specialtie in this place of him selfe, and Deco lampadius, might take occasion to repēt and call home him selfe, who wonderfully wan­dreth in this matter of the Sacrament, and hauyng lost his right way, breaketh vp hed­ges, & leapeth ouer diches, with a wundrous trauaill to go whither he would, not beyng, not yet, (as appeareth,) determined where he would rest, by the varietie of his owne do­ctrine, as may appeare in soundrie places, if they be compared together.

As for Basill, Gregory Nissen, and Gre­goire Basilius Crego. Nissenꝰ Grego. Nazian zenus. Naziāzen, this auctor saith they speake litle of this matter, in dede they speake not somuche as other do, but that they speake, is not discrepaunt, nor contrarieth not, that o­ther afore them had writen. For in the olde churche, the truth of this mystery was neuer impugned openly, and directly, that we rede of, before Berengarius .v. C. yeres past, and Beren­garius. Ber­trame. secretely by one Bertrame before that, but onely by the Messalions who sayd the cor­poral eatyng did neither good nor hurte.

The Antropomorphites also, who say [...]e, [Page] the vertue of the mysticall benediction endu­red not to the next day, of whom Cyrill spea­keth & the Nestorians by consecution of their lernyng, that diuide L. Christes flesh from the bei [...]e. And where this auctor would haue ta­ken for a true supposall that Basill, Brego­rie Naz [...]anzene and Nissene, should take the Sacrament to be figuratiue onely: that is to be denied. And likewise it is not true that this auctor teacheth, that of the figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spoke of the thyng it selfe: And that I will declare thus. Of the thyng it selfe, that is, Christes very body, beyng present in dede, it maye be sayd (adore it) worshippe it there, which may not be sayd of the figure. It may be sayd, of the very thyng beyng present there, that it is a highe myracle to be there, it is aboue nature to be there, it is an highe secret mysterie to be there. But none of these speaches can be con­ueniētly sayd of thonly figure, that it is such a miracle, so aboue nature, so highe a myste­rye, to be a figure. And therfore, it is no true doctrine to teache, that we may say the same of the figure, that may be sayde of the thyng i [...] selfe. And where this auctor speaketh, of spiritual eatyng, and corporall eatyng, he re­mayneth in his ignoraunce, what the worde corporall meaneth, whiche I haue opened, in discussyng of his answer to Cyrill, fayth is required in him that shall eate spiritually, and the corporall eatyng institute in Christes [Page 64] supper, requireth by the reuerēr of mans mouth, to receyue our Lordes meat & drinke, his owne verye flesh and bloud, by his omni­potencie prepated in that supper, whiche not spiritually, that is to say, innocently (as S. Augu. In Ioā. tract. xxvj. Augustine in one place expoundeth spiritual­ly) receyued, bryngeth iudgement and con­dempnacion, accordyng to Saincte Paules wordes.

This auctor sayth that Emissen is shortly Emisse answered vnto, and so is he (if a man care not what he saith) as Hilarie was answered and Cyrill. But els, there can not shorte or longe answere confounde the true playne te­stymonye of Emissen, for the commen true fayth of the church in the Sacramēt. Which Emissen hath this sentence. That the inuisi­ble Prieast, (by the secrete powre with his worde) turneth the visible creatures into the substaunce of his bodye and bloud, saiynge thus: This is my body: And agayne, repe­tyng the same sāctificatiō, this is my bloud. Wherfore, as at the becke of him, commaun­dynge the heightes of heuens, the depenes of the flouds, and largenes of landes, were founded of nothyng, by like powre in spi­rituall Sacramentes, where vertue com­mandeth, theffect of the truth serueth. These be Emissenes saiynges, declaryng his fayth plainely of the Sacrament, in suche termes, as can not be wrested, nor writhed, who speaketh of a turnyng & couuersion of the visible [Page] creatures, into the substaunce of Christes bo­dy and bloud, he sayth not into the Sacra­ment of Christes body and bloud, nor figure of Christes body & bloud, wherby he should meane a onely sacramentall conuersion, as this auctor would haue it, but he sayth, into the substaunce of Christes body and bloud, declaryng the truth of Christes body & bloud to be in the Sacrament. For the wordes (sub­staunce) and (truth) be of one strenght, and shewe a difference from a figure, wherin the truth is not in dede present, but signified to be absent. And because it is a worke superna­turall, and a great miracle. This Emissen re­presseth mannes carnall reason, and succur­reth the weke fayth, with remembraunce of like power of God in the creation of the worlde, whiche were brought forth out of tyme by Emissen, if Christes body were not in substaunce present, as Emissens wordes be, but in figure only as this auctor teacheth. And where this auctor coupleth together the two Sacramentes, of Baptisme, and of the body and bloud of Christ, as though there were no difference in the presence of Christ in either, he putteth him selfe in daunger, to be reproued of malice, or ignoraunce. For al­though these mysteryes be both great, and mans regeneracion in baptisme is also a my­sterye and the secrete worke of God, & hath a great maruayle in that effecte: yet it diffreth from the mysterye, of the Sacrament, tou­chyng [Page 65] the maner of Christes presēce and the workyng of theffecte also. For in Baptisme our vnion with Christe is wrought without the real presence of Christes humanitie, only in the vertue and effect of Christes bloud the whole trinitie there workynge, as auctor, in whose name the Sacramēt is expressely mi­nistred, where our soule is regenerate & made spiritual, but not our body in dede, but in hope onely that for the spirite of Christ dwellyng in vs, our mortall bodyes shalbe resuscitate, and as we haue in Baptisme be buried with Christ: so we be assured, to be parte takers of his resurrectiō. And so in this Sacramēt we be vnite to Christs māhode by this diuinite. But in the Sacrament of Christes body and bloude, we be in nature vnited to Christe as man: and by his glorified fleshe, made parte takers also of his diuinite, whiche mysticall vniō representeth vnto vs the high estate of our glorificatiō, wherin body & sowle shall in the generall resurrectiō, by a meruaylous re­generatiō of the body, be made both spiritual, the speciall pledge whereof, we receyue in this Sacramēt, & therfore it is the sacramēt (as hilarie saith) of perfect vnitie. And albeit the soule of man be more precious, thē the bo­dye, & the nature of the godhead in Christe, more excellent thē the nature of man in hym glorified, & in Baptisme, ma [...]nes soule is re­generate in the vertue and effect of Christes passiō & bloud, christes godhead presēt there [Page] without the reall presence of his humanitie: although for these respects thexellēce of Ba­ptisme is great: Yet because the mistery of the Sacrament of thaltare, where Christ is pre­sēt, both man & god, in theffectual vnite, that is wrought bitwene oure bodyes, our soules & Christes, in the vse of this Sacremēt signi­fieth the perfect redēption of oure bodyes in the general resurrectiō, which shalbe thende & cōsūmation of al oure felicitie. This Sacrament of perfite vnitie, is the mysterye of our perfite astate, when body & soule shalbe all spiritual, & hath so a degre of exellēce, for the dignitie that is estemed in euerie ende & per­fection, wherfore the worde (spirituall) is a necessarie worde, in this Sacramēt, to call it a spirituall foode, as it is in dede for it is to work in our bodies a spiritual effect, not only in oure soules, & Christes body & fleshe, & yet a true body & very fleshe. And it is present in this sacramēt after a spiritual maner, graun­ted & taught of all true teachers, whiche we should receiue also spiritually, whiche is by hauyng Christ before spiritually in vs to re­ceiue it so worthely. Wherfore, lyke as in the inuisible substance of the Sacramēt, there is nothyng carnal but al spirituall, takyng the word carnal, as it signifieth grossely in mās carnal iudgemēt: So where the receyuers of that foode bryng carnal lustes or desirs, car­nall fansies or imaginatiōs with them, they receyue the same precious foode vnworthely [Page 66] to their iudgement and condempnation. For they iudge not truely, after the simplicitie of a true Christen fayth, of the very presence of Christes bodye. And this suffiseth to wype out, that this auctor hath spoken of Emis­sene againste the truthe.

As touchyng S. Ambrose, this auctor ta­keth a great entreprise to wrestel with him, whose plaine & euident wordes must nedes be a rule to trie his othere wordes by, if any might be writhed. What cā be more plainly spoken, then S. Ambrose speketh, when he sayth these words. It is bread before the cō ­secration but after it is the bodye of Christe. By the worde consecration, is signified (as it is here placed) gods omnipotēt worke. wher­fore, in this place it cōprehendeth asmuch as Emissen said in these wordes (he conuerteth by the secrete powre of his word) God is the worker, & so consecratiō signifith, the whole action of his omnipotencie, in workynge the substaunce of this high mysterie, and ther­fore the definition of the worde consecratiō, as it is generally taken, cannot be a rule to thunderstandyng of it, in this high mysterie, wher it is vsed to expresse a singuler worke, as the circumstaunce of S. Ambrose writyng doth declare. For as philip Melāctō writeth Melan­cton. to Oecolāpadius, S. Ambrose would neuer haue trauailed, to accumulate so many mira­cles as he doth, speaking of this matter to declare gods omnipotēcie & he had not thought [Page] the nature of bread to be chaunged in this mysterie. These be melanctons very wordes. Nowe to answer the questiō, (as it were at the worde chaunge), this auctor shall come with a sacramēral change whiche is a diuise in termes to blind the rude reader. S. Ambro­se doth expresse plainly what the change is, whē he writeth the wordes before rehersed.

It is bread before the consecration, but after it is the body of christ, Cā a change be more plainly declared? The nerer way for this auctor had ben to haue ioyned Ambrose with Clemēt, & called him fained by the Pa­pistes, rather then after theffect of consecra­tion so opened by sainct Ambrose himselfe, to trauayll to proue what it maye signifie, if it were in an other matter. And then to admo­nishe the reader, howe the bread and wyne haue no holines, whiche forme of speach, not vnderstanded of the people engendreth some scruple that nedeth not, being no soūde four­me of doctrine, for S. Paule speaketh & tea­cheth 1. Ti. 4. thus, that the creatures be sāctified by the worde of God & prayour. And S. Augu­stine Augu. de peccatis morta. et remiss. libro. 2. Cap. 26. Cyprian de cena domini. writeth of sāctified bread to be geuen to them that be catechised before they be bapti­zed. And this auctor himselfe expoundeth S. Cyprian in the. [...]5. leef of his booke howe the diuinitie is poured in to the bread Sacramē ­tally, whiche is a strange phrase not expres­synge there Cyprians mynde, and farre di­screpaunt [Page 56] from the doctrine here.

And in an other place this auctor sayth, Fo. 85. Pagi. 2. that as hotte & burnyng yron, is yron still, & yet hath the force of fier: so the bread & wyne be turned in to the vertue of Christes fleshe and bloud. By whiche similitude bread may conceyue vertue, as yron couceyueth fyere, & thē as we call yron burnyng, & fireye, so we may call bread vertuous and holy, onies the auctor woulde againe resemble bread to a whetstone that may make sharpe & haue no sharpenes in it at al. Which matter I declare thus to shewe that as this auctor dissenteth from truth in other, so he dissēteth from that he vttereth for truth him selfe, & walketh in a maze, impugnynge the verye truth in this Sacramēt, & would haue that takē for a Ca­tholique doctrine that is not one, & the same doctrine through his hole booke, so far of is it from the hole of Christen teachynge, But nowe let vs considre what speaches of. S. Ambrose this auctor bryngeth furth, where­with to altre the truth of the very plain pro­pre speache of S. Ambrose saiyng: it is bread before the consecration, but after, it is the body of Christ.

Sainct Ambrose as this auctor sayth in an other place sayth thus. Before the bene dictiō of the heuēly wordes, it is called another kynde of thyng, but after the consecration, is signified the body & bloud of Christ. And an­other speache thus. Before the consecration, [Page] it is called an other thyng, but after the cōsecration it is named the bloud of Christ, & yet a third speach where the word (cal) is vsed before and after both, as thou reader mayst se in this auctors booke in the. 82 leef. Nowe good reader was thereeuer man so ouerseen as this auctor is who seeth not. S. Ambro­se in these thre latter speaches to speake as plainly as in the first. For in the last speache S. ambrose saith it is called bread before the Cōsecratiō, & called the body of Christ after the cōsecration. And I wolde Demaunde of this auctor, doth not this word (call) signifie the truth that is bread in dede before the consecration? whiche if it be so why shall not the same worde (call) signifie also the very truth added to the wordes of the bodye of Christe after the cōsecratiō? & likewise whē he saith, speakyng of the bodye of Christe the worde (signified) or (named) whiche is asmuche as (call) Thee body of Christ is signified there, for Christ sayd, This is my bodye &c. vsyng the outwarde signes of the visible creatures to signifie the body & bloud present, & not ab­sēt. Was not Christ the true sōne of God, because thangel sayd he shal be called the sōne of God. But in these places of S. Ambrose Luc. 2. to expresse plainly what he ment by (calling) he putteth that worde (Call) to the bread, be­fore the consecratiō, aswell as to the body of Christ after the cōsecratiō, therby to declare howe in his vnderstādyng this worde (Call) [Page 68] signifieth asmuch truth in the thyng where vnto it is added after consecratiō as before, and therfore as it is by sainct Ambrose called bread before consecration, signifiyng it was so in dede, so it is called, signified or named (whiche thre thus plated be all one in effect) the body of Christ after the consecration and is so in dede, agreable to the plaine speache of sainct Ambrose, where he sayth: It is bread before the consecration, and it is the body of Christ after the cōsecration. As touchyng the spiritualtie of the meat of Christes bodye, I haue spoken before, but where this auctor addeth it requireth no corporall presence, he speaketh in his dreame beynge oppressed with slepe of ignoraunce and can not tell what (corporall) meaneth as I haue opened before by thauctorite of Cyrill. Nowe let vs se what this auctor sayth to Chrisostome.

This auctor noteth in Chrisostome Chriso­stome. two places, and bryngeth them forth, and in handlyng the first place, declareth himselfe to trifle in so great a matter, euidently to his owne reproufe. For where in the secōd booke of his worke, entretyng transubstanciation, he would the same words of Chrisostome by this fourme of speache in the negatiue should not denye precisely. And when Chrisostome sayth, do not thinke that you by man receiue the body of god, but that we should not con­sidre man in the receiuyng of it. Here this [Page] auctor doth allege those wordes and reaso­neth of them as though they were termes of were deny all. But I would aske of this au­ctor this question. If Chrisostomes fayth had been, that we receyue not the bodye of God in the Sacramēt verely: Why should he vse wordes Idelly to entreat of whome we receiued the body of God, whiche after this auctors doctrine we receiue not at all but in figure? & no body at all whiche is of Christes humanitie beyng Christ, as this auctor tea­cheth spiritually, that is, by his diuine natu­re in him onely that worthely receyueth, and in the verye Sacrament as he concludeth in his booke onely figuratiuely. Turne backe reader to the. 36. l [...]ef in the auctors booke and reade it with this, and so considre vpon what principle here is made an (Ergo). I will answere that place, whan I speake of transubstanciation, whiche shall be after answer to the third and fourth booke as the naturall ordre of the matter requiteth.

The second place of Chrisostome that this auctor bringeth furth he graūteth it soūdeth much against him, & fauoreth his aduersaries but with cōferryng & cōsideryng, he trusteth to altre it from the true vnderstandyng. And not to expound, but confoūde the matter, he ioyneth in speach the Sacramēt of baptisme with this sacramēt (which shifte this auctor vsed vntruly in Hilarie) & would now beare in hand that the presēce of Christ were none [Page 69] otherwise in this sacramēt thē in Baptisme, (whiche is not so) for in this Sacrament, Christes humanitie & godhead is really pre­sēt, & in Baptisme his godhead with the effe­ctuall vertue of his bloud, in whiche we be wasshed, not requiring by scripture any real presēce for dispēsation of that mystery, as I haue before touched discussyng thanswer of Emissen, where as Chrisostome speakyng of Chrisosto. de Sacer­do. li. 3. this sacramēt whereof I haue before spokē, and Melancton allegyng it to Oecolampa­dius saith thus: The great myracle and great beneuolence of Christ is, that he sitteth aboue with his father, and is the same houre in our handes here to de embrased of vs. and ther­fore where this auctor would not the wōdre of gods worke in the Sacrament to be won­derfull for the worke and effect in man, this is one piece of truth, but in the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ, the olde fa­thers wonder at the worke in the Sacramēt, how bread is chaūged into the body of christ, how Christ sittyng in heauen God and man, is also man and God in the Sacrament, and beyng worthly receiued dwelleth in such carnally and naturally as Hilarie sayth, and corporally as Cyrill sayth. How this can be, no man can tell, no faythfull mā should aske, and yet it is the true Catholique fayth, to be truely so wrought. For as Emissene sayth: he that is thauctor of it, he is the witnesse of it. And therfore I wil make it an issue with this An issue. [Page] [...] [Page 70] [...] [Page] So this auctor hath nowe in this worke confessed the trāslacion of the catechisme, which one in cōmunication would nedes haue made me beleue, had been his mannes doyng and not his. Heare now reader, how plainly Theophilact speaketh vpon the Gospel [...] of Sainct Iohn, expounding the .vi. Chapter.

Take hede that the bread whiche is eaten of vs in the mysteryes is not onely a certaine figuration of the fleshe of our Lorde, but the fleshe it selfe of our Lorde, for he sayde not, The bread whiche I shall geue is the figure of my flesh, but it is my fleshe. For that bread by the mysticall benediction, is transformed by mystical wordes and presence of the holy ghost into the flesh of our Lord. And it should trouble no mā, that the bread is to be beleued fleshe, for whiles our Lorde walked in flesh, and receiued nurrishmēt of bread, that bread he did eat was chaunged into his body, and was made like to his holy fleshe, and as it is customably in mans feadyng serued to the sustentacion and encrease of it, therfore the bread now also is chaunged into the fleshe of our Lorde. And howe is it then that it ap­peareth not fleshe but bread? that we should not loth the eatyng of it, for if fleshe did ap­peare, we should be vnplesauntly disposed to the communion of it. Nowe our Lorde cōde­scēdyng to our infirmitie, the mystical meat, appeareth suche to vs, as those we haue been accustomed vnto. Hitherto I haue faithfully [Page 71] expressed Thiophilactes wordes, out of La­tyn of [...]ecolampadins translation, without termyng the substanciall poyntes, otherwise thē the wordes purporte in Latyn: By which may appeare what was Theophilacts mea­nyng, what doctrine he geueth of the Sacrament, and howe his owne wordes vpon S. Marke, be to be vnderstanded, whē he sayth. Speciem quidem panis & vini seruat, in virtu­tem Theo­philact. autem carnis & sanguinis transelemētat, in corruptyng of whiche wordes (this auctor maketh) a great matter, when they were not alleged for his, but as they be his (seruare speciem) maye be well translate (fourme and apparaunce) because vpon Sainct Iohn be­fore alleged, he sayth of the bread, (it appea­reth.) And as for these wordes (the vertue of Christes fleshe and bloud) must be vnderstā ­ded to agre with the playne place of Theo­philacte vpon Sainct Iohn, and vpō marke also, to signifie not only vertue, but veritie of the fleshe and bloud of Christ. For if Theo­philacte by that speache mente the vertue of the body of Christ, and not the veritie of the very body, (as this author sayth he did) why shoulde Theophilacte, bothe vpon Saincte Marke, and also vpon Saincte Iohn, aske this question, why doth not the fleshe appea­re? if himselfe by those wordes should teache there were onely [...] presente the vertue of his fleshe, who, and he had ment so, would not haue asked the question, or if he had, would [Page] haue answerd it thus: Accordyngly (there is no fleshe in dede) but the vertue of the fleshe, and that had been a playne answer and such as he would haue made. This auctor wylaske then, why doth Theophilacte vse this phrase to say, chaunged into the vertue of the bodye of Christ. Here vnto I answere, that this worde vertue in phrase of speache manny tymes, onely filleth the speache, and is com­prehended in the signification of his genitiue folowyng, and therfore as Luke in the .xxij. Chapter sayth: (à dextris virtutis Dei,) so in the Actes the same sentence is spoken (a dex­tris Dei) both out of one penne, and (a dextris virtutis Dei) is no more to say then (à dextris Dei) and so is (virtutem carnis & sanguinis) no more to say, but (in carnem & sanguinem) whiche sentence the same Theophilacte hath vpon Sainct Iohn before alleged, in this sa­yng: The bread is chaunged in [...]ofiesh, and in marke in this phrase, in to the vertue of flesh, beyng: Like these speaches, (à dextris Dei) & (à dextris virtutis Dei.) Whiche and it had li­ked this auctor to haue considered: he should haue taken Theophilactes speache as Theo­philacte vnderstandeth himselfe, and sayde the wordes alleged in the name of Theophi­lus Alexandrinus, were not Theophilactes wordes, and then he had sayd for so muche true (whiche would do well among) and the wordes be not in dede Theophilactes words, [Page 72] nor were not alleged for his. Nowe when this author sayth: they were not Theophilus Alexandrinus wordes, that is a large nega­tiue, and wilbe hardely proued otherwise then by addition of the auctors knowlege, for any thyng that he can fynde, and so there shalbe no absurdite to graūte it. And thus I retourne to myne Issue with this auctor, that Theophilacte himselfe hathe no suche meanynge expressed in wordes as this au­ctour attributeth vnto him, but an euident contrarye meanynge, sauyng herein I will agree with this auctour, that Theophilacte mente not grossely, sensibly, and carnally, as these wordes sounde in carnarall mennes iudgementes. For we maye not so thinke of Gods mysteryes, the worke wherof is not carnall, nor corporall, for the maner of it. But the maner spirituall, and yet in the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ, because Christ is in his very true fleshe pre­sent, he maye be sayde so carnally present, and naturally, after Hylary, and corporally after Cyrill, vnderstandyng the wordes of the truthe of that is present, Christes verye body and fleshe, and not of the maner of the presence, whiche is onely spirituall, super­naturall, and aboue mannes cappacitie. And therfore a highe mysterye, a greate myra­cle, a wonderfull worke: whiche it is hol­some to beleue simplye with a syncere fayth, [Page] and daungerous to serche and examyne with a curious imaginacion, suche as idelines and arrogaunce would tempte a man vnto, and by diuisyng of a figure, or metaphore, bryng it within the compasse of our buysie reason.

This auctor, trauayleth to answer Saint Hierom. Hierome, and to make him the easyer for him to deale with, he cutteth of that foloweth in the same Saincte Hierome, whiche should make the matter open and manifest: howe ef­fectually Sainct Hierome speaketh of the Sacramēt of Christes body and bloud. Ther is (sayth Sainct Hierome) as great differēce betwene the loues called (Panes ꝓpositiones) and the body of Christ, as there is betwene the shadowe of a body, and the body it selfe, and as there is betwene an image and the true thyng it selfe, and betwene an example of thynges to come, and the thynges that be prefigured by them. Therfore as mekenes, pacience, sobrietie, moderation, abstinence of gayne, hospitalitie also, and liberalite should be chiefly in a Byshop, and among all laye men an excellencie in them: so their should be in him a special chastite, and as I should say, chastitie that is priestly, that he shoulde not onely absteyne from an vncleane worke, but also from the caste of his eye, and his mynde fre from error of thought, that should make the body of Christ. These be Sainct Hierōs words in this place. By the latter part wher­of, appeareth playnely how Sainct Hierom [Page 62] meaneth of Christes body in the Sacramēt, of whiche the loues that were (Panes propo­sitiones) were a shadow, (as Sainct Hierom sayth) that bread beyng the image, and this the trueth, that the example, and this that was prefigured. So as if Christes body in the Sacrament should be there but figura­tiuely (as this auctor teacheth) then were the bread of proposition, figure of a figure, and shadowe of a shadowe, whiche is ouer great an absurdite in our religion. Therfore there cannot be a more playne proufe to shewe, that (by Saincte Hieroms mynde,) Christes body is verely in the Sacrament, & not figu­ratiuely onely, then when he noteth, (Panes propositiones) to be the figure & the shadowe of christes body in the Sacrament. For as, Tertulliā sayth, (Figura non esset, nisi verita­tis Tertul­lianꝰ ad­uersus Marcio. libr. 4. esset corpus.) The other were not to be cal­led a figure (if that, that answered vnto it,) were not of truth, whiche is the sence of Ter­tullians wordes. And therfore Saincte Hie­rome could with no other wordes haue ex­pressed his mynde so certainely and playnly, as with these, to confesse the truth of Christs body in the Sacramēt. And therfore, regarde not reader, what this auctor sayth: For S. Hierom affirmeth playnely Christes true bo­dy to be in the Sacrament, the consecration wherof although Saincte Hierome attribu­teth to the ministre: Yet we must vnderstand him, that he taketh God, for the auctor and [Page] worker, not withstandyng by reason of the ministery [...] in the church, the doyng is ascri­bed to man, as ministre, because Christ sayde (Hoc facite) after whiche speache, saluation, remission of synne, and the worke in other Sacramentes, is attribute to the ministre, beyng neuertheles the same, the propre, and speciall workes of God. And this I adde, be­cause some he vninstely offended, to hiere that man shoulde make the bodye of Christ, and this auctor findeth faulte before at the worde makyng, whiche religiously hearde, and re­uerently spoken, shoulde offende no man, for man is but a ministre, wherein he shoulde not glory, and Christ maketh not himselfe of the mattier of bread, nor maketh himselfe so ofte of bread a newe body: but sittyng in heauen, dothe as our inuisible Priest worke in the ministerye of the visible Priesthode of his churche, and maketh present (by his omnipotencye) his glorified body and bloud in this high mistery, by conuersion of the vi­sible treatures of bread and wyne, (as Emis­sene sayth,) into the same. This auctor of this booke (as thou reader maist perceiue) applyeth the figure of the breades called (Panes propositiones) to the body of Christ to cōme, where as Saincte Hierome calleth them the figure of Christes body in the Sacrament, and therfore dothe fation his argumente in this sence. If those breades that were but a [Page 74] figure, required so muche clennesse in them that shoulde eate them, that they might not eate of them, whiche a daye or two before, had lien with there wyues: what clennesse is required in him that shoulde make the bo­dye of Christ? Wherby thou maist see here this auctor hath reserued this notable place of Saincte Hierome, to the latter ende, that thou shouldest in the ende aswell as in the middes see him euidētly snarled, for thy bet­ter remembrance.

Because this auctor, who hitherto hathe answered none substanciallye, woulde ne­uertheles be seen to answere all, he wyndeth vp sixe of then in one fardel, Saincte Augu­stine, Augusti. Seduliꝰ Leo. Fulgētiꝰ Cassio­dorus. Gregor. Sedulius, Leo, Fulgentius, Cassio­dorus, and Gregorius, and dispatcheth them all with an (vt supra) and among them, I thynke he woulde haue knytte vp all the rest of the lerned men of all ages, amonges whome, I knowe none that write (as this auctor do the) of the Sacrament, or impu­gneth the Catholique fayth, as this author doth, by the enuyouse name of Papistes. Senes Christes tyme, there is no memo­rye, more then of sixe, that hathe affirmed that doctrine, whiche this auctour woulde haue called nowe the Catholique doctrine, and yet not writen by them of one sorte, ney­ther receyued in belyefe in publique profes­sion. But secretely, when it happened, be­gun [Page] by conspiration, and in the ende euer hitherto extincte and quenched. First was Bertrame, Thē Berēgarius, Thē Wychefe, and in our tyme Decolēpadius, Swinglius, and Ioa [...]himus Uadianus, I will not teken Peter Martyr, because suche as knowe him, saith he is not lerned: nor this auctor, because he doth, but as it were, translate Peter Mar­tyr, sauynge he roueth at solutions, as liketh his fansye, as I haue before declared, which matter beynge thus, it is a strange title of this booke to call it the true Catholique do­ctrine.

Last of al, thauctor abuseth himselfe with Damascene, and goth about to answere him Dama­scen. by makyng of a summe, whiche summe, is so wrong accompted, that euery man that rea­deth Damascene, may be auditour to cōtrole it. And this will I saye, Damascene writeth so euidently in the matter that Peter Mar­tyr for a shifte, is fayne to fynde faulte in his iudgemēt and age, and yet he is. vi [...]. C. yeres olde at the lest, and I say at the lest, because he is rekonned of sūme, haulfe as old againe. And what so euer his iudgemente were, he writeth as Melancton sayth, his testimonye of the fayth of the Sacrament as it was in his tyme. I would wryte in here Damascens wordes, to compare them with the same, col­lected by this auctor, wherby to disproue his particulars playnely, but the wordes of Da­mascen [Page 75] be to be red, trāslate alreadie abrode. As for the foure substaunces, whiche this au­ctor by accompte numbreth of Christ, might haue bene left vnrekened by tale, because a­mong them that be faithfull, and vnderstand truely, whersoeuer the substance of Christes very body is, there is also vnderstanded by concomitaunce to be presente the substaunce of his soule as very man, and also of the god­hed as very God. And in the matter of the Sacrament, therfore contendyng with him that would haue the substāce of bread there, it maye be sayd there is in the Sacrament the onely, substance of Christes bodye, because the worde onely thus placed, excludeth other straunge substaunces, and not the substaun­ces, whiche without contencion be knowen and cōfessed, vnite with Christes body. And so a mā may be said, to be alone in his house, when he hath no straungers, although he hath a numbre of his owne men, and Eras­mus noteth howe the euangeliste writeth Christ to haue prayed alone, & yet certayne of his disciples were there. And if in a con­tenciō raysed, whether the father and sonne were both kylled in suche a felde or no, I de­fended the father to haue been onely kylled there, and thervpon a wager layd, should I lose, if by proufe it appeared, that not onely the father, but also thre or foure of the fa­thers seruantes were slayue, but the sonne escaped? And as in this speache the worde [Page] (onely) serued to exclude that was in conten­cion, and not to reduce the numbre to one, no­more is it in the speache that this auctour woulde reproue, and therfore neded not to haue occupied himselfe in the matter, wher­in I hearde him ones saye in a good au­dience himselfe was satisfied. In which mynde I would he had continued, and hauyng so sclender stuffe, as this is, and the truth so euident against him, not to haue resusc [...] tate this so often reproued vntruth, wherin neuer hitherto any on coulde preuayle.

¶The confutation of the fourth booke.

THus hauynge pervsed the effecte of the thyrde booke, I will likewise peruse the fourth, and then shall folowe in di­recte course to speake of the matter of transub­stāciaciō. In this fourth boke thauctor entreteth eatyng and drinkyng of Christes body and bloud, and in the first parte therof trauaileth to conferme his purpose, and in the seconde parte answereth as he can to his aduersa­ries, and so taketh occasion, to speake of adoration. His chefe purpose is to proue that e­uel men receyue not the bodye and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament, whiche afte [...] this auctours doctrine, is a very superfluous mat­ter. For if the sacramēt be onely a figure, and the bodye and bloud of Christ be there onely figuratiuely, wherto should this auctor dis­pute of euell mennes eatyng, whē good men cannot eate Christ in the sacrament because he is not there. For by the effecte of this au­ctours doctrine, the Sacrament is but a visi­ble preachyng, by the tokens and signes of bread and wyne, that in beleuyng and remē ­bryng Christs benefites, with reuoluyng thē [Page] in our mynde, we should in fayth feade vpon christ spiritually beleuyng that as the bread and wyne feadeth and nurrissheth oure bo­dyes: so Christ feadeth and nurrisshed oure soules whiche be good wordes, but suche as the wordes in Christes supper do not learne vs, and may be well gathered, not to limite the mystery of the supper, but to be spoken and taught touchyng the beleuyng and re­membryng Christes benefites, with the re­uoluyng of thē in our mynde, the [...]by to lerne vs howe to feade vpon Christe continually, without the vse of the visible Sacrament, Augusti. in sermone domini in mō te. iibr. 3. beyng that called of S. Augustine the inui­sible sacrament, wherin by fayth we be nur­rished with the worde of God, and the ver­tue of Christes body and bloud, whiche, the true teachyng of the church calleth spiritual manducation onely, without which, no man is to be accompted a true membre of the my­sticall bodye of Christ. And therfore who so feadeth vpon Christ thus spiritually, must nedes be a good man, for onely good men be [...]rewe membres of Christes mysticall bo­dye, whiche spirituall eatynge is so good a frute, as it declareth the tree necessariely to be God, and therfore it must be and is a cer­tayne conclusion that onely good men do eat and drinke the body & bloud of Christ spiri­tually, that is to say, effectually to life. So as this auctor shall haue of me no aduersarie therein. And if this auctour had prouued [Page 77] that to be the true doctrine, that Christes ve­ry body and bloud, is not present in the visi­ble Sacrament, then myght he haue left this fourth booke vnwryten. For after his doctrine, as I sayd before, good men do not eate Christes bodye in the Sacrament vnder the visible signes, for because it is not there, and then much lesse should euel men reache it. In the Catholique teachyng, all the doctrine of eatyng of Christ, is concluded in two maner of eatynges, one in the visible Sacrament Sacramentall, another spirituall without the Sacrament, And because in the eatynge of the visible Sacrament Sainct Paule speaketh of vnworthy, the same true teachynge to open the matter more clerely accordyng to Scripture noteth vnto vs thre maner of eatynges, one spirituall onely, whiche onely good men do feadyng in fayth without the visible Sacrament. Another is bothe spiri­tuall and Sacramentall, whiche also good men onely do, receiuyng the visible Sacra­ment, with a true sincere charitable fayth.

The third maner of eatyng, is Sacramentall onely, whiche after sainct Paule euel men do vnworthely, and therfore haue iud­gement and condempnation, and be gylty of our lordes bodye not estemynge our lordes bodye there. And here arristeth the knot of contētion with this auctor, who sayeth euel men eate but the Sacramental bread, wher­vnto I replie, no more do good men neyther, [Page] if this auctors doctrine of the Sacrament be trewe, seyng he will haue it but a figure. If this auctor wil say theffecte is other in good men, then in euell men, I will not stryue therin. But to discusse this matter euident­ly, we must righely open the truth and then must considre, the visible Sacramentes as they be of gods ordinaunce, who directeth vs where to seke for his giftes, and howe, whose workyng albeit it be not restrayned by his Sacramentes, and therfore God maye and dothe inuisibly sanctifie and salue as it pleasith him. yet he teacheth vs of his ordinarye workyng in the visible Sacra­mentes, and ordereth vs to seke his giftes of helthe and life there, wherupon sainct Augustin noteth howe Baptisme among the Augu. de peccatis meri. et remiss. libro. 4. Cap. [...]4 Christen men of Aphrike was verye well called helth, and the Sacrament of Christes body called lyfe, as in whiche God geueth helthe and lefe, if we worthely vse them. Thordinance of these sacraments is goddes worke, the verye author of them, who as he is himselfe vniforme, as sainct Iames Iacob. 1. sayth without alteration, so as Dauid sayth, his workes be true, whiche is asmuch as vniforme, for truth and vniforme answe­rith together. As God is all goodnes, so all his workes be good. So as consideryng the substaunce of goddes workes and ordinau­ces as they be themselfe, they be always vniforme, certain and true, in ther substāce, [Page 78] as God ordred them Among men for whom they be wrought and ordred ther is variete, good men, euell men, worthy, vnworthy, but as sainct Paule sayeth there is but one Ephe. 4 lorde, one fayth, one Baptisme. And the pa­rable of the sower whiche Christe declared Mat. 5. himselfe sheweth a dyuersite of the groun­des where the seed dyd fall, but the sede was all one, that dyd fall in the good gro­wnde, and that did fal in the noughty gro­wnde, but yt fructified onely in the good grownde, whiche seede Christe calleth his worde. And in the sixt of sainct Iohn sayeth Ioan. 6. his worde is spirite and lyfe, so as by the teachyng of Christ, spirite and lyfe maye fal vpon noughty men, although for theire malice, it carieth not nor fructifieth not in them. And sainct Augustine accordyng here­unto, In Ioā. tract. 27 noteth howe Christes wordes be spi­rite and life, although thou dost carnally vnderstand them, and hast no frute of them, yet so they be spirite and life, but not to the, wherby appeareth the substaunce of gods ordynaunce to be one, though we, in the vsyng of it vary. The promyses of God can not be disapointed by mannes infidelite as S. Paule saith, which place Luther allegeth Rom. 3. to shewe the vnitie in the substāce of Baptis­me, whither it be ministred to good or euell. But S. Paule to the Corinthiās declareth it 2. Cor. 2 notably in these wordes. We be the good sauor of Christ in thē that be salued, & them [Page] that perishe. Here S. Paule noteth the sauor good, and one to diuerse men: but after the diuersite in men, of diuerse effectes in them that is to saye, the sauor of life, and the sauor of deathe, whiche sayng of S. Paule the greke scolies gathered by (Occumenius) open and declare with similitudes in nature very apte­ly. The dowe (they say) and the betel, shall feade both vpon one oyntemē [...], and the betel dye of it, and the done strenghthened by it. The diuersite in theffecte, folouing of the di­uersite of them that eate, and not of that is [...]aten, whiche is alway one. Accordyng here­vnto S. Augustine againste the Donatistes geueth for a rule, the sacramētes to be one in all, although they be not one that receiue & vse them. And therfore to knytte vp this matter for the purpose, I entende and wryte it. For wemust considre the substance of the vi­sible Sacramēt, of Christes body and bloud to be always as of it selfe it is by Christes ordinaunce, in the vnderstandyng whereof, this auctor maketh variaūce, and wold haue it by Christes ordinaūce but a figure / which he hath not proued (but and he had prowed it) then is it in substaunce but a figure, and but a figure to good men. For it must be in substaunce one to good and bad: and so ney­ther to good nor bad this Sacramēt is other­wise dispensed then it is truely taught to be by preachyng. Wherfore if it be more then a figure, as it is in deade, & if by Christes ordy­nance [Page 79] it hath presēt vnder the forme of those visible sygnes of the fourme of bread and wyne, the very body and bloud of Christ as hath been truly taught hitherto. Then is the substaunce of the Sacrament one always as the oyntement, was whether doues eate of it or betels. And this Issue, I ioyne with this An issue. auctor, that he shall not be able by any lear­nyng to make any diuersite in the substaunce of this sacrament, what soeuer diuersite fo­lowe in theffect. For the diuersite of theffect, is occasioned in them that receyue as before is proued. And thē to anuswere this auctor, I say that onely good men eate and drinke the body and bloud of Christ spiritually, as I haue declared, but al good & euel receiue the visible Sacrament of that substaunce: God hath ordeyned it, whiche in it hathe no vari­ance, but is all one to good and euel. And as for the Scriptures and doctours which this auctor allegeth to proue that onely good men receyne the body and bloud of Christ, I grant it without contention speakyng of spitituall manducation and with lyuely faythe without the Sacrament. But in the visible Sacrament euell men receyue the same that good men do, for the substance of the Sacrament is by good ordinance all one. And if this auctor would vse for a proufe that in the Sacrament Christes verye bodye is not presēt because euel mē receiue it, that shalbe no argument, for the good seed when it was [Page] 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 sacramēt, & in the sacramēt they eate it, not effectually to lyfe, but cōdēpnatiō. 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 eatē for lyfe, those that vnworthely eate condempnatiō, 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 Sacramē [...] the bodye of Christ & yet perishe, And as I said, [Page 80] thus answerith the Scripture with the par­ticuler saynges of Cypriā. 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 shalbe 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 encoūtre directly with this auctor, where he opposith by interrogation, and would be anuswered, whither an vnrepentant synner that recey­ueth the Sacrmēt, 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 vnrepētāt synner receyue Christ, but onely in the sacramēt vn­worthely? & howe could he receyue him vn­worthely & he were not there? but to anuswere to the questiō, I answere no: for it foloueth not, he receyued him, (Ergo) he hathe him in him, for the vessel being not mete, he departed [Page] 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 presēt, 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 Sa­cramēt, 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 [Page 81] 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 cunclusiō this auctor gathereth, in the. 97. leafe, as though the teachyng were that the same mā, 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, whō 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 thentent 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

[Page] In the .xcvij. leafe and the seconde colūne, 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 Māna was, the eatynge wherof, vnworthely, and vnfaythfully was no gilte of Christes body. Erasmus noteth these wordes of Saincte Erasmꝰ Paul, to be gilty of our Lords body, to proue the prefence of Christes body there, who com pareth suche an offender to the iewes that did shedde Christes bloud maliciouslye, as those do prophane it vnprofitably, in which sence the greke commentaryes do also ex­pounde it. And where this auctor bryngeth in the wordes of Saincte Paule, as it were to poynte out the mattiere. Let a man exa­myne himselfe, and so eate of the bread, and 1. Cor. 11 drynke of the cuppe, for he that eateth vn­worthely. &c. These wordes of examinyng, and so eatyng, declare the thyng to be one, [Page 82] 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 [...]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. [Page] of Sainct Augustine, he hath trusted his mā, 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 māducat & 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 sacramēt, 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 mā 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 [Page 83] 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 dn̄i. 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 cū caeteris discipulis, sicut apertius Lucas Euange lista declarat, manducaret, & biberet, mansit in Christo, Aut Christus in eo? Multi deni (que) 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 quocun (que) modo quis (que) manducauerit carnem Christi & biberit sanguiuem Christi manet in Chri­sto & in illo christus. Sed certo quodam mo­do, quem modum vti (que) ipse videbat, quando [Page] 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, whē 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, [Page 84] very body and bloud of Christ, which for the substance of the Sacrament, euel men recey­ue as good men do, that is to say, as Sainct Augustin doth poynte it out by his wordes, the same flesh, and the same bloud of Christ, with suche an expresse speache, as he would exclude all difference, that diuise of figure might imagine, and therfore sayth (ipsam car nem, ipsum sanguinem.) Whiche signifyeth the selfe same, in dead, not by name onely as the auctor of the booke would haue Saincte Augustine vnderstanded, and when that ap­peareth, as it is moost manifeste, that Iu­das receyued the same beynge wycked, that good men do, howe the same is before the recept by gods omnipotencye present in the visible Sacrament, and so not receyued by the onely instrument of fayth, whiche in e­uell men is not lyuely, but by the instrument of the mouthe, wherein it entreth with the visible element. And yet as Saincte Augu­stine sayth, dwelleth not in him that so vn­worthely receiueth, because the effect of dwellyng of Christe is not in him that receyueth by suche a maner of eatyng, as wycked men vse. Wherby S. Augustine teacheth, the diuerse effecte to ensue of the diuersite of the eatyng, & not of any diuersite of that whiche is eaten, whither the good man, or euell man recyue the Sacrament: If I would here encō bre the reader, I coulde bryng forth many [Page] mo places of saincte Augustine to the confu­siō 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 ita (que) 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 [Page 85] 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 sacra­mēt, after he knewe al that zwinglius, & Oe­colāpadius could say in the matter. And here I wyl leaue to speke of Bucer & bring forth. Theodoretus, a man much extolled by this Theodor [...]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 sacramēt 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, & [Page] sordidi mundum sanguinem bibimus. We defile the bread, that is to saye, the bodye of christ whē 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 & sanguinē.) He that vnworthly receyueth the body & bloud of Christ defyleth the mysteries. Can any wordes be more ma­nifest & euidēt to declare S. Hieroms mynde howe in the visible sacramēt 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 entēt, would by many cōceytes furnishe & further his matters, & therfore playeth with our ladyes smyling rocking hir child & many good mowes, so vnsemely for his persō that it maketh me almost forget him & my selfe al­so. But with such matterhe filleth his leaues forgettyng himselfe maketh mētiō of the ca­thechisme by him trāslate, thoriginall wher­of, cōfuteth these two partes of this booke in few words being prynted in germany, wherin besides the matter wrytē, is setforth in pi­ctur the maner of the ministring of this sacra mēt, where is the altare with cādel light let forth the priest apparelled after the old sort, [Page 86] and the man to receiue kneling barehed & holdyng vp his handes, whiles the priest myui­s [...]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 childrē, 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 foundatiō therof, in the mynde of man as it ought to be & therfore exorteth men to take the sacramēt 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 [Page] 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 presēce but in figure? why should not Emissene reather haue folowed the plaine spech of thāgel 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 heauē, 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 descrepaūte frō this auctors teaching, as may be, and yet from him he taketh occa­sion to speake against adoration.

As touching thadoratiō of Christes fleshe in the Sacramēt (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 [Page 87] in the booke of cōmō 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 presēt, whiche and there be nothyng (as this auctor nowe teacheth) it were not well. I wyll not answere this auctors eloquēce, 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 ea [...]e, and declareth after, that he meaneth in the visible Sacra­ment, whiche must be Inuisibly vnderstāded 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 [Page] 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 sacramēt, 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 Sacramēt, 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 [Page 88] 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 Sacramēt 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 [Page] 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 diuisiō, the diuersite of fleshe and bloud, is taken in Christes sainctes that there is one fleshe, that shall see the salnatiō 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 & [Page 79] so called not the same, wherin sainct Hiero­me and saincte Augustine, vsed both one ma­ner of speakinge and sainct Hierome resem­blinge the diuisiō 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 distinctiō 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 accō ­plished thoblacon for oure sinnes, and sainct Poule willeth vs in the supper, to shew for­th, and to professe 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 [Page] 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 presēt 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 heauē, 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 cānot be draiwen to an vnderstandinge of the worshippinge of Christes flesh in heauen, where it remayneth cōtinuallye glorified, and is of all men Christened, cō tinually worshipped. For as sainct Poule [Page 89] sayth Christe is so e [...] that euery range shuld cōfess that oure [...] Christieis in the [...] [...]. glory of his father. So [...] the [...] of Christe there in tha [...] are [...] glory [...] ­re he reigneth, hath neither (afore) [...]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 presēt 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 cōuersation, yet he cōtinueth 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 whō 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, cōfirmed 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 which [...] pre­ [...] of Christe in this [...] of [...] to releaue vs [...] vs spiritually, we [...] [...]. Augustine sayed, before we [...]ake & we [...] syne [...]ing, but we [...] [Page] not adoring, remembringe the diuine nature vnite to Christs flesh, and therfore of flesh not seuerid from the godhed which admonishmēt 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 heauē 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 [Page 92] 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 cō ­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 spū cā cto libr. 3. cap. 12. booke de spiritu sancto. lib. 3. cap. 12. Non me­diocris igitur questio, & ideo diligentius cō ­sideremus quid sit scabellū, Legimus enim alibi. Caelum mihi thronus, terra autē 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, ne (que) em̄ 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 [Page] 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 occasiō to open there fayth and doctrine touchin­ge adoracion, vppon discussion of the self sa­me wordes of the prophete dauid▪ 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 thē. And thus with thiese so playne wordes of sainct Ambrose consonante to those of saincte Augustine, and the openinge of S. Augustines wordes as before, I truste I haue made manifest, howe this auctor trauai­leth againste the streame, and laborith in vaine to wrieth saincte Augustine to his purpose in this matter. The beste is in this au­ctor that he audeleth saincte Augustine no worse then the reste, but all after one sorte, because they be all of like sorte againste his [Page 92] newe catholique faith, and conferme the olde trew catholique faith or do not improue it. For of this highe misterie, thauctors write summe more obscurely, and decklye, then other, and vse diuersites of speaches, & wordes wher with the true doctrine hath been of a very fewe impugned, but euer in vayne, as I truste in god shalbe moste in vaine, Hahin­ge this auctor vttred suche vntruthes with sumo [...]he blynde ignoraunce, as this worke wel wayed and consydered, that is to saye, who made ityn, when he made it, and of like howe many were, or might haue ben and shulde haue ben of counsaile in so greate a matter who if there wrere any e all reprouid in this one worke, all su­che circumstaunces cōsydered this boke maye do as mu­che gode to releaue su­che perplexite, as altercacion ha­the engēdred, and so do as god serui­ce to the trueth, as was ment there by to hindre and Impaire it. And this shal suffise for an auswere to this fourth booke.

¶ The confutation of the seconde booke.

HAuinge declared how much again all trueth this auctor would beare in hand, that the reall presence, the corporall presence, and sub­stanciall presence of Christes most precyous body and bloud in the Sacrament, is not the true Catholique doctrine, but a di­uise of the Papistes, which is a terme wher­with this auctor doth vncharitablye charge the kynges true subiectes, amonges whom he knoweth a great many to be of that faith he calleth nowe Papistes: But settyng wor­des a parte and to cume to the mattier as I haue shewed this auctor to erre partelye by willfulnes, partelye by ignoraunce in thun­derstandyng of the olde auctors, concernyng the true real presence of Christes bodye and bloud in the Sacramēt: So I trust to shewe this auctor ouerseen in tharticle of transub­stantiacion. For entre wherunto, first I saye thus, that albeit the worde transubstantia­cion, was first spokē of by publique auctorite in that assemble of learned men of Christen­dome, in a generall consayle, where the Bys­shppe of rome was present, yet the true mat­ter signified by that worde, was older and beleued before, vpon the true vnderstandyng of Christes wordes, & was in that counsaile confessed, not for the auctorite of the Byshop [Page 93] of rome, but for thauctorite of trueth, beyng tharticle, suche as toucheth not the auctorite of the Byshop of rome, but the true doctrine of Christes mysteries, and therfore in this realme, thauctorite of rome c [...]ssing, was also cōfessed for a truth by all the clergye of this realme in an open cōsaile, specially discussed, and though the hardenes of the law that by parliamēt was established, of that and other articles hath been repelled, yet that doctrine was neuer hitherto by any publique consaile or any thynge set forth by auctorite empay­red, that I haue hard, wherfore me thinketh this auctor shuld not improue it by the name of the Bishop of rome, seynge we rede howe truth was vttred by Balaā & caiph as also, & Num. 22 Iohā. 11. S. Paul teacheth the Philippēses that whither it be by cōtencion or enuye, so Christ be preached the person shuld not empaire thop­ [...]ing of truth, if it be truth, which Luther in deed would not alowe for truth impugning tharticle of transubstātiaciō, not meanynge therby as this auctour doth to empayre the truth of the very presence of Christs most precious body in the Sacrament of the aultare, as is a for sayd. In the discussion of whiche truth of trāsubstātiaciō, I for my part shuld be specially defended by two meanes wher­with to anoyde the enuious name of Papist. One is that zuinglius himselfe, who was no Papist as is well knowē, nor god christē mā as sume sayd neyther, sayth play [...]ly writing [Page] to luther in the matter of the sacrament it must nedes be true that if the body of Christ be really in the sacrament, there is of neces­site transubstantiacion also. Wherfore seing by luthers trauayle who fan [...]red not the bishoppe of Rome neither, and also by eui­dence of the truth moste certaine and mani­fest it apperith that according to the treue catholique faith Christe is reallye present in the sacrament, it is now by Suinglius iud­gemēt a necessary consequēce of that trueth to saye there is transubstantiacion also, whiche shalbe one meane of purgation that I defende not transubstantiacion as dependinge of the bishoppe of Romes determina­tion, which was not his absolutely, but of a necess [...]e of the trueth, housoeuer it liketh dun [...] or gabriel, to write in it, whose sayin­ges this auctor vsith for his pleasure. An other defence: is that this auctor himselfe saith that it is ouer greate an absurdite to saye that breade insensible with many other termes that he addith shulde be the bodye of Christe, and therfore. I thinke that the (is) that is to saye, the inwarde nature & essence of that Christe deliuered in his supper to be eaten and drōcken, was of his body & bloud, and not of the bread and wyne, and therfore canne well agree with this auctor that the bread of wheate is not the body of Christe / nor the bodie of Christe made of it as of a matter, whiche consideracions will enforce [Page 94] him that beleueth the trueth of the presence of the substāce of Christes body, as the treue catholique faith teachith, to assent to tran­substantiacion, not as determined by the churche of Rome, but as a cōsequēt of treuth beleued ī the misterie of the sacramēt, which transubstantiaciō how this auctor wolde im­pugne, I wil without quarel of ēuious wor­des cōsider, & with true opening of his hāde­ling the mattier: doubte not to make the rea­der to see that he fighteth against the trueth.

I will passe ouer the vnreuerent hande­linge of Christes wordes (This is my body) which wordes I harde this auctor (if it be the same that is named) ones reherse more seriously in a solē [...]e open audience to the conuiction & condempnacion (as folowid, of one that erroncously mainteyned against the sa­cramēt the same that this auctor callith now the catholique faith. But to the purpose the simplicite of faith in a Christen mans brest, doth not so precisely marke & stay at the sil­lables of Christes wordes, as this auctor pretendith, and knowinge by faith the truth of Christes wordes, that as he said he wrought doo not measure goddes secret working, af­ter the ꝓlacion of our sillables, whose worke is in one instaūce how soeuer speche in vs re­quire a successiue vttraūce, & the maner of hād linge, this auctor vsith to bringe the misticall wordes in cōtēpte wer meater in an. Ethin­kes mouthe to ieste out all, then to passe the lippes of suche an auctor to plaie whiche [Page] the syllables after this sorte, for although he maie rede in sum blinde glose that in the in­stante af the laste syllable gods work is to be accompted wrought beyng a goode lesson to admonishe the ministre to pronoūce al. Yet it is so but a priuate opinion and reuerently vttred, not to putte the vertue in the Laste syllable nor to s [...]orne the Catholique faith after which maner takyng example of this Auctor. If an Ethnike iest of (Fiat lux) at (fi) was nothynge and then at (at) was yet no­thinge (at lu) was nothinge but a lytel litell peringe put an (x) to it and it was sodenly (Lux) and then light, what Christen man would handle eyther place thus? and therfo­re reader let this entre of the matter serue for an argument with what spirite this matter is handled, but to answere that this auctor noteth with an exclamacon, Oh goode lorde howe would they haue bragged if christ had said this is no bread. Here I would questiō with this auctor whither Christe saide so or no? and reason thus. Christes body is no ma­teriall breade, Christ saide This is my body, ergo he saide this is not bread. And the firste parte of this reason this auctor affirmeth in the 59 leafe. And the seconde parte is Christ wordes, and therfore to auoyd this cōclusion thonly waye is to say, that Christes speache was but a figure, which the catholik doctrine saieth is false? and therfore by the catholique doctrine Christes sayinge This is my bodie, sayth in effecte This is no breade, wherat [Page 95] this auctor sayth they wolde brage if Christe had saide soo. In speach is to be consydered that euery yea cōteineth an nayin it naturaly so as whosoeuer saith This is bread, sayth it is no wine, whosoeuer sayth thys is wine, sayth it is no breade. If a lapidarie saith this is a diamōde, he saithe it is no glasse, he saith it is no crystall, he sayth it is no white sa­fyer, So Christ saying this is my body, faith it is no breade whiche plainnes of speache caused Suinglius to saye plainlye, if there be present the substaunce of the bodie of Christe there is transubstantiacion, that is to saye, not the substaunce of breade, and therfore who will plainelye denie transubstantiacion must denie the true presence of the subs [...]ance of Christes bodie as this auctor doth, whe­rein I haue first conuynced him and therfore vse that victorie for his ouerthrowe in tran­substantiacion. I haue shewed before how Christes wordes were not figuratiue when he saide, this is my bodie, and yet I will touche here suche testimonie, as this anctor bringith oute of Hilarie, for the purpose of transubstantiacion in the, xxv. leefe of this booke in thiese wordes. There is a figure saith H [...]arie / for bread and wine be out war­dly seen, & there is also a trueth of that figu­re, for the bodye and bloud of Christe be of a trueth inwardelye beleued. Thiese be Hila­ries wordes as this auctor allegith thē, who was he saith within 350 yeres of christ. Nowe I call to thy Iudgment goode reader coulde [Page] any mā diuise more pithiewordes for the proufe of the real presence of Christes body & bloud, & the cōdēpnaciō of this auctor that wolde ha­ue an onely figure? Here in hilaries wordes is a figure cōpared to trueth, & sight but wardly to belief inwardly. Nowe our beliefe is groun­ded vppō goddes worde which is this: This is my body, in which wordes hilarie testifieth that is inwardly beleued is a trueth, & the figure is in that is seē outwardly, I take hilarie here as this auctor allegith him. wherby I aske the reader is not this auctor auerthrowē that christ speache is not figuratiue, but true & proper be­inge inwardly trewe that we byleue? Ye will saye vnto me what is this to trāsubstātiaciō, to the reproufe wherof, it was brought in? because he saith bread, & wine are seen. First I saye, that it ouerthroweth this auctor fortruth, of the presēce of christes body, & euery ouerthrow therin, ouerthroweth this auctor in trāsubstā ­tiaciō, not by auctorite of the churche of Rome, but by cōsequence in truth as Suinglius saith, who shal serue me to auoyde papistrie. If one aske me, what say ye thēne to hilarie that bread & wine areseē? I say they be in dead seē, for they appere so, & therfore be callid so, as Isaac sayd of Iacob, it was his voice, & yet by his sence of feling, denied him Esau, which was not Esau, Gene. 27. but was Iacob, as the voyce frō within did de­clare him. If ye will aske me howe canne there (according to hilaries wordes) be in the outw­arde visible creatures any figure, onles the sa­me be in deade, as they appeare bread & wine? I will answer euen as well as this out ward ob­iecte [Page 96] of the sēsible hearynes of Iacob, resēblin­ge Esau was a figure of christes humanite & of the ve ry humanite in deade. Thus may Hilarie be answered to anoyde hys auctorite from con­traryinge trāsubstātion. But this auctor shall neuer auoide that him self hath brought out of hilarie, which ouerthro weth hī in his figuratiue speache, & consequētly in his denyall of trā ­substantiation also, as shal appere in the fur­ther handling of this matter.

Where this auctor in the 18 leaf cōparith these S. Poules wordes, The breade that we breake, is it not the cōmunion of the bodye of christ, to be thexpo [...]mdyng of christes wordes This is my body I deny that for christ, wordes declared the substance of the sacramēt whē he said This is my body & S. Paule declarith the worthie vse of it according to Christes institucion, & by the words (the bread that we breake) doth signifie, the hole vse of the supper, wherin is breakyng, blessyng, thauckes geuing, dispēsing, receiuīg, & eatyng So asonely breakyng is not the cōmuniō, & yet by that parte in a figure of speach. S. Paule meaneth all, beyng the same as appea­reth by the scripture, a terme in spech to go bre­ake bread (althoughe it be not alwaies so takē) wherby cosignifie to go celebrate our lordes supper, & therfore bread in that place may signifie the commen breade as it is adhibite to be consecrate. whiche by the secrete power of god tur­ned in to the bodye of Christe, & so distribute & receyued, is the cōmuniō of the body of christ as the cuppe is likirise of the bloud of Christ, [Page] after the benediction, whiche benediction was not spoken of in the bread, but yet must be vnderstanded, As for Christes callynge of bread his bodye, is to make it his bodye who as sainct Paule sayth calleth that is not, as it were, and so makethe it to be. Primo.

Thargumentes this auctor vseth in. 19. and. 20. leef of thordre of Christes speaches as the euangelistes reherse them, be captious diuises of this auctor, in cace he knowethe what sainct Augustine writeth, or els ignoraunce if he hathe not red sainct Augustine, (De doctrina Christiana) where he geuteh a rule of recapitulatiō as he calleth it, when that is tolde after that was done afore, and therfore we maye not argue so firmely vpon the ordre of the tellynge in the speche. S. Augustine bryngeth an example Augusti­nus de doctrina [...]. libro. 3. Cap. 36. that by ordre of tellyng, Adam was in para­dise or any tree was brought forth for fea­dyng, with diuerse other, wherewith I will not encōbre the reader. Theuangeliste reher­seth what Christ said, and did simplye and truely, whiche story we must so place in vn­derstandyng, as we tryfle not the mysterie, at stayng and stoppyng of lettres and sylla­bles. And therfore though the worde (take, eate) goo before the wordes (This is my bodye) we may not argue that they tooke it and eate it afore christ had tolde them what he gaue them, and all these often rehersalles [Page 97] of bread, with he toke bread, he brake bread, and blessed bread, and if ye will adde helde bread, all this induce no consequence that he therfore gaue bread. For he gaue that he had consecrate, and gaue that he made of breade. If Christe when he was tempted to make stones breade, had taken the stones and bles­sed them and delyuered them saiynge, This is bread, had he then delyuered stones, or ra­ther that he made of stones bread? Such ma­ner of reasonyng vseth Peter Martyr, as this auctor doth, whose foly I may well say he sawe not to eschwe it, but as appeareth rather to folowe it. And yet not content to vse this fonde reasonyng, this auctor calleth Papists to witnesse, that they might lawgh at it, because the Euāgeliste telleth the story so as Christ sayde, (drincke) and then could after what it was, this auctor fansieth that the Apostels should be so hasty to drinke ere Christ had tolde them what he gaue, whiche & they had, I thinke he woulde haue stayed the cuppe with his hande, or byd them rary, whiles he had tolde them more, I wil no fur­ther trauayle with this resonyng, which it is pitie to heare in suche a matter of grauite, of such cōsequence as it is: both in body & soule. We maye not tryfle with Christes wordes after this sorte. When S. Paul sayth, we be partakers of one bread, he speaketh not of materiall breade, but of Christes bodye oure heauenly bread, which to all is one, & cannot [Page] be consumed, but able to fead all the worlde, and if this auctor geueth credite to Theodo­retus, whom he calleth an holy man, thē shal he neuer fynde the Sacrament called bread after the sanctificacion, but the bread of life, the like whereof shoulde be in an Epistell of Chrysostome, as Peter Martyr allegeth, not yet prynted, by whose auctorices if they ha­ue any, as in there place this auctor maketh muche of them, al these argumentes be al try­fles, for all the namynge of bread by Christ, and Sainct Paule and all other, must be vn­derstanded before the sanctificacion and not after. And if thou reader lokest after vpon Theodoretus, and that Epistell, Thou shalt fynde true that I saye, wherby all this que­styoning with Papistes is onely a dalyinge for this auctour pleasure againste his owne auctors, and all learnynge.

In the thirde Chapter wryten in the .xxi. leafe it troubleth this auctour that the do­ctrine of transubstantiacion, is in his Iudge­ment againste naturall reason, and naturall operacion, in the entrye of whiche matter he graunteth wisely that they shoulde not pre­uayle against gods worde, and yet he saith, when they be ioyned with gods worde they be of a great moment to cōferme any trueth, wherin if he meaneth to cōfirme gods worde by reason, or gods mysteryes by natural operacion, myne vnderstandynge cannot reache that doctrine, and is more strange to me, then [Page 98] this auctor maketh transubstantiacion to be to him. As for the reason of (vacuum) decla­reth a (vacuum) that nature abhorreth not. And if we speake after the rules of nature, quantite filleth the place rather then substance. And shortely to answer this auctor, it is not sayd in the doctrine of transubstautiat iō, that there remayneth nothyng, for in the visible forme of bread, remayneth the propre ob­iec [...]e of euery sence truly, that is seen with the bodely eye, is truely seen, that is felt is truly felt, that is sauered is truely sauered, & those thinges corrupte putrifie, nurrisne and con­sume after the trueth of the former nature, God so ordryng it that create al, vsing singulerly that creature of breade not to vnitie it vnto him as he did mannes nature, to be in bread impanate, and breaded as he was in fleshe incarnate. And as for reason in place of seruice as beyng inferior to fayth, will a­gree with the fayth of Transubstantiacion welynoughe. For if our fayth of the true pre­sence of Christes very body he true, as it is moste true grounded vppon the wordes of Christ. (This is my body:) Then reason yel­dyng in that truth, wyl not stryue with tran­substātiaciō, but plainly affirme that by here Iudgement, if it be the bodye of Christ it is not bread. For in the rule of comē reason, the graunte of one substance is the denyal of an other, & therfore reason hathe these cōclusiōs [Page] througly, what soeuer is breade, is no wyne, what soeuer is wyne, is no milke, & so forth. And therfore beynge ones beleued this to be the body of Christ, reason sayth by and by, it is not breade, by the rule aforesayde, wherby appeareth howe reason doth not stryue with transubstantiacion, beynge ones conquered with fayth of the true presence qf Christes body, whiche is most euident, and no whitte darkened, by any thynge this auctour hath brought. As for naturall operation, is not in all mens Iudgementes as this auctour ta­keth it, who semeth to repute it for an incon­uenience to saye that the accidentes of wyne do sowre and waxe vinegre. But Wlpian a man of notable learnynge, is not afrayde to wrytte, in the lawe. In venditionibus de con­trahenda emptione, in the pandectes, that of wine and vinegre there is (prope eadem vsia) in maner one substance, wherin he sheweth him selfe, far against this auctors skil, which I put for an example to shewe that naturall operations haue had in naturall mennes iud­gementes diuerse consideraciōs, one sumtime repugnante to an other, and yet the auctors of both opinions called Philosophers all, A­monge whiche sum thought (for exāple) they spake wisely that estemed all thinge to altre as swiftelye as the water runneth in the streame, and thought therfore no man coulde vttre a worde beyng the same man in thende of a worde, that he was when he beganne to [Page 99] speake, and vsed a similitude. Like as a man standing in one place cannot touche the same one water twise in a runnynge streame, no more can a man be touched the same man twise but he altreth as swiftely as doth the streame. These were laughed to skorne, yet they thought themselfe wise in naturall spe­culation. Aristotel (that is muche estemed and worthely) fansyed a first matter, in all things to be one, in whiche consideracion he semeth to be as extreme in a staye, as the other fonde Philosophers were in mouynge. By whiche two extremites I condempne not naturall speculation, wherwith I thinke God plea­sed, for man to meruayle in cōtēplacion of his inferiour workes, and to tame his rashe wit­in the inexplicable, variete of it, but to vse it so, as to make it an open aduersary to relli­gion, it is me semeth without all purpose. The doctrine of transubstantiacion doth not teache no earthly thynge to remayne in the Sacrament, but contrary wise that the visi­ble forme of bread and wyne is there as the visible sygne of the Sacramente, and to be the same in greatnes, in thicknes, in waight, in sauor, & taste, in propriete also to corrupte, putrifie, and nurrish as it did before, and yet the substaunce of those visible creatures, to be conuerted into the substance (as Emissene sayth) of the bodye of Christ. And here will reason do seruice to fayth to saye if there be [Page] a conuersion in deade as faith teacheth, and none of the accidentes be conuerted, then the substaunce is conuerted, for in euery thynge all is substaunce and accidentes, but the acci­dentes be not chaunhed, and yet a chaunge there is, it muste nedes be then that substan­ce is chaunged. Whiche deduction reason wil make and so agree with transubstantia­cion inconuenient due seruice. And thus I haue gotten reasons good will, whatsoeuer this auctor sayth, and from the grounde of faith haue by reason deduced suche a conclu­sion to proue transubstantiacion, as onles he destroy the true faith of the presence of Chri­stes very body (which he cannot,) must nedes be allowed. And as for naturall operacion of putrifiynge, engenbryng wor [...]es, burnyng, & suche experiences, whiche beynge, the sub­stance of bread absent, this auctor thincketh cānot be so, when he hath thought througly, he can of his thought conclude it onely to be meruayle, and it be so, as againste the comen rules of philosophie, wherin as me semeth it were a nerer waye, as we be admonished to leaue serchyng of (howe) of the worke of god in the mysterie of Christes presence, beynge that the celestiall parte of the Sacrament, so not to serche (howe) in thexperience of thope racion of nature, of the visible earthely parte of the Sacrament. When God sent Māna in deserte, the people sawe many meruayles in it, besides the comē operacion of nature, and yet they neuer troubled them selfe with [Page 100] (howes.) And as one very well Wryteth, it is consonante that as there is a great myra­cle in the worke of god to make there present the substaunce of the bodye of Christ: so like­wise to knowlege the myracle in the absence of the substaunce of bread, and both the hea­uenly and earthely parte of the Sacrament to be myraculouse, & so many myracles to be ioyned together in one agreeth with the xcel­lencie of the Sacrament. As for thobiectiōs this auctor maketh in this matter be such as he findeth in those scolasticall wryters, that discusse as they maye or laboure theraboute wherwith to satisfie idle imaginacions, and to make learned men prompt and readye to say sumwhat to these tryfles, whose argu­mentes this auctor taketh for his principall fondacion. For playne resolution and auoy­dyng wherof, if I would nowe for my parte brynge for the there solutions and answers, there were a parte of scole Theologie, so brought into English, to no great prayse of eyther of our lernings, but our vayne labour to set abrode other mens trauayles to trou­ble rude wittes with matter not necessary, & by such ▪vnreuerent disputynge, and alterca­ciō to hynder the truth. Finally all that this auctor reherseth of absurditie repugneth in his estimacion onelye to the conclusion of philosophie, which should nothyng moue the humble simplicite of faith in a christē mā, who merueyleth at goddes workes and reputeth [Page] can not comprehend the wayes and meanes of them.

As in ansvveryng to the thirde Chapittre I haue shewed howe rea­son receyued in to faythes seruice dothe not striue with trāsubstātiatiō, but agreeth well with it: so I truste to shewe howe mannes sences whiche this auctor calleth the fiue wittes be no such directe aduersaries to trā ­substanciation, as a matter wherof they can no skyll. And therfore to a question this au­ctor asketh in thend of the second columne [...] the. 22. sect whiche is this. If we beleue our sences in thaccidentes, why may we not do the like of the substāce? I answere thus that the sences can no skyll of substance as lerned men speake of substance, nor this auctor nei­ther, if a man should iudge him by this que­stion. For and a sensuall man, one that folo­with his rude sences would say, Tume hither master scoler I here muche talkyng in this worlde of substance, and accidence, and if he were of a mery nature, would say his litel boye had lerned his accidence, but himselfe wo [...]teth not perfitely what substaunce mea­neth, as clerkes terme it, and bringyng forth a piece of bread, an other of chese, & a pot of ale: would desyre the scoler to lerne him the substaunce of them, and shewe it with his finger, and shewe him also what difference, betwene the substaunce of bread, chese and [Page 101] ale, I thinke the scoler with thaduise of all at Cambredge and Oxforde also, coulde not do it, and the more the scoler should trauaile with such a rude man so sensuall in the mat­ter, I thincke he shoulde be the further of, onles the sensuall man would set a parte his rude wittes and lerne of the scoler sume rea­sonable vnderstandyng whiche is that the substāce is the inwarde nature, wherin those that be accidentes do naturally staye, the quantite immediatly, and the rest by meane of quantite, in whiche the rest may be said to staye, whiche wordes were new diuinite to this man, who touchinge the bread woulde aske the scoler rowndely, Tallest thowe not this substāce, this goode rownde thicke piece that I handle? The scoler wold answere, syr as I shall answere yone, you wil say I play the sophister, for I must speake lernynge to yowe that yowe cā no skil of, & be not angry though I tel yowe, so for & ye were lerned, ye would not aske me this questiō, for substāce as it is properly vnderstāded to be of this or that thing, is properly neither sene by it selfe or felt, & yet by reason, cōprehended truely to be in that we fele & see, neuerthelesse in comē speach & in the speache of such as for the purpose speake, after the com [...] [...], [...] worde [...] is vsed to signifie that is [...] or felt, & so ye may say ye see the substance or feale the substāce of bread, & yet yet ye [...] [...] [...] see but the colour, & by it the largenesse, and [Page] feale the heate, or coldenes, moysture, or dry­nes, weight, or lightnes, hardenes, or soft­nes, thicknes, and thynnes. If ye will learne what substāce is ye must leue your outwarde sēces & cōsidre in your vnderstādyng howe in euery thynge that is, there is a staye, whiche we call a substāce, beyng the principall parte of euery thyng, whiche fayling we saye that speciall thynge not to be, As where the sub­stāce of bread is nor, there that special thyng bread is not, because bread is as euery other natural visible thynge is, of two partes sub­stance and accidentes, nowe if the one parte that is to say substāce be not there, which can be but by myracle, then is no bread proprely there, because the one and chief parte is not there, & yet I saye not nothynge is there, for the other parte remanynge hath a beyng as gods visible creature & may be called the visible part of the bread, & therfore the outwarde kinde & forme of bread & thapparāce of bread & a trew sēsible parte of bread, & therfore be called also by the name of bread, not that it is so properly, but after the comē speach & capacite of mē, & may be called the nature of bread signifiyng the propriete & the matter of bread signifiynge the grossenes. The rude man I thinke would herat say, here is sophistrie in deade, for here is substāce & no substāce, mat­ter of bread & no bread, apparance of bread & no bread, called bread and no bread, this is to playe iugling where it happeneth. Wherein this rude mā for wante of true vnderstāding [Page 102] of the wordes & perfite cōsideratiō of the matter speaketh thus fondely, who if he should their vpon require the scoler to shewe him sume differēce of the very substance bytwene bread, & chese, & ale, what could the learned scoler answer here, but euē frākly declare his ignorāce & say I knowe none, whiche is as muche to say as I knowe their is a differēce, but I wote not what it is. Whervnto I trowe the rude mā wold say to the scoler, thē arte thowe with all thy learnyng as verye a foole as I, to speake of a differēce & cā not tel what it is. Nowe if the scoler shuld vtter euē th extremite of his learning in propretermes, & saye I knowe bread is no chiese & chiese is none ale, & of ther accidētal parts I cā in dede shew differēces, but of the very substāce none. The rude mā if his nature were not very dul, would laugh rowndely to here a scoler vtter for a point of lerning, that bread is no chiese, & chiese is none ale, which who so knoweth not, is a very fole, & merily to knit vp the matter would keape the accidētes of his bread, chiese, & ale for himself, & geue the substāce to the scoler if he can diuide it, as a rewarde for his cunning to his better nurcitour. And this I write after this grosse sorte, to [...] that this matter of substāce, is not [...] vnder­stāded, as sēces exercised [...] perceyue it & howe mās outwarde sēces cā not as this auctor wold haue it be iudges of the inwarde nature of substāce, which reasō perswadeth to be, vsinge the seruice of the sences for induction [Page] of the knolege of it, in which iudgemēt vpon ther reaporte happeneth many tymes muche deceyte. Titus liuius, speaketh of a great numbre of diuers dishes of meate, made in a solempne supper, wherat the g [...]stes wondred, to see such a variete at that tyme of the yeare, and when they demaunded of it, ans­were was made, the substance was but one all hogges fleshe, so as thalteration in the accidentes, deceyued there Iudgementes. That stone whiche among many thought to haue sume skil, hath been takē for a precious diamonde, hath after by cunning lapidaries, been Iudged to be but a white safier, & con­trary wise. So easlye maye our iudgement vpō the reporte of our sences fal in error, not that the sences be properly deceyued, but rather the man that is grossely sensuall, and iudgeth fondly by thē. For the very substaunce is not the propre obiecte of any of the fiue wittes, but of their reporte cōsidered in rea­son denied, and fomtyme gessed at, wher of ensueth great error & (quid pro quo) among the potycaries and lerned also in thinges straunge, where of they haue but accidentall markes. Wherfore vpō cōfideraciō of the premisses it may easly appeare howe the questiō of this auctor, why the sēces be not beleued, in knowlege of substāces, as in knolege of ac­cidētes may bereasonally answered. And thē if the iudgemēt of reason in thestimation of godeds naturall workes and denyinge that this substance, when by accidentes it should [Page 103] seme otherwise, reason dothe staye sensua­lite, and when men of experience knowlege, and credite, haue determined such a certaine stone to be a very true dyamonde, other ignorāte wilbe ashamed to say the contrary. And if a man fearinge hymselfe deceyued to haue bought one kinde of drunges for an other, and yet mistrusting wisely his owne iugmēt, caused it to be wiened by men of knolege, good fayth and honestie, if they affirme it to be the very thing, this manne will then con­demne his owne imagination and vppon credite call it so, and take it so to be, wherfore if in thiese thinges I saye reason dothe in a man stay sensualyte, and if knowlege with honestie ruleth the iudgmēt rude of vnderstā dinge, and fynally if credite amonge menne be so muche regarded, how muche more con­uenient is it, that faythe in goddes worde (wherin can be no deceite as there is in men) shulde altre and chaunge, mannes iugement in reason, and bringe it in to thobedience of [...]ayth [...] Of that is bread after the iudgement of oure reason, after the reporte of our sēces, Christe determineth vnto vs the substaunce of that to be his bodye sayinge. This is my body, why shal not nowe a trew christē man answer euer accordinge to his fayth, to saye and professe the same, to be the substaunce of christes body vppon credite of Christes wor­des, as well as the carnall man will vppon reaport of his senses cōclude in reason, there [Page] to be the substaunce of bread? wherby is not taken awaye the credite of our sences as this auctor supposeth, which haue there obiectes still true, as they had before. For the colour, greatnes, sauore, and taste, al remaine truly with thexperyences of them as before. Upon whose reaporte reason neueethelesse nowe reduced to the obsequie of faythe, forbeareth reuerentlye, to conclude againste the truthe of faythe, but accordynge to faythe confes­seth the substaunce to be the verye substance of Christes bodye, and the accidentes to remayne in theire verye true nature, because faythe teacheth not the contrarye, and that it agreeth withe the rule of fayth so to be, and therfore remayneth a verye true greatnes, thicknes, and wayght, whiche maye be called in comen speche, substaunce, signifiynge the outwarde nature, and in that sence, Theodorete reasonynge with an heretique semethe to call it, because Ha­uyng spoken of substaunce remainynge, he declareth what he meaneth by it, addynge it maye be seen and felt as before, whiche is not the nature of substaunce properlye, but by like comen speache that remayneth maye be called matter, as Origene called it wherin also remaynethe true sauor, and taste withe true propriete to corrupte, or pu­trifie, and also nurrishe, God for ordrynge [Page] [...] [Page] fayth of the true manhode in Chr [...]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 ineui [...]able prouf ther of. And therfore Christe appearinge to his disciples goinge in to Emās 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 thē, 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 cōsecrate, yelde to faith, accordinge whe [...]unto we confe [...] [...]ruely, the same to be the body of Christe.

[Page 105] 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, shalbe made incorru­ptible, Ioan. 6. & yet not after the iudgemēt of our senses, & conclusions gathered of them, conside­ryng the maner of the continuall consumptiō of the sayd bodies, wherof sum philosophers haue at lenght after their reasō declared their mynde, whom Christen men cōtem [...]e withal thexperiēce of senses, which they allege being vehemēt in that matter, we reade in scripture of the fedyng of Angels, whē [...]oth receyued Gen. 18. them, I will spend no mo wordes herein, but hauyng auoyded this authors reasonyng a­gainst trāsubstantiaciō. 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 Iustinꝰ. 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, wh [...]che is amonge vs called (Eucharistia,) [Page] 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 remissiō of syn­nes, and ordreth his lif [...] 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 [Page 106] 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 incarnatiō 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 cōclusion (that bread & vvyne remayne stil, vvhich is turned into our flesh & bloud,) is not deduced vpō 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 transubstātiacion, euē so erreth he in the first allegatiō of his auctorites by plaine mysceportynge, let it be further named or thought on as the thinge deserueth.

Next Iustine, is Iren in thallegatiō of w­hō, this auctor maketh also an vntrue report [Page] who hathe not this forme of wordes in the fourth boke (contra Valētinu) that the bread wherin we geue thākes 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 corrup [...]b [...]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. And how saye they that our fleshe is not able to recey­ue gods gifte, who is eternal life which flesh is nurrished with the body & bloud of Christ? These be also Irenes wordes, wherby ap­peareth, what he ment by the heauenly thing in (Eucharistia,) whiche is the very presence [Page 107] of Christes body & bloud. And for the playne testimonye of this faithe, this Irene hathe been commeēy alleaged, and specially of Me­lancton to Decolampadius, as one moste an­cient, and most playnely testifiyng the same. So as his very words truely alleaged, ouer­throwe this authour in the impugnation of Christes reall presence in the Sacramente, and therfore can nothyng helpe this auctors purpose agaynst transubstautiation. Is not this a goodly and godly entre of this author, in the first two auctorities that he bryngeth in, to corrupte them both? As for Drigene in Drigene his owne wordes saith, the matter of the breade remayneth, whiche as I haue before opened, it may be granted, but yet he termeth it not as this auctour dothe, to call in mate­riall breade. Whenne God formed Adam of Gene. [...]. claye, the mattier of the claye remayned in Adam, and yet the materiall claye remay­ned not, for it was altred into an other substance, whiche I speake not to compare equallye the fourmynge of Adam to the Sa­crament, but to shewe it not to be all one to saye the materiall breade and the matter of breade. For the accidentes of bread maye be called the matter of breade, but not the ma­teriall breade, as I haue sumwhat spoken thereof before: but suche shiftes be vsed in this matter, notwithstandynge the impor­taunce of it.

[Page] Saincte Cypriaus wordes, do note im­pugne Cyprian transubstantiaciō, for they tend one­ly to shewe that wyne is the creature, ap­poynted to the celebration of this mysterye, and therfore water onelye is no due matter accordynge to Christes institution. And as the name wyne muste be vsed before the con­secration, to shewe the trueth of it then, so it maye also be vsed, for a name of it after, to shewe what it was, whiche is often vsed. And in one place of Cyprian by this author here alleaged, it appeareth Sainct Cyprian by the worde wyne, signifieth the heauenly wyne of the vineyarde of the Lorde of Sa­both, callyng it newe wyne and alludynge therin to Dauid. And this dothe Cyprian shewe in these wordes, he we shall we drinke with Christ newe wine of the creature of the vyne, if in the sacrifice of God the father, & Christ we do not offer wyne? Is not here mention of newe wyne of the creature of the vyne, what newe wyne can be, but the bloud of Christ, the very wyne consecrate by gods omnipotencye of the creature of the vyne of­fred? And therfore this one place may geue vs a lesson in Cyprian, that as he vseth the worde wyne to signifie the heauenly drinke of the bloud of Christ, made by consecration of the creature of wine, So wheithe nameth the bread consecrate bread, he meaneth the heauenly bread Christ, who is the bread of [Page 108] life. And so Cyprian can make nothynge by those wordes againue transubstantiacion, who wryteth playnely of the chaunge of the bread by gods omnipotencye into the [...]e [...]he of Christ, as shall after appeare, where this author goeth about to answere v [...] him.

As touchyng Emissene by whose wordes Emissen is expresselye testified the truth of the reall presence of Christ, in the Sacrament, and al­so the sence of the doctrine of transubstantia­cion, this auctor maketh himselfe bolde ouer him, and so bolde that he dare corrupte him, whiche Emissen wryteth n [...]t that man is turned in to the body of the Churche. And here I make an issue with this author, that Emis­sene Anissue. hath not that worde of turnyng in that place, and man to be turned into the body of the Church, is no conuenient speache to signifie a change in him that is regenerate by ba­ptisme. He in dede that is thruste out of the chauncell for his misdemeanour in seruice tyme, maye be sayde tourned into the bodye of the Churche. But Emissene speaketh not so here, but because the same Emissene decla­rynge the mysterye of the Sacrament, sayth the visible creatures be tourned into the substance of the bodye of Christe, thys auctour thought it woulde sounde gaylye well, to the confusion of that [...]ewe do­ctyne of tournynge, to speake in Baptisme [Page] of the turnyng of a man in to the body of the Churche. And it may be comenly obserued in this authour, whē he allegeth any auctorite of others, he bryngeth forthe the same in suche forme of wordes, as he would haue them, and not as they be, for the most parte or very often, and ones of purpose were ouer often in so high a matter as this is. And yet in this Emissins authorite afteral the payne taken to reforge him. Emissens doctrine play nely confoundeth this authours teachynge. This author maketh a note that there is in man baptized, nothynge chaunged outwar­dely, and therfore in the Sacramēt neyther, and it must be graunted. For the doctrine of transubstantiation teacheth not in the Sa­crament any outwarde chaunge. For the substance of the bread and wyne is an inwarde nature, and so is substance of one defined. And to speake of the thyng changed, then as in man the chāge is in the soule, which is the substāce of man: So for the thyng chāged in the visible creatures should be also changed, and is chaunged, the substance of the bread and wyne to answere theirin to the other. And we must considre howe this comparison of the two chaunges is made as it were by proportion. Wherin eche chaunge hath his special ende and terme, (whervnto): and therfore accordynge to terme and ende, hath his worke of chaunge, speciall and seuerall both by gods worke. Thus I meane, The visible [Page 109] creatures hath there ende and terme wher­vnto the change is made, the very body and bloud of Christe, whiche body beynge a trut body we must saye is a corporall substance. The soule of man hath his ende and terme a spirituall alteration, incorporall, to be rege­nerate the sonne of God. And then the doctrine of this Emissene is playne this, that eche change is of like truth, and then it foloweth that if the change of mannes soule in Baptisme be true and not in a figure: The chaunge likewise in the Sacrament is also true and not in a figure. And if manues soule be the chunge in Baptisme be in deade that is to saye, really made the sonne of God: then is the substance of the bread, whiche is as it were the soule of the bread. (I am bolde here in speache to vse the worde soule [...]o expresse proportion of the comparison,) but euen so is the inwarde nature of the bread, whiche is substance, turned and chaunged in to the bodye of Christe, beynge the terme and ende of that chaunge. And here I saye so, not to declare the maner, but the truthe of thend, that is to saye, as really and in dede the chaunge is in the 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 [Page] 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 ow [...] 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 Bap [...]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 signi­ficatiō, 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 declaraciō of the matter in forme of teachyng [Page 110] with owt contētion, 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 examē 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 [...]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 [Page] 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 trā ­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 cōsecrate that creature & as Emissene sayth, turned it in the celebration & dispensation of these mysteries. But this sayng towcheth nothing the doctrine of trāsubstantiatiō. 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, [Page 97] 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 vnderstāded 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 vn­derstādeth the bare name, howe can that stā 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 Cypriā by the worde of god is chaunged, but yet the proper [Page] 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 cōfirme 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 presēce of Christes body in the Sacramēt, 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 accidētes remayning with there propre effectes whiche therfore maye worthly be called thinges. And here I wold aske this authour, if his teachyng as he pre­tēdeth 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 creatiō of the worlde, wherby to induce mannes fayth [Page 94] 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 sēces, ne to mistrust the great miracle of God in eyther, because we see none outwarde experiēce 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 cōsecration, 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 sacramēt, affirmyng the same to be the [Page] 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 Sacramēt and the thinge of the Sacramēt, whiche is Christs body calling the same sacrifice of the Churche. Nowe if Christ is body be there, it is trulither & ī 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 absēt 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 cōsisteth so as the body of Christ is conteyued in this sacrifice by S. Augustines mynde, According wher­unto [Page 113] sainct Augustine is alleged to saye in the same booke from whēs the auctour tooke this saynge. Also these wordes followynge, vnder the kindes of bread and wyne whiche we see, we honour thīges 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 cōsecrate Thus saith sainct Augustine as he is alleged owt of that booke, which in dede I haue not, but he hath the like sēce 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 presē ­ce of Christes bodye by his owne collection of saincte Augustines mynde, whiche is as he cōfesseth 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 thellemētes 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 cō ­founde [Page] transubstantacion confoundeth eui­dētly 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 māhode & 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 sa [...]e for the agrement of this doctrine the nature of the body & the bloud of Christ is but figuratiuely in the Sacramēt. 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 collectiō, the truth of the beyng of the nature of the body and bloud of christ to be like wise in the sacramēt, & therby call backe all that he hath writtē against the real presēce of Christes body in the sacramēt, and abandon his diuise of a presence by signification, which is in truth a playne absence, as himselfe spekith also openly, which open speche cānot stande, and is improued by this opē 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 perceptiō, & so it must be euidēt howe the body of Christ is ther, that is to saie on thal [Page 110] tere before we receyue it, to which aulter S. Augustine saith we cum to receyue it. There was neuer māouerturned his owne assertiōs more euidētly, then this authour doth here in this place, the like wherof I haue obserued in other that ha [...]ue writtē against this sacramēt 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 hīself in the real p̄ [...]ēce of christes very body, yet he hathe pulled downe trāsubstātiatiō, & [...]oas crafty wresteles do, falling them self, on ther bake to throwe ther felowe ouer thē. But it is not like, for as lōge as the true faith, of the reall presence stādith, so lōge standith trāsubstātiatiō, not by aucthoritie of determinatiō but by a necessary cōsequēce of the truth as I said before, & as zuinglius defē deth playnely, & as for these places of S. augustine may be answered vnto, for they speke of the visible matter & elemēte, which remayne truely in ther proprietie of their nature, for so much as remayneth, so as their is true reall & bodely matter of thaccidētes of breade & wyne not in fāsy or imaginatiō, wherby their shuld be illusiō in the sēses, but so in dede as thexperiēce doth shewe & the chaūge of substance of the creatures in to a better substāce, wuld not impayr the truth of that remaineth, but that remaineth, doth indede remaine which the same natural effects by miracie that it had whē the substāce was ther which is one maruail [...] this mystery, as their were diuerse more in māna [Page] the figure of it. And then a myracle in gods workinge doth not empayre the truth of the worke. And therfore I noted before, howe saincte Thomas did towche Christ, after his resurrection truely, and yet it was by myra­cle, as saincte Grigorie writeth. And further we may saye towching the comparison that when a resemblaunce is made, of the Sacrament to Christes person, or contrarywise of Christes person to declare the Sacrament, we may not presse all partes of the resem­blance, with a through equalitie in conside­racion of eche parte by it selfe, but onely haue respecte to thende, wherfore the resemblaunce is made. In the persone of Christe be ioy­ned two holl perfite natures inseperably vnite, which faith the nestorians impugned, and yet vnite witout confusiō of them, which confusion Theutichians in consequēce of their of error affirmed, and so argumētes be brought the Sacrament, wher with to conuince both as I shall shewe answeringe to Gelasius. But in this place saincte Augustine vseth the truth most certaine of the two natures in Christes person, wherby to declare his be­liefe in the Sacrament, whiche beliefe as Hylarie before is by this auctor alleaged to saye, is of that is inwardly, For that is owtowardly of the visible creature, we see (he hath) with our bodelye eye and therfore therin is no poynte of faith, that shulde nede suche a declaracion, as S. Augustine makith. [Page 115] And yet making the comparison, he reher­seth both the truthes on both sides sayng. As the persō of Christ cōsisteth of God and man, so the sacrifice of the Church cōsisteth of two thinges, the visible kinde of the elemente, and the inuisible fleshe and bloud, finishing the conclusion of the similitude, that therfore their is in the sacrifice of the Churche, both the Sacrament and the thyng of the Sacra­ment, Christes body, That is whiche is inuiuisible and therfore required declaraciō, that is by S. Augustine opened in the comparison that is to say the body of Christ to be there truely, and their with that neded no declara­tiō that is to saye the visible kinde of the ele­ment is spoken of also as being true, but not as a thing which was entended to be proued, for it neded not any prouf as the other parte did, and therfore it is not necessary to presse both partes of the resemblaunce so, as because in the nature of Christes humanite thier was no substaunce conuerted in Christ, whiche had been contrary to thordre of that mysterye, which was to yoyne the holl natu­re of mane to the godhed in the person of Christ, that therfore in this mystery of the Sacrament, in the whiche by the rule of our faithe Christes, body is not impanate, the cō ­uersion of the substaunce of the visible elemē ­tes shuld not therfore be. If truth answerith to truth for the proportiō of the truthe in the mysterie that is sufficiēte. For elles the natu­res [Page] be not so vnite in one hipostasic in the mysterie of the sacramēte as they be in Christes person, & the fleshe of mā in Christ by vniō of the diuinitie, is a diuine spirituall fleshe, & is called & is a liuely fleshe, and yet thauctor of this booke, is not afrayde to teache the breade in the sacramēt to haue no participatiō of ho­lynes, wherin I agree not with him, but reason aganiste him with his owne doctrine, and much I could saye more, but this shal suffise. The wordes of S. Augustine for the reall presence of Christes body be suche as no mane cā wreste, or writh to an other sēse, & with their force haue made this auctor ouerthrowe him selfe in his owne wordes. But that S. Augustine saith towching the nature of breade and the visible elemēte of the sacrament wih out wresting or writhing may be agreed in cōue­niēr vnderstāding with the doctrine of trāsubstātiation, & therfore is an authoritie familier with those writers that affirme trāsubstan­ciatiō by expresse wordes, owt of whose qui ner this authour hath pulled owt this bolt, & as it is owt of his bowesēte, turneth bake & hitteth himselfe on the forhed, & yet after his fashion by wronge & vntrue trāslatiō he sharpened it somewhat, not with out sū punisshemēt of god euidētly by the waye by his owne wordes to ouerthrowe himselfe. In the secōde colūne of the 27 leaf, & the firste of the 28 leaf, this auctour maketh a processe in declaration of herises in the person of Christ, for cōuictiō wherof this authr saith the olde fathers vsed [Page 116] argumēts of two exāples, in eyther of which exāples were two natures to gyther, the one not perishing nor cōfounding the other. One exāple is in the body & soule of man. An other exāple of the sacramēt in which be two natures, as inowarde heuenly, & an owtwarde earthly, as in man their is a body & a soule. I leaue owt this auctours owne iudgement in that place & of the (o reader) require thyne, whither those fathers that did vse both the­se exāples to the cōfusiō of heretiques, did not belief as apperith by the processe of theire reasoning in this poynte, did they not I say hele ne that, euen as really & as truly, as the soule of mā is presēt in the bodye, so really & so truely is the body of christ) which in the sacramēt is the inward inuisible thing as the soule is in the body, presēt in the sacramēt, for elles & the body of Christ were not as truly & really pre­sent in the sacramēt, as the soule is in mānes body, that argumēt of the sacrament had no two thinges presēt so as thargumēt of the body & soule had, wherby to shewe howe two things may be to gether witout cōfusiō of eyther, eche remayning in his nature, for if the teaching of this auctour in other partes of this booke wer true, thē were the sacramēt like a body lyinge in a traunse, whose soule for the while were in heuē & had no two thinges but one bare thinge, that is to saie, breade, & breade neuer the holyer with significatiō of an other thig so far absēt, as is heuē frō earth, & therfor to say as I ꝓblabli thinke, this part of [Page] this secōde booke against transubstantiacion was a collection of this auctour whē he myn­ded to mayntaine luthers opiniō against trā substāciaciō onely, and to striue for bread onely, which not with stonding the newe enter­prise of this authour to denye the reall presē ce, is so ferce & vehement, as it ouerthroueth his newe purpose, or he cumith in his ordre in his booke to entreat of it. For there can no de­monstracion be made more euidente, for the catholique faith of the real presēce of Christs body in the Sacramēt, then that the truth of it was so certaynly byleued, as they toke Christes very body as verely in the sacramēt, euen as the soule is present in the body of mā.

S. Chrisostomes wordes in deade, if this Chriso­stomus. auctour had had them eyther truly translate unto him, or had taken the paynes to haue truly trāslate them himselfe whiche as peter martyrsaieth be not in printe, but were founde in florence, a copy wherof remayneth in tharche deacon or Archebisshoh of Caunter­buries handes or els if this authour had rea­ported the wordes as they be ttanslate in to englishe owt of peter martyrs booke, wherin in sum pointe the translator in Englishe, se­meth to haue attayned by gesse the sēse more perfitely, thē peter martyr vttereth it hiself. if eyther of this had beē, done the mater shuld haue semed for somuch the more playne. But what is this to make foundacion of an argu­mēte vpō a secrete copye of an epistell vttred [Page 117] at one tyme ī diuerse sēses? I shall to wch one speciall point, peter martyr saith in latē, whō the translator in englishe therin followeth, that the bread is reputed, worthy the name of the lordes body. This authour englishyng the same place turnith it (exalted to the name of the lordes body) which wordes of exalting cum nerer to the purpose of this auctour to haue the bread but a figure & ther with neuer the holyer of it selfe. But a figure cāne neuer be accompted worthy the name of our lordes body, the very thing of the Sacramente, on­les there were the thing in dede, as there is by cōuersion, as the Church truely teacheth. Is not here reader a meruelouse diuersitie in reporte, and the same so setforth as thowe that cannest but reade englishe maiste euidētly see it, God ordringe it so as such varieties and contradictions shuld so manyfestely ap­peare where the truth is impugned? Againe this auctor makith Chrisostome to speake strāgely in thende of this auctoritie, that the diuine nature restith in the body of Christ, as thowgh the nature of man were the staye to the diuine nature, wheir as in that vnion the rest is an ineffable mysterie, the two natures in Christ to haue one subsistence called & ter­med an hypostasie, & therfore he that hath translate peter martyr in to englishe doth trāslate it thus. The diuine cōstitutiō the nature of the body adyoyned, thiese two both to gyther, make one sonne and one person.

[Page] Thow reader maiste compare the bookes that be a brode of Peter martyr in laten, peter martyr in englishe and this auctours booke, with that I write and so deme whi­ther I saye true or no. But to the purpo­se of sainct Chrisostomes wordes (if they be his wordes) he directeth his argument to shewe by the my sterie of the Sacramēt, that as that as in it, there is no confu [...]ion of natu­res, but eche remayneth in his proprietie. So likewise in Christ the nature of his hodheade doth not confounde the nature of his manho­de, If the visible creatures were in the Sa­crament by the presence of Christes body the r [...] truly present, beinge inuisible also as that body is impalpable also as that is, incorruptiptible also as that is, then were the visi­visible nature altred, and as it were confounded, whiche Chrisostom saieth is not so, for the nature of the bread remayneth, by which worde of nature is, conueniently signified the propriete of nature. For prouf wherof, to shewe remayninge of the proprietie with out alteracion, Chrisostom maketh onely the re­semblance, and before I haue shewed howe nature signifieth the proprietie of nature, and may signifie the owtward part of nature that is to say, thaccidētes beyng substaunce in his propre significatiō, the inward nature of the thing of the conuersion wherof, is specially vnderstanded transubstantiation.

Nowe foloweth to answere to Belasius, [Page 118] who abhorrynge bothe the herises of Euti­ches, Gelasius and Nestorius in his treatise, againste the Eutichiās forgetteth not to cōpare with there errour in extremitie one the one side, thextreme errour of the Nestorians one the other side, but it principally entendeth the confusion of the Eutichians with whome he was specially troubled. These two herises, were not so grosse as thauctour of this boke reporteth them, wherin I will writte what Uigilius saith. (Inter Nestorii ergo quondā Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae non rectoris, Uigilius diaio. 4. sed dissipatoris, non pastoris, sed praedatoris, sacrilegum dogma & Eutichetis nefariam & detestabilem sectam, ita serpētinae grassatio­nis sese calliditas temperauit, vt vtrum (que) sine vtrius (que) periculo, pleri (que) vitare non possint: dum si quis Nestorii perfidiam damnat, Eu­chicetis putatur errori succumbere rursum dum Eutichianae haeresis impietatē destruit, Nestorii arguitur dogma erigere.) These be vigilius wordes, in his first booke, whiche be thus much in Englishe. Betwene thabomina­ble teaching of Nestorius, sumtyme not ruler but waster, not past ōr, but pray sercher of the church of cōstātinople, & the wicked & detestable secte of Eutiches, the crafte of the deuels spoyling so facioned it self, that mē could not auoyde any of the sectes without daūger of thother. So as whiles any mā rdēpneth the falsenes of the nestoriā, he maye be though [Page] fallen to the errour of the Eutichian, and whiles he distroyeth the wickednesse of the eutichianes herisie he may be chalēged to realeue the teachinge of the Nestorian. This is the sentēce of vigilius, By whiche appereth howe these herisies were both subtely con­ueyed, without so playne contradiction as this auctor either by ignoraunce or of pur­pose fayneth, ashthowh the nestoriā should saye, Christ was a perfit man, but not God, and the Eutichian clene contrary very God, but not man. For if the herisies had bene suche, vigilius had had no cause to speake of any suche ambiguitie as he notith that a mā shoulde hardely speake againste the one, but he might be suspected to fauour the other. And yet I graunte that the Nestorians sayinges might implie christ not to be God, because they wolde two distincte different natures to make also two distincte persons, and so as it were two Christes, the one onely man, and the other onely God, so as by there teachinge God was neither incar­nate, nor as Gregorie Nazianzene saith mā deitate, for so he is termed to saye. The Eu­tichians as Sainct Augustine saith reaso­ninge against the Nestoriaus, becam heriti­ques themselfe, and because we cōfesse truly by faith but one Christ the sonne of God very God, The Eutichians saye, although there were in the virgins wombe before tha­dunation two natures, yet after thaduna­tion, [Page 119] in that mystery of Christes incarnacion there is but one nature, and that to be the nature of God, into which the nature of mā was after there fansye transfused & so con­founded, whervppon by implication a man might gather the nature of the humanitie not to remayne in Christ after the adunation in the virgines wombe. Gelasius detestinge both Eutiches and Nestorius in his processe vtterith a catholique meaninge against thē both, but he directith speciall argumentes of the two natures in man, and of the two na­tures in the sacrament, chefely againste the Eutichians to proue the nature of man to continue in Christ after the adunatiō, being no absurditie for two different natures to cō ­stitute one, the same remayning two in ther proprietie, and the natures to be (aliud,) and (aliud,) whiche signifieth different, and yet in that not to be (alius,) and, (alius) in person whiche the Eutichians abhorred, and catho­liquely, for so much against the Nestorians, who by reason of two natures wolde haue two persons, and because those Nestorians fansied the person of Christ patible to suffer all aparte: therfore they denyed Christ con­ceyued God or borne God, for thabolitiō of which parte of there herisie, and to set forth the vnitie of Christes person, The blessed virgin was callid deipara ( [...],) godes mother, whiche the Nestorians deluded, by an exposition, grauntinge she might so be callid [Page] because her sonne they sayd was afterward God, and so she might be called goddes mo­ther, as an other woman may be called a bis­shopps mother, if her sonne be made a bis­shoppe afterward although he departed no bishoppe from here.

And hereof I writte thusmuche, because it shoulde appeare that Gelasius by his argumentes of the sacrament, and of the two natures in man wente not aboute to proue that the godhed remayned in Christ after his incarnacion, as thauctour of this booke wolde haue it, for the Nestorian sayde the godhed was an accession to Christ afterward by merite, and therfore with thē there was no talke of remaynynge, when they estemed Christes nature in his conce­ption singuler, and onely by goddes power conceyued, but onely man. And again theuti­chiane so affirmed the cōtinuaunce of the di­uine nature in Christ after the adunation, as Gelasius had no cause to proue that was graunted, that is to saye, the remayne of the diuine nature, but one the other side to proue the remayne of the humaine nature in christ, whiche by the Eutichians, was by implica­cion rather denyed. Nestorius deuided God and man, and graunted alwayes bothe to be in Christ continually, but as two persons, and the person of Christ beynge God dwel­lynge within the person of Christe beynge man, and as Christ man encreased, so Christ [Page 120] God dignified him and so diuided one Christ in twopersons, because of the two natures so different, whiche was againste the rules of oure faith and distroyed thereby the mi­sterie of oure redemption. And the Euti­thians affirmynge catholiquely to be but one person in Christe, did perniciously saye ther was therfore but one nature in Christ, accomptynge by implication the humaine nature transfused in to the diuine nature and so confounded. And to shewe the narrowe passage vigilius speake of, Cy­rillus a catholique auctour, because wri­tynge of the vnitie of Christes personne, he expressed his meanynge by the worde (na­ture) signifyinge the holl of any one con­stitution, whiche more properly the worde persone doth expresse. Theutichians wolde by, that worde after gather that he fauou­red there parte, so takynge the worde at a vauntage.

And because the same Cyrillus, vsed the worde subsistence to signifie substaunce, and therfore sayde in Christe there were two subsistences, meanynge the diuine substaunce and humane substaunce, foras­muche as the worde subsistence is vsed to expresse the personne that is to saye hy­postasie: There were that of that worde f [...]owardely vnderstanded wolde gather he shoulde saye, that there were two personnes [Page] in Christ, whiche was the nestoriās herisie that he impugned, Suche captiousnesse was there in wordes, when arrogant men cared not by what meane to maintayne there er­rour, these were both pernitious herises, and yet subtill and eche had a maruaylous pre­tence of the defence of the glorie of God, euen as is nowe pretended againste the sa­crament. And either parte abused many scri­ptures, and had notable apparaunces for that they sayde, so as he that were not well exercised in scriptures, and the rules of oure faith might be easely circumuented. Nesto­rius was the great Archibishoppe of Con­stantinoble, vnto whom cyrill that condemp­nith his herisie, writeth that seyng he sclaū ­derith the holl Churche with his herisie, he must resiste him although he be a father, by­cause Christ saith, he that louith his father Mat. 10. aboue me, is not worthy me. But Nestorius as appeareth althowgh he vsed it ilfauerdly had muche learnynge and cloked his herisie craftely, denying the grosse matter that they imputed to him to teache two Christes, and other specialities layde to his charge, and yet condempnynge the doctrine of Cyrill, & professyng his owne faith in his owne ter­mes, coulde not hide his herisie so, but it ap­pereth to be and conteyne in effecte that he was charged with, and therfore an admo­nishment was geuen by a catholique wri­ter. Beleue not Nestorius thowgh he saye [Page 121] he teache but one Christ. If one should here aske what is this to the purpose to talke so muche of these sectes, I Answer, this knowledge shall generallye serue, to note the maner of them that goo a boute to de­ceyue the worlde with false doctrine, w­hiche is good to learne: An other speciall seruice, is to declare howe the auctour of this booke, eyther doth not knowe the state of the matter in these herises he speaketh of, or elles misreporteth them of purpose. And the arguynge of Gelasius in this matter wel opened, shall geue light of the truth of the mysterie of the Sacrament. Who against the Eutichians vseth two argumentes of exam­ples, one of the two different natures to re­mayne in one person of man, and yet, the Eu­tichians diffamed that coniunction, with re­mayning of two different natures, and called it [...], double nature, and Gelasius to en­contre that terme sayth, they will with there [...] one nature reserue not one Christ and hole Christ. And if two differēt natures, that is to saye soule and body make but one man, why not so in Christ? For where scripture speaketh of the outwarde man and inwarde man, that is to shewe (Gelasius saith) two diuerse qualities in the same man, and not to deuide the same man into two men, and so intēdeth to shewe there owght to be no scru­ple to graunte two differente natures to re­mayne in there propriete, for feare that euery [Page] diuerse nature should make a diuerse person, and so in Christ deuide the vnitie, concluding that the integritie of Christe cannot be but both the natures different remayning in ther propertie. Carual imagination troubled the Eutichians, to haue one person of two suche differēt natures remayning in ther properte, which the Nestorians releued with deuise of 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 [Page 122] 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 Sacramēt beyng a misterye ordred to feade vs, & the im­age [Page] 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 mā, perfite God to be in­carnate, & perfit man to be deitate, as Gregory Nazianzene termeth it. In the Sacramēt, the visible matter of the earthely creature in his proprietie of nature, for the vse of signifi­caciō 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 substāce to remaine, but saith the substāce, or nature, which natu­re he calleth after proprietie, & the disiūctiue may be verified in the last, & it is not necessa­ry, thexāples to be in al partes equal, as rusticus diacom [...]s handleth it very lernedly cōtra Acephalos. And Gelasius in opening the mystery of the Sacrament,, speaketh of trāsitiō of the bread, & wyne into the godly substāce, whiche worde transition, is mete to expresse transubstantiaciō, & therfore S. Thomas expressed trāsubstantiaciō with the same word [Page 103] transire, writyng. (Dogma datur Christianis quod in carnē trāsit panis & vinū in sanguinē.) But in the mysterie of Christes person, there is no trāsition of the deitie into the humanite, or humanite into the deitie, but onely assum­ption of the humanite with adunaciō of those two natures, & of two perfit natures so diffe­rēt one person & one Christ, who is God incarnate, & man deitate, as Gregory Nazianzene saith, withoutmutation, cōuetsion, trausitiō, transelementation, or transubstantiation, w­hiche wordes be propre, & special to expresse, howe (Eucharistia) is cōstitute of two distrēt natures, an heauenly, & earthly nature, a my­stery institute after the exāple of the principal mysterie, wherwith to feade vs with the sub­stāce of the same glorious body that hath redemed vs. And because in the cōstitution of this mysterie of the sacramēt, there is a trāsitiō of the earthly creature into the diuine substāce, as Gelasius, & S. Thomas terme it, & muta­cion as Cyprian, & Ambrose teache it, which Theophilactus expresseth by the worde trās­elemētacion, Emissen by the conuersion, & all these wordes reduced into there one propre sence expressed in one worde of transubstan­tiacion: it cannot be cōuenient 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, [Page] In the mysterye of Christes person, because there was not of any of the two different natures eythex mutation, transition, conuersiō, 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 frō the Sacrament, to declare the mysterye of Christes person, yet we maye not presse the [Page 124] argument to distroy, orcōfounde 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 transubstātiaciō. And against theutichians, for to improue ther confusion, it suffiseth to shewe two different natures to be in the Sacrament, and to remaine in there proprietie, and the diuine nature not to con­founde the earthely nature, nor as it were to swalow it, whiche was the dreme of the Eu­tichians. And we muste forbere to presse, all partes of thexample in the other argument, from the personne of man, beynge one of bo­dye and soule, whiche the Churche dothe professe in symbole Athanasij of all recey­ued. For Christ is one personne of two per­fitte natures, whereof the one was before the other in perfection & creator of the other, the one impassible, & the other passible. Man is of the soule and bodye one, two different natures, but suche as for there perfection re­quyred that vnitie, whereof none was be­fore other perfit, of Christ we saye, he is con­substantiall to his father, by the substaunce [Page] of his godhed, and consubstantiall to man, by the substance of his manhod, but we may not so say, man is consubstantial by his soule to angels, and consubstantiall in his body to bestes, because then we should deduce also Christ by meane of vs to be consubstantial to beastes, & thus I writ to shewe that we may not presse thexample in euery parte of it, as thauctor of this booke vpon Gelatius, who ouerturneth his doctrine of the figure. And if that I haue Here sayde, be well considered, there maye appeare the greate ignoraunci of this author in the alleginge of Theodorete, the applinge of him, and speakynge of Ne­storius in the ende. For as the Eutichians reasonynge (as Saincte Augustine saith) to cōfonude the Nestoriās, fel in to an absurdi­tie in the cōfusiō of the two natures in christ: so Theodoretus reasonyng against the Eu­tichiās, fel in a vehemēt suspiciō to be a nestoriā, like as S. Augustine reasonyng against the maniches for defence of fre will semed to speke that the Pellagiās would alowe, and reasoning against Pelagians, semed to say that the manachees woulde allowe, such a daunger it is to reduce extremities to the meane, wherin Saincte Augustine was bet­ter purged then Theodorete was, althowgh Theodorete was reconciled. But for exam­ple of that I haue sayde, this argumente of Theodoretus againste the Eutichians to a­uoyde [Page 125] confusion of natures in Christe, she­weth howe in the sacremēt (where the truth of the mysterye of the two natures in Christ may be as it were in a similitude lerned). the presence of the bodye of Christe there in the Sacrament, doth not altre nature, that is to saye, the proprietie of the visible creatures. This sayinge was that the Nestoryans woulde drawe for there purpose to proue distincre persons, againste whome, Cyril trauayled to shewe that in the Sacrament the fleshe of Christ that was geuen to be eaten, was geuen not as the fleshe of a comen man, but as the fleshe of Godde, wherby appea­red the vnitie of the godhed to the manhode in Christe in one person, and yet no confusion as Theodoretus doth by his argument De­clare. But whither the prynters negligence, or this auctours ouersight, hath confunded, or confused this matter in the vtterynge of it, I can not tell, For the auctour of this booke concludeth solemly thus by induction of the premisses, that euen so the bodye of Christe was after thascension Chaunged in to the godly substaunce. I wene the prin­ter left out a (not) and shoulde haue sayde not chaunged, in the Godlye Substaunce, for so the sence shoulde be as Peter Martyr reaporteth Theodorete. And yet the tri­umphe this auctore makethe againste them, he calleth for his pleasure Papistes, with [Page] his forked dylemma maketh me Doubte, whither he wiste what he sayde, or no: be­cause he bryngeth in Nestorius so out of purpose, sayinge the Papistes, muste eyther graunt the Substance of breade and wyne to remaylie, orelles to be of Nestorius he­resie that the nature of Godhed remayned not.

This auctoure of the booke for the name of Nestorius, shoulde haue put Entiches, and then sayde for conclusion, the nature of manhode remayned not in Christe. And al­thoughe in Theodorete the substāce of bread is spoken of [...]o remayne, yet because he doch after expounde himselfe to speake of that is seen, and feit he femeth to speake of Sub­staunce after the comen capacitie, and not as it is truely in learnynge vnderstanded, an inwarde inuisible and not palpable na­ture, but onely perceyued by vnderstan­dynge, so as this outwarde nature that Theodorete speaketh of, maye accordynge to his wordes trewly remayne not with standynge trausubstantiaction, This au­ctoure Declareth playnely his iguoraunce not to perceyue, whither the argumente of Theodorete and Gelasius tendeth, whiche is properly againste the Eutichians rather then the Nestorians. For and no propertye of breade remayne, it proueth not the [Page 126] Godhed in Christe not to remayne, but the humanitie onely to be as it were swalo­wed vp of the diuinite whiche the Eutichi­ans entended and specially after Christes resurrection, againste whom the argu­ment by Theodorere is specially brought, howesoeuer this auctor confounbeth the Nestoryans and Eutichians names and ta­keth one for an other, whiche in so highe a matter is no smale faulte, and yet no great fault among so many, other howger and greter, as be in this booke committed, wherin this auctor not seynge howe lytell he hath done, concludeth yet as constantly as though he had throwen all downe afore him, enten­dyng to shewe that the doctrine of transub­stantiacion dependeth onely of anctorite whiche is not so, vsyng the sayinges of duns and Gabriel (as he reporteth them) for his purpuse, because they (as he saith) bost them selfe what they coulde do if the determina, cion of the consaille were not, and thus euery idle speache maye haue estimacion with this auctor against the receyued truth. And from this poynte of the matter, the auctour of this booke, maketh a passage with a litell sporte at thē he fansieth or liketh to cal so Englishe Papistes by the waye, entreprise to answere all suche as he supposeth reasons for tran­substanciation and auctorites also.

First he findeth himselfe myrth in deui­synge [Page] as he calleth them the Papistes, to saye that Christe is made a newe, whiche, fansye if it were so, is againste the reall prefence aswell as transubstantiacion. In whiche wordes because euery wise reader may ese howe this auctor playeth: I will saye no more but this, Christe is not made a newe, nor made of the substaunce of bread as of a matter, and that to be the Catholi­que doctrine, this auctor if he be right named knoweth welynough, and yet spendeth two leanes in it.

The solution to the seconde reason is all­most as foundely handled, alludynge from impanatiō to Inaquation, although it was neuer sayde in Scripture, this water is the holy ghoost, but in baptisme to be water and the holy goost also, & of the dowe is not sayd this is the holy ghoost, but the holy ghost de­scended as in the resemblāce of a dowe. The substance of bread is not adnihilate because goddes worke is no adnihilation, who ge­ueth all beynge, and adnihilacion is a defe­ction of the creature from God, and yet Christes bodye is not augmēted by the sub­stāce of bread, in which body it endeth by cō ­nersiō, as in the better without adnihilatiō, which is a changyng by miracle. And when this auctor knoweth this, or shoulde haue known it, or hath forgotten it, he wryteth like one that were ignoraunt, and had red no [Page 127] thing in the matter, as it were to make him­selfe populer, to ioyne himselfe in ignoraunce with the rude vnlerned people. A thirde rea­son this auctor frameth himselfe, werby to take occasion to afferme howe the .vi. chaptre of sainct Iohn shuld not apperteyne to the Sacramētal māducation, the contrary wher of, apperith aswell by the wordes of Christ in that .vi. chaptre, saing I will gyue, not I do gyue, which promise was fullfilled in the supper as also hy the catholique wryters and specially by Cyril, and therfore I will not Ioh. 6. further stryue with this auctour in that mat­ter but see howe he can assoyle thauctorites, wherunto he entreth with greate cōfidence.

First in Cyprian who speketh playnelie in the matter, this auctor fyndetha fault that he is not holly alleged, wherupon this auctor bryngeth in the sentence followinge not ne­cessary Cypria­nus. to be rehersed, for the matter of tran­substantiaciō, and hansom to be rehersed for the ouerthrowe of the rest of this auctours newe catholique faith, & whither that nowe shall be added was materiall in the matter of transubstanciacion, I require the Iudge­ment of the (o reader).

The first wordes of Cyprian be these. This breade whiche our lorde gaue to his disciples chaunged in nature, but not in outwarde for­me, is by the ōmnipotencye of gods worde De c [...] na dn̄i. made fleshe. These be Cyprianus wordes [Page] then folowe thies, As in the person of Christ the humanite was seen & the diuinite hiddē, euen so the diuinite ineffably infused it selfe in to the visible Sacrament, Thus saith Cy­prian as I can englishe hym to expresse the worde (infudit) by (latin englishe) not liking thē glishe worde shed, because in our englishe tonge it resembleth spillyng and euacuation of the hole, and much lesse I can agree to vse the worde powrynge although (infunde) in laten, maye in the vse of earthly thynges si­gnifie so, because powring noteth a successi­ue workyng, wheras gods worke is in an in­stant and for that respecte neuer sheddynge, But this auctor had a fāsye to vse the sounde of the worde powryng, to serue in stede of an argumēt to improue transubstantiacion, meanyng the hearer or reader in the conceyuyng of the sence of Cypryan thus termed, should fansye the bread in the visible Sacrament, to be like a soppe wherupon lyquor were powred, which is a kynde of deprauation, as thou reader by consideration of Cyprians wordes, & meanyng may est perceyue, which Cypriā, hath sheued howe the bread is made fleshe by the omnipotēcie of gods worde, and made by chāge. Thē because this mysterie of the Sacramēt, in cōsideration of the two na­tures, celestial, & earthly, resembleth the principal misterie of Christes persōne, S Cypriā saith in sēce, that as in the persō of Christ the humanite was seen & the diuinite hidden, so [Page 128] likewise in this Sacramēt visible, is also the diuine nature hidden. This is the sēce where for declaraciō of the worke of god presetyng his diuine nature, there is vsed the verbe (in­fudit) in latyn, by whiche worde the motion of the diuine nature is spokē of in scriptures, not because it is a liquide substāce to be pou­red, as thauctor of this booke englishethit, signifiyng a successiue operation, but rather as a worde, if we should scanne it, as this auctor would, signifiyng the cōtinuāce of the terme feō whence, to the terme whervnto with out leauyng the one by motion to the other, for there is in the godly nature no local motion, & therfor we say, christ not leauing his father descēded frō heauē, & being in earth was also in heuē, which cōfusiō in sum parte resē ­bleth, but mās words cā not expresse gods diuine operaciōs. To the purpose the first word of Cypriā shewe the maner of the cōstitucion of this sacramēt, to be by muraciō of the ear­thly creatures, in to the body & blod of christ And the by the wordes folowing, sheueth the truth of the substāce of the sacramēt, to thin­tēt we might vse our repayre to it, and frame our deuotiō according to the dignite of it, este ming as S. Paule saith our lordes body, for the more euident declaratiō wherof, S. Cy­priā by example of the mysterye in Christes person, sheueth Christes humanite, and diui­nite present in the visible sacramēt, of which diuinite, there is speciall mencion againste [Page] such, whiche fansied the flesh of Christ to be­gyuen, to be eaten, as diuided from the diuine nature, whiche was the heresie of the Nesto­riās, and such other denying, therby the per­fite vnite of the two natures in Christ, which the holy Sinode of Ephesus did specially cō ­dempne, as other fathers in there wrytinge did specially preuēte with distincte wryting against that errour, and therfore sainct Cy­prian not content to shew the presence of Christes fleshe by mutacon of the bread, doth after make speciall mencion of Christes diui­nite, not correcting that he had said before, but further openynge it, And so vtterby con­dempneth the teachynge of thauctor of this booke, towching the presence of Christ to be onely figura tiuely. Cyprian saith that in the sacrament is the truth, and then there is pre­sent the true fleshe of Christ, and the godhed truly, whiche deuotion should knowelege & as for transubstāciation according to the first wordes of sainct Cypriā, the bread is chaun­ged not informe, but in nature, whiche is not in the proprietes of nature, nor in the opera­cion of nature, neither in quantite, or qualite of nature, and therfore in the inwarde nature, whiche is properly substaunce. This is the playne directe vnderstandynge, not by way of addition, as this auttor of his ymaginatiō diuiseth, who vseth the worde spirituall, as a stop, and opposition to the catholique tea­ching, whiche is not so and clerelye without [Page 129] earnyng compareth with this Sacrament, the water of Baptisme, of whiche we reade not wryten that it is chaunged, as we reade of the breade, and therfore the resemblaunce of water in Baptisme, is vsed onely to blinde the rude reader and serueth for a shifte of tal­ke to wynde out of that matter that cannot be answered, and as euill debters shake of there creditours with a by communicacion, so this auctor conueyeth himselfe awaye at a backe dore by water, not doynge first as he promised to answere, so as he would auoyde Cyprian directly by laude.

Answerynge to Chrisostome, this auctor Chryso. complayneth, as he did in Cyprian, of mali­cyous leauyng out of that, whiche when it is brought in, doth nothing empayre that went before. Chrisostome woulde we shoulde con­sider the secrete truth of this mysterie, where Christe is the Inuisible Prieste, and mini­streth in the visible churche by his visible mi­nister, the visible Prieste, whereof Chriso­stome woulde by his wordes put vs in remē ­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 [Page] 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 questiō 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 [Page 130] of that mysterye, to be but in allegorye, here in flede of a solution the auctor fylieth thre whole leaues with pro [...]fe of tha [...] is not ne­cessarye. howe a deniall by comparison is, not vtterlye a deniall, whiche is in dede true, and as one was answe [...]ed a [...] Cambridge w­hen he pressed the respon [...]all, what saye ye to myne argumente whiche was not in dede of his owne makynge? The responsall les [...]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 [Page] 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, [Page 131] 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 Melācton 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 cōparison hy­gher. [Page] 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 is onelye appoynted to signifie an holye thynge? And therfore this auctours answere garnished with these there gaye wordes of astate, nature, and condicion, is diuised but for a shifte, suche as [Page 132] agreeth not with other places of this booke nor in it selfe neyther. And where Saincte Ambrose merueyleth at goddes worke in the substaunce of the Sacrament, this auctour shifteth that also to the effecte in him that re­ceyueth, whiche is also meruelous in deade, but the substaunce of the Sacramente is by Saincte Ambrose spiritually merueyled at, howe breade is made the bodye of Christ the visible matter outwardely remayninge, and onelye by an inwarde chaunge, whiche is of the inwarde nature, called properlye sub­staunce in learnynge, and a substaunce in dede, but perceyued onely by inwarde vnder­standynge as the substaunce present of Chri­stes moste precious body, is a very substance in dede of the bodye inuisiblye presente, but present in dede, and onelye vnderstanded by moste true and certen knowledge of fayth. And although this auctor noteth howe in the examples of mutacion brought in by Sainct Ambrose, the substaunces neuer the lesse re­mayned the same: that skilleth not, for the wonder of those meruelles serue for an indu­ction to releaue the weake fayth of man in this miracle of the Sacramente, and to re­presse the arrogancie of reason, presumynge to serche suche knowledge in goddes secrete workes, whereof if there might be a reason geuen, it neded no fayth. And where there is a like, there is no singularite as this mi­racle in the Sacramente in notablye singu­ler [Page] and therfore none other founde like vnto it. The Sacramentall mutation, which this auctor newly so termeth, is a mere shifte to auoyde amonge suche, as be not lerned, the truthe of goddes miracle in this chaunge, whiche is in dede suche as Sainct Ambrose speaketh of, that of bread is made the bodye of Christe, whiche Sainct Ambrose in an other place, termeth it the grace of the body of Christe, and all is one for it is a greate grace, to haue the bodye of Christ for our foode present there. And out of Christes mouth, callynge the bodye of Christe, is ma­kynge the bodye of Christe, whiche wordes callyng, signifiynge, namynge vsed in sainct Ambrose wrytynges, do not limite Christes wordes, and restrayne them to anonely cal­lyng, an only signifiyng, or an only naming, but geue an vnderstādyng agreable to other of Sainrt Ambrose wordes, that shewe the breade after consecracion to be the bodye of Christ, the callyng to be vnderstanded a real callynge of the thynge that so is made, and likewise a reall signifiynge of the thynge in dede present, and a reall namynge, as the thynge is in dede. As Christe was named (Iesus), because he is the sauiour of his peo­ple in dede. And thus perusynge this auctors answers, I trust I haue noted to the reader, with howe small substaunce of matter this auctor impugneth transubstanciation, and [Page 133] howe slenderly he goeth about to answere suche auctors, as by their seueral writynges conferme the same, besides the consent of Christēdom vniuersally receyuyng the same. And howe in the meane waye, this auctor hath by his owne handes pulled downe the same vntrue doctrine of the figuratiue spe­ache, that himselfe so lately hath diuised, or rather because this matter in his book goeth before, he hath in this seconde booke marred his frame, or euer he cummeth to the thirde booke to set it vp. In the seconde volume of the. 43. leef, the auctor goeth about to note. 6. absurdites in the doctrine of transubstantia­tion, whiche I entende also to peruse, This first is this.

First if the Papistes be demanded what thyng it The auctor is, that is broken, what is eaten, and what is chawed, with the teath lippes, & mouth in this Sacramēt, they haue nothynge to answere, but thaccidentes. For as they say bread, and wyne be not the visible elementes in this Sacrament, but onely ther accidentes, and so they be forsed to saye that accidentes be broken, eaten, Dronken, chawed, and swalowed without any substaunce at all, whiche is not onely againste all reason, but also againste the doctrine of all auncient auctors.

This is accompted by this auctor, the The an [...]wer. first absurdire, & inconuenience, whiche is by him rhetorically setforth with uppes, and mouth, and chawynge, not substanciall ter­mes to the matter, but accidentall. For ope­uynge [Page] of whiche matrer, I will repete sum parte agayne of that I haue wryten before, when I made the scoler answere the rude man in declaration of substaunce, whiche is that, albeit that sensible thynge whiche in speache vttered after the capacite of comen vnderstandyng, is called substaunce be com­prehended of oure sences: yet the inwarde nature of euery thyng whiche is in lernynge properly called substance is not so distinctly knowen of vs, as we be able to shewe it to the sences, or by wordes of difference to di­stincte in diuers kyndes of thynges one sub­staunce from another. And herin (as Basill Basilius homil. 1. H [...]x a He [...]e­ron. sayth) if we should go about by separation of all the accidentes to discer [...]e the substan­ce by it selfe alone, we should in the experience fayle of our purpose and ende in nothyng in dede. There is a natural consideration of the abstractes, that can not be practised in expe­rience. And to me, if it were asked of comen bread, when me breeke it, whether we breke the substaunce, or onely the accidentes, first I must lernedly say, if the substaunce be bro­ken, it is by meane of the accident in quan­tite, and then if it like me, to take my plea­sour without lernyng in philosophie, as this auctor doth in diuinite against the catholike fayth, to say in diuision we breke not the substāce of bred at all, the heresie in philosophie were not of suche absurdite, as this auctor maynteyneth in diuinite. For I haue some [Page 134] probable matter to say for me, wher he hath none, For my strāge answere, I would saye that albeit a natural thing as bread cōsisting of matter, & essencial forme whiche quātite, & therby other accidentes cleauyng & annexed may be wel said to be in the hole broken, as we see by experience it is: yet speakyng of the substāce of it alone, if one shold aske whether that be broken, & it should be answered yee, thē should the substāce appeare brokē & hole al at one tyme, seyng in euery broken piece of breade, a hole substance of bread, & wher the piece of bread brokē is so lytell a crumme, as can no more in dede be deuided we say neuer­thelesse the same to be one substaunce verie bread, & for want of cōueniēt quātite bread in diuisible, & thus I write to shewe that such an answer to say the accidēts be brokē, hath no such clere absurdite, as this auctor would haue it seme. But leauynge of the matter of philosophie to the scoles, I wil graūt that accidētes to be without substāce is against the comē course of natural thīges, & thefore therī is a special miracle of god. But whē the acci­dētes be by miracle without substāce as they be in the visible ꝑt of the sacramēt: thē the same accidētes to be brokē, catē, & drōkē with al thaditiōs this auctor for his pleasur maketh therī, is no miracle, or meruaile, & as for absur dite no poīt at al, for by quātite which remaineth is al diuisiō. we ought to cōfesse, & good christen men do professe, the mysterye of the [Page] Sacramēt to be supernatural, and aboue the ordre of nature, & therfore it is a trauayle in vayne to frame the consideratiō of it to agree with the termes of philosophye, But where this auctor saith that nothyng can be answered to be brokē but the accidētes: yes verely, for in tyme of contēciō, as this is to him that would aske, what is brokē, I would in other termes answere thus, That thou seest is broken. And thē if he would aske further, what that is, I would tell him the visible matter of the Sacrament, vnder whiche is present Inuisibly the substance of the most precious body of Christ, if he will aske yet further, Is that bodye of Christ broken, I will say no. For I am lerned in fayth, that that glorious body nowe impassible can not be broken, or diuided, and therfore it is holy in euery parte of that is broken, as the substaunce of bread is in comen bread in euery parte that is bro­ken, accordyng wherunto, it is in the booke of comen prayour setforth, howe in eche part of that is broken, is the hole body of our sa­uiour Christ. If this questioner be further curious and saye, is not that, that is broken breade? I woulde answere, as a beleuynge man by fayth truely no, For in fayth I must call it, because it is truely so, the bodye of Christe inuisibly there, and the brea­kynge to be not in it, but in the visible signe. Yea ye will call it so sayth this que­stioner, but yet it is bread: Nay quod I, my [Page 135] sayth is a most certaine truth, and beleueth thinges as they verily be, for Christes worde is of strenght, not onely to shewe, and declare as other mens wordes do, but therwith effe­ctual to make it so to be, as it is by him called. And this I write because howsoeuer clerkes soberly entreate the matter (such as mynde well I meane) to consider accidētes, and sub­stāce whiche termes the rude vnderstāde not, it is not necessarye therfore in those termes, to make answere to suche as be cōtentiously curious, who labour with questiōs to disso­lue the truth of the misterie, in declaraciō wherof, we as men stumble and terme it otherwise then we shuld, that is no Incōueniēce in the misterie, but an imparfection in vs that be not able to expresse it, not hauinge such giftes of god as other haue, nor studyinge to atteyne lernyng as other haue done. And whatsoeuer in scoles with a deuoute mynde to aus were al captious questions hath for thexer­citation of mennes senses bene moued sober­ly and by way of argument obiected: that is nowe picked out by this auctor, and brought to the comen peoples cares in which it might sounde euill they not beinge able to make answere therūto, wherby they might be snarled, and intāgled with vayne fanses against that truth, which before without curiosite of questions, they truely and cōstantly beleued. Finally the doctrine of the sacrament is sim­ple and playne, to haue the visible fourmes [Page] of breade and wyne for significatiō, the thing wherof in the verye bodye & bloud of Christ, which beyng the truth of the hole it is no ab­surdite to cōfesse truely the partes as they be if occasiō require, howesoeuer it soundeth to the Ethnike or carualic mannes eares, for whose satisfaction there is no cause why the truth should be altred into alye, wherwith to make melody to ther vnderstādinges. For howsoeuer carnall reason be offended with spiritual truth, it forceth not but against the hole consent of the auncient doctors, no do­ctrine cā be instified, with whose restimonie, howe the fayth of the church in the sacramēt nowe agreeth, it is manifest howsoeuer it li­keth this auctor to reaporte the contrarye.

Secondly these Transubstātiators do say contra­rye to all lernynge: that accidentes of bread and The auctor. wyne do hange alone in thaire without any substan­ce: wherin they may be stayed: and what may be sayd more folyshelye.

The maister of the sentences she winge di­uers mēs sayinges in discussiō (as they can) The answer. sententia [...]. di­ [...]t. 9. q. 10. of this mysterie telleth what sume say that had reather saye sum what, then nothinge, which this auctor rehersith, as a determina­cion of the church, that in dede maketh no do­ctrine of that pointe so, but acknowlegith the misterie to excede our capacite. And as for the accidentes to be stayed, that is to saye, to re­mayne without there natural substance, is without difficultie beleued of men that haue sayth consideryng thalmightie power of [Page 136] Christ, whose diuine body is there present. And shall that be accompted for an inconue­nience in the misterie, that any one man saith whose sayinge is not as a full determinaciō approued? If that man should encontre with this auctor, if he were a lyue so to do, I thin­ke he would saye it were more tollerable in him of a zeale to agree with the true doctrine to vtter his cōseyte fōdly, then of a malice to dissēt frō the true doctrine this auctor so fon­dly to improwe his sayinge. But if he should oppose this auctor in lernynge, and aske him howe he wyll vnderstand (Fiat lux) in the creatiō of the world, where the light stayed that was then create, But I will procede to peruse the other absurdities.

Thirdly that the substance of Christes body is the­re The auctor. really: corporally: and naturally / present without any accidentes of the same. And so the papistes make accidentes to be with out substance and substance without accidentes.

Howe Christes bodye in circūstāce presēt The answer. no man cā define, but that it is truely presēt, & therfore really presēt, corporally also & but yet supper naturally, with relation to the truth of the body presēt & not to the maner of presēts which is spiritual excedyng our capacit [...], & therfore therin with out drawyng a­waye accidētes, or adding, we byleue simplie the [...] howsoeuer it liketh this auctor with out the booke to [...] it at his pleasur, & to speke of substāce without accidētes, & accidē ­tes [Page] without substaunce: whiche perplexite in wordes cannot ieste out the truth of the ca­tholique bilyefe. And this is on thauctours part nothinge but iestinge with a wrōge sur­mise and supposall as though men had inuī ­ted, and ymagined that whiche by force and truth of the scripture all good men haue and must byleue, that is to saye, the true presence of the substance of the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament accordinge to the wordes of Christ: This is my body, whiche exclude the substance of breade, declaringe the substance of the body of Christ, to be acknoweleged, and professed in the Sacra­ment, by the true faith of a Christē man. Cō ­pare with this, what this auctor writeth in his 9 difference, in the 47 leafe of his booke, and so consider the truth of this reaport and howe this auctor agreeth with himselfe.

Fourthly they saye that the place where the bread and wyne be, hath no substance there to fyll that The auctor. place, and so must there nedes be graunted (vacuum) whiche nature abhorreth.

This auctor goeth a bout to finde so ma­ny absurdites that he speketh he woteth not The answer. what, & where he seeth and fealith quantite, accōmpteth the place voyd for want of sub­stance, as though in consideration of comen natural thinges seuerally as thei be in natu­re, it were the substance that filled the place and not rather quantite, although in the na­tural ordre of thinges there is no quantite [Page 137] without substance, and is in this Sacrament onely by miracle. There wanted a substaunce in consideracion of this absurditie, and was suche a vacuum, as nature playnelye en­dureth.

Fiftely they are not asshamed to saye that sub­stance The auctor. is made of accidentes, whē the bread mouldeth or is turned into wormes, or the wyne sowreth.

True beleuyng men ar not ashamed to cō ­fesse The answer. the truth of there fayth, whatsoeuer argumentes might be brought of experience in nature to the contrarye. For Christs workes we knowe to be trewe by most certain fayth what mouldeth in bread, or sowreth in wine, we be not so assured, or where on wormes engendre, it is not so fully agreed on amonge men. The learned lawer Ulpian writeth (as I haue before alleged) that wyne and vine­gre haue in maner one substance so as when wyne sowreth and is vinagre in maner the same substaunce remayneth in whome it is thought no absurditie to say by that meanes that the accidentes onely sower. And if we agree with the Philosophers that there is (Materia prima) whiche in all thinges is one, and altereth not, but as a newe forme cum­meth, taketh a newe name, fansinge that as one waue in the water thrusteth a way ano­ther, so doth one fourme an other: it shoulde seme by this conclusion all alteracion to be in accidentes, and the corruption of accidentes to be the generacion of newe accidentes, the [Page] same (Materia prima) beyng as it were (sub­stancia) that altereth not. And this I wryte that maye be sayde as it were to make a title to this auctours certayntie whiche is / not so sure as he maketh it. Amonges men haue been meruelous fansies in cōsideracion of na­turall thinges, and it is to me a verye greate absurdite of that secrete, and therfore to our knowledge an vncertein worke, to deduce an argument, wherwith to impugne oure cer­taine faith. But to cum nerer to the purpose, it is wronge borne in hande, that we affirme wormes to be engendred of accidentes, but when the wormes be engendred we graunte the wormes to be, and will rather say wher­of they be we cannot tel, then to say that sub­stance is made of accidēces, and that doctrine is not annexed to the fayth of transubstan­tiacion, and such as entreate those chaunces and accidentes do not induce that conclusiō, but do reasonably auoyde it. And yet by the waye in mouldyng and sowrynge it shoulde me semeth be properly sayd that the acciden­tes moulde, and the accidentes sowre, becau­se we call moulde bread, bread, so wer wyne, wyne, and in wyne as I sayde before made vinigre, the former substaunce hathe been in lernyng accompted in maner to remayne, so as this auctor ouershoteth himselfe when he matcheth generacion of wormes with moul­dyng & sowryng, which differ so farre in ther speculation. But euen as this auctors wyt is [Page 138] ouerturned in consideracion of the true faith, so doth it appeare peruerted in consideracion of natural thinges. The .vi. absurdite is this.

Sixtly that substance is nuxrished without sub­stance The auctor. by accidē [...]es onely, if it chaūce any catt, mouse, dogge or any other thinge to eate the Sacramentall bread or drinke the Sacramentall wyne.

It hath been heard without fables of cer­tain The answer. men that haue lyued and been nurrished with sauors onely and in golde and certaine precious stones that they gyue a kinde of nur­ritour to an other substance without diminu­tion of their substāce, experiēce hath shewed it so, & therfore the principel or maxime that this auctor gathereth, hathe no suche absur­dite in it, as he noteth to saye that substance is nurrished without substaunce. But when vermyne by chaunce happen to deuoure any hoost, as I am sure they cannot violate Chri­stes most precious body: so what effecte folo­weth of the rest, what nedeth it to be discus­sed? If it nurrisheth, then doth that effecte remaine although the substance be not there, If euery nourritour muste nedes be of sub­stance, then woulde those that discusse those chaunces say the substances to retourne, but hele gates shall not make me speake against my faith. And if I be asked the question whither the visible matter of the Sacramēt nur­rishe, I wil answere yea, Ergo saith he there is substaunce. I denye it he shall nowe from the effecte to the cause argue by physike, [Page] I shal disprowe the conclusion by thauctori­te of fayth, who is it most mete shuld yelde to other? And if in nature many thinges be in experience countrarye to the generall rules, why maye not one singuler condition be in this visible mattier of the Sacrament, that the ouelye substance beynge chaunged, all o­ther partes, proprieties, and effectes may re­mayne? Is it an absurdite for a mayde to ha­ue a childe, because it is againste the rules of nature? Is it an absurdite the worlde to be made of nothynge because the philosopher faith of nothynge cummeth nothynge? The principall of nature is that whatsoeuer hath a begynnynge hath an ende, and yet it is no absurdite to beleue our soules, to haue a be­gynnyng without ende, and to be immortall. Wherfore to conclude this mattier, it is a great absurdite in this auctour, to note that for an absurdite in our fayth, whiche repu­gueth onely to the principles of philosophie or reason, whē that is onely to be accompted for an absurdite, that shoulde repugne to the scripture, and gods wil, whiche is the stāderd to trye the rule of oure faith. Howe soeuer reason or Philosophie be offended it forceth not, so gods teachynge be embraced, and per­suaded in fayth whiche nedeth no such play­sters and salues, as this auctour hath diui­sed, to make a sore where none is, and to cor­rupte that is whole. The best playstor and medicine that coulde nowe be deuised were [Page 139] to leaue a parte questions and idle talke, and mekely to submitte our capacites to the true faith and not to ouerwhelme our vnderstan­dynges with serche and enquire, wherof we shall neuer fynde au ende entrynge the bo­tomlesse secrecye of gods mysteryes. Let vs not seke that is aboue our reache, but that God hath commaūded vs let vs do. Ech man impugneth an others learnynge with wor­des, none controlleth an others lyuing with better dedes. Let all endeuoure themselfe to do that God commaūdeth, and the good oc­cupation thereof shall exclude all suche idel­nesse as is cause and occasion of this vayne and noysome curiosite. And nowe to retourne to this auctour whiles he seath a more in an other mannes eye, he fealeth not a beame in his owne. Who recommendeth vnto vs spe­cially Theodorete whom he calleth an hol­ly Bishop, and with him doth bringe forth a peace of an Epistle of Saincte Chrisostome. The doctrine of whiche two ioyned with the doctrine of this auctor in suche sence as this auctour woulde haue all vnderstanded to be called Catholique, touchynge the faith of the Sacrament hath suche an absurdite in it as was neuer hearde of in religion. For this au­ctour teacheth for his parte, that the body of Christe is onely reallye in heauen and not in dede in the Sacrament, according wherunto this auctor also teacheth the bread to be very bread still, which doctrine if it be true as this [Page] auctour will nedes haue it, then ioyne vnto it the doctrine of the secrete Epistle of Chryso­stome, & Theodorete whose doctrine is that after the consecracion, that is consecrate shal be called no more bred, but the o [...]dy of christ By these two doctrines ioyned together it shall appeare that we must call that is con­secrate, by a name of that we be learned by this auctour it is not, and may not by the do­ctrine of Theodorete call it by the name of that which this auctor teacheth vs in dede it is. As thus, It is in dede bread, quod this auctor, but call it not so, quod this Theodorete, It is not in dede the body of Christ, quod this auctor, but yet in anywise cal it so quod Theodorete. Here is playne simulacion, and dissi­mulacion both together. For by forberynge the name of breade accordynge to Theodore­tes teachynge, we dissemble & hide that it is by this auctors teachinge, and by vsinge the name of our Lordes body accordyng to Theodoretes teachyng, we fayne it to be that it is not, by this auctors teachynge whiche sayth there is only a figure, and by this meanes in so high a mysterye we shoulde vse vntruthes on both sides in simulacion and dissimulaciō, which is a meruelous teachyng. I denye not but thinges signifiyng may haue the name of that they signifie by a figure of speache: but we reade not in any doctrine geuen that the thynge signifiynge shoulde haue the name by figure and be deliuered from the name of that [Page 129] it is in dede. And yet this is nowe the tea­ching of this auctour in defence of his newe Catholique fayth ioyned with the teachynge of Theodorete, and the secrete Epistel of S. Chrisostome, as this auctor would haue thē vnderstanded. But those men Theodorete & Chrisostome in the sence they mente as I vn­derstand thē taught a true doctrine. For they take the name of the body of Christ in the sa­crament to be a reall namynge of the body of Christe there presente in dede, and therfore a true perfite name, which as S. Chrisostomes secrete Epistel saith, the thyng is worthy to haue declaryng, by that worthynes the thing named to be their in dede. And likewise I vnderstande the other name of bread worthely done awaye, because the substaunce, Wheru­pon in reason the name was grounded, is chaunged accordynge to the true doctrine of transubstantiacion, therfore that name of bread in there doctrine is truely layde away, although Theodorete wryteth the visible matter of bread and wyne to be seen and felt as they were before, and therfore saith there substance which there signifieth the outward nature is seen and felt to remayne, which ter­mes with conuenient vnderstandynge maye thus agree with the Catholique teachyng of trāsubstantiacion and so in the Sacramēt on euery part both in the heauēly & earthely part to be a ful, hole, & perfit truth, as the high mistery beyng the sacramēt of our perfit vnite in [Page] bodye and soule with Christe, doth require. Wherby in my Iudgement as this auctour hath against his owne determinacion in this enterprise vttred that confermeth the truth of the reall presence of Christs most precious body in the Sacrament, which he doth in speciall entreatyng the wor [...]es of Saincte Au­gustine in the .xxvij. leafe of his booke besides that in diuers other places he dothe the like: so bringynge vs forth this Theodorete and his secret Epistle of Saincte Chrysostome, he hathe brought forth that maye serue to con­uince him in transubstantiacion. Howbeit as for transubstantiacion Suinglius taketh it truely for a necessary consequēce of the truth if there be in the Sacrament the real presen­ce of Christes bodye as there is in dede. For as a carnall man not instructe by fayth aswel after consecracion as before as he is of the earth speaketh and calleth it breade, and as­kynge him what it is wyll neuer answere o­therwise, and if one asked him whither it were the bodye of Christ woulde thinke the questioner mocked him, so the faythfull spi­rituall man answeryng to that questiō what it is, woulde after consecracion accordyng to fayth, answere the bodye of Christe, and thinke himselfe mocked if he were asked is it not breade? onles he had been taught Christ to haue sayde it had been both his bodye and bread. As for callyng it by the name of bread which it was, he wold not greatly s [...]ike & one [Page 141] thyng may haue many names, but one thing is but one substaunce, wherby to answere to the question what it is, sauynge onely in the person of Christe wherin we knowe vnited the two substāces of god and man. And this matter I repete and sumaryly touch againe to leaue in the readers brest the principall pointe of our biliefe of this misterye to be of the reall presēce, that is to say vnfayned substantial precēce, and therfore the true presēce of Christes most precious body in the Sacramēt, whiche hath bene in all ages taught, & bene as it is the Catholique faith of Christendom, as appeareth by the testimonie of the olde auctors in all ages, in whose particuler wordes although there maye be sum tyme cau [...]lacions: yet I wyll note vnto the reader, fouer markes and tokens emprinted raither in those old auctors dedes, thē words which be certaine testimonies to the truth of there fayth of real presence of Christes most preci­ous body in the Sacrament. The first marke is in the processe of arguyng vsed by them to the conuiction of heretiques by the truth of this Sacramēt, wherin I note not their particuler sentences whiche somtyme be dange­rous speaches, but their hole doinges. As Irene who was in the begynnynge of the churche, argueth agaynst the valentinians, that denyed the resurrection of our fleshe, whom Irene reproueth by the feadynge of our soules and bodies with the diuine glori­fied [Page] flesh of Christ in the Sacramēt, whiche flesh, & it be their but a figure, then it shoulde haue proued the / resurrection of oure fleshe slenderly & as it were but figuratyuely. And if the Catholique fayth had not bene then certenly taught, and constātly beleued without variaunce, Christes very fleshe to be in dede eaten in that mistery: it would haue bene answered of the heretiques it had bene but a fi­gure, but that appeareth nor, and the other appeareth whiche is a testymonye to the truth of matter in dede. Hilarie reasonynge Hilari­us. 8. libro de [...]tim. of the naturall coniuction betwene vs, and Christ by meane of this Sacrament, expres­seth the same to com to passe, by the recey­uynge truely the verie fleshe of our lorde in our lordes meate, and therupon argueth against the Arriās, whiche Arrians, if it had not bene so really in dede, but all was spiri­tually so as there was no suche naturall and corporall cōmunion in dede as Hilarie supposed, but as this auctor teacheth a figure, & it had bene the Catholike doctrine so: that argumēt of Hilarie had bene of no force. S. Chrisostom, Belasius and Theodorete argue of the truth of this misterie to conuince the Appol­linaristes, and Eutichians, which were noon argument if Christes verie body were not as really present in the Sacramēt for the truth of presence, as the godhed in the person of / Christ, beynge theffect of thargument this, that as the presence of Christes body in this [Page 142] misterie doth not altre the properties of the visible natures, no more doth the godhode in the person of Christ extinguishe his humani­te, whiche againste those heretiques serued for an argument to exclud confusion of natu­res in Christ, and had bene a daungerous argument to be embrased of the Nestorians, who woulde hereby haue furdred ther here­sie, to proue the distinction of natures in Christ without any vnion, for they woulde haue said. As the earthly, & heauēly natures be so distincte in the Sacramēt as the one is not spoken of the other, so be the natures of the humanite & godhod not vnited in Christ, whiche is false, and in the comparynge we may not loke that all should answere in equalite, but onely for the point it is made for, that is, as in the Sacrament the visible cle­ment is not extinguished by the presence of Christes most precious body, no more is Christes humanite by his godhode, and yet we may not say, that as in the Sacramēt be but onely accidētes of the visible earthly matter, that therfore in the person of Christ be onely accidētes of the humanite. For that misterye requireth the hole truth of mannes nature, and therfore Christe toke vppon him the hole man, bodie and soule. The mysterye of the Sacrament requirethe the truthe of the accidentes onelye, beynge the substa­unce of the visible creatures conuerted [Page] into the body & bloude of Christ. And this I write to preuent suche cauillations as some would serch fore. But to retourne to our matter all these argumētes were vayne, if there were not in the Sacrament the true presence of Christes very bodye, as the celestiall parte of the Sacramēt, beynge the visible formes therthly thyng. Which earthly thyng remaineth in the former proprietie with the verye presence of the celestial thyng. And this suffiseth concernyng the first marke. An other certaine token is the wondryng and great mer­uelyng that the olde auctours make, howe the substance of this Sacrament is wrought by goddes omnipotencie. Baptisme is merueled at, for the wonderfull effecte that is in man by it, howe man is regenerat, not howe the water, or the holy ghoost is there. But the wondre in this Sacrament is specially dire­cted to the worke of God in the visible crea­tures, howe they be so changed into the body and bloud of Christ, which is a worke of god wrought, before we receyue the Sacrament. Whiche worke Cyprian sayth is inestable, that is to say, not speakable, whiche is not so Cypri­an de coena dn̄i. if it be but a figure, for then it may easely be spoken, as this auctour speaketh it with ease (I thynke) he speaketh it so often. Of a presē ce by signification if it may so be called, euery man maye speake and tell howe, but of the / verye presence in dede and therfore the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament, [Page 143] no creature can tell howe it maye be, that Christ ascended into heauen with his humaine body, and therwith coutinually reignying there should make present in the Sacrament the same body in dede, whiche Christ in dede worketh, beynge neuerthelesse then at the same houre present in heauen, as S. Chriso­sostom doth with a maruayle say. If the maruayle were onely of godes worke in man in theffect of the Sacrament, as it is in Baptisme, it were an other matter, but I said before the wrondre is in the worke of God, in the substaunce of the Sacrament, before it be re­ceyued, which declareth tholde auctours that so wondre to vnderstande the reall presen­ce of Christes verye bodye, and not an one­lye signification, whiche hathe no wondre at all. And therfore seyng S. Cyprian won­dreth at it, and calleth the worke inestable, S. Chrisostom wondreth at it, S. Ambrose wondreth at it, Emissen wondreth at it, Cy­rill wondreth at it. What should we nowe doubt whether their fayth were of a signifi­cation onely as this auctour woulde haue it, which is no wondre at all, or of the reall pre­sence whiche is in dede a wonderfull worke. Wherfore where this manifest token, and certaine marke appeareth in the olde fathers their can no constructiō of sillables, or words dissuade, or peruerte the truth thus testified. A third token their is by declaration of figu­res as for example S. Hierom when he de­clareth [Page] vpon thepistel (Ad Titum) so aduise­dly at lenght howe (Panes prepositiones) were the figure of the bodie of Christ in the Sacramēt: that processe declareth the mynds of that auctor to be that in the Sacrament is present the verie truth of Christes body not in a figure again, to ioyne one shadowe to an other, but euen the very truth to answere the figure, and therfore no particuler wordes in S. Hierome can haue any vnderstandynge contrarye to his mynde declared in this pro­cesse. Fourthly an other certaine marke is where the olde auctours wryte of the addra­tion of this Sacrament, whiche can not be but to the thynges, godly, really present. And therfore S. Augustine wrytynge in his booke de (Catechizandis rudibus) howe the Inuisible thynges be honored in this Sacramēt, meanyng the bodie and bloud of Christ, and in the. 98. Psalme speaketh of adoratiō. Theodoretus also spekyng specially of ado­ration of this Sacramēt. These auctours by Theo­doretus. Dialo­go. 3. this marke that is most certaine, take awaye all suche ambiguite as men might by suspi­tions, diuination, gather sumtyme of their seuerall wordes, and declare by this marke of adoratiō playnely their faith to haue bene, and also their doctrine vnderstanded as they ment of the reall presence of Christes verye bodye and bloud in the Sacrament, and Christ himselfe God, and man to be their [Page 144] present, to whose diuine nature and the hu­manite vnite thervnto, adoration may onely be directed of vs. And so to conclude vp this matter forasmuch as one of these foure mar­kes, and notes maye be founde testified and apparaunte in the anucient wryters, with other wordes and sentences conformable to the same: this shuld suffise to exclude al argumētes of any by sentences & ambiguons speaches, and to vpholde the certeynte of the true Catho­lique fayth in dede, whiche this auctour by a wronge name of the Ca­tholique fayth impugneth, to the greate slaunder of the truth and his owne reproch.

The confutation of the fift booke.

AS touchynge the fift booke the title wherof is of thoblation and sacrifice of our Saui­our Christ somwhat is by me spoken before, whiche although it be suffitiēt to the matter, yet somewhat more must also be nowe said, whetwyth to encountre thauctors imaginations and surmises with the wronge construyng of the Scriptures, and Auctors to wrest them besides the truth of the matter and ther meanynge.

This is agreed and by the Scriptures playnelie taught that the oblation, and Sa­crifice of our Sauiour Christe was, and is a perfite worke ones consummate in perfection without necessitie of reiteration, as it was neuer taught to be reiterate, but a mere blas­phemie to presuppose it. It is also in the Ca­tholike teachyng grounded vpon the scripture agreed, that the same sacrifice ones conso­mate, was ordeyned by Christes institution in his most holye supper to be in the churche often remembred and shewyd forth in suche forte of shewyng, as to the faythfull is sene present the most precious bodye and bloude [Page 145] of our Sauiour Christ, vnder the fourmes of bread & wyne, which body & bloud the faith­full churche of Christen people graunte & confesse accordyng to Christes wordes to haue been betrayed & shed for the sins of the world & so in the same supper represented, & deliue­red vnto them, to eate & feade of it accordyng to Christes commandement, as of a most pre­cyous & acceptable sacrifice, acknolegyng the same precious body & bloud, to be the sacrifice propitiatorie for all the sinnes of the worlde, wherunto they onely resorte, and onelye ac­compt that the verye perfite oblacion & sacri­fice of Christen people, through which all o­ther sacrifices necessariely be accepted & plea­saunt in the sight of God. And this maner of shewyng Christes death & kepyng the memorye of it, is grounded vpō the scriptures, wrytē by the Euāgelistes, & S. Paul & accordyng therunto preached, beleued, vsed, & [...]requēted in the churche of Christ vniuersally & frō the beginnyng. This auctor vttering many wor­des at large besides scripture, & agenst scrip­ture to depratie the Catholike doctrine, doth in a fewe wordes (which be in dede good wordes & true) cōfonde & ouerthrowe al his enter­prise, & that issue wil I ioinewith him, which shall suffise, for the cōfutacion of this booke. The fewe good wordes of the auctor, which wordes I saye confounde the reste, consiste in these two poyntes. One in that the auctor alloweth the Iudgement of Petrns Lom­bardus, [Page] touchyng thoblacion, and sacrifice of the churche. An other in that thauetor confes­seth the Counsaill of Nice to be an holye con­cell, as it hath bene in dede cōfessed of al good Christen men, Upō these two confessions I will declare the whole enterprise of this fifte boke to be ouerthrowen. First to begyn with the councel of Nice, the same hath opened the mysterye of the Sacrament of the bodye and bloude of Christe in this wise, that Christen men beleue the lambe that taketh awaye the synnes of the worlde to be situate vpon gods borde, and to be sacrificed of the Priestes, not after the maner of other Sacrifices. This is the doctrine of the councell of Nice, and must then be called an holy doctrine and therby a true doctrine, consonante to the Scriptures, the foundacion of all truth. If thauctor will denye this to haue been the teachyng of the counsaill of Nice, I shal alleage therfore the allegacion of the same by Decolampadius, who beyng an aduersarye to the truth, was yet by gods prouidence ordered to beare testi­monie to the truth in this poynte, and by his meane, is published to the worlde in greke as foloweth, which neuerthlesse may otherwise appeare to be true. [...] [Page 146] [...]. Iterum etiam hic in diuina mensa, ne humiliter intenti simus ad propo­situm panem & poculum, sed mente exaltata fide intelligamus, situm esse in sacra illa men­sa, illum Dei agnum, qui tollit peccata mundi, sacrificatum à sacerdotibus, non victimarum more: & nos praeciosum illius corpus, & san­guinem verè sumentes, credere haec esse re­surrectionis Symbola. Ideo non multum ac­cipimus, sed parum, vt cognoscamus quoniā non in satietatem, sed sanctificationem. These wordes maye be Englished thus: Agayne in this godlye table, we should not in base, and loue consideracion direct oure vnderstanding to the breade and cuppe set forth, but hauing oure mynde exalted, we shoulde vnderstand by fayth to be situate in the table the lambe of God, whiche taketh awaye the syunes of the worlde Sacrificed of the Priestes, not after the maner of other Sacrifices, and we receauynge trulye the preciouse bodye, and bloude of the same lambe, to beleue the­se to be the tokens of oure resurrection: And for that, we receaue not muche but a li­tle, because we shoulde knowe that not for saturitie and fillynge, but for sanctifica­tion. This holy Councell of Neece hath been [Page] beleued vniuersally in declaration of the my­sterye of the Trinitie and the Sacramentes also. And [...]o them that confesse that councell to be holy, as thauctor here doth, and to such as professe to beleue the determinaciō of that councell, in the openynge of the mysterye of the Trinitie with other wordes the Scri­pture vseth, although they expresse such sen­ce as in the Scripture is contayned. Why shoulde not all suche likewise beleue the same councell in explicacion of the Sacramentes, whiche to do, thauctor hath bound him selfe, grauntyng that councell holye. And then we muste beleue the verye presence of Christes bodye and bloude on goddes borde, and that Priestes do their sacrifice, and be therfore called sacrificers. So as those names, & termes be to be honoured, and religiously spoken of, beyng in an holy councell vttered and confessed, because it was so seen to them and the holye goost, without whose presente assistynge and suggession beleued to be there, the coun­cel coulde not nor ought not to be called holy. Nowe if we conferre with that councell of Nice the testimonye of the Churche begyn­nyng at S. Dionise, who was in the time of the apostelles, & after him comyng to Irene, who was nere thapostels, & thē Tertulliane. And so S. Cypriā, S. Chrisostome, S. Cyril, S. Hierome, S. Augustine & from that age to Petrus Lōbardus, all spake of the sacramēt to the same effecte, & termed it for the word [Page 147] sacrifice and oblacion, to be frequented in the church of the body & bloud of Christ, as maye be in particularitie shewed, wherof I make also an issue with the auctor. An issue.

For the other poynte in that thauctor ap­proued the iudgement of Petrus Lombardus in the matter, what shoulde I more do, but wryte in the wordes of Petrus Lombardus as he hath them: which be these in the fourth booke the .xij. Chapter alleaged by thauctor. Post haec quaeritur, si quod gerit sacerdos, pro prie dicatur sacrificium, vel immolatio, & si Christus quotidie immoletur, vel semel tan­tum immolatus sit? Ad hoc breuiter dici po­test, illud quod offertur, & cōsecratur à sacer­dote, vocari sacrificium, & oblationem, quia memoria est & representatio veri sacrificij & sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis, & se­mel Christus mortuus in cruce est, ibi (que) im­molatus est in semetipso quotidie autē immo latur in sacramento, quia in sacramento, recor datio fit illius, quod factū est semel: vnde Augustinus. Certum habemus, quia Christus re­surgens ex mortuis iā non moritur: &c. tamen ne obliuiscamur quod semel factū est, in me­moria nostra omni anno fit, scilicet quando pascha celebratur, Nunqnid totiens Christus occiditur? sed tantum anniuersaria recordatio repraesentat quod olim factum est, & sic nos facit moueri tanq videamus Dominum in [Page] eruce: Item semel immolatus est Christus in semetipso, & tamē quotidie immolatur in sa­cramento: Quod sic intelligendum est: quia in manifestatione corporis & distinctione mē brorum, semel tantum in cruce pependit, of­ferens se Deo patri hostiam redemptionis ef­ficacem, eorum scilicet: quos praedestinauit. Item Ambrosius. In Christo semel oblata est hostia ad salutem potens, quid ergo nos? Nō ­ne per singulos dies offerimus? Et si quotidie offeramus: ad recordationē eius mortis fit, & vna est hostia, non multae: quomodovna & nō multae: quia semel immolatus est christus, hoc autem sacrificium exemplū est illius idipsum, & semperidipsum offertur, proinde hoc idē est sacrificiū, alioquin dicetur quoniā in mul­tis locis offertur, multi sunt Christi, nō, sed v­nus vbi (que) est Christus & hîe plenus existēs, & illic plenus, sicut quod vbi (que) offertur vnū est corpus, ita & vnū sacrificiū, Christus hostiam obtulit, ipsam offerimus & nūc, sed quod nos agimus recordatio ēst sacrificij: Nec causa suae infirmitatis reperitur, quia perficit hominem, sed nostrae, quia quotidie peccamus. Exhis colligitur esse sacrificiū & dici quod agitur in al­tari, & Christū semel oblatū & quotidie offerri, sed aliter tūc, aliter nūc, & etiā quae sitvirtus huius sacramenti ostenditur: scilicet: remissio peccatorū venalium, & perfectiovirtutis. The Englishe hereof is this, After this it is asked [Page 148] whether that the priest doth, maye be sayde properlie a sacrifice or immolaciō: & whether christ be daily īmolate or only ones? Wherūto it may be shortly answered, that which is of­fred & cōsecrate of the priest, is called a sacrifice & oblaciō, because it is a memorie & represē ­tacion of the true sacrifice & holy immolation done in thalter of the crosse. And Christ was ones dede on the Crosse & ther was offered in him selfe, but he is dayly immolate in the sa­cramēt, because in the sacramēt ther is made a memory of that is ones done, wherupō S. Augustine, we ar assured that Christ rysing frō Rom. 6. death dieth not now. &c. Yet lest we shuld for get that is ones done, ī our memory euery yere is done, viz: as oftē as the pascha is celebrate, is Christ as oftē killed? only a yerly remēbrāce repre [...]ēteth that was ones done & causeth vs to be moued as though we saue our Lorde on the crosse. Also Christ was ones offred in him selfe, & yet is offred daily ī the sacramēt which is thus to be vnderstāded, that in opē shewīg of his body & distinctiō of his mēbres he dede hāge only ones vpō the crosse offring himself to god the father an host of redēptiō effectual for thē whō he hath predestinate, also S. Ambrose: in christ the host was ones offred being of power to helth, what do we thē? do we not The sa­me wor­des hath Chriso­stome homel. 17. ad hebr. offre eueri day? & if we offre eueri day, it is done in the remēbrāce of the death of him, & the host is one, not many, how one & not many? because christ is ones offred. This sacrifice is thexēple of that the same, & alwaies the same is offred [Page] therfor this is the same sacrifice, or els it may be sayd because it is offered in manye places, ther be manye Christes, whiche is not so, but one Christ is eche where, & here full and their ful, so as that which is offered euery where is one body, & so also one Sacrifice: Christ hath offred the host, we do offre the same also now: But that we do, is a remembraunce of the sa­crifice, Nor their is no cause foūd of the owne inuaiy ditie because it per [...]teth the man, but of vs because we daylie sinne: Hereof it is gathered that to be a sacrifice and to be so called that is done in thaltare, and Christ to be ones offered & daylie offered, but otherwise then, & otherwise nowe, & also it is shewed what is the vertue of this Sacramēt, that is to saye, remissiō of ver [...]al synne & perfectiō of vertue. This wryteth Petrus Lombardus, whose iudgement because this auctor alloweth, he must grant that the visible church hath Prie­stes in ministery that offre dayly, Christs most precius body & bloud in mysterie, & then must it be graunted that Christ so offered him selfe in his supper. For otherwise then he did can­not nowe be done. And by the iudgement of Petrus Lombardus, the same most precious body & bloud is offered daylye that ones suf­fered and was ones [...]ede, And also by the same Petrus iudgment which he confirmeth with the saynges of other this daylie offryng by the priest is daylie offred for synne, not for eny imperfectiō in the first offring, but because [Page 149] we dailie fall. And by Petrus iudgemēt ap­peareth also howe the priest hath a speciall function to make this offerynge, by whose mouth god is praied vnto (as hesithius saith) to make this sacrifice, which Emissene notech Hom [...]l. de cowore et Sā guine domini. to be wrought by the power of the inuisible priest. By Petrus Lōbardus also, (if his iud­gemēt be true as it is in dede) and thauctor cō fesseth it so to be) that is done in thaulter is not onlie called a sacrifice but also is so, & the same that is offered ones and dailie to be the same, but otherwise then offerid & otherwise nowe. But to the purpose, if thauctor will stande to the iudgemēt of Petrus Lōbardus, al his sift bookee of this [...] is cler [...] defaced. And if he wil nowe cal back that againe, he might more cōpendionsiye do the same in the hoole treatice, beynge so far ouerseene as he is therin. The Catholike doctrine reacheth not the dailie sacrifice of Christes most precious body and bloud to be an iteration of the ones perfited sacrifice on the crosse, but a sa­crifice that representeth that sacrifice, & she­weth it also before the faythful eyes & refre­shyth the effectual memorie of it, so as in the dailie sacrifice withowt weddyng of bloud, we may see with the eye of faith the very bo­dy & bloud of Christ by gods mightie power, without dinision distinctly exhibite, the same body & bloud that suffered & was shed for vs whiche is a liuely memorial to stir vppe our faith & to cōsider brefly therin the great cha­ritie [Page] of God towardes vs declared in Christ. The Catholique doctrine teacheth the dailye sacrifice to be the same in essence that was of fered on the Crosse ones, assured thereof by Christes wordes whē he saide: This is my body that shal be betrayed for you. The offring on the Crosse was & is propiciatorye & satis­factorie for our redēption & remissiō of sinne, wherby to destroye the tyrāny of sinne, thef­fect wherof is geuen and dispēsed in the sa­cramēt of Baptisme, ones likewise ministred & neuer to be it erate, no more thē Christ can be crucified again, & yet by vertue of the same offering such as fal be reieued in the sacramēt of penance. The daylie offering is propitiatorie also, but not in that degre of propitiatiō, as for redēption, regeneraciō, or remission of deadlye sinne which was ones purchassed, & by force therof is in the sacramērs ministred, but for the encrease of gods fauor, the mitigaciō of gods displeasure prouoked by our infirmities, the subduyng of tēptacions & the per­fectiō of vertue in vs. All good workes, good thoughtes & good meditacions may be called sacrifices & the same be called sacrifices propi­tiatorie also, for so much as in ther degre god accepteth, and taketh them throughe the ef­fecte and strenghte of the verye Sacrifice of Christes death, whiche is the reconciliacion betwene God and man, ministred & dispen­sed particularlye as God hath appoynted, in suche measure as he knoweth. But Saincte [Page 150] Paul to the Hebrues exortyng men to chari­table Hebr. 13. deades saith, with suche sacrifices God is made fauorable, or God is propitiate, if we shall make new Englishe. Wherupon it folo­weth because the Prieste in the daylye Sa­crifice doth as Christ hath ordered to be done for shewynge forthe and remembraunce of Christes death, that acte of the Priest done accordynge to goddes commauudement must nedes be propitiatorye and prouoke goddes fauour, and ought to be trusted one, to haue a propitiatorye effecte with God to the mem­bres of Christes bodye, particularly, beynge the same done for the whole bodye in suche wise as God knoweth the dispensacion to be mette and conuenient, accordynge to whiche measure, God worketh most iustlye and most mercyfullye, otherwise then man can by his iudgement discusse and determine. To cal the daylye offeryng a Sacrifice satisfactory must haue an vnderstāding that signifieth not the actiō of the Priest but the presence of Christs most precious body & bloud the verye Sacrifice of the worlde ones perfytely offered being propiciatorie & satisfactorie for al the world, Or elles the worde (satisfactorie) must haue a significaciō & meanyng, as it hath sometyme that declareth thacceptiō of the thynge done, & not the propre contreuaile of thactiō, after which sorte man maye satisfie God that is so mercifull as he will take in good worthe for Christes sake mannes imperfite endeuor, & so [Page] the dailie offeryng may be called a sacrifice satisfactorie, because God is pleased with it beynge a maner of worshipping of Christes passiō accordyng to Christes institutiō. But otherwise the dailie sacrifice in respect of the actiō of the priest can not be called satisfacto­rye, and it is a worde in dede that soundeth not well so placed, althowgh it might be sa­ued by a signification, & therfore thinke that worde rather to be well expounded, thē by captius vnderstādyng brought in slander whē it is vsed, and this speache to be frequentide that thonlie immolaciō of Christ in him selfe vpon thaulter of the Crosse is the very satis­factorye Sacrifice for reconciliacion of man kynde to the fauor of God. And I haue not red, the daylye sacrifice of Christes most pre­cious body to be called a sacrifice satisfacto­rye, but this speache hath in dede bene vsed, that the Priest shoulde synge satisfactorye, whiche they vnderstande in the satisfaction of the Priestes duetye, to attend the prayer he was required to make, and for a distinctiō thereof they had prayer sometime required without speciall limitacion & that was cal­led to praye not satisfactorye. Finally man by eny his action to presume to satisfie God by waye of counteruail is a verye mad & fu­riouse blasphemie. Where the auctor citynge S. Paul englisheth him thus, that Christes Hebr. 7. Priesthode cannot passe frō him to an other. This wordes thus framed be not the simple [Page 151] & sincere expression of the trueth of the texte. Whiche sayth that Christ hath a perpetuall Prieasthode, and the greke hathe a worde ( [...]) whiche the greke scholes expresse & exponde by the worde ( [...]) signifiyng the Priesthode of Christe endeth not in him to go to an other by succession as in the tribe of leui, where was among mortall men suc­cession in thoffice of Priesthode, but Christe lyueth euer, & therfore is a perpetuall euerla­styng Priest, by whose auctoritie Priesthode is now in this visible Churche as S. Paule 1. Tim. 4. et ad Titū. 1. ordred to Timothe & Tite, and other places also confirme, whiche Priestes visible mini­sters to our inuisible Prieste offer the daylye Sacrifice in Christes churche, that is to saye with the very presence by goddes omnipotē ­cye wrought of the most precious bodye and bloud of our sauiour Christ shewynge forth Christes death & celebratyng the memory of his supper and death accordinge to Christes institucion so with daylie oblacion & sacrifice of the selfe same Sacrifice to kendle in vs a thankfull remembrance of all Christes bene­fittes vnto vs. And where thauctor woulde auoyde all the testimonye of the fathers by presence yt should be but a maner of speach, the Canon of the Councell of Nice before re­hersed and the wordes of it, where mysteries be spoken of in propre termes for doctrine, a­uoydeth all that shifte and it hath no absur­ditie to confesse that Christ in his supper did [Page] institute for a remēbrance of the only sacrifice the presence of the most precious substāce to be (as the Canon of the concell in propre ter­mes teacheth) sacrificed by the Priestes to be the pure sacrifice of the church ther offred for the effect of thencrease of life in vs, as it was offered on the Crosse to atcheue life vnto vs. And S. Cyrill who for his doctrine was in Episto­la ad Nestor. greate auctoritie with the counsell Ephesme, wryteth the very body and bloud of Christ to be the liuely and vnbloudy Sacrifice of the churche, as likewise in tholde churche other commenly termed the same and among other Chrisostome whō thauctor would now haue 1 [...]. hom. ad Heb. seme to vse it but for a maner of speach, which in dede Chrisostome doth not, but doth truly open, thunderstanding of that is done in the church, wherin by this sacrifice done after the ordre of Melchisedech, Christes death is not iterate but a memorie daylie renewed of that death, so as Christes offerynge on the Crosse ones done & cōsummate to finish all sacrifices after thordre of Aaron, is now only remem­bred accordyng to Christes instituciō but in such wise as the same bodie is offred dailie on thalter that was ones offred on thalter of the Crosse, but the same maner of offeryng is not daylie, that was on thaulter of the crosse, for the dayly offeryng is without bloudshed & is termed so to signifie that bloud sheding ones done to be sufficiēt. And as Chryyostome ope­neth it by declaracion of what maner our sa­crifice [Page 152] is, that is to say, this daylie offering to be a remēbrāce of the other maner of sacrifice ones done, & therfore sayth rather we make a remēbrance of it: This sayng of Chrysostome doth not empayre his former words wher he saith, the host is the same offred on the crosse and on thalter, & therfore by him the body of Christ that dyed but ones is daylie present in dede, & (as the Concel of Nice saith) sacrificed not after the maner of other Sacrifices & (as Chrisostom saith) offred, but the death of that preciouse body onely dayly remēbred & not a­gaine iterate. And wher thauctor saith thold fathers callyng the supper of our. Lorde a sa­crifice, ment a Sacrifice of laude & thākes ge­uyng. Hippinus of Hambrough no Papist, in his boke dedicate to the kynges Maiestye that now is, saith otherwise and noteth how the olde fathers called it a Sacrifice propicia­torye, for the very presence of Christes moost precious body ther (thus saith he) which pre­sence all Christen men muste saye requireth on oure parte laudes and thankes geuynge, whiche maye be and is called in Scripture by the name of Sacrifice, but that Sacrifice of our laudes and thankes geuynge cannot be a Sacrifice geuyng life, as it is noted by Cyril the sacrifice of the church to do, when he saith it is (viuificū) which can be onely sayde of the verye bodye and bloud of Christ. Nor oure Sacrifice of laudes and thankes geuynge cannot be sayde, a pure and cleane Sacrifice [Page] wherby to fulfill the prophecie of Malachie, Malac. 3. and therfore the same prophecie was in the begynning of the Churche vnderstanded to be spoken of the daylye offeryng of the bodye and bloud of Christ for the memorye of Christes death accordyng to Christes ordinaunce in his supper, as maye at more lenght be ope­ned & declared. Thinkyng to theffecte of this booke sufficient to haue encountred the chefe poyntes of thauctors doctrine with such con­tradiction to them as the Catholique doctrine doth of necessitie require, the more particu­lare confutacion of that is vntrue of thaduer­sarie parte, and confirm aciō of that is true in the Catholique doctrine, requiryng more time and ley sure then I haue nowe, and therfore offerynge my selfe readye by mouth or wryte to say further in this matter as inalbe requi­red: I shall here ende for this tyme, with pra­your to almightye God to graunte his truth, to be acknowledged & confessed, and vni­sormely to be preached and beleued of al, so as all contencion for vnderstandyng of religion auoyded whiche hyn­dreth Charitie, we maye geue suche light abrode as men may see our good wor­kes and glorifie our father, who is in heauē with the sonne and holy gost in one vnitie of godhed reignyng without ende.

Amen.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.