An explicatio[n] 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. Gardiner, Stephen, 1483?-1555. This text is an enriched version of the TCP digital transcription A01466 of text S102829 in the English Short Title Catalog (STC 11592). Textual changes and metadata enrichments aim at making the text more computationally tractable, easier to read, and suitable for network-based collaborative curation by amateur and professional end users from many walks of life. The text has been tokenized and linguistically annotated with MorphAdorner. The annotation includes standard spellings that support the display of a text in a standardized format that preserves archaic forms ('loveth', 'seekest'). Textual changes aim at restoring the text the author or stationer meant to publish. This text has not been fully proofread Approx. 463 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 154 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. EarlyPrint Project Evanston,IL, Notre Dame, IN, St. Louis, MO 2018 A01466 STC 11592 ESTC S102829 24137498 ocm 24137498 2975 2264216068

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online 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.

Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A01466) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 2975) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1475-1640 ; 343:11 or 1817:7) An explicatio[n] 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. Gardiner, Stephen, 1483?-1555. [2], 152 leaves. R. Caly], [Rouen : 1551. Place of publication and name of publisher suggested by STC (2nd ed.) and NUC pre-1956 imprints. Signatures: [A]2 B-U8. Leaves numbered consecutively on recto only. Numerous errors in paging. Errata: p. [2]-[3] at beginning. This item can be found at reel 343:11 and at reel 1817:7. Imperfect: copy at reel 1817:7 is an improved filming over copy at reel 343:11; copy at reel 1817:7 is tightly bound with slight loss of print. Reproduction of original in the Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery. Includes bibliographical references. eng Lord's Supper -- Early works to 1800. eebo An explicatio[n] and assertion of the true catholique fayth, touchyng the moost blessed sacrament of the aulter with confutacion of a booke written ag Gardiner, Stephen, bp. of Winchester, 1483?-1555. 1551 308 84412 466 0 0 0 0 4 197.37 F The rate of 197.37 defects per 10,000 words puts this text in the F category of texts with 100 or more defects per 10,000 words. 2005-12 Assigned for keying and markup 2006-01 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2006-07 Sampled and proofread 2006-07 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2006-09 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

An explication 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 gentle reader easely correcte thy selfe .

Leafe . Pag. Thelyne . ●o. 2. 2. pag. Lin. 15. for yet it shuld , read yet if it shuld 7 1 penul . for to purpose , read to the purpose 21 1 30 for accasion , reade occasion . 25 2 29 for dimishe , reade diminishe . 52 1 25 for shepe , reade slepe . 42 1 23 for cōmunicādo , read cōmunicandis . 54 1 13 for manifestye , reade manifested . 54 1 14 for exhibetie , reade exhibited . 55 1 19 for enforeth , reade enforceth . 59 1 20 for Tubax , reade Tuba . 62 1 13 for fram . reade ●rame . 81 1 3 for cunclusion , reade conclusion . 81 2 20 for pretens , reade presence . 81 1 30 for freundes , reade frendes . 81 1 31 for possumus , reade polluimus . 88 1 22 for cratures , reade creatures . 88 1 24 for entrated , reade intreated . 88 2 3 for lake , read loke . 88 2 6 for fede , read fed . 90 2 6 for speake , read spake . 91 2 30 for andeleth , read handeleth . 92 1 8 for hahing , read hauyng . 92 1 10 for sumuch , read so muche . 92 1 12 for ityn , read it . 92 1 15 for wrere , read were . 92 1 15 for ●e , read be . 94 1 1 for Ethinkes , read Ethnikes . 94 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for af , read of . 96 1 〈◊〉 for 〈…〉 se , read likewise . 96 2 ●4 〈◊〉 , read geueth . 97 2 10 for extlude , read exclude . 105 1 1 for auctors , read auctor . 106 2 16 for this , read these . 107 1 3 for commency , read commenly . 110 1 6 for hatue , read hath . 119 1 31 for deipara 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deipara 121 2 26 for mage , read image . 126 2 18 for dowe , read doue . 131 2 10 for ther , read thre . 131 2 22 for we , read me . 134 1 4 for which , read with . 134 2 5 for obdy , read body . 136 1 11 for improw , read improue . 136 1 21 for circumstance present , read circumstance is present 136 1 23 for supernaturally , read naturally . 137 1 4 for endureth , read abhor●ith . 138 2 1 for disorowe , read improue . 142 1 14 for godhod , read godhed . 143 2 2 for propositiones , read ꝓpositionis . 145 2 29 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 145 2 vlt. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 146 1 2 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 146 1 5 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 148 1 19 for saue , read sawe . 151 2 9 for Ephesine , read Ephesin .

Finis Tabulae .
The preface .

FOr asmuch as amonges 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 sacrament of th altare , which I see now impugned , by a booke set furth , vnder the name of my lord of Cauntorburies grace : I haue thought expedient for the better opening of the matter , & consideryng I am by name touched in the sayde boke , the rather to vtter partely that I haue to say by confutation 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 commen welth , as for that respect should be inuiolable . For which consideracion , 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 th auctor 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 Cantorburies penne , but because he is a man , I wil not wondre , & because he is such a man , 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 presence of Christes most precious bodie & bloud in the Sacrament .

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 consecrate 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 tokens / and yet concludeth , Christ not to be spiritually present in them / but onely as a thing is present in that / which signifieth it ( whiche is the nature of a bare token ) saiyng in another place , ther is nothyng to be worshipped , for ther is nothing present / but in figure and in a signe : whiche who so euer sayth / calleth the thyng in dede absente . And yet the auctor sayth , Christe is in the man that worthely receaueth , spiritually present , who eateth of Christes fleshe and his bloud reignyng in heauen , 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 & vnderstandyng of Christes wordes , there hath not been in any age any one approued and knowen learned man , 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 th auctor 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 , Damascen . 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 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 disauantages 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 .

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

Fyftely how Luther , in his workes , handeled them 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 th olde 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 vpon 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 bodie in his supper , verely and really so vnderstanded , 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 reason . For commenly men vse to ordaine in sensible thinges remembraunces of them selfe whan they dye or departe the countrie . So as in th ordinaunce 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 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 communicacion 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 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 , when 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 speake alwaies like her selfe , and neuer disagreed from the truth of nature , but rather then the childe should be killed , as Salomon threatened , when 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 iudgment , 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 , by th auctor , 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 Sacrament , to be the fayth of the Papistes : whiche saiyng , what foundacion it hath , thou maiest consider of that foloweth .

Luther that professed openly to abhore al that might be noted Papish , defended 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 England , in a solempne worke that he wryreth vpon the Gospels , professeth the same fayth of the real and substanciall 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 translate 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 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 Oecolampadius / 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 beginnyng / 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 Sacrament 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 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 remembraunce of the true sacrifice , offered vpon the crosse , and that in it is dispensed 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 essence 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 , Cyprian , Hilarie , Ambrose , Hierome , Augustine , Basil , Chrysostom , And for Erasmus own iugement , 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 men haue erred in readyng the olde fathers , and wysheth that they which haue folowed Berengarius in error , would also folowe him in repentaunce . 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 th only Papistes . Wherupon reader here I ioyne with th auctor 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 iudgement this may serue for an note and marke , for to geue sentence for the true mother of the childe . For what should this meane , so without shame openly and vntruly to call this fayth papishe , but onely with the enuyous worde of Papist to ouermatche the truth .

It shal be now to purpose to considre the scriptures touchyng the matter of the Sacrament / which th auctor pretendyng 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 man 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 from heauen . Not as your fathers did eat Manna and are dead : He that eateth this bread shall lyue for euer .

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

Now , where th auctor to exclude the mysterie of corporall manducacion , bryngeth forth of Sainct Augustine , suche wordes as entreat of th effect and operacion of the worthy receauyng of the Sacrament : the handelyng is not so syncere , as this matter requireth . For as hereafter shal be intreated , that is not worthely and well done , may , because the principall entent fayleth , be called nor done , as so Sainct Augustine sayth . Let him not thinke , to eat the bodie of Christ , that dwelleth not in Christ , not because the body of Christ is not receaued , whiche by Sainct Augustines mynde , euill men do to their condempnacion , but because theffecie of life fayleth . And so th auctor 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 th auctor as foloweth .

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

As they did eat , Iesus toke bread , and Mar. 14 when he had blessed , he brake it , and gaue it to them , & sayd : Take , eat , This is my bodie , & taking the cup , when he had geuen 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 when he had geuen thankes , he brake it and gaue it vnto them saiynge : This is my bodie , whiche is geuen for you : This do in remembrance of me . Likewise also , when he had supped , he toke the cup , saiyng : This cup , is the new Testament , in my bloud which is shed for you .

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

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

After these textes brought in , th auctor doth in the fourth chapter , begyn to trauers Christes intent , that he intended 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 from the beginnyng of these textes of scripture confessed 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 th institucion of this Sacrament sayd , deliueryng that he consecrated : This is my bodie . &c. And likewise of the cuppe : This is my bloud . And although , to mans reason it semeth straunge , that Christ standyng or sittyng at the table , should deliuer them his bodie to be eaten : yet when we remembre Christ to be verie God , we muste graunt him omnipotent , and by reason therof , represse in oure thoughtes , all imaginacions how it might be , and considre Christes intent , by his will preached vnto vs by scriptures , and beleued vniuersally in his church . But if it may now be thought semely for vs to be so boulde , in so high a mysterie , to begynne to discusse Christes intent : what should moue vs to thinke that Christ would vse so many wordes , without effectuall and reall significacion , as be rehersed touchyng the mysterie of this Sacrament ?

First , in the .vi. of Iohn , whan Christ had taught of the eatyng of him , beyng the bread descended from heauen , and declaring , that eating to signify beleuing , wherat was no murmuryng , that then he should entre to speake of geuyng of his fleshe to be eaten , and his bloud to be dronken , and to say he would geue a bread , that is his fleshe , whiche he would geue for the life of the worlde . In whiche wordes , Christ maketh mention of two giftes , and therfore as he is truth , must needes intend to fulfill them both . And therfore , as we beleue the gift of his fleshe , to the Iewes to bee crucified : So we must beleue , the gift of his fleshe to be eaten , & of that gift , lyuerie and seisme ( as we say ) to be made of him , that is in his 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 shal be berrayed for you , expressyng also the vse when 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 them the practise of that doctrine he spake of in the .vi. of Sainct Iohn / & because he sayd , he would geue his fleshe for foode , whiche he would geue for the life of the worlde : he for fulfillyng of his promise sayd : Take / eate , this is my bodie / whiche wordes haue been taught , & beleued to be of effecte and operatorie / and Christe vnder the forme of bread to haue been , his verie bodie . Accordyng wherunto ( S. Paule noreth ) the receauer to be giltie , when he doth not esteme it our Lordes bodie / wherwith it pleaseth Christ to fede such as be in him regenerate , to th intente 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 Euangelistes . 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 th effecte , vseth the same propre wordes declaryng th effecte to be the communication of Christes bodie and bloud . And one thing is notable touching the scripture / that in suche notable speaches vttered by Christ , as might haue an ambiguitie , the Euangelistes by some circumstaunce declared it , or some tyme opened it by plaine interpretacion , as when Christ sayd / he would dissolue the temple , and within three daies buylde it againe : The Euāgtlistes by and by addeth for interpretacion : 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 circumstaunces , wherby to take away the propre significacion of the wordes ( bodie ) and ( bloud ) so as the same might same not in dede geuen ( as the Catholique faith reacheth ) but in significacion as th auctor 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 person vnited , the mysterie of which vnion , 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 intent was to geue verely ( as he did in dede ) his precious bodie and bloud to be eaten and drunken , accordyng as he taught them to be verely meat and drinke , and yet gaue and geueth them so vnder fourme of visible creatures to vs , as we may conueniently , and without horror of our nature receaue them , 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 confirmacion of which beleif the auctor would haue the Sacramentes of Baptisme , and of the bodie and bloud of Christ to be adminicles ( as it were ) and that we by them be preched vnto , as in water , bread and wyne , and by them all our sences ( as it were ) spoken vnto , or proprely touched , whiche matter in the grosse , although ther be some wordes by the way not tollerable , yet if those wordes set apart , the same were in the summe graunted , to be good teachyng and holesome exhorcacion , it conteyneth so no more but good matter , not well applyed . For the Catholique churche / that professeth the truth of the presence of Christes bodie in the Sacrament , would therewith vse that declaration of hungre of Christ / and that spirituall refreshyng in Christe , with the effect of Christes passion and death , and the same to be th onely meane of mans regeneracion , and feadyng also , with the differences , of that feadyng from 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 th aultar of the Crosse : whiche worke and passion of Christ is preached vnto vs / by wordes and sacramentes , and the same doctrine receiued of vs by faith / & the effecte of it also . And thus farre goeth the doctrine of this auctor .

But the Catholique teachyng , by the scriptures , goth futher , confessing Christ to feade such as be regenerate in him , not onely by his bodie and bloud : but also with his bodie and bloud deliuered in this sacrament by him in dede to vs , whiche the faythfull , by his institucion and commaundement , receiue with their faith and with their mouth also , and with those specyall deynties , be fed specially at Christes table . And so God doth not onely preach in his sacraments , but also worketh in them , and with them , and in sensible thynges geueth celestiall giftes , after the doctrine of eche sacrament , as in baptisme the spirite of Christ , and in the sacrament of th aultar , 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 th auctor 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 Transubstantiation , 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 , th auctor 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 differences , 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 present , vnder forme of bread & wyne , the substaunce of whiche natures of bread & wyne , is conuerted into his most precious bodie and bloud as it is truely beleued and taught in the Catholique Church , of whiche teachyng this auctor can not be ignoraunte . So as ( th auctor ) of this booke reporteth an vntruth wittyngly against his conscience , to say they teache ( callyng them 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 th auctors 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 condempnacion . Christ can not be receaued worthely , but in to his owne temple , whiche be ye ( S. Paule sayth ) & yet , he that hath not / Christes spirit in him , is not his , As for callyng it bread and wyne , a Catholique man forbereth not that name , signifiyng , what those creatures were before the consecracion in substaunce . Wherfore appeareth , how th auctor 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 sacrament 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 sacrament , or he can not receyue the Sacrament worthely , as afore is sayd , whiche two partes may stand well together , without any repugnaunce , and so both the differences , thus taught , make but one catholique doctrine . Let vs se what the auctor sayth further .

They say , that when any man 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 , th auctor termeth the The answer . true Catholique teachyng at his pleasure , to bryng it in contempte . Whiche doyng in rude speache would be called otherwise then I wyll terme it . Truth it is ( as Sainct Augustine sayth ) we receaue in the Sacrament the body of Christ , with our mouthe , and suche speache other vse , as a booke set forth in the archbisshoppe of Cantorburies name called a Cathechisme , willeth children to be taught that they receaue with their bodely mouth the body and bloud of , Christ , whiche I allege because it shall appeare it is a teachyng set forth among vs of late as hath been also and is by the booke of comen prayor beyng the moost true Catholique doctrine of the substaunce of the Sacrament , in that it is there so Catholiquely spoken of , whiche booke this auctor doth after specially allow , how so euer all the summe of his teachyng doth improue it in that point . So much is he contrarie to him selfe in this worke , and here in this place not caryng ( what he sayth ) reporteth suche a teachyng in the first parte of this difference , as I haue not hearde of before : There was neuer man of learnyng that I haue red , termed the matter so , that Christ goeth into the stomoke of the man that receaueth and no further . For that is written , 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 communicate , worketh together in due ordre without other discussyon of the mysterie then God hath ordred ( that is to say ) the soule to beleue as it is taught , and the body to do as God hath ordred , knowyng that gloryous fleshe by our eatyng can not be consumed or suffre , but to be most profitable vnto such as do accustonie worthely to receiue the same . But to say that the churche teacheth how we receaue Christ at our mouth , and he goeth into our stomoke and no further , is a reporte which by the iust iudgemente of God is suffred to come out of the mouthe of them that fyght against the truth in this most high mysterie .

Now where this auctor in the seconde 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 them , who conforteth both body and soule , whiche the church hath euer taught most plainely , so as this comparison of difference 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 comparison , The answer . where both partes of the comparison may be vnderstanded on bothe sydes , and therfore , here is by th auctor in this comparison no issue ioyned : For the worthy receauyng of Christs body and bloud in the Sacramente , is both with mouth , & heart , both in facte & faith , After whiche sorte ( S. Peter ) in the last supper , receaued Christes body , wheras , in the same supper , Iudas receaued it with mouth , & in fact only , wherof S. Augustin speketh in this wise . Non dicunt ista , nisi qui de mensa domini August . contra literas pe til . lib. 2 cap. 47. vitāsumunt , Sicut Petrus , non iudicium sicut Iudas , et tamen ipsa vtrique fuit vna , sed non vtrique valuit ad vnum , quia ipsi non erant vnum . 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 them 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 , th auctor hath made no difference , but with diuers termes , the catholique teachyng is deuided into two membres with a ( But ) facioned neuertheles , in an other phrase of speache then the church hath vsed , whiche is so commen in this auctor that I will not hereafter note it any more for a faulte . Let vs go further .

They say that Christ is really in the Sacramentall 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 spoken as though it diffred from 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 man , that worthely receiueth the sacrament , so long 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 Sacramental bread beyng reserued an hole yere . &c. The church geuyng faith to Christes worde , when he sayd : This is my body . &c. techeth the body of Christ to be present in the Sacrament vnder the forme of bread : vnto which words when we put the worde really , it serueth only to expresse that truth in open wordes , which was afore to be vnderstanded in sence . For in Christ , who was the body of al the shadowes & figures of the law , & who did exhibit & geue in his sacramentes of the new law , the things promised in his sacramentes of th olde lawe . We must vnderstand his wordes in the institucion of his sacraments without figure in the substance of the celestial thyng of them , & therfore when he ordred his most precious bodye & bloud to be eaten & drunken of vs vnder the formes of bread & wyne , we professe & beleue that truely he gaue vs his most precious body in the Sacrament for a celestial foode , to confort & 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 , inded his body the thing it self : Which is , the heauenly part of the Sacrament called ( Eucharistia ) hauyng the visible forme of bread & wyne , & conteinyng 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 long , as it may be vsed , is still the same sacrament , which only , tyme altereth not , wherof Cyril wrote to this sence , Cyrillus ad Calo syrium epi scopum . Hesichius in leuit . li. 2. ca. 8 many hundred yeres past , & Hesichius also , & what ought to be done when by negligence of the ministre , it wer reserued ouerlong . Mary where it liketh th auctor of these differences , to saye the church teacheth , Christ to flye vp from the receauer vnto heauen , so sone as the bread 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 hande 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 determination 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 humbly 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 discussion of them , 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 cannot 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 as he meaneth , truely & certaynely as Christ did , saiyng : This is my body that shal be 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 consumyng : 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 Sacrament , whole God and man , and dwelleth corporally in him that receyueth him worthely . Wherfore ( reader ) when thou shalt agayne well consider this comparison , 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 second 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 suspicion , 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 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 inuention 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 christen 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 th auctor hath ouersene himselfe in the vtteraunce of it , & confesseth 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 : Upon accasion hereof , it liketh this auctor to multiply language by enumeracion of partes , and because reason without fay the , directeth the bodely eye , to so litle a visible quantity 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 present 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 Sacrament 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 from 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 imaginacion displace , diminishe , altre , or confound ( as this auctor ) for his pleasure reporteth , who writeth monst rously in so high a mistery , & impudently beareth in hand the Catholique churche , to teache that he lysteth to beare in hand ( may by wanton reason ) be deduced of their teachyng , wher as altrue christian men beleue simply Christes wordes , & trouble not their heades with suche consequences , as seme to stryue with reason . This is in th auctor no whisperyng , but plainly raylyng , wherin ( if he had remembred himselfe wel ) he would not haue spoken of all christian men in the receypt of that he entendeth 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 , euen as we beleue al gods iudgementes iust & true , although reason conclude in them euident īiquitie . Mans reason when it semeth most galaunt is ful of sportes & folie . Gods workes be al semelynes , without confusion , monstre or any such absurditie , as this auctor supposeth . Although I can not , in the sacrament with the eye of my reason , locally distincte Christes head from his foote , his legge , from his arme , & wher in the boke of common prayor , it is truly sayd , in eche part of the bread consecrate broken to be Christs hole body , if one of curiosite wold question 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 . Then 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 same for the head , might not the thyrd , a Catholique man , that stode by , ( trowe you ) wisely caiie vs both madde , to goo aboute to discusse , that we must graunt we see not , & when by faythe , we knowe only the beyng present of Christes most preciouse body , them 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 Quintus Cur●us maketh mencion of this facte of Alexander . Gordius , he did cutte it with his sworde , if this man should say , I wyll releaue this matter , you beleue Christes body is present in dede really , and substancially , leue out really and substantially , and say his body is present 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 participation 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 〈◊〉 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 Sacrament 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 .

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 indgement . 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 th auctor as no true doctrine . And the seconde part of the comparison on th auctors side , conteyned vnder ( we say ) by them that in hypocrisye pretend 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 spoken , that none receyue the body of Christe with the very effecte of life , but suche as eate the sacrament 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 whom he that receyueth worthely Christes body , receyueth life , and he that receyueth vnworthely , receyueth condempnacion . 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 common 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 condempnacion only . And the learned men in Christes churche say that the ignoraunce , & want of obseruacion of these thre maner of eatynges , causeth the errour in th understandyng 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 impudency is it , to say that the church teacheth good men 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 th effectes of all graces and giftes to suche as receyue it spiritually and worthely : where as out of the supper , when we eat only spiritually by faith , God that worketh without his sacramentes , 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 sacramentes , wherunto we ought to geue most certayne trust & confidence . wherfore to teache the spirituall manducacion to be equal with the spiritual manducation & sacramental also , that is to dimishe th effecte of the institution of the Sacrament , whiche no Christen man ought to do .

They say that the body of Christ that is in the The 〈◊〉 . Sacrament , hath his owne propre tourme & quantitie : We say that Christ is there sacramentally and spiritually without fourme or quantitie .

In this comparison 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 Sacrament the very true body of Christ , which good men beleue vpon the credite of Christ that sayd so , & knowlege therwith the maner of that presence , to be an high mystery , and the maner so spirituall , as the ●arnall man can not by discourse of reason reache it , but in his discourse shal as this auctor doth , thinke it a vanitie and folishenesse , Whiche folishenesse , neuerthelesse ouercommeth the wisdome of the worlde . And thus I haue opened what they say on the Catholique parte . Now for the other parte wherof this auctor is , and with his fayth ( we saye ) the wordes seme to imply , that Christes humayne body is not in the Sacrament , 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 Sacrament 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 them yet hath been heard or redde of , but into such absurdities in dede do they fall , who entreat irreuerently and vntruely this high misterie . This is here worthy a speciall note how by the maner of the speache in the latter parte of this difference , the teachyng semeth to be , that Christ is spiritually present in the Sacrament , because of the worde ( there ) which thou reader mayest compare how it agreeth with the rest of this auctors doctrine , Let vs go to the next .

They say that the fathers , and Prophetes of the The auctor . old testament , did not eate the body , nor drinke the bloud of Christ . We say , that they did eat his body , and drinke his bloud , although he wer not yet borne nor incarnated .

This comparison of difference , is clerkely The answer . conceyued , as it wer of a ryddle , wherin , nay & yea , when they be opened , agree & consent . The fathers did eate Christes body & drinke his bloud in truth of promyse , whicht was effectual to them of redemption to be wrought , not in truth of presence , ( as we do ) for confirmation of redemption already wrought . They had a certayne promyse , and we a certayne present payment : they did eate Christ spiritually , beleuing in him that was to come but they did not eate Christes body present in the Sacrament , sacramentally , and spiritually , as we do . Their sacramentes were figures of the thynges , but out conteyne the very thinges . And therfore albeit in a sence to the learned men , it may be verefyed , that the fathers did eat the body of Christ & drink his bloud , yet there is no suche forme of wordes in scripture , & it is more agreable to the simplicitie of scripture , to say the fathers before Christes natiuite , did not eate the body and bloud of Christ , whiche body & bloud Christ himselfe truely toke of the body of the virgin Marie . For although S. Paule in the tenth to the Corinthians , be so vnderstanded of some , as the fathers should eat the same spiritual meat , & drinke the same spiritual drinke that we do , to which vnderstandyng , al do not agree , yet folowyng that vnderstandyng , we may not so presse the words , as there should be non difference at al , & this one special difference S. Augustine noteth how their sacramentes conteyned the promyse of that , whiche in our sacramentes is geuen . Thus he sayth ; & this is euident 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 comme . ( Come & to come ) as S. Augustine sayth differeth , But Christ is one , by whom all was create , & mans fal repared , from whom is all fedyng corporall & spirituall , & in whom al is restored in heauen , & in earth . In this fayth of Christ , the fathers were fedde with heauenly spiritual foode , whiche was the same with ours in respecte of the restitution by Christ , & redemption by them hoped , whiche is atchieued by the mystery of the body and bloud of Christ , by reason wherof I denye not , but it may be sayd in a good sence , howe they dyd eate the body and bloud of Christ before he was incarnate , but as I sayd before , scripture speaketh not so , and it is no holsome facion of speache at this tyme , which furthereth in sounde to the eares of the rude , the pestilent heresy , wherin Ione of kent obstinately Ione of Kentes obstinacye . dyed , that is to say , that Christ toke nothyng of the virgyn , but brought his body with him from aboue , beyng a thyng worthy to be noted , how the old heresi , deniyng the true takyng of the fleshe of Christ in the virgyns wonde , at the same tyme to reuiue . When the true deliuerance of Christes fleshe in the holy supper be of vs eaten , is also denyed . For as it is a mere truth without figure , & yet an high mistery , godsworke in th incarnation of Christ wherin our fleshe was of Christ truly taken 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 eaten . When 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 presence , which I adde to auoyde cauillation . And to make an ende of this comparison , this I say , that this article declareth wantones to make a difference 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 conuersion 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 present there , wher the substance of bread & wine was before . So as this comparison of difference is mere wranglyng & so euident , as it nedeth no further answer , but a note : ●o how they be not ashamed to trifle in so great a matter , & without cause by wrong termes , to bring the truth in slaunder , ( if it were possible ) . May not this be accompted , as a parte of Gods punishement , for men of knowlege to wryte to the people such , matter seriously , as were not tollerable to be by a scoffer diuised in a play , to supply when his felowe had forgotten his parte .

They say that the masse is a sacrifice satisfactory for synne , by the deuocion of the priest that offreth , The auctor and not by the thyng that is offred . But we say that their ●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 th only host and satisfaction for al the synnes of the world , is the death of Christ , and th oblation 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 comparison , semeth by implication to graunte , when he findeth faulte , that the priestes deuotion should be a sacrifice satisfactorie , and not the thyng that is offred , whiche maner of doctrine ( I neuer red ) and I thinke it myselfe it ought to be improued , if any such there be to make the deuotion of the priest a satisfaction . For vndoubtedly Christ is our satisfaction wholly & fully , who hath payde our hole debte to god the father , for th appesing of his iust wrath against vs , and hath cancelled 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 th accomplishement of the wyl of his father , in his innocent suffryng , his willyng & obedient 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 accomplishment of al sacrifices , as of whom all other sacrifices before , were shadowes & figures . And here is to be considered , howe the obedient wyl in Christes sacrifice , is specially to be noted , who suffred because he would . Whiche S. Paule setteth forth in declaration of Christes humilitie . And although that willyng obedience was ended & perfited on the crosse , to the whiche it continued from the begining , by reason wherof , th oblatiō is in S. Paules speach , attribute ther vnto : yet as in the sacrifice of abraham , when he offred Isaac , the ernest wil of offryng , was accompted for the offryng in dede , wherpon it is sayd in scripture that Abraham offred Isaac , & the declaration of the wil of Abraham , 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 them al the worlde , that his body should be betrayed for them & vs , & his precious bloud shedde for remission of synne , which his worde he confermed them , 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 redemption 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 reconciliation of mannes nature to gods fauor & grace . And this I wryte because this auctor speaketh so precisely , howe Christ offred himself neuer but ones , wherby ( if he meane by ones offryng ) the hole action of our redemption , whiche was consummate & perfited vpon the crosse : Al must confesse the substaunce of that worke of redemption , by th oblation of Christes body on the crosse , to haue been absolutly finished , & so ones offred for al. But there is no scripture , wherupon we myght conclude , that Christ dyd in this mortall life , but in one particuler moment 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 , euen 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 th obseruation of Gods will , & he calleth ( Oblationem gentium ) Rom. 12 to bryng them to fayth . And Abrahams willyng obedience , ready at Gods commaundement 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 commaundement , who then may be sayde to offre his seruyce ( that is to say ) to place his seruice in sight and before him , before whom , it should be done . And because our sauiour Christ , by the decree of the hole trinite roke mannes nature vpon him , to suffre death for our redemption , whiche death , in his last supper , he declared playnly , he would suffre . We reade in S. Cyprian how Christ offred himselfe in his supper . fulfillyng the figure of Melchisedech , who by th offryng 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 oblation to God the father , conteinyng a most perfyte obedience to Gods wyll and pleasure . And in the mistery of this supper , was writen , made and sealed a most perfyte testimonie , for an effectuall memorye of Christes offeryng of himselfe to his father , and of his death and passion with the fruite therof . And therfore Christ ordeyned this supper , to be obserued and continued for a memory to his cummyng : So as we that sawe not , with our bodely eyes Christes death and passion , may in the celebration of the supper , be most suredly ascertayned of the truth , out of Christes owne mouth . Who styl speaketh in the person of the ministre of the church : This is my body that is betrayed for you : This is my bloud that is shedde for you in remission of synne : and therwith maketh his very body truely present , and his precious bloud truely present , to be taken of vs , eaten and dronken . Wherby we be assured , that Christ is the same to vs , that he was to them , and vseth vs as familiarly as he did them , offreth himself to his father for vs , aswel as for them , declareth his wil in the fruit of his death , to perteyn aswel to vs , as to them . 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 consumption , 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 resurrection 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 them 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 resurrection regenerate in dede , so we beleue we fede here of Christes body in dede . And as it is true , that Christes body in dede is betrayed for vs , so it is true , that he geueth vs to eate his very body in dede . And as it is true , that Christ was in yearth and dyd celebrate this supper : So it is true that he commaunded it to be celebrate by vs , tyl he come : And as it is true that Christ was very God omnipotent , 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 , chaungeth the visible creatures , into the substance 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 reason , ( fayth beyng a shepe ) goth about by curiositie to empayre any one of these truthes , the chayne is broken , the lynkes sparkle abroade , and all is brought in daungier to be scattered and scambled at . Truthes haue been abused , but yet they be true , as they were before . For no man can make that is true false , & abuse , is mannes faulte & not the thynges . Scripture in speache geueth to man as gods ministre , the name of that action , 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 th aultare ( 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 institution , Wherfore when the ministre pronounseth Christes wordes , as spoken of his mouth , it is to be beleued , that Christ doth nowe , as he did then . And it is to be noted , that although in the sacrament of baptisme , the ministre saith : I baptize the , yet in the celebration 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 them , 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. Ioan . 2. pleadeth for vs , not to supplye any wante on gods behalfe , but to releaue our wantes in edification , 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 when we haue Christes body thus presente in the celebration of the holy supper , and by Christes mouth present vnto vs , saying : This is my body whiche is betrayed for you , Then haue we Christs body recommended vnto vs ( as oure sacrifice ) and a sacrifice propiciatory for al the synnes of the worlde , beynge the onely sacrifice of Christes church , the pure and cleane sacrifice whereof the prophete Malachie spake , and Malach. wherof the fathers in Christes churche haue synce the beginnyng contynually writen , the very true presence wherof , most constantely beleued , hath encreased from tyme to tyme suche ceremonyes as haue been vsed in the celebration of that supper , in which by Christes owne mouth we be ascertayned of his most glorious death and passion and the selfe same body that suffred , deliuered vnto vs in mysterye to be eaten of vs , & therfore so to be worshipped & acknowledged of vs as our very only sacrifice , in whom , by whom , and for whom our other priuate giftes & sacrifices be acceptable and none otherwise . And therfore as Christ declareth in the supper himselfe an offryng & sacrifice for our synne , offryng himself to his father as our mediatour , & so therwith recommendeth to his father the church his body , for which he suffreth : so the churche at the same supper in their offryng of laudes and thankes , with suche other giftes as they haue receyued from God , ioyne them selfe with their head Christ , presentyng & offryng him , as one , by whom , for whom , & in whom all that by gods grace man can do wel , is auaylable & acceptable , & without whom , nothing by vs done , can be pleasaunce in the sight of God , wherupon this persuasion hath been truely conceyued , whiche is also in the booke of commen prayour , in the celebration of the holy supper retayned , that it is very profitable at that tyme when the memory of Christs death is solempnized , to remember with prayour all astates of the church , & to recommende them 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 declaration of our cōstdēce in that death & sacrifice , do kindely remembre with thankes his special giftes , & charitably remembre the rest of the membres of Christes churche with prayour , & as we are able , shoulde with our bodely goods remember at that tyme specially , to releaue such as haue nede by pouertie , And agayne , as Christ putteth vs in remembraunce of his great benefite : so we should throughly remember him for our parte , with the true confession of this mystery , wherin is recapitulate a memorial of al giftes & misteryes , that God in Christ hath wrought for vs . In the consideration & estimation wherof , as there hath been a faulte in the securite of suche , as so their names wer remembred 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 remembred there at al , & therfore would haue it nothyng , but a plaine eatyng & drinkyng . How much the remembrance in prayour may auayle no man man prescribe , but that it auayleth euery christen man must confesse . Man may nothing and gate to his deuotion . But s . Iames sayd truly Iaco. 5. ( multum valet oratio iusti assidua . ) It is to be abhorred to haue hypocrites that counterfecte deuotion , but true deuotion is to be wisshed of God and prayed for , whiche is Gods gifte , not to obscure his glorye , but to set it forth , not that we should then trust in mens merites & prayers , but laud & glorify God in them ( 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 th effect of al celestial or worldly giftes to be obteined of God in the celebration of Christs holy supper , when we call it the communion : is now prayed for to be present , & is present , & with Gods fauour shal be obteyned , if we deuoutly , reuerently , charitably , & quietly , vse & frequent the same without other Innouacions then th ordre of the boke prescribeth . Now to the last diffrence

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 influence & 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 vpon yearth vnto the worldes ende . And when so euer two or thre be gathered together in his name , 〈◊〉 is there in the myddes among them , by whose spiritual grace al godly men be first by him spiritually regenerate and after encrease and growe to their spirituall perfection in God , spiritually by fayth eatyng his fleshe and drinkyng his bloud , although the same corporally be in heauen .

The true teachyng is , that Christes very The answer . body is present vnder the forme of bread , in as many hoostes as be consecrate , in how many places soeuer the hoostes be consecrate , & is there really & substancially , whiche wordes really & substancially be implyed , when 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 present in the Sacrament , but ( if the worde corporally be referred to the maner of the presence ) 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 comprehend the maner ( howe . ) This is the very true teachyng to affirme the truth of the presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament , euen of the same bodye that suffred in playne simple euident termes & wordes , suche as can not by cauillation be mystaken & construed , so nere as possibly mans infirmitie permitteth & suffreth . Nowe let vs consider in what sorte th auctor & his company which he calleth ( we say ) do vnderstand the Sacrament , 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 language of man , able to expresse God & his mysteries : For and thinges that be seen or herd , might throughly expresse Gods inuisible mysteries , the nature whereof is , that they cannot 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 man astomed , in consideracion 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 Musicians science , the arte , the touche , with the players fyngers , & the sounde of the corde , wherin , when witte hathe all trauayled the matter yet remayneth darke , ne cannot be throughly set forthe by any similitude . But to the purpose of this similitude of the sonne , which sonne this auctor sayth is onely corporally in heauen & 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 consideracion of naturall thinges , it is no merueyle though he erre in heauenly thinges . For because I wil not of my selfe beginne the contencion with this auctor , of the natural worke of the-sonne , I will bryng forthe the saiyng of Martine Bucer nowe resident at Cambridge , who vehemently & for so much truly , affirmeth the true real presence of Christes body in the sacrament : 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 vpon 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 present really & substancially in the sacrament , wher this autor vseth the same similitude to proue the body of christ really absent . I wil write in here as Bucer speketh it in latin , expoundyng the .xxvi. chap. of Mathewe , & then I will put the same in english . Bucers wordes be these . Vt sol verè vno in loco coeli visibilis circumscriptus Bucerus . est , radijs tamen suis , presens verè & substantialiter exhibetur vbilibet orbis . Ita Dominus etiam si circumscribatur vno loco coeli , arcani & diuini , id est gloriae patris , verbo tamen suo , & sacris symbolis , verè & totus ipse deus & homo praesens exhibetur in sacra coena , eoque substancialiter : quam praesentiam non minus certo agnoscit mens credens verbis hijs Dni & symbolis , quam oculi vident & habent Solem praesentem demonstratum & exhibitum sua corporali luce . Res ista arcana est & noui Testamenti , res fidei , non sunt igitur huc admittendae cogitationes de praesentatione cor poris , quae constat ratione huius vitae etiam impatibilis & 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 & tokens with no lesse certaintie acknowlegeth , then our eyes see , & haue the sonne present exhibite and shewed with his corporal light . This is a depe secrete matter of the newe testament , & a matter of faith and therfore herin thoughtes be not to be receyued of suche a presentation of the body , as consisteth in the maner of this lyfe transitorie 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 th end , how this is a matter of faith , & therfore vpon the foundation 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 sustaunce with the sonne , & can not be deuyded in substaunce from it , & therfore we haue in yerth the substancial 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 presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament , wryteth pythely & playnly , & here encountreth this auctor , with his similitude of the sonne 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 th assemble 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 present with his very fleshe to feade vs , & to that singuler & special effecte which in thother presence of Christ in th assemble made in his name , is not spoken of , & it hath no apparaunce of lernyng in scriptures , to conclude vnder one consideration a specialtie , & a generalitie . And therfore it was well answered of him that said . If I could tel reason , ther wer no faith , If I could shewe the like , it wer not singuler , whiche both be notable in this sacrament , where condenpnyng all reason , good men both constantly beleue that Christ sitteth on the right hande of his father very god & man , & also without chaunge of place , doth neuerthelesse make himselfe by his power present , both God & man vnder the forme of bread & wyne , at the prayor of the churche and by the ministery of the same , to geue life to such as with fayth do accord●yng to his institution in his holy supper wort●hely receyue him , & to the condemnation of su 〈…〉 s do vnworthely presume to receiue him there . For the worthie receiuyng of whom 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 Passion & establishyng oure hope of resurrection , then to enioye the regeneration 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 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 thence 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 ascended to heauen & 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 Sacrament 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 th ascensiō of Christ th end of his conuersation in yearth , and therfore all that reasonyng of th auctor , is clerely voyd to trayuaile to proue that is not denied only for a sleight to make it seme as though 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 th auctour 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 Tertullianus aduersus Marcionem . 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 transubstanciation . For in dede bread beyng bread is not Christes body , but that was bread is 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 physition 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 demonstration ( 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 recreation to speake of the fainyng of the papistes I shal ioyne this Issue in this place that he vnderstandeth 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 condempned of ignoraunce .

In the .lx. leef th auctor 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 , commaundyng them present to eate and drinke that is proponed for them , & yet it is not requisite that the nature of man 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 , grauntyng 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 question ( how ) which he can not conceyue , 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 reason . 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 , 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 men 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 when 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 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 when 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 vnderstanded , 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 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 from the vnfaithfull , So as the same lettre beyng to faithful men 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 consideracion it semeth probable that the other fathers also signifiyng a great secrecie in this mysterye of the sacrament , 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 vnderstanded 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 consideracion in S. Augustins writinges may be euidently gathered , for in some place no man more plainly openeth the substance of the Sacrament , 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 contrary his other playne ●aiyngs & doctrin , but meanyng by the word figure , to signifie a secrete depe mistery hidden from carnal vnderstandyng : 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 iudgement , other carnal circunstances to atteyne the same flesh to be eaten , which in that carnal sence can not be but by wickednes . But what is this to the obeiyng of Christes commaundemet in th institucion 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 commanded without carnall thought or murmuryng in our sensuall diuise howe it can be so . And sainct Augustine in the same place speakyng de communicando passionibus Christi , declareth plainely he meaneth of the Sacrament .

Tertullian speakyng of there present acion Tertul. of Christes very body , in which place he termeth it ( the same body ) speaketh catholiquely in suche phrase as S. Hierome speaketh , and then Tertulilan saith afterwarde as this auctor therin truely bryngeth him forth , that Christ made the bred his body , which bread was in the mouth of the pphet a figure of his body . Wherfore it foloweth by Tertullians confession 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 , them 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 explicacion of the first ( this ) as when Turtullian 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 conuersion as ( Cyprian 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 euidently to Tertullian , who reasonyng against heretiques vseth the commoditie of arguyng , and geueth no doctrine of the Sacrament to further this auctors purpose . And what aduantage should theretiques haue of Tertullian if he should meane , that these wordes , This is my body , had only this sence , This is the figure of my body , hauing himself sayd before , that Christ made bread his body . If so plaine speache to make bread his body , conteineth no more certaintie in vnderstandyng but the figure of a body ? why should not they say , that a body in Christ should euer be spoken of a body in a figure , and so no certaintie of any true body in Christ by Tertullians wordes . This place of Tertullian is no secrete poynte of lernyng , & hath been of Decolampadius & other alleged & by other catholique men answered vnto it , wherof this auctor may not thinke nowe as vpon a wranglyng argument , to satisfie a coniecture diuised , therby to confirme a newe teachyng . Fynally Tertullian termeth it not an onely figure ( whiche this auctor muste proue ) or els he doth nothyng .

Cyprian shal be touched after , when we Cyprian 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 exhibicion : for sainct Hierome speaketh of the representacion of the truth of Christes body , which truth excludeth an only figure . For howsoeuer the visible matter of the sacrament be a fignre , the inuisible parte is a truth : Whiche saincre Hierome sayth is here represented ( that is to say ) made present , which only signification doth not .

Sainct Ambrose shall after declare himselfe , Ambrosius . & it is not denyed , but th auctors in spekyng of the Sacrament vsed these wordes , signe , figure , similitude , token , 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 token , an only similitude , or an only significacion whiche is the issue with this auctor .

As for Sainct Augustine ( ad Bonifacium ) Augustinus . th auctor 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 ) Secundum quendam Bucerus . modum sacramentum corporis Christi , corpus Christi , sacramentum sanguinis Christi , sanguis Christi : At secundum quem modum ? Vt significet tantum corpus & sanguinem Domini absentia ? Absit , Honorari enim & percipi in Symbolis visibilibus corpus & sanguinem Domini , idem 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 Sacrament of the bloud of Christ , the bloud of Christ , But after what maner ? that it should signifie onely the body & bloud absent ? 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 sacrament 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 quendam modum ) 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 iugement concernyng S. Augustin , who affirmeth the very true presence of the thing signified in the sacrament , 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 when we vnderstand the thyng really present that is signified , Which & it wer not in dede in the Sacrament , why shuld it after Bucers true understanding of S. Augustine be honored there ? Arguyng vpon mens speaches , may be without ende , & th auctor vpon 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 contencion , & not what they vtter in the heat of their disputacion , ne to serch the darke & ambiguous places , wherwith to confounde that they speake openly & plainely .

Th auctor bringeth in Theodoret a greke , Theodoretus . 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 translate 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 handled .

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 . Neque enim post sanctificationem , mystica symbola illa propria sua natura egrediuntur , manent enim in priori sua substancia , & figura , & specie , adeoque & videntur , & palpantur , quc̄admodum & antea . Intelliguntur autem quae facta sunt , & creduntur , & adorantur , tanquam ea existentia , quae creduntur . He that translated 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 mystical signes , do not departe awaie out of their owne propre nature , after the halowyng of them . 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 translate after his facion thus . Thou arte taken with thine owne nette , for the Sacramental 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 taken 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 beleued . This is my translation who in the first sentence 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 tokens 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 common translation in englishe dothe playnely and truely expresse , howe soeuer that translator swarued by colour of the word ( tamquam ) which there , after the greke , signifieth the truth & not the similitude only , like as in samet Paule ( Vocat ea quae non sunt tamquam 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 than 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 presence of Christes glorious fleshe , whervnto the deite is vnite : which fleshe . S. Augustine consonantly to this Theodorete said , must be worshipped before it be receyued . The worde worshippyng put here in Englishe is to expresse the worde ( Adorantur ) 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 them , commeth 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. Sacrament signifieth the presence of the body of Christ to be adored , which els were an absurditie , & therfore th auctor toke paine to ease it with other wordes of callyng , beleuyng , reputyng , & estemyng , & for Adoration , Reuerence . 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 sacrament : 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 condempne transubstantiation , because he speketh so of the bread , Thervnto shal be answered when I speake of transubstanciation , whiche shal be 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 in Theodoret , but leaue it to thy iudgement reader , what credite this auctor ought to haue that handleth 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 th understandyng 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 sonne 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 vnderstandyng 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 when 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 . And seyng it is a singuler miracle of Christ wherby to exercise vs in the fayth , vnderstanded 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 expounded 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 heauen , or the. Sacrament , and geueth instructions 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 sacrament , spiritually in the man that receiueth , but really , carnally , corporally , only in heauen . Let vs consider 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 essence 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 really may not haue such restraint , to be referred only to heauen , onles the auctor would deny the substaunce of the godhed , which as it comprehendeth all beyng incomprehensible , & is euery wher without limitation 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 heauen or yearth . As for the termes carnally , & corporaly , as this auctor semeth to vse them , 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 . Nazianzenus de baptismo . sence of carnally , sayth : Christ reigneth not carnally in heauen . And Gregorie Nazianzen sayth : Although Christ shall come in the last day to iudge , so as he shal be 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 sayth , althoughe it shal be 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 spoken of Christes presence in the man that receiued the sacrament 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 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 present in the Sacrament 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 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 sacrament is called the Lords body , and that the broken 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 than 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 when many hostes be offered in the aultare , accordynge to the multitude that shoulde communicate , those many hostes , after consecracion , be not many bodyes of Christe , but of many breades one body of Christ , & yet as we teach in England nowe , in the booke of 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 cannot 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 broken , is a piece of that bread , & euery piece of the bread broken , 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 consecrate , to auoyde the fansie of multiplicacion of Christes body , which in al the hostes , & all partes of the hoostes is but one , not broken , nor distribute by pieces , & yet in a spech to tel , & signifie that is broken , called in name the leauing pieces of the body , portion 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 sounde 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 fraction is in the outwarde signe , & not in the body of Christ , inuisibly present , & signified , so to be present by that visible signe ? The seconde note of this auctor is , touchyng reseruyng which Clement 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 them that be abset . The contrary wherof , appereth by Iustine the Martyr , who testifieth a reseruacion Iustinus apol. ij . to be sent to them that were sycke , who , & they dwell far from the church ( as they do in summe places ) it may by chaunce in the way , or trouble in the sicke man , tary till the morning , or it be receiued . And Cyril writech expressly , Cyrillus ad Calosirium . that in case it so doth , the mystical benediction ( by which termes he calleth the sacrament ) remayneth stil in force . When this auctor findeth faulte , at hangyng vp of the sacrament , he blameth only his owne country & the Isles hereabout , which faulte , linnehod , after he had traueyled other countryes founde here , beyng the maner of custodye in reseruacion otherwise vsed them in other partyes . But one thyng , this auctor should haue noted of Clements words , when he spaketh of fearyng & tremblyng , which & the bread were neuer the holyer , as this auctor teacheth , & but only a signification , why shuld any man feare or tremble , more in their presence , than he doth when 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 significacion ? And peter martyr saith , that words signifie Peter Marty● more clerely , then these signes do , & sayth further in his disputacion 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 foundacion 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 communicate with the Priest , but all the olde prayours & ceremonyes sounded as the people did communicate 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 man might rather make a note of Clementes mynde , that in that case one Priest might receyue alone , & so vpon 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 vpon occasion of this Epistel , which he calleth fayned , speaketh more reuerently of the Sacrament 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 represented , but also spiritually geuen vnto vs in this table , for so I vnderstande 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 vpon the table , as the worde Mensa , a table doth signifie in the .xvi. of th actes , & the .x. to the Corinthi . Actes . 16 i. Co. 10. Now if very Christ himselfe be geuen in the meate , them 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 geuen 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 , 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 institucion be but in figure , man cannot adde of his diuise , any other substance or effect , than the words of christ purport , & so this supper , after this auctors teachyng , in other places of his boke , wher hewould haue it but a signification , shal be a bare memorie of christsdeath , & signifie oniy such communicacion of Christ , as we haue otherwise by faith in that benefite of his passion , without any special communication 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 , & trembling , that he conceiueth euen of an Epistle , which him self sayth is fayned .

This auctor sayth he passeth ouer Ignatius Ignatius Ireneus . & ireneus , & why ? because thei make nothing ( he sayth ) for the papists purposed with the word papist th auctor plaieth at his pleasure . But it shal be euident , that Irene doth plainly confounde this auctors purpose , in the denial of the true presence of Christs very flesh in the sa crament : who although he vse not the wordes real , & substancial , yet he doth effectually comprehend in his speach of the sacrament , the vertue , & sirēght of those words . And for the truth of the sacrament , is Ireneus specially alleged , in so much , as Melanghton , when he writeth to ●ip . 〈…〉 ict . Occolampadius , that he will allege none , but such as speake plainly , he allegeth Ireneus for one , as appereth by his said Epistle to Oecolampadius . And Oecolampadius him self is not trubled somuch with answeryng any other to shape any maner of euasion , as to answer Ireneus , in whom he notably stumbleth . And Peter Martyr , in his worke , graunteth Irene , to be specially alleged , to whom ( when he goeth about to answer ) a man may euidently see how he masketh him self . And this auctor bryngeth in Clements epistel , of which no great count is made , although it be not contempned , & passeth ouer ireneus , that speaketh euidently in the matter , & was as old as Clement or not much yonger . And because , Ignatius was of that age , & is alleged by Theodorete , to haue writen in his Epistle ( ad Theodorete Dialogo .iij. Smirnenses ) wherof may appere his faith of the mistery of the Sacrament , it shal serue to good purpose , towrite in the words of the same ignatius hervpon the credite of the said Theodorer , whom this auctor so much commendeth , the words of ignatius be these , Eucharistias & oblationes non admittunt , ꝙ non confiteantur , eucharistiam esse carnem seruatoris nostri Iesu Christi , q̄ pro peccatis nostris , passa est , quam pater sua benignitate suscitauit . Which words , be thus much in English They do not admit ( Eucharistias & oblations ) be cause they do not confesse , Eucharistiam , 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 ) can not be wel Englished , beyng a word of mistery , and ( as Ireneus openeth both the partes of the sacrament , heuenly & 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 open 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 Ignatius , nor Irene neither , as I haue before declared . But this is a color of Rhethorike called ( reiection ) 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 commentaries vpon dionisius , & pledeth therwith the forme of the words really , corporally , sensibly , & naturally wherof two , that is to say , really & sensibly , the olde auctors in sillables vsed not , for somuch as I haue red , but corporally & naturaly they vsed , spekyng of this sacrament . This dionise spake of this mystery after the dignitie of it , not contendyng with any other for the truth 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 Sacrament 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 holden here with the handes of all men , and geueth himselfe to them that will clapse and embrace him . Thus sayth Chrisostome confessyng to be aboue , and here the same thynges at ones , not onely in mens brestes , but handes 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 sences 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 th adoration 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 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 Tertullian , where Tertullian 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 . Tertulian , 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 contrauersy of readyng , & must be so vnderstanded , 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 religion , that is to say , in the worde & regeneration , & the Sacrament of bread and wyne ( as this auctor ter 〈…〉 i the 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 Sacrement of bread & wyne ( by Origens rule ) Christ shuld be manifestie & exhibitie vnto vs after the scriptures , So as the Sacrement of bread & wyne , should not onely signifie Christ ( that is to say ) preach him , but also exhibite him sensible ( 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 commaunded , when he said , take eat , &c. diuersly from thother two waies , in whiche by Christes spirite , we be made participaunt , of the benefit of his passion wroght in his manhode . But in this Sacrament , we be made participaunt , of his Godhode , by his humanite exhibite vnto vs for fode , & so in this mysterie , we receyue him man & god , & in thother , by meane of his god head , be participat , of the effect of his passion suffred in his manhead . In this Sacrament Christes manhead is represented & truely present , wher vnto the godhead is moste certainly vnited , whereby we receyue a pledge of the regeneration 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 Sacrament 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 Sacrament 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 sensibly in the Sacrament : then is he in the Sacrament 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 presence with in mans 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 sensibly 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 them 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 th understandyng of these wordes oftener than els wer necessarie , these thynges wel considered , no man dothe more plainely confounde this auctor then this saiyng of Origene , as he allegeth it , whatsoeuer other sentencies he woulde pyke out of Origene , when he vseth libertie of allegories to make him seme to say otherwise , and as I haue declared afore , to vnderstand Christes wordes spiritually , is to vnderstand them , as the spirite of God hath taught the churche , and to esteme gods mysteries moste true in the substaunce of the thing so to be , althoughe the maner excedeth our capacites , whiche is a spirituall vnderstandyng of the same , and here also this auctor putteth in for spiritually , figuratiuely , to deceyue the reader .

As touching Cyprtan ( 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 Melanthon in his Epistle , to Occolampadius did those hym for one , whose wordes in Melanthon . th affirmation of Christes true presence in the Sacrament had no ambiguitie ? And lyke iudgement , doth Hippinus in his booke before Hippinus alleged geue of Cyprianus fayth in the Sacrament , whiche two , I allege to contrauaile the iudgement of this auctor , who speaketh of his owne head , as it liketh him , playnge , with the wordes grosse , and carnal , & vsyng the worde represent as though it expressed a figure only . Hippinus in the sayd booke allegeth Cyprian to saye . libro . 3. ad quirinum , Cyprianus . lib. 3. ad Quirinum . that the bodye of our lorde is our sacrifice in fleshe , meanyng as hippinus sayth , ( Eucharistiam ) , wherin S. Augustine , as hippinus sayth further in the prayor for his mother , speakynge of the bread and wyne of Eucharistia , sayth that in it 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 & oblation , 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 . Hippinus S. Augustine sayth ad Ianuarium , to entre in and be receyued with the mouthe of them that eate . These be hippinus verye wordes , who because he is I thynke in this auctors opinion taken for no Papist , I rather speake in his wordes then myne owne , whom in an other parte of this worke , this auctor dothe as it were for charitie by name , slaunder to be a Papiste , wherfore the sayd hippinus wordes shal be as I thynke more weighty to oppresse this auctors talke than 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● hauyng brought furth the iudgement of Hippinus & Melancton , howe they vnderstand sainct Cyprians fayth , whiche thou reader oughtest to regarde more then the assertion of this auctor , specially when 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 . Th allegatiō An issue . of Hilarie toucheth specially me , who do saye and mainteyne that I cited Hilarie truely ( as the copie did serue ) and did translate 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 than thother did , & therfore that I did translate was not so much to th aduauntage 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 iam in●eparabilem sibi homo natus assumpsit , & naturam carnis suae ad naturam eternitatis , sub sacramento nobis communicandoe carnis admiscuit . Ita enim omnes vnum sumus , quia & in christo pater est & christus in nobis est . Quisquis ergo naturaliter patrem in christo negabit , neget prius non naturaliter vel se in christo , vel christum Sibi inesse , quia in christo pater , & christus in nobis vnum in iis esse nos faciunt . Si verè igitur , carnem corporis nostri christus assumpsit , & verè homo ille , qui ex maria natus fuit , Christus est , nosque vère sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus , & per hoc vnum erimus , quia pater in eo est , & ille in nobis : quomodo voluntatis vnitas asseritur , cum naturalis per Sacramentum proprietas perfectae sacramentum 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 communi● 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 denye the father to be naturally in Christ , he must 〈◊〉 first either him selfe to be naturally in Christ , or Christe not to be naturally in him , for the beynge of the father in Christ and the beyng of Christ in vs , maketh vs to be one in them . And therfore if Christ hath taken verely the fleshe of our body , and the man that was borne of the virgine Marie is verely Christ , and also we verely receyue vnder a mysterie the fleshe of his bodye , by meanes wereof we shal be one , for the father is in Christe and Christe in vs : howe shall that be called the vnitie of will , when the naturall proprietie brought to passe by the Sacrement , is the Sacrament of perfite vnitie ?

This translation differeth from myne other , whereat this auctor findeth faulte , but wherein ? the worde ( Vero ) was in the other copie an adiectiue , & I ioyned it with ( Mysterio ) and therfore said the true mysterie , whiche worde ( mysterie ) neded no suche adiectiue , ( true ) , for euery mysterie is true of it selfe . But to say as Hilarie truely correct saythe , that we receyue vnder the mysterie , truely , the fleshe of Christes body that word ( truely ) so placed , sitteth furthe liuely the reall presence , and substantiall presence , of that is receyued , & repeteth againe the same that was before sayd , to the more vehemencie of it . So as this rorrection is better then my first copie , and accordyng to this , correction is Hilarius alleged by Melangton to Decolampadius , for the same purpose I allege him . An other alteration in the translation ( thou scist reader ) in the worde ( Perfectae ) whiche in my copie was ( Perfecta ) & so was ioyned to ( Proprictas , ) whiche nowe in the genetiue case ioyned to ( Vnitatis ) geueth an excellent sence to the dignitie of the Sacrament , 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 them . 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 accompteth faith for one Then he commeth 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 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 when this is brought to passe , them 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 , Hilarius . 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 , 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 , geuen to vs in this Sacrament , 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 discussion of Cyril . This hilarie was before sainct Augustine , and was knowen both of him & S. Hierom , who called him ( Tuba● latini eloquii ) against th arriās . Neuer manne founde fault at this notable place of Hilarie . Now let vs consider howe the auctor of this booke forgetteth him selfe , to call Christe in vs naturally by his godhead , whiche were then to make vs all gods by nature , whiche is ouer greatan absurditie , and Christe in his diuine nature dwelleth onely in his father naturally : and in vs by grace . But as we reaceiue him in the Sacrament of his fleshe and bloud , if we receyue hym worthely : so dwelleth he in vs naturally , for the mutuall communication of our nature and his . And therfore , where this auctor reaporteth , Hilarie to make no difference betwene our vnyon to Christe in Baptisme , and in the supper , let hym truste , hym no more , that told hym so , or if this auctor wil take vpon 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 vpon 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 them ( that I haue red ) , writynge againste the Sacrament : 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 .

Th auctor 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 th auctor trauayleth ●ere to expounde the worde ( corporally ) which is a sore worde in Cyrill against this auctor , and therfore taketh labour to tempere it with the worde ( corporaliter ) in sainct Paule , applyed to the dwellynge of the diuinitie in Christ , and yet not content therwith , maketh further serche and would gladly haue somewhat to confirme 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 Cyrillus in Ioan , 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 benediction , 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 vnderstandeth the wordes corporally & spiritually , That is to saye , when Christ vniteth hym selfe to vs as man , whiche he dothe , he doth , geuynge his bodye in this Sacrament to suche as worthely receyue it , then he dwelleth in them corporally , whiche Christe was before in them spiritually , orels they could not worthely receyue him to th effecte 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 th auctor 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 th allegation 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 th originall faulte to hym : as he well deseruethe to be , as he is noted gyltie of it , whose reputacion deceyued many in the matter of the Sacrament , and beynge well noted , howe the same Oecolampadius corrupteth Cyrill : it maye 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 Oecolampadius translate in this wise . Nonne igitur , eum 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 introtrudens , & 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 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 number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 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 declaration , 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 conclusion of him that attributeth to that is seen in Christ , the nature of his humanite , th office of th appostle , and so therby semeth to make in Christ two seuerall persons , estemyng that is sene , another sonne from the second person : sheweth howe that man so , ‡ ‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . concludyng doth affirme an absurditie , that is to say , ‡ ‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 declareth ‡ ‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that ‡ ‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mysterye ‡ ‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of our ( humanam cōmixtionem ) for so hath the publique translacion , and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which should signifie catyng of a man , as Decolampadius would haue it , & cannot with this construction to make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the accusatiue case , haue any sence , and then that man so concludyng , may be sayd therewith ‡ ‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leadyng the mynde of them that beleue , in to slender & darke imaginacions or thoughes , & so ‡ ‡ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 going about to bryng vnder mans 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 writen 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 th interrogation & th addition of ( enim ) made the nominatiue case , then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , depend of it , because of the gender , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of th article 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 translation ) is expressed with these two wordes humanam cōmixtionem .

This one place , and their were no molike , maye shewe with what conseieuce Decolampadius handled the matter of the Sacrament : who was lerned in the greke tongue , moost exercised in translacions , and had ones written a grammer of the greke , & yet in this place abuseth him selfe , and the reader in peruerting Cyril , against al congruites of the speach against the propre signification of the words , against the conuenient connection 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 , concludeth in th end 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 sacrament , we must exclude all grossenes , and yet for the truth of gods secrete worke in the sacrament , 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 vnderstandyng , after the simplicite of a Christen 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 engendred , 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 repent 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 . Nissenus Grego . Nazian zenus . Nazianzen , 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 , 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 conueniently sayd of th only 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 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 Ioan . 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 Sacrament . 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 sanctification , 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 , th effect of the truth serueth . These be Emissenes saiynges , declaryng his fayth plainely of the Sacrament , in suche termes , as can not be wrested , nor writhed , who speaketh of a turnyng & couuersion of the visible creatures , into the substaunce of Christes body and bloud , he sayth not into the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud , nor figure of Christes body & bloud , wherby he should meane a onely sacramentall conuersion , as this auctor would haue it , but he sayth , into the substaunce of Christes body and bloud , declaryng the truth of Christes body & bloud to be in the Sacrament . For the wordes ( substaunce ) and ( truth ) be of one strenght , and shewe a difference from a figure , wherin the truth is not in dede present , but signified to be absent . And because it is a worke supernaturall , and a great miracle . This Emissen represseth mannes carnall reason , and succurreth the weke fayth , with remembraunce of like power of God in the creation of the worlde , whiche were brought forth out of tyme by Emissen , if Christes body were not in substaunce present , as Emissens wordes be , but in figure only as this auctor teacheth . And where this auctor coupleth together the two Sacramentes , of Baptisme , and of the body and bloud of Christ , as though there were no difference in the presence of Christ in either , he putteth him selfe in daunger , to be reproued of malice , or ignoraunce . For although these mysteryes be both great , and mans regeneracion in baptisme is also a mysterye and the secrete worke of God , & hath a great maruayle in that effecte : yet it diffreth from the mysterye , of the Sacrament , touchyng the maner of Christes presence and the workyng of th effecte 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 Sacrament is expressely ministred , where our soule is regenerate & made spiritual , but not our body in dede , but in hope onely that for the spirite of Christ dwellyng in vs , our mortall bodyes shal be resuscitate , and as we haue in Baptisme be buried with Christ : so we be assured , to be parte takers of his resurrection . And so in this Sacrament we be vnite to Christs manhode 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 vnion representeth vnto vs the high estate of our glorification , wherin body & sowle shall in the generall resurrection , by a meruaylous regeneration of the body , be made both spiritual , the speciall pledge whereof , we receyue in this Sacrament , & therfore it is the sacrament ( as hilarie saith ) of perfect vnitie . And albeit the soule of man be more precious , than the bodye , & the nature of the godhead in Christe , more excellent than the nature of man in hym glorified , & in Baptisme , ma●nes soule is regenerate in the vertue and effect of Christes passion & bloud , christes godhead present there without the reall presence of his humanitie : although for these respects th exellēce of Baptisme is great : Yet because the mistery of the Sacrament of th altare , where Christ is present , both man & god , in th effectual vnite , that is wrought bitwene oure bodyes , our soules & Christes , in the vse of this Sacrement signifieth the perfect redemption of oure bodyes in the general resurrection , which shal be th ende & cōsūmation of al oure felicitie . This Sacrament of perfite vnitie , is the mysterye of our perfite astate , when body & soule shal be all spiritual , & hath so a degre of exellence , for the dignitie that is estemed in euerie ende & perfection , wherfore the worde ( spirituall ) is a necessarie worde , in this Sacrament , 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 sacrament 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 Sacrament , there is nothyng carnal but al spirituall , takyng the word carnal , as it signifieth grossely in mans carnal iudgement : So where the receyuers of that foode bryng carnal lustes or desirs , carnall fansies or imaginations with them , they receyue the same precious foode vnworthely to their iudgement and condempnation . For they iudge not truely , after the simplicitie of a true Christen fayth , of the very presence of Christes bodye . And this suffiseth to wype out , that this auctor hath spoken of Emissene againste the truthe .

As touchyng S. Ambrose , this auctor taketh a great entreprise to wrestel with him , whose plaine & euident wordes must nedes be a rule to trie his othere wordes by , if any might be writhed . What can be more plainly spoken , then S. Ambrose speketh , when he sayth these words . It is bread before the consecration but after it is the bodye of Christe . By the worde consecration , is signified ( as it is here placed ) gods omnipotent worke . wherfore , in this place it comprehendeth asmuch as Emissen said in these wordes ( he conuerteth by the secrete powre of his word ) God is the worker , & so consecration signifith , the whole action of his omnipotencie , in workynge the substaunce of this high mysterie , and therfore the definition of the worde consecration , as it is generally taken , cannot be a rule to th understandyng 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 Melācton writeth Melancton . to Oecolampadius , S. Ambrose would neuer haue trauailed , to accumulate so many miracles as he doth , speaking of this matter to declare gods omnipotencie & he had not thought the nature of bread to be chaunged in this mysterie . These be melanctons very wordes . Nowe to answer the question , ( 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 , when he writeth the wordes before rehersed .

It is bread before the consecration , but after it is the body of christ , Can a change be more plainly declared ? The nerer way for this auctor had ben to haue ioyned Ambrose with Clement , & called him fained by the Papistes , rather then after th effect 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 sounde fourme of doctrine , for S. Paule speaketh & teacheth 1. Ti. 4. thus , that the creatures be sanctified 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 sanctified 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 Sacramentally , whiche is a strange phrase not expressynge there Cyprians mynde , and farre discrepaunt from the doctrine here .

And in an other place this auctor sayth , Fo. 85. Pagi . 2. that as hotte & burnyng yron , is yron still , & yet hath the force of fier : so the bread & wyne be turned in to the vertue of Christes fleshe and bloud . By whiche similitude bread may conceyue vertue , as yron couceyueth fyere , & then 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 dissenteth from that he vttereth for truth him selfe , & walketh in a maze , impugnynge the verye truth in this Sacrament , & would haue that taken 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 diction of the heuenly wordes , it is called another kynde of thyng , but after the consecration , is signified the body & bloud of Christ . And another speache thus . Before the consecration , it is called an other thyng , but after the consecration 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 Consecration , & called the body of Christ after the consecration . 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 consecration ? & likewise when 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 absent . Was not Christ the true sonne of God , because th angel sayd he shal be called the sonne 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 consecration , aswell as to the body of Christ after the consecration , therby to declare howe in his vnderstandyng this worde ( Call ) signifieth asmuch truth in the thyng where vnto it is added after consecration 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 consecration . 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 th auctorite 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 second 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 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 Sacrament 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 graunteth it soundeth much against him , & fauoreth his aduersaries but with conferryng & consideryng , he trusteth to altre it from the true vnderstandyng . And not to expound , but confounde the matter , he ioyneth in speach the Sacrament of baptisme with this sacrament ( which shifte this auctor vsed vntruly in Hilarie ) & would now beare in hand that the presence of Christ were none otherwise in this sacrament them in Baptisme , ( whiche is not so ) for in this Sacrament , Christes humanitie & godhead is really present , & in Baptisme his godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud , in whiche we be wasshed , not requiring by scripture any real presence for dispensation of that mystery , as I haue before touched discussyng th answer of Emissen , where as Chrisostome speakyng of Chrisosto . de Sacerdo . li. 3. this sacrament whereof I haue before spoken , 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 wondre 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 Sacrament , how bread is chaunged 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 man should aske , and yet it is the true Catholique fayth , to be truely so wrought . For as Emissene sayth : he that is th auctor of it , he is the witnesse of it . And therfore I wil make it an issue with this An issue . So this auctor hath nowe in this worke confessed the translacion of the catechisme , which one in communication 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 man , that the bread is to be beleued fleshe , for whiles our Lorde walked in flesh , and receiued nurrishment 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 condescendyng to our infirmitie , the mystical meat , appeareth suche to vs , as those we haue been accustomed vnto . Hitherto I haue faithfully expressed Thiophilactes wordes , out of Latyn of ●ecolampadins translation , without termyng the substanciall poyntes , otherwise than 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 , when he sayth . Speciem quidem panis & vini seruat , in virtutem Theophilact . autem carnis & sanguinis transelementat , 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 vnderstanded to agre with the playne place of Theophilacte vpon Sainct Iohn , and vpon 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 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 , nor were not alleged for his . Nowe when this author sayth : they were not Theophilus Alexandrinus wordes , that is a large negatiue , and wil be hardely proued otherwise then by addition of the auctors knowlege , for any thyng that he can fynde , and so there shal be no absurdite to graunte it . And thus I retourne to myne Issue with this auctor , that Theophilacte himselfe hathe no suche meanynge expressed in wordes as this auctour attributeth vnto him , but an euident contrarye meanynge , sauyng herein I will agree with this auctour , that Theophilacte mente not grossely , sensibly , and carnally , as these wordes sounde in carnarall mennes iudgementes . For we maye not so thinke of Gods mysteryes , the worke wherof is not carnall , nor corporall , for the maner of it . But the maner spirituall , and yet in the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ , because Christ is in his very true fleshe present , he maye be sayde so carnally present , and naturally , after Hylary , and corporally after Cyrill , vnderstandyng the wordes of the truthe of that is present , Christes verye body and fleshe , and not of the maner of the presence , whiche is onely spirituall , supernaturall , and aboue mannes cappacitie . And therfore a highe mysterye , a greate myracle , a wonderfull worke : whiche it is holsome to beleue simplye with a syncere fayth , and daungerous to serche and examyne with a curious imaginacion , suche as idelines and arrogaunce would tempte a man vnto , and by diuisyng of a figure , or metaphore , bryng it within the compasse of our buysie reason .

This auctor , trauayleth to answer Saint Hierom. Hierome , and to make him the easyer for him to deale with , he cutteth of that foloweth in the same Saincte Hierome , whiche should make the matter open and manifest : howe effectually Sainct Hierome speaketh of the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud . Ther is ( sayth Sainct Hierome ) as great difference 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 Hierons words in this place . By the latter part wherof , appeareth playnely how Sainct Hierom meaneth of Christes body in the Sacrament , 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 , Tertullian sayth , ( Figura non esset , nisi veritatis Tertullianus 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 Sacrament . And therfore , regarde not reader , what this auctor sayth : For S. Hierom affirmeth playnely Christes true body to be in the Sacrament , the consecration wherof although Saincte Hierome attributeth to the ministre : Yet we must vnderstand him , that he taketh God , for the auctor and worker , not withstandyng by reason of the 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 comme , where as Saincte Hierome calleth them the figure of Christes body in the Sacrament , and therfore dothe fation his argumente in this sence . If those breades that were but a figure , required so muche clennesse in them that shoulde eate them , that they might not eate of them , whiche a daye or two before , had lien with there wyues : what clennesse is required in him that shoulde make the bodye of Christ ? Wherby thou maist see here this auctor hath reserued this notable place of Saincte Hierome , to the latter ende , that thou shouldest in the ende aswell as in the middes see him euidently 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 . Sedulius Leo. Fulgentius 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 by conspiration , and in the ende euer hitherto extincte and quenched . First was Bertrame , Then Berengarius , Then 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 , th auctor 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 controle 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 iudgement and age , and yet he is . vi 〈…〉 . C. yeres olde at the lest , and I say at the lest , because he is rekonned of summe , 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 be to be red , translate 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 substance 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 confessed , vnite with Christes body . And so a man 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 contencion 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 ( 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 transubstāciacion . In this fourth boke th auctor 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 sacrament be onely a figure , and the bodye and bloud of Christ be there onely figuratiuely , wherto should this auctor dispute of euell mennes eatyng , when 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 remembryng Christs benefites , with reuoluyng them 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 them 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 monte . 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 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 contention with this auctor , who sayeth euel men eate but the Sacramental bread , whervnto I replie , no more do good men neyther , if this auctors doctrine of the Sacrament be trewe , seyng he will haue it but a figure . If this auctor wil say th effecte 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 leaf , if we worthely vse them . Th ordinance 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 substance , 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 Ioan . 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 substance of Baptisme , whither it be ministred to good or euell . But S. Paule to the Corinthians declareth it 2. Cor. 2 notably in these wordes . We be the good sauor of Christ in them that be salued , & them that perishe . Here S. Paule noteth the sauor good , and one to diuerse men : but after the diuersite in men , of diuerse effectes in them that is to saye , the sauor of life , and the sauor of deathe , whiche sayng of S. Paule the greke scolies gathered by ( Occumenius ) open and declare with similitudes in nature very aptely . The dowe ( they say ) and the betel , shall feade both vpon one oyntemē● , and the betel dye of it , and the done strenghthened by it . The diuersite in th effecte , 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 sacramentes 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 Sacrament , of Christes body and bloud to be always as of it selfe it is by Christes ordinaunce , in the vnderstandyng whereof , this auctor maketh variaunce , and wold haue it by Christes ordinaunce 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 Sacrament is otherwise dispensed then it is truely taught to be by preachyng . Wherfore if it be more then a figure , as it is in deade , & if by Christes ordynance it hath present 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 th effect . For the diuersite of th effect , is occasioned in them that receyue as before is proued . And then 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 present because euel men receiue it , that shal be no argument , for the good seed when it was sowen did fall in the euell grounde , and althought christ dwelleth not in the euel man , yet he maye be receyued of the euell man to his condempnation , because he receyue him not to glorifie him as of God , as S. Paule sayth ( Non dijudicans corpus domini ) , not estemyng our Lordes bodye , And to all that euer this auctor bryngeth to proue that euel men eare not the body of christ , ( may be said wortely ) that spiritually they eate it , not besides the sacrament , & in the sacrament they eate it , not effectually to lyfe , but cōdēpnation . 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 eaten for lyfe , those that vnworthely eate condempnation , 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 , thus answerith the Scripture with the particuler saynges of Cyprian . Athanase , Basyl , hierome , and Ambrose .

As for sainct Augustine whiche this auctor Augusti . allegeth ( De ciuitate dei ) , the same S. Augustine doth playnly say there in the place alleged , howe the good and euell receyue the same sacrement , and addith but not with like proffite , whiche wordes this auctor suppresseth and therfore dealith not syncerely . As for sainct Augustin shal be herafter more playnely declared . Finally , he that receyueth worthely the body and bloud of Christ hath euerlasting life , dwelleth in Christ , & Christ in him , he that receyueth vnworthely , which can be onelye in the Sacrament receyueth not life , but condempnation . But to encountre directly with this auctor , where he opposith by interrogation , and would be anuswered , whither an vnrepentant synner that receyueth the Sacrment , 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 vnrepentant synner receyue Christ , but onely in the sacrament vnworthely ? & howe could he receyue him vnworthely & he were not there ? but to anuswere to the question , I answere no : for it foloueth not , he receyued him , ( Ergo ) he hathe him in him , for the vessel being not mete , he departed from him , because he was a synner , in whom he dwelleth not . And where this auctor now become a questioniste , maketh two questions of Christes bodye , and his spirite , as tough Christes body might be deuided from his spirite , he supposeth other to be as ignorant as himselfe . For the lerned man will answere that the euel man by force of gods ordinance in the substance of the Sacrament receyued in deade Christes very body there present , 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 Sacrament , and the dwellyng of Christes spirite in an euel man , whiche by Scripture can not be , ne is by any Catholique man affirmed . For sainct Paule saythe . In him that receyuethe vnworthely remaynethe iudgement , and condempnation . And yet Sainct Pauls wordes playnelye importe that those did eate the verye bodye of Christe , whiche did eate vnworthely , and therfore were gyltie of the body and bloud of Christ . Now reader 1. Cor. 11 consider what is before wryten , and thou shalt easelie see what a fonde cunclusion this auctor gathereth , in the. 97. leafe , as though the teachyng were that the same man , 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 , whom taryed not with all that receyued him in outward apparance . And there is noted a difference that summe beleued in Christ , and yet Christ committed Ioh. 3. not himselfe to them . And the Gospell prayseth them that heare the worde of God and Luce. 11. kepe it , signifiyng many to here the worde of God and not to kepe it , as they that receyue Christ by his ordinaunce in the Sacrament , and yet because thei receyue him not accordyng to th entent of his ordinance worthely , they are so much the worse therby , through ther owne malyce . And therfore to conclude this place with th auctor who soeuer eateth Christes fleshe and drynketh his bloud hathe euerlastynge life with Saincte Paulles exposition , if he dothe it worthely , or elles by the same Saincte Paule he hathe condempnacion . 1. Cor. 11

In the .xcvij. leafe and the seconde colūne , th auctor 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 Manna was , the eatynge wherof , vnworthely , and vnfaythfully was no gilte of Christes body . Erasmus noteth these wordes of Saincte Erasmus Paul , to be gilty of our Lords body , to proue the prefence of Christes body there , who com pareth suche an offender to the iewes that did shedde Christes bloud maliciouslye , as those do prophane it vnprofitably , in which sence the greke commentaryes do also expounde it . And where this auctor bryngeth in the wordes of Saincte Paule , as it were to poynte out the mattiere . Let a man examyne himselfe , and so eate of the bread , and 1. Cor. 11 drynke of the cuppe , for he that eateth vnworthely . &c. These wordes of examinyng , and so eatyng , declare the thyng to be one , ordred to be eaten , and all the care to be vsed on our syde , to eate worthely , or els Saincte Paule had not sayd , and so eate . And when Saincte Paule ●ayth eate iudgemente , and this auctour wyll remembre himselfe , he muste call iudgement the effecte of that is eaten , and not the thyng eaten : For iudgement is neyther spirituall meate nor corporall , but the effecte of the eatynge of Christe in euell men , who is saluation to good , and iudgement to euel . And therfore as good men eatyng Christ , haue saluation , so euell men eatyng Christ , haue condempnation , and so for the diuersitie of the eaters of Christes bodye , foloweth as they be worthye and vnworthy , the effecte of condempnacion or lyfe , Christes Sacrament and his worke also in the substance , of that Sacrament beyng alwayes one , and what so euer this auctor talketh otherwise in this matter is mere trifles . And yet he goth about ( because he will make all thynge clere , ) to answer suche authours as the Papistes he sayth brynge for there Augusti . purpose . And first he begynneth with sainct Augustine who wryteth as playuelye against this auctours mynde , as I would haue diuised it , if I had no conscience of truth more then I see sum haue , and might with a secrete wishe haue altred S. Augustineas I had liste . And therfore here I make a playne issue with this auctour , that in the serchyng An issue . of Sainct Augustine , he hath trusted his man , 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 manducat & 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 th appostel 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 sacrament , 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 man before , that durst in a comen welthe , where lerned men be , publish suche an vntruth as this is , to be answered in a tong that men knowe . Yet Peter Martyr wrote in Latyn , and reioyseth not , I thinke , to haue his lyes in English . I will bryng in here an other place of sainct Augustine to this purpose . Illud etiam De verbis dni . 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 cum caeteris discipulis , sicut apertius Lucas Euange lista declarat , manducaret , & biberet , mansit in Christo , Aut Christus in eo ? Multi denique qui vel corde ficto carnem illam manducant & sanguinem bibunt , vel cum manducauerint & biberint , apostatae fiunt , nunquid manent in Christo aut Christus in eis ? Sed profecto , est quidam modus manducandi illam carnem & bibendi illum sanguinem , quomodo qui manducauerit & biberit in Christo manet & Christus in eo ? Non ergo quocunque modo quisque manducauerit carnem Christi & biberit sanguiuem Christi manet in Christo & in illo christus . Sed certo quodam modo , quem modum vtique ipse videbat , quando ista dicebat . The englisse of these wordes is this . That same , that he also sayth , who eateth my flesh and drynketh my bloud , dwelleth in me and I in him , howe shall we vnderstande it ? May we vnderstande also them of whome the Apostle spake , that they did eate to them selfe , and drynke iudgement , when they did eate the same flesh and drinke the same bloud , the fleshe it selfe , the bloud it selfe ? did not Iudas the mycked seller and betrayer of his maister , when he did eate , and drynke ( as Lucas the euangeliste declareth ) the first Sacrament of the flesh and bloud of Christ made with his owne handes , dwell in Christe or Christe in him ? Finally many that with a fayned hearte eate that flesh and drynke the bloud , or when they haue eaten and dronken become apostatas , do not they dwell in Christ or Christ in them ? But vndowtedly there is a certayne maner of eatyng that fleshe , and drynkyng that bloud , after whiche maner , who so euer eateth and drynketh , dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him . Therfore not in what so euer maner any man eateth the fleshe of Christ , and drynketh the bloud of Christ , he dwelleth in christ and Christ in him , but after a certayne maner , whiche maner he sawe when he sayde these wordes . This is the sence of Saincte Augustines saiynge in Latyn , wherby appeareth the fayth of Sainct Augustine to be in the Sacrament , to be eaten and dronken , very body and bloud of Christ , which for the substance of the Sacrament , euel men receyue as good men do , that is to say , as Sainct Augustin doth poynte it out by his wordes , the same flesh , and the same bloud of Christ , with suche an expresse speache , as he would exclude all difference , that diuise of figure might imagine , and therfore sayth ( ipsam car nem , ipsum sanguinem . ) Whiche signifyeth the selfe same , in dead , not by name onely as the auctor of the booke would haue Saincte Augustine vnderstanded , and when that appeareth , as it is moost manifeste , that Iudas receyued the same beynge wycked , that good men do , howe the same is before the recept by gods omnipotencye present in the visible Sacrament , and so not receyued by the onely instrument of fayth , whiche in euell men is not lyuely , but by the instrument of the mouthe , wherein it entreth with the visible element . And yet as Saincte Augustine sayth , dwelleth not in him that so vnworthely receiueth , because the effect of dwellyng of Christe is not in him that receyueth by suche a maner of eatyng , as wycked men vse . Wherby S. Augustine teacheth , the diuerse effecte to ensue of the diuersite of the eatyng , & not of any diuersite of that whiche is eaten , whither the good man , or euell man recyue the Sacrament : If I would here encombre the reader , I coulde bryng forth many mo places of saincte Augustine to the confusion and reproufe of this auctors purpose , and yet notwithstandyng to take awaye that he might saye of me , that I waye not Saincte Augustine , I thynke good to allege & bryng forth the iudgement of Martyn Bucer , touchyng saincte Augustine , who vnderstandeth saincte Augustine clere contrary to this auctor , as maye playnely appeare by that the sayde Bucer writeth in fewe wordes in his Epistell dedicatorye of the greate worke he sente abrode of his enarracions of the Gospelles , where his iudgement of Sainct Augustine in this poynte he vttereth thus . Quoties scribit etiam Iudam ipsum corpus & sanguinem Domini sumpsisse ? Nemo itaque auctoritate . S. patrum dicet christum in sacra coena absentem esse . The sence in English is this . Howe often wryteth he ( speakyng of Sainct Augustine ) Iudas also to haue receiued the selfe body and bloud of our Lorde ? No man therfore by the auctoritie of the fathers can saye Christe to be absente in the holye soupper . Thus sayth Bucer who vnderstandeth Saincte Augustine , as I haue before alleaged him , and gathereth there of a conclusion that no man can by the fathers saiynges proue Christe to be absente in the holye soupper . And therfore by Bucers iudgemente , the doctrine of this auctour , can be in no wise Catholique as dissentynge frome that hathe been before taught and beleued . Whither Bucer wyll styl continue in that he hath so solenly published to the world , and by me here alleaged : I can not tell , and whither he do , or no , it maketh no matter , but thus he hathe taught in his latter iudgement , with A great protestation that he speaketh without respecte other then to the truthe , wherin because he semed to dissent from his freundes he sayth , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Whiche wordes haue an imitation of an older sayng , and be thus muche to saye . ( Socrates is my frend , Truth is my best beloued , Socrates . and the churche most regarded , ) & with this ( Bucer ) closith his doctrine of the sacrament , after he knewe al that zwinglius , & Oecolampadius 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 sacrament to be the truthe . So as this auctor can haue no foundation vpon eyther to maynten his figuratiue speach , or the matter of this fourth booke , whiche his wordes playnely impugne sainct Hierome in his commentaties Hierome . vpon the prophete Malachie hath first this sentence . Possumus panem , idest corpus christi , quando indigni accedimus ad altare , & sordidi mundum sanguinem bibimus . We defile the bread , that is to saye , the bodye of christ when 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 & sanguinem . ) He that vnworthly receyueth the body & bloud of Christ defyleth the mysteries . Can any wordes be more manifest & euident to declare S. Hieroms mynde howe in the visible sacrament 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 entent , would by many conceytes furnishe & further his matters , & therfore playeth with our ladyes smyling rocking hir child & many good mowes , so vnsemely for his person that it maketh me almost forget him & my selfe also . But with such matterhe filleth his leaues forgettyng himselfe maketh mention of the cathechisme by him translate , th originall wherof , confuteth these two partes of this booke in few words being prynted in germany , wherin besides the matter wryten , is setforth in pictur the maner of the ministring of this sacra ment , where is the altare with candel light let forth the priest apparelled after the old sort , 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 children , which is as sclendre an excuse as euer was harde , & none at al when th originall is loked on .

Emissene to stirre vp mens deuotion cumyng Emissen to receyue this Sacrament , requireth the roote and foundation therof , in the mynde of man as it ought to be & therfore exorteth men to take the sacrament with thande of the harte , & drinke with the dranght of the inwarde man , whiche men must nedes do that will worthely repare to this feaste . And as Emissene speaketh these deuoute wordes of thin warde office of the receyuer , so dothe he in declaration of the mystrie shewe , howe the Inuisible priest with his secrete power by his worde doth conuert the visible cratures in to the substance of his body and bloud , whereof I haue before entrated . This auctor vpon these wordes deuontly spoken by Emissene say the there is required no corporall presence of Christes precious bodye in the Sacrament , continuynge in his ignoraunce what the worde corporall meaneth . But to speake of Emissene if by his fay the , the verye bodye and bloud of Christe were not present vpon the altare , why dothe he calle it a reuerend altare ? why to be fed there with spirituall meates ? and why should fayth be required to lake vpon the bodye and bloud of Christ , that is not there on th altare , 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 th outwarde 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 presence but in figure ? why should not Emissene reather haue folowed the plaine spech of th angel 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 heauen , and downe with th altare 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 from this auctors teaching , as may be , and yet from him he taketh occasion to speake against adoration .

As touching th adoratiō of Christes fleshe in the Sacrament ( whiche adoration is a true confession of the holemans soule , and body , if there be opportunite , of the truthe of God in his worke ) is in my indgement well setforth in the booke of common 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 present , whiche and there be nothyng ( as this auctor nowe teacheth ) it were not well . I wyll not answere this auctors eloquence , 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 th adoryng 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 vnderstanded and spiritually , not as the Capharnaites did vnderstand Christes wordes carnally to eate that body cutte in piaces , and therfore there may be no suche imaginations to eate Christes bodye after the maner he walked here , nor drinke his bloud as it was shed vpon the crosse , but it is a mystery and sacrament that is godly of gods worke supernaturall aboue mannes vnderstandyng , and therfore spiritually vnderstanded shall giue life , whiche life carnall vnderstandyng must nedes exclude . And by these my wordes I thynke I declare trully sainct Augustines meanynge of the truthe of this Sacrament , wherin Christ geueth truely his fleshe to be eaten , the fleshe he speake of before , taken of the virgin . For the spirituall vnderstandynge that sainct Augustine speaketh of , is not to exclude the truthe of goddes worke in the Sacrament , but to extlude carnall imagination , from musyng of the maner of the worke , whiche is in mysterye suche as a carnall man can not comprehende . In whiche matter yf sainct Augustine had had suche a faythe of the visible sacrament , 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 Sacrament , Christes speache that was estemed so hard , was but a figuratiue speach and where Christ said ( This is my bodye ) he ment onely of the figure of his body , whiche maner of saynges sainct Augustine vseth not in this place , and yet he coulde speake playnly and so doth he declarynge vs firste the truthe of the fleshe , that Christ geueth to be eaten , that is to saye the same fleshe that he tooke of the virgen . And yet because christ geneth it not in a visible maner nor suche a maner as the Capharnaites thought on , nor suche a maner as any carnall man can conceyue , beynge also the fleshe geuen in the Sacrament not a common fleshe but a lyuely , godly , and spirituall fleshe .

Therfore sainct Augustine vseth wordes and speache , wherby he denieth the gift of that bodye of Christ , whiche we did see , and of the bloude that was shed : so as by affirmation and deniall so nere together of the same to be geuen and the same not to be geuen : the mysterye shoulde be thus far opened , that for the truthe of the thynge geuen it is the same , and touchynge the maner of the geuynge and the qualitie of the fleshe geuen , it is not the same . And because it is the same , Sainct Angustine sayeth before we muste worshippe it , and yet because it is nowe an hidden godly mysterye , we maye not haue carnall Imaginations of the same , but godly , spiritually , and inuisibly vnderstande it . And because sainct Hierome , who was of sainct Augustines tyme , writeth in his commentaries Hierony mus ad Ephesios . 〈◊〉 . vpon sainct Paule , ( Ad Ephesios , ) that maye serue for the better openynge hereof , I wyll write it in here . The wordes be these . The bloude and fleshe of Christe is two wayes vnderstanded , eyther the spiritually & godly of whiche him selfe said , my fleshe is verely meat and my bloud is verely drynke , and onlesse ye eat my fleshe and drinke my bloud ye shal not haue euerlasting life . Or the fleshe whiche was crucified and bloud whiche was shed with the spere , Accordyng to this diuision , the diuersite of fleshe and bloud , is taken in Christes sainctes that there is one fleshe , that shall see the salnation 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 th alteration in the maner of the beyng of it diuided & so called not the same , wherin sainct Hierome and saincte Augustine , vsed both one maner of speakinge and sainct Hierome resemblinge the diuision 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 distinction 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 accomplished 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 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 present 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 heauen , 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 cannot be draiwen to an vnderstandinge of the worshippinge of Christes flesh in heauen , where it remayneth continuallye glorified , and is of all men Christened , continually worshipped . For as sainct Poule sayth Christe is so e 〈…〉 that euery range shuld confess 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 present 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 conuersation , yet he continueth 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 whom 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 , confirmed 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 〈…〉 not adoring , remembringe the diuine nature vnite to Christs flesh , and therfore of flesh not seuerid from the godhed which admonishment 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 th adition 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 heauen reiguinge in glory ? wherfore takinge this to be soo far from all probabilite , I sayde before these wordes of sainct Augustine , cannot be drawen with any teynters to stretche so far as to reache to heauen , where euery Christen man knowith and professith the worshippinge of Christ in glory as they be taught also to worshippe him in this dispe 〈…〉 tion of 〈◊〉 humilitie when he maketh present himselfe in this Sacrament , whom we should not receyue into oure mouth before we adore him and by sainct Augustines rule , we not onely not sinne in adoringe , but also synne in not adoringe him . And for the more manifeste confirmation 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 spum cancto libr. 3. cap. 12. booke de spiritu sancto . lib. 3. cap. 12. Non mediocris igitur questio , & ideo diligentius consideremus quid sit scabellum , Legimus enim alibi . Caelum mihi thronus , terra autem scabellum pedum meorum . Sed nec terra adoranda nobis , quia creatura est dei , videamus tamen ne terram illam dicat adorandam propheta , quam dominus Iesus in carnis assumptione suscepit . Itaque per scabellum , terra iutelligatur , per terram autem caro christi , quam hodie quoque in mysteriis adoramus , & quam apostoli in Domino Iesu ( vt supra diximus ) adoraruut , neque 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 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 occasion 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 them . 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 newe catholique faith , and conferme the olde trew catholique faith or do not improue it . For of this highe misterie , th auctors write summe more obscurely , and decklye , then other , and vse diuersites of speaches , & wordes wher with the true doctrine hath been of a very fewe impugned , but euer in vayne , as I truste in god shal be moste in vaine , Hahinge this auctor vttred suche vntruthes with 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 consydered this boke maye do as muche gode to releaue suche perplexite , as altercacion hathe engendred , 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 th understandyng of the olde auctors , concernyng the true real presence of Christes bodye and bloud in the Sacrament : So I trust to shewe this auctor ouerseen in th article of transubstantiacion . For entre wherunto , first I saye thus , that albeit the worde transubstantiacion , was first spoken of by publique auctorite in that assemble of learned men of Christendome , in a generall consayle , where the Bysshppe of rome was present , yet the true matter signified by that worde , was older and beleued before , vpon the true vnderstandyng of Christes wordes , & was in that counsaile confessed , not for the auctorite of the Byshop of rome , but for th auctorite of trueth , beyng th article , suche as toucheth not the auctorite of the Byshop of rome , but the true doctrine of Christes mysteries , and therfore in this realme , th auctorite of rome c●ssing , was also confessed for a truth by all the clergye of this realme in an open consaile , specially discussed , and though the hardenes of the law that by parliament 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 Balaam & caiph as also , & Num. 22 Iohan . 11. S. Paul teacheth the Philippenses that whither it be by contencion 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 th article of transubstantiacion , 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 trāsubstātiacion , 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 knowen , nor god christen man as sume sayd neyther , sayth play●ly writing to luther in the matter of the sacrament it must nedes be true that if the body of Christ be really in the sacrament , there is of necessite transubstantiacion also . Wherfore seing by luthers trauayle who 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 iudgement a necessary consequence of that trueth to saye there is transubstantiacion also , whiche shal be one meane of purgation that I defende not transubstantiacion as dependinge of the bishoppe of Romes determination , which was not his absolutely , but of a necess 〈…〉 e of the trueth , housoeuer it liketh 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 droncken , was of his body & bloud , and not of the bread and wyne , and therfore canne well agree with this auctor that the bread of wheate is not the body of Christe / nor the bodie of Christe made of it as of a matter , whiche consideracions will enforce him that beleueth the trueth of the presence of the substance of Christes body , as the treue catholique faith teachith , to assent to transubstantiacion , not as determined by the churche of Rome , but as a consequent of treuth beleued in the misterie of the sacrament , which transubstantiacion how this auctor wolde impugne , I wil without quarel of ēuious wordes consider , & with true opening of his handeling 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 sacrament 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 instaunce how soeuer speche in vs require a successiue vttraunce , & the maner of hand linge , this auctor vsith to bringe the misticall wordes in contempte wer meater in an . Ethinkes mouthe to ieste out all , then to passe the lippes of suche an auctor to plaie whiche the syllables after this sorte , for although he maie rede in sum blinde glose that in the instante af the laste syllable gods work is to be accompted wrought beyng a goode lesson to admonishe the ministre to pronounce 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 question 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 conclusion th only waye is to say , that Christes speache was but a figure , which the catholik doctrine saieth is false ? and therfore by the catholique doctrine Christes sayinge This is my bodie , sayth in effecte This is no breade , wherat this auctor sayth they wolde brage if Christe had saide soo . In speach is to be consydered that euery yea conteineth 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 diamonde , 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 outwardly 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 them , who was he saith within 350 yeres of christ . Nowe I call to thy Iudgment goode reader coulde any man diuise more pithiewordes for the proufe of the real presence of Christes body & bloud , & the cōdēpnacion of this auctor that wolde haue an onely figure ? Here in hilaries wordes is a figure compared to trueth , & sight but wardly to belief inwardly . Nowe our beliefe is grounded vppon 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 seen 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 trāsubstātiacion , 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 presence of christes body , & euery ouerthrow therin , ouerthroweth this auctor in trāsubstātiacion , not by auctorite of the churche of Rome , but by consequence in truth as Suinglius saith , who shal serue me to auoyde papistrie . If one aske me , what say ye thenne to hilarie that bread & wine areseē ? I say they be in dead seen , 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 from within did declare him . If ye will aske me howe canne there ( according to hilaries wordes ) be in the outwarde visible creatures any figure , onles the same be in deade , as they appeare bread & wine ? I will answer euen as well as this out ward obiecte of the sensible hearynes of Iacob , resemblinge Esau was a figure of christes humanite & of the very humanite in deade . Thus may Hilarie be answered to anoyde hys auctorite from contraryinge transubstantion . But this auctor shall neuer auoide that him self hath brought out of hilarie , which ouerthroweth him in his figuratiue speache , & consequently in his denyall of transubstantiation also , as shal appere in the further handling of this matter .

Where this auctor in the 18 leaf comparith these S. Poules wordes , The breade that we breake , is it not the communion 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 sacrament when 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 , dispensing , receiuing , & eatyng So asonely breakyng is not the communion , & 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 taken ) 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 communion of the body of christ as the cuppe is likirise of the bloud of Christ , after the benediction , whiche benediction was not spoken of in the bread , but yet must be vnderstanded , As for Christes callynge of bread his bodye , is to make it his bodye who as sainct Paule sayth calleth that is not , as it were , and so makethe it to be . Primo .

Thargumentes this auctor vseth in . 19. and. 20. leef of th ordre 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 recapitulation 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 encombre 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 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 Euangeliste 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 consequence 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 be consumed , but able to fead all the worlde , and if this auctor geueth credite to Theodoretus , whom he calleth an holy man , them 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 conferme any trueth , wherin if he meaneth to confirme gods worde by reason , or gods mysteryes by natural operacion , myne vnderstandynge cannot reache that doctrine , and is more strange to me , then 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 transubstantiation , 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 seauered is truely seauered , & 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 transubstantiacion , but plainly affirme that by here Iudgement , if it be the bodye of Christ it is not bread . For in the rule of comen reason , the graunte of one substance is the denyal of an other , & therfore reason hathe these conclusions 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 consideracions , one sumtime repugnante to an other , and yet the auctors of both opinions called Philosophers all , Amonge whiche sum thought ( for example ) 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 th ende of a worde , that he was when he beganne to 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 contemplacion 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 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 cannot 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 th experience of thope racion of nature , of the visible earthely parte of the Sacrament . When God sent Manna in deserte , the people sawe many meruayles in it , besides the comen operacion of nature , and yet they neuer troubled them selfe with ( howe . ) 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 th obiections 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 altercacion 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 christen man , who merueyleth at goddes workes and reputeth can not comprehend the wayes and meanes of them .

As in answeryng to the thirde Chapittre I haue shewed howe reason receyued in to faythes seruice dothe not striue with transubstantiation , 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 transubstanciation , as a matter wherof they can no skyll . And therfore to a question this auctor asketh in th end of the second columne 〈◊〉 the. 22. sect whiche is this . If we beleue our sences in th accidentes , why may we not do the like of the substance ? 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 ale , I thinke the scoler with th aduise 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 substance 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 substance , 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 can no skil of , & be not angry though I tel yowe , so for & ye were lerned , ye would not aske me this question , for substance as it is properly vnderstanded to be of this or that thing , is properly neither sene by it selfe or felt , & yet by reason , comprehended truely to be in that we fele & see , neuerthelesse in comen 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 substance of bread , & yet yet ye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see but the colour , & by it the largenesse , and feale the heate , or coldenes , moysture , or drynes , weight , or lightnes , hardenes , or softnes , thicknes , and thynnes . If ye will learne what substance is ye must leue your outwarde sences & considre in your vnderstandyng howe in euery thynge that is , there is a staye , whiche we call a substance , beyng the principall parte of euery thyng , whiche fayling we saye that speciall thynge not to be , As where the substance 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 substance 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 & th apparance of bread & a trew sensible parte of bread , & therfore be called also by the name of bread , not that it is so properly , but after the comen speach & capacite of men , & 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 substance & no substance , 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 man for wante of true understanding of the wordes & perfite consideration of the matter speaketh thus fondely , who if he should their vpon require the scoler to shewe him sume difference of the very substance bytwene bread , & chese , & ale , what could the learned scoler answer here , but euen frankly declare his ignorance & say I knowe none , whiche is as muche to say as I knowe their is a difference , but I wote not what it is . Whervnto I trowe the rude man wold say to the scoler , them arte thowe with all thy learnyng as verye a foole as I , to speake of a difference & can not tel what it is . Nowe if the scoler shuld vtter euenth extremite of his learning in propretermes , & saye I knowe bread is no chiese & chiese is none ale , & of ther accidental parts I can in dede shew differences , but of the very substance none . The rude man 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 accidentes of his bread , chiese , & ale for himself , & geue the substance 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 substance , is not 〈◊〉 vnderstanded , as sences exercised 〈…〉 perceyue it & howe mans outwarde sences can not as this auctor wold haue it be iudges of the inwarde nature of substance , which reason perswadeth to be , vsinge the seruice of the sences for induction of the knolege of it , in which iudgement 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 th alteration in the accidentes , deceyued there Iudgementes . That stone whiche among many thought to haue sume skil , hath been taken for a precious diamonde , hath after by cunning lapidaries , been Iudged to be but a white safier , & contrary wise . So easlye maye our iudgement vpon 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 them . For the very substaunce is not the propre obiecte of any of the fiue wittes , but of their reporte considered 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 vpon confideracion of the premisses it may easly appeare howe the question of this auctor , why the sences be not beleued , in knowlege of substances , as in knolege of accidentes may bereasonally answered . And then if the iudgement of reason in th estimation of godeds naturall workes and denyinge that this substance , when by accidentes it should 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 ignorante wil be 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 iugment , 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 iudgment rude of vnderstandinge , 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 th obedience of ●ayth● Of that is bread after the iudgement of oure reason , after the reporte of our sences , Christe determineth vnto vs the substaunce of that to be his bodye sayinge . This is my body , why shal not nowe a trew christen 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 conclude in reason , there 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 th experyences 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 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 Emans 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 them , 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 consecrate , yelde to faith , accordinge whe●unto we confe●●ruely , the same to be the body of Christe .

Where this auctors woulde al the Papistes to laye their heades together . &c. I knowe no suche Papistes , but this I saye without further counsaile whiche this auctor with al his counsaile shall not auoyde . We beleue most certainely the resurrection of our flesh , and be persuaded by Catholique teachyng , that the same flesh by participation of Christes godly flesh in the Sacrament , shal be made incorruptible , Ioan. 6. & yet not after the iudgement of our senses , & conclusions gathered of them , consideryng the maner of the continuall consumption of the sayd bodies , wherof sum philosophers haue at lenght after their reason declared their mynde , whom Christen men contem●e withal th experience of senses , which they allege being vehement 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 transubstantiacion . 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 Iustinus . 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 , ) 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 remission 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 , water , and wyne in this Sacrament , ar meates ordeyned purposely to geue thankes to God , ) and therfore be called ( Eucharistia , ) nor hath not these wordes ( they be called the body and bloud of Christ ) but hath in playue wordes , that we be taught this foode consecrate by gods worde , to be the flesh and bloud of Christ , as Christ in his incarnation toke flesh and bloud , nor hath not this forme of wordes placed to haue that vnderstandyng , ( howe 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 conclusion ( that bread & wyne remayne stil , which is turned into our flesh & bloud , ) is not deduced vpon 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 transubstantiacion , euen so erreth he in the first allegation of his auctorites by plaine mysceportynge , let it be further named or thought on as the thinge deserueth .

Next Iustine , is Iren in th allegatiō of whom , this auctor maketh also an vntrue report who hathe not this forme of wordes in the fourth boke ( contra Valētinu ) that the bread wherin we geue thankes 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 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 .

Saincte Cypriaus wordes , do note impugne Cyprian transubstantiacion , for they tend onely to shewe that wyne is the creature , appoynted to the celebration of this mysterye , and therfore water onelye is no due matter accordynge to Christes institution . And as the name wyne muste be vsed before the consecration , to shewe the trueth of it then , so it maye also be vsed , for a name of it after , to shewe what it was , whiche is often vsed . And in one place of Cyprian by this author here alleaged , it appeareth Sainct Cyprian by the worde wyne , signifieth the heauenly wyne of the vineyarde of the Lorde of Saboth , callyng it newe wyne and alludynge therin to Dauid . And this dothe Cyprian shewe in these wordes , he we shall we drinke with Christ newe wine of the creature of the vyne , if in the sacrifice of God the father , & Christ we do not offer wyne ? Is not here mention of newe wyne of the creature of the vyne , what newe wyne can be , but the bloud of Christ , the very wyne consecrate by gods omnipotencye of the creature of the vyne offred ? And therfore this one place may geue vs a lesson in Cyprian , that as he vseth the worde wyne to signifie the heauenly drinke of the bloud of Christ , made by consecration of the creature of wine , So wheithe nameth the bread consecrate bread , he meaneth the heauenly bread Christ , who is the bread of life . And so Cyprian can make nothynge by those wordes againue transubstantiacion , who wryteth playnely of the chaunge of the bread by gods omnipotencye into the ●●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 of the turnyng of a man in to the body of the Churche . And it may be comenly obserued in this authour , when 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 Sacrament 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 change is in the soule , which is the substance of man : So for the thyng changed in the visible creatures should be also changed , and is chaunged , the substance of the bread and wyne to answere theirin to the other . And we must considre howe this comparison of the two chaunges is made as it were by proportion . Wherin eche chaunge hath his special ende and terme , ( whervnto ) : and therfore accordynge to terme and ende , hath his worke of chaunge , speciall and seuerall both by gods worke . Thus I meane , The visible creatures hath there ende and terme whervnto the change is made , the very body and bloud of Christe , whiche body beynge a trut body we must saye is a corporall substance . The soule of man hath his ende and terme a spirituall alteration , incorporall , to be regenerate the sonne of God . And then the doctrine of this Emissene is playne this , that eche change is of like truth , and then it foloweth that if the change of mannes soule in Baptisme be true and not in a figure : The chaunge likewise in the Sacrament is also true and not in a figure . And if manues soule be the chunge in Baptisme be in deade that is to saye , really made the sonne of God : then is the substance of the bread , whiche is as it were the soule of the bread . ( I am bolde here in speache to vse the worde soule ●o expresse proportion of the comparison , ) but euen so is the inwarde nature of the bread , whiche is substance , turned and chaunged in to the bodye of Christe , beynge the terme and ende of that chaunge . And here I saye so , not to declare the maner , but the truthe of th end , that is to saye , as really and in dede the chaunge is in the substaunce of bread , as in the soule of man , both these chaunges be meruelous , bothe be in the truth of there chaunge , whervnto they be chaunged of like truthe and realite , to be done in dede , they resemble one an other in the secrecie of the mysterie , and the ignoraunce of our sences , for in neyther is any outwarde chaunge at all , and therfore there was neuer man tryppyd himselfe more hansomely to take a fall , then this auctour doth in this place , not onely in corruptyng euydently and notably the words of Emissene with 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 th auctor 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 signification , 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 th age 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 declaracion of the matter in forme of teachyng with owt contention , 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 th allegacion , after this maner corrupte , might suffice for to conclude all brablyng agaynste the sacrament . But I wil examen 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 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 transubstanciation . 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 consecrate that creature & as Emissene sayth , turned it in the celebration & dispensation of these mysteries . But this sayng towcheth nothing the doctrine of transubstantiation . The second saying of Chrisostome which I neuer red , but in Peter martyrs booke , who saieth it is not printed , this sentence toucheh this auctours doctrine muche , If the breade by consecration , be deliuered from the name of breade , & exalted to the name of our lordes body . Nowe consider reader , if this maner of speache by Chrisostome here meaneth an effectual namynge , to make the substaunce of the body of Christ present , as Chrisostome in his publique approued workes is vnderstanded 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 vnderstandeth the bare name , howe can that stande 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 Cyprian by the worde of god is chaunged , but yet the proper effecte is not chaunged , but in th accidentes remayne with out illusion by whiche diuers signification & acception of the worde nature both the sayinges of S. Cyprian and Sainct Chrisostome ( if this be his saying ) may be accorded , and not with standynge the contrariete in lettre , agre neuerthelesse in sence bytwene 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 confirme 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 presence of Christes body in the Sacrament , 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 accidentes remayning with there propre effectes whiche therfore maye worthly be called thinges . And here I wold aske this authour , if his teachyng as he pretendeth 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 creation of the worlde , wherby to induce mannes fayth in this mystery to the belife of it ? As for th example Baptisme to shewe the chaunge in mannes soule , wherof I haue spoken , declaryng Emissene , serueth for an induction not toleaue to our owtward sences , ne to mistrust the great miracle of God in eyther , because we see none outwarde experience 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 consecration , 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 sacrament , affirmyng the same to be the sacrifice of the Churche , wherby apperith it is no figure onely . In the first sayinge of S. Augustine is written thus , howe fayth shewith me that brede is the body of Christ , nowe what soeuer faithe shewith is a truth , and then it foloweth that of a truth it is the body of Christ whiche speache breade is the body of Christ is as muche to say , as it is made the body of Christ , and made not as of a matter , but as Emissen wrote by conuersion of the visible creature in to the substaunce of the body of Christ , and as S Austen in the same sentence writeth it is bread before the consecration , and after the fleshe of Christ , As for the seconde sayinge of saincte Austen , howe could it with more playne wordes be wryten , then to saye that there is bothe the Sacrament and the thinge of the Sacrament , whiche is Christs body calling the same sacrifice of the Churche . Nowe if Christ is body be there , it is trulither & in 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 absent 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 consisteth so as the body of Christ is conteyued in this sacrifice by S. Augustines mynde , According wherunto sainct Augustine is alleged to saye in the same booke from whens the auctour tooke this saynge . Also these wordes followynge , vnder the kindes of bread and wyne whiche we see , we honour thinges 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 consecrate Thus saith sainct Augustine as he is alleged owt of that booke , which in dede I haue not , but he hath the like sence 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 presence of Christes bodye by his owne collection of saincte Augustines mynde , whiche is as he confesseth 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 confounde transubstantacion confoundeth euidently 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 manhode & 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 Sacrament . 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 collection , the truth of the beyng of the nature of the body and bloud of christ to be like wise in the sacrament , & therby call backe all that he hath written against the real presence of Christes body in the sacrament , and abandon his diuise of a presence by signification , which is in truth a playne absence , as himselfe spekith also openly , which open speche cannot stande , and is improued by this open 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 perception , & so it must be euident howe the body of Christ is ther , that is to saie on th altere before we receyue it , to which aulter S. Augustine saith we cum to receyue it . There was neuer māouerturned his owne assertions more euidently , then this authour doth here in this place , the like wherof I haue obserued in other that ha●ue written against this sacrament 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 himself in the real presence of christes very body , yet he hathe pulled downe transubstantiation , & ●oas crafty wresteles do , falling them self , on ther bake to throwe ther felowe ouer them . But it is not like , for as longe as the true faith , of the reall presence standith , so longe standith transubstantiation , not by aucthoritie of determination but by a necessary consequence of the truth as I said before , & as zuinglius defendeth playnely , & as for these places of S. augustine may be answered vnto , for they speke of the visible matter & elemente , which remayne truely in ther proprietie of their nature , for so much as remayneth , so as their is true reall & bodely matter of th accidentes of breade & wyne not in fansy or imagination , wherby their shuld be illusion in the senses , but so in dede as th experience doth shewe & the chaunge of substance of the creatures in to a better substance , wuld not impayr the truth of that remaineth , but that remaineth , doth indede remaine which the same natural effects by miracie that it had when the substance was ther which is one maruail 〈◊〉 this mystery , as their were diuerse more in manna 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 th ende , 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 confusion of them , which confusion Theutichians in consequence of their of error affirmed , and so argumentes 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 . And yet making the comparison , he reherseth both the truthes on both sides sayng . As the person of Christ consisteth of God and man , so the sacrifice of the Church consisteth 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 declaracion , 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 declaration 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 th ordre 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 conuersion of the substaunce of the visible elementes shuld not therfore be . If truth answerith to truth for the proportion of the truthe in the mysterie that is sufficiente . For elles the natures be not so vnite in one hipostasic in the mysterie of the sacramente as they be in Christes person , & the fleshe of man in Christ by vnion of the diuinitie , is a diuine spirituall fleshe , & is called & is a liuely fleshe , and yet th auctor of this booke , is not afrayde to teache the breade in the sacrament to haue no participation 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 can wreste , or writh to an other sense , & 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 elemente of the sacrament wih out wresting or writhing may be agreed in conuenienr understanding with the doctrine of transubstantiation , & therfore is an authoritie familier with those writers that affirme trāsubstanciation 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 translation he sharpened it somewhat , not with out sum punisshement of god euidently by the waye by his owne wordes to ouerthrowe himselfe . In the seconde 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 conuiction wherof this authr saith the olde fathers vsed arguments of two examples , in eyther of which examples were two natures to gyther , the one not perishing nor confounding the other . One example is in the body & soule of man . An other example of the sacrament 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 examples to the confusion 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 man is present in the bodye , so really & so truely is the body of christ ) which in the sacrament is the inward inuisible thing as the soule is in the body , present in the sacrament , for elles & the body of Christ were not as truly & really present in the sacrament , as the soule is in mannes body , that argument of the sacrament had no two thinges present so as th argument of the body & soule had , wherby to shewe howe two things may be to gether witout confusion of eyther , eche remayning in his nature , for if the teaching of this auctour in other partes of this booke wer true , them were the sacrament like a body lyinge in a traunse , whose soule for the while were in heuen & had no two thinges but one bare thinge , that is to saie , breade , & breade neuer the holyer with signification of an other thig so far absent , as is heuen from earth , & therfor to say as I ꝓblabli thinke , this part of this seconde booke against transubstantiacion was a collection of this auctour when he mynded to mayntaine luthers opinion against tran substanciacion onely , and to striue for bread onely , which not with stonding the newe enterprise of this authour to denye the reall presence , 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 presence of Christs body in the Sacrament , then that the truth of it was so certaynly byleued , as they toke Christes very body as verely in the sacrament , euen as the soule is present in the body of man .

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 translate 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 sense more perfitely , than peter martyr vttereth it hiself . if eyther of this had been , done the mater shuld haue semed for somuch the more playne . But what is this to make foundacion of an argumente vpon a secrete copye of an epistell vttred at one tyme in diuerse senses ? I shall to wch one speciall point , peter martyr saith in laten , whom 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 canne 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 conuersion , 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 euidently 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 strangely in th ende 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 translate it thus . The diuine constitution the nature of the body adyoyned , thiese two both to gyther , make one sonne and one person .

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 Sacrament , 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 , th accidentes beyng substaunce in his propre signification , the inward nature of the thing of the conuersion wherof , is specially vnderstanded transubstantiation .

Nowe foloweth to answere to Belasius , who abhorrynge bothe the herises of Eutiches , Gelasius and Nestorius in his treatise , againste the Eutichians forgetteth not to compare with there errour in extremitie one the one side , th extreme 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 th auctour of this boke reporteth them , wherin I will writte what Uigilius saith . ( Inter Nestorii ergo quondam Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae non rectoris , Uigilius diaio . 4. sed dissipatoris , non pastoris , sed praedatoris , sacrilegum dogma & Eutichetis nefariam & detestabilem sectam , ita serpentinae grassationis sese calliditas temperauit , vt vtrumque sine vtriusque periculo , plerique vitare non possint : dum si quis Nestorii perfidiam damnat , Euchicetis putatur errori succumbere rursum dum Eutichianae haeresis impietatem destruit , Nestorii arguitur dogma erigere . ) These be vigilius wordes , in his first booke , whiche be thus much in Englishe . Betwene th abominable teaching of Nestorius , sumtyme not ruler but waster , not past ōr , but pray sercher of the church of constantinople , & the wicked & detestable secte of Eutiches , the crafte of the deuels spoyling so facioned it self , that men could not auoyde any of the sectes without daunger of thother . So as whiles any man rdēpneth the falsenes of the nestorian , he maye be though fallen to the errour of the Eutichian , and whiles he distroyeth the wickednesse of the eutichianes herisie he may be chalenged to realeue the teachinge of the Nestorian . This is the sentence 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 nestorian 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 man 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 man deitate , for so he is termed to saye . The Eutichians as Sainct Augustine saith reasoninge against the Nestoriaus , becam heritiques themselfe , and because we confesse truly by faith but one Christ the sonne of God very God , The Eutichians saye , although there were in the virgins wombe before th adunation two natures , yet after th adunation , in that mystery of Christes incarnacion there is but one nature , and that to be the nature of God , into which the nature of man 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 them 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 adunation , being no absurditie for two different natures to constitute 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 th abolitiō 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 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 th auctour of this booke wolde haue it , for the Nestorian sayde the godhed was an accession to Christ afterward by merite , and therfore with them 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 continuaunce 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 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 in Christ , whiche was the nestorians 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 sclaūderith 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 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 different 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 intendeth to shewe there owght to be no scruple to graunte two differente natures to remayne in there propriete , for feare that euery 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 different 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 th exhibition of truth to man in this life . And to shewe the Sacrament to be suche an image , as conteyneth the verye truthe of the thinge , whereof it is the image . Gelasius declareth in framynge his argumente in these wordes . As breade and wyne go into the diuine substaunce the holy gooste bringyng it to passe , and yet remayne in the proprietie of there nature , so that principall mysterye , those natures remayninge , whereof it is declared vnto vs true and hole Christ to continue . In these wordes of Gelasius where he saith the breade and wyne go into the diuine substaunce , is playnely declared the presence of the diuine substaunce , and this diuine substaunce , can signifie none other substaunce , but of the body and bloude of Christe , of whiche heauenly nature , and earthely nature of the breade and wyne , consisteth this Sacrament the image of the principall mysterye of Christes person . And therfore as in the image be two diuers natures and different remayninge in there proprietie . So likewise in the person of Christ , whiche is the conclusion of Gelasius argumente , should remayne two natures . And here were a greate daunger , if we shoulde saye that Christes body , whiche is the celestiall nature in the Sacramente , were there present but in a figure , for it shoulde then implye , that in Christes personne the principall mysterye , it were also but in a figure . And therfore as in the mysterye of Christes personne , ordened to redeme vs , beynge the principal mistery there is no figure , but truth in consideracion of the presens of the two natures , wherof Christ is : So in the Sacrament beyng a misterye ordred to feade vs , & the image of that principal mistery , ther is not an onely figure , but truth of the presens of the natures earthely & celestiall . I speake of the truth of presence , and meane suche an integritie of the natures present , as by the rules of our faith , is consonante and agreable to that mistery , that is to say , in the person of Christ perfit God & perfit man , perfite God to be incarnate , & perfit man to be deitate , as Gregory Nazianzene termeth it . In the Sacrament , the visible matter of the earthely creature in his proprietie of nature , for the vse of significacion 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 substance to remaine , but saith the substance , or nature , which nature he calleth after proprietie , & the disiunctiue may be verified in the last , & it is not necessary , th examples to be in al partes equal , as rusticus diacom●s handleth it very lernedly contra Acephalos . And Gelasius in opening the mystery of the Sacrament , , speaketh of trāsition of the bread , & wyne into the godly substance , whiche worde transition , is mete to expresse transubstantiacion , & therfore S. Thomas expressed transubstantiacion with the same word transire , writyng . ( Dogma datur Christianis quod in carnem transit panis & vinum in sanguinem . ) But in the mysterie of Christes person , there is no transition of the deitie into the humanite , or humanite into the deitie , but onely assumption of the humanite with adunacion of those two natures , & of two perfit natures so different one person & one Christ , who is God incarnate , & man deitate , as Gregory Nazianzene saith , withoutmutation , conuetsion , trausitiō , transelementation , or transubstantiation , whiche wordes be propre , & special to expresse , howe ( Eucharistia ) is constitute of two distrēt natures , an heauenly , & earthly nature , a mystery institute after the example of the principal mysterie , wherwith to feade vs with the substance of the same glorious body that hath redemed vs . And because in the constitution of this mysterie of the sacrament , there is a trāsition of the earthly creature into the diuine substance , as Gelasius , & S. Thomas terme it , & mutacion as Cyprian , & Ambrose teache it , which Theophilactus expresseth by the worde transelementacion , Emissen by the conuersion , & all these wordes reduced into there one propre sence expressed in one worde of transubstantiacion : it cannot be conuenient where the maner of the constitution of two mysteries be so different , there to require a like remayning of the two natures , whereof the mysteryes be , In the mysterye of Christes person , because there was not of any of the two different natures eythex mutation , transition , conuersion , 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 from the Sacrament , to declare the mysterye of Christes person , yet we maye not presse the 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 transubstantiacion . 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 th example 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 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 th example in euery parte of it , as th auctor 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 Nestorians , fel in to an absurditie in the confusion of the two natures in christ : so Theodoretus reasonyng against the Eutichians , fel in a vehement suspicion to be a nestorian , like as S. Augustine reasonyng against the maniches for defence of fre will semed to speke that the Pellagians 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 confusion of natures in Christe , sheweth howe in the sacrement ( 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 th ascension 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 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 substance 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 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 determinacion , 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 them 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 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 impanation 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 resemblance 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 augmented by the substance of bread , in which body it endeth by connersion , as in the better without adnihilation , which is a changyng by miracle . And when this auctor knoweth this , or shoulde haue known it , or hath forgotten it , he wryteth like one that were ignoraunt , and had red no thing in the matter , as it were to make himselfe populer , to ioyne himselfe in ignoraunce with the rude vnlerned people . A thirde reason this auctor frameth himselfe , werby to take occasion to afferme howe the .vi. chaptre of sainct Iohn shuld not apperteyne to the Sacramental manducation , 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 th auctorites , wherunto he entreth with greate confidence .

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 transubstantiacion , 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 dni . made fleshe . These be Cyprianus wordes then folowe thies , As in the person of Christ the humanite was seen & the diuinite hidden , 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 them 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 fansye to vse the sounde of the worde powryng , to serue in stede of an argument 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 Cyprian , hath sheued howe the bread is made fleshe by the omnipotencie of gods worde , and made by change . Then because this mysterie of the Sacrament , in consideration of the two natures , celestial , & earthly , resembleth the principal misterie of Christes personne , S Cyprian saith in sence , that as in the person of Christ the humanite was seen & the diuinite hidden , so likewise in this Sacrament visible , is also the diuine nature hidden . This is the sence where for declaracion 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 spoken of in scriptures , not because it is a liquide substance to be poured , as th auctor of this booke englishethit , signifiyng a successiue operation , but rather as a worde , if we should scanne it , as this auctor would , signifiyng the continuance of the terme feom 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 descended from heauen , & being in earth was also in heuen , which confusion in sum parte resembleth , but mans words can not expresse gods diuine operacions . To the purpose the first word of Cyprian shewe the maner of the constitucion of this sacrament , 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 substance of the sacrament , to th intent we might vse our repayre to it , and frame our deuotion according to the dignite of it , esteming as S. Paule saith our lordes body , for the more euident declaration wherof , S. Cyprian by example of the mysterye in Christes person , sheueth Christes humanite , and diuinite present in the visible sacrament , of which diuinite , there is speciall mencion againste such , whiche fansied the flesh of Christ to begyuen , to be eaten , as diuided from the diuine nature , whiche was the heresie of the Nestorians , and such other denying , therby the perfite vnite of the two natures in Christ , which the holy Sinode of Ephesus did specially condempne , as other fathers in there wrytinge did specially preuente 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 th auctor 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 transubstanciation according to the first wordes of sainct Cyprian , 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 ymagination diuiseth , who vseth the worde spirituall , as a stop , and opposition to the catholique teaching , whiche is not so and clerelye without earnyng compareth with this Sacrament , the water of Baptisme , of whiche we reade not wryten that it is chaunged , as we reade of the breade , and therfore the resemblaunce of water in Baptisme , is vsed onely to blinde the rude reader and serueth for a shifte of talke to wynde out of that matter that cannot be answered , and as euill debters shake of there creditours with a by communicacion , so this auctor conueyeth himselfe awaye at a backe dore by water , not doynge first as he promised to answere , so as he would auoyde Cyprian directly by laude .

Answerynge to Chrisostome , this auctor Chryso . complayneth , as he did in Cyprian , of malicyous leauyng out of that , whiche when it is brought in , doth nothing empayre that went before . Chrisostome woulde we shoulde consider the secrete truth of this mysterie , where Christe is the Inuisible Prieste , and ministreth in the visible churche by his visible minister , the visible Prieste , whereof Chrisostome woulde by his wordes put vs in remembrance , not deniyng therby the visible ministerye no more then he doth in his other wordes denye the visible forme of bread , and yet woulde we should not loke onely vpon that , but whither fayth directeth vs , that is to saye , vpon the very bodye of Christ there inuisiblye present , whiche fayth knoweth , and knoweth it to be there the very bodye , and there therfore to be no breade , which breade this true confession of Christes body present by fayth excludeth . But touchyng the Priest Sainct Chrisostomes words do by no meane teach vs that , there is no visible Prieste , but to thinke that the bodye of Christe is delyuered of Christes handes , which excludeth not in like sorte the ministre visible , as fayth doth the substaunce inuisible of bread in the Sacrament . The one saiynge of Chrisostome is a godlye exhortacion accordynge to the truth , the other is a doctrine of fayth in the truth , we be not taught that the Prieste is Christ , but we be taught that the substaunce of the breade is made Christes body . And then the question in the wordes of Chrisostome ( Seest thou breade ) is as muche to saye , as remembrest thy fayth ? as beynge one of the faythfull that knowe ? whiche terme Saincte Augustine vsed . And then Chrisostome to conferme oure fayth in so high a mysterye , declareth howe we shoulde thinke Christe to delyuer his bodye himselfe as a thynge farre excedynge mannes power to do it . And with other heauenlye wordes setteth forthe the greatenesse of that mysterye , with wordes of godlye and good meditacion conueniente for so high a matter to adourne it accordynglye , whiche because they be holsome and mete allegoryes , wherwith to drawe and lifte vp our myndes to celestiall thoughtes , we maye not therby esteme the substaunce of that mysterye , to be but in allegorye , here in flede of a solution the auctor fylieth thre whole leaues with 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 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 th auctor of this booke cannot awaye with the worde made , where at it pleaseth him in an other place of this booke to be merye , as at an absurditie in the Papistes , when in dede both Saincte Ambrose here , Saincte Cyprian , and Sainct Hierome also in there places vse the same worde speakynge of this Sacrament , and of the wonderfull worke of God in ordenyng the substance of it , by such a conuersion as breade is made the bodye of Christe . But as touchynge th answere of this auctor to Sainct Ambrose , it is diuerse . For first he doth trauerse th auctoritie 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 Melancton 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 comparison hygher . But then this auctor addeth , ( to be taken as holye meates , and drinkes ) wherein if he meaneth to be taken so , but not to be so , as his teachynge in other places of this boke is , the breade to be neuer the holyer , But to signifie an holy thynge : then is the chaunge nothynge in dede touchynge nature , but onelye as a cowarde maye be channged in apparell to playe Hercules , or Sampsons parte in a playe , himselfe therby made neuer the hardyer man at all , but onelye appoynted to signifie an hardye man , of whiche mannes chaunge , althoughe his astate , and condition might in speache be called chaunged for the tyme of the playe , yet no man woulde terme it thus to saye , his nature were changed , whither he mente by the worde nature the substaunce of the mannes nature , or propertie , for in these two poyntes he were still the same man in Hercules coote , that he was before the playe in his owne , so as if there be nothynge , but a figure in the bread , then for so much this auctors other teaching in this booke where he sayth , the breade is neuer the holyer , is a doctrine better then this , to teache a chaunge of the breade to an higher nature , when it is onelye appoynted to signifie an holye thynge ? And therfore this auctours answere garnished with these there gaye wordes of astate , nature , and condicion , is diuised but for a shifte , suche as agreeth not with other places of this booke nor in it selfe neyther . And where Saincte Ambrose merueyleth at goddes worke in the substaunce of the Sacrament , this auctour shifteth that also to the effecte in him that receyueth , whiche is also meruelous in deade , but the substaunce of the Sacramente is by Saincte Ambrose spiritually merueyled at , howe breade is made the bodye of Christ the visible matter outwardely remayninge , and onelye by an inwarde chaunge , whiche is of the inwarde nature , called properlye substaunce in learnynge , and a substaunce in dede , but perceyued onely by inwarde vnderstandynge as the substaunce present of Christes moste precious body , is a very substance in dede of the bodye inuisiblye presente , but present in dede , and onelye vnderstanded by moste true and certen knowledge of fayth . And although this auctor noteth howe in the examples of mutacion brought in by Sainct Ambrose , the substaunces neuer the lesse remayned the same : that skilleth not , for the wonder of those meruelles serue for an induction to releaue the weake fayth of man in this miracle of the Sacramente , and to represse the arrogancie of reason , presumynge to serche suche knowledge in goddes secrete workes , whereof if there might be a reason geuen , it neded no fayth . And where there is a like , there is no singularite as this miracle in the Sacramente in notablye singuler and therfore none other founde like vnto it . The Sacramentall mutation , which this auctor newly so termeth , is a mere shifte to auoyde amonge suche , as be not lerned , the truthe of goddes miracle in this chaunge , whiche is in dede suche as Sainct Ambrose speaketh of , that of bread is made the bodye of Christe , whiche Sainct Ambrose in an other place , termeth it the grace of the body of Christe , and all is one for it is a greate grace , to haue the bodye of Christ for our foode present there . And out of Christes mouth , callynge the bodye of Christe , is makynge the bodye of Christe , whiche wordes callyng , signifiynge , namynge vsed in sainct Ambrose wrytynges , do not limite Christes wordes , and restrayne them to anonely callyng , an only signifiyng , or an only naming , but geue an vnderstandyng agreable to other of Sainrt Ambrose wordes , that shewe the breade after consecracion to be the bodye of Christ , the callyng to be vnderstanded a real callynge of the thynge that so is made , and likewise a reall signifiynge of the thynge in dede present , and a reall namynge , as the thynge is in dede . As Christe was named ( Iesus ) , because he is the sauiour of his people in dede . And thus perusynge this auctors answers , I trust I haue noted to the reader , with howe small substaunce of matter this auctor impugneth transubstanciation , and howe slenderly he goeth about to answere suche auctors , as by their seueral writynges conferme the same , besides the consent of Christendom 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 Sacrament , they haue nothynge to answere , but th accidentes . 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 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 substance of bred at all , the heresie in philosophie were not of suche absurdite , as this auctor maynteyneth in diuinite . For I haue some probable matter to say for me , wher he hath none , For my strange answere , I would saye that albeit a natural thing as bread consisting of matter , & essencial forme whiche quantite , & 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 substance of it alone , if one shold aske whether that be broken , & it should be answered yee , them should the substance appeare broken & hole al at one tyme , seyng in euery broken piece of breade , a hole substance of bread , & wher the piece of bread broken 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 conuenient quantite bread in diuisible , & thus I write to shewe that such an answer to say the accidents be broken , hath no such clere absurdite , as this auctor would haue it seme . But leauynge of the matter of philosophie to the scoles , I wil graunt that accidentes to be without substance is against the comen course of natural thinges , & thefore therin is a special miracle of god . But when the accidentes be by miracle without substance as they be in the visible ꝑt of the sacrament : them the same accidentes to be broken , caten , & dronken with al thaditiōs this auctor for his pleasur maketh therin , is no miracle , or meruaile , & as for absur dite no point at al , for by quantite which remaineth is al diuision . we ought to confesse , & good christen men do professe , the mysterye of the Sacrament to be supernatural , and aboue the ordre of nature , & therfore it is a trauayle in vayne to frame the consideration of it to agree with the termes of philosophye , But where this auctor saith that nothyng can be answered to be broken but the accidentes : yes verely , for in tyme of contēcion , as this is to him that would aske , what is broken , I would in other termes answere thus , That thou seest is broken . And then if he would aske further , what that is , I would tell him the visible matter of the Sacrament , vnder whiche is present Inuisibly the substance of the most precious body of Christ , if he will aske yet further , Is that bodye of Christ broken , I will say no. For I am lerned in fayth , that that glorious body nowe impassible can not be broken , or diuided , and therfore it is holy in euery parte of that is broken , as the substaunce of bread is in comen bread in euery parte that is broken , accordyng wherunto , it is in the booke of comen prayour setforth , howe in eche part of that is broken , is the hole body of our sauiour Christ . If this questioner be further curious and saye , is not that , that is broken breade ? I woulde answere , as a beleuynge man by fayth truely no , For in fayth I must call it , because it is truely so , the bodye of Christe inuisibly there , and the breakynge to be not in it , but in the visible signe . Yea ye will call it so sayth this questioner , but yet it is bread : Nay quod I , my sayth is a most certaine truth , and beleueth thinges as they verily be , for Christes worde is of strenght , not onely to shewe , and declare as other mens wordes do , but therwith effectual to make it so to be , as it is by him called . And this I write because howsoeuer clerkes soberly entreate the matter ( such as mynde well I meane ) to consider accidentes , and substance whiche termes the rude vnderstande not , it is not necessarye therfore in those termes , to make answere to suche as be contentiously curious , who labour with questions to dissolue the truth of the misterie , in declaracion wherof , we as men stumble and terme it otherwise then we shuld , that is no Inconuenience 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 th exercitation 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 therunto , wherby they might be snarled , and intangled with vayne fanses against that truth , which before without curiosite of questions , they truely and constantly beleued . Finally the doctrine of the sacrament is simple and playne , to haue the visible fourmes of breade and wyne for signification , the thing wherof in the verye bodye & bloud of Christ , which beyng the truth of the hole it is no absurdite to confesse truely the partes as they be if occasion 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 vnderstandinges . For howsoeuer carnall reason be offended with spiritual truth , it forceth not but against the hole consent of the auncient doctors , no doctrine can be instified , with whose restimonie , howe the fayth of the church in the sacrament nowe agreeth , it is manifest howsoeuer it liketh this auctor to reaporte the contrarye .

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

The maister of the sentences she winge diuers mens sayinges in discussion ( 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 th almightie power of Christ , whose diuine body is there present . And shall that be accompted for an inconuenience in the misterie , that any one man saith whose sayinge is not as a full determinacion 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 conseyte fondly , then of a malice to dissent from 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 creation 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 circumstance present The answer . no man can define , but that it is truely present , & therfore really present , corporally also & but yet supper naturally , with relation to the truth of the body present & not to the maner of presents which is spiritual excedyng our capacit● , & therfore therin with out drawyng awaye accidentes , or adding , we byleue simplie the 〈◊〉 howsoeuer it liketh this auctor with out the booke to 〈◊〉 it at his pleasur , & to speke of substance without accidentes , & accidentes without substaunce : whiche perplexite in wordes cannot ieste out the truth of the catholique bilyefe . And this is on th auctours part nothinge but iestinge with a wronge surmise and supposall as though men had inuinted , 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 Christen man . Compare 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 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 , when the bread mouldeth or is turned into wormes , or the wyne sowreth .

True beleuyng men ar not ashamed to confesse 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 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 consideracion 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 accidences , and that doctrine is not annexed to the fayth of transubstantiacion , and such as entreate those chaunces and accidentes do not induce that conclusion , 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 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 chaunce 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 substance , experience 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 Sacrament 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 , I shal disprowe the conclusion by th auctorite 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 , when that is onely to be accompted for an absurdite , that shoulde repugne to the scripture , and gods wil , whiche is the standerd 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 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 commaunded 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 commaundeth , 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 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 dissimulacion , 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 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 them vnderstanded . But those men Theodorete & Chrisostome in the sence they mente as I vnderstand then 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 transubstantiacion and so in the Sacrament on euery part both in the heauenvly & earthely part to be a ful , hole , & perfit truth , as the high mistery beyng the sacrament of our perfit vnite in 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 consequence 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 question 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 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 substances 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 presence , that is to say vnfayned substantial precence , and therfore the true presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament , 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 , them 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 Sacrament , 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 flesh of Christ in the Sacrament , 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 constantly 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 Arrians , whiche Arrians , if it had not bene so really in dede , but all was spiritually so as there was no suche naturall and corporall communion in dede as Hilarie supposed , but as this auctor teacheth a figure , & it had bene the Catholike doctrine so : that argument 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 Sacrament for the truth of presence , as the godhed in the person of / Christ , beynge th effect of th argument this , that as the presence of Christes body in this 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 , & heauenvly natures be so distincte in the Sacrament 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 Sacrament be but onely accidentes of the visible earthly matter , that therfore in the person of Christ be onely accidentes 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 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 argumentes were vayne , if there were not in the Sacrament the true presence of Christes very bodye , as the celestiall parte of the Sacrament , beynge the visible formes th erthly 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 dni . 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 presence 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 , 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 th effect 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 th olde 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 construction 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 vpon th epistel ( Ad Titum ) so aduisedly at lenght howe ( Panes prepositiones ) were the figure of the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament : 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 Sacrament , meanyng the bodie and bloud of Christ , and in the. 98. Psalme speaketh of adoration . Theodoretus also spekyng specially of adoration of this Sacrament . 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 adoration 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 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 argumentes 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 th oblation and sacrifice of our Sauiour Christ somwhat is by me spoken before , whiche although it be suffitient to the matter , yet somewhat more must also be nowe said , whetwyth to encountre th auctors imaginations and surmises with the wronge construyng of the Scriptures , and Auctors to wrest them besides the truth of the matter and ther meanynge .

This is agreed and by the Scriptures playnelie taught that the oblation , and Sacrifice of our Sauiour Christe was , and is a perfite worke ones consummate in perfection without necessitie of reiteration , as it was neuer taught to be reiterate , but a mere blasphemie to presuppose it . It is also in the Catholike teachyng grounded vpon the scripture agreed , that the same sacrifice ones consomate , was ordeyned by Christes institution in his most holye supper to be in the churche often remembred and shewyd forth in suche forte of shewyng , as to the faythfull is sene present the most precious bodye and bloude of our Sauiour Christ , vnder the fourmes of bread & wyne , which body & bloud the faithfull churche of Christen people graunte & confesse accordyng to Christes wordes to haue been betrayed & shed for the sins of the world & so in the same supper represented , & deliuered vnto them , to eate & feade of it accordyng to Christes commandement , as of a most precyous & acceptable sacrifice , acknolegyng the same precious body & bloud , to be the sacrifice propitiatorie for all the sinnes of the worlde , wherunto they onely resorte , and onelye accompt that the verye perfite oblacion & sacrifice of Christen people , through which all other sacrifices necessariely be accepted & pleasaunt in the sight of God . And this maner of shewyng Christes death & kepyng the memorye of it , is grounded vpon the scriptures , wryten by the Euangelistes , & S. Paul & accordyng therunto preached , beleued , vsed , & ●requented in the churche of Christ vniuersally & from 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 ) confonde & ouerthrowe al his enterprise , & that issue wil I ioinewith him , which shall suffise , for the confutacion of this booke . The fewe good wordes of the auctor , which wordes I saye confounde the reste , consiste in these two poyntes . One in that the auctor alloweth the Iudgement of Petrns Lombardus , touchyng th oblacion , 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 confessed of al good Christen men , Upon 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 th auctor will denye this to haue been the teachyng of the counsaill of Nice , I shal alleage therfore the allegacion of the same by Decolampadius , who beyng an aduersarye to the truth , was yet by gods prouidence ordered to beare testimonie to the truth in this poynte , and by his meane , is published to the worlde in greke as foloweth , which neuerthlesse may otherwise appeare to be true . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Iterum etiam hic in diuina mensa , ne humiliter intenti simus ad propositum panem & poculum , sed mente exaltata fide intelligamus , situm esse in sacra illa mensa , illum Dei agnum , qui tollit peccata mundi , sacrificatum à sacerdotibus , non victimarum more : & nos praeciosum illius corpus , & sanguinem verè sumentes , credere haec esse resurrectionis Symbola . Ideo non multum accipimus , sed parum , vt cognoscamus quoniam non in satietatem , sed sanctificationem . These wordes maye be Englished thus : Agayne in this godlye table , we should not in base , and loue consideracion direct oure vnderstanding to the breade and cuppe set forth , but hauing oure mynde exalted , we shoulde vnderstand by fayth to be situate in the table the lambe of God , whiche taketh awaye the syunes of the worlde Sacrificed of the Priestes , not after the maner of other Sacrifices , and we receauynge trulye the preciouse bodye , and bloude of the same lambe , to beleue these to be the tokens of oure resurrection : And for that , we receaue not muche but a litle , because we shoulde knowe that not for saturitie and fillynge , but for sanctification . This holy Councell of Neece hath been beleued vniuersally in declaration of the mysterye of the Trinitie and the Sacramentes also . And ●o them that confesse that councell to be holy , as th auctor here doth , and to such as professe to beleue the determinacion 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 , th auctor 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 th apostels , & then Tertulliane . And so S. Cyprian , S. Chrisostome , S. Cyril , S. Hierome , S. Augustine & from that age to Petrus Lombardus , all spake of the sacrament to the same effecte , & termed it for the word 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 th auctor 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 th auctor . 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 , & consecratur à sacerdote , vocari sacrificium , & oblationem , quia memoria est & representatio veri sacrificij & sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis , & semel Christus mortuus in cruce est , ibique immolatus est in semetipso quotidie autem immo latur in sacramento , quia in sacramento , recor datio fit illius , quod factum est semel : vnde Augustinus . Certum habemus , quia Christus resurgens ex mortuis iam non moritur : &c. tamen ne obliuiscamur quod semel factum est , in memoria nostra omni anno fit , scilicet quando pascha celebratur , Nunqnid totiens Christus occiditur ? sed tantum anniuersaria recordatio repraesentat quod olim factum est , & sic nos facit moueri tanq videamus Dominum in eruce : Item semel immolatus est Christus in semetipso , & tamen quotidie immolatur in sacramento : Quod sic intelligendum est : quia in manifestatione corporis & distinctione men 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 ? Nonne per singulos dies offerimus ? Et si quotidie offeramus : ad recordationem eius mortis fit , & vna est hostia , non multae : quomodovna & non multae : quia semel immolatus est christus , hoc autem sacrificium exemplum est illius idipsum , & semperidipsum offertur , proinde hoc idem est sacrificium , alioquin dicetur quoniam in multis locis offertur , multi sunt Christi , non , sed vnus vbique est Christus & hîe plenus existens , & illic plenus , sicut quod vbique offertur vnum est corpus , ita & vnum sacrificium , Christus hostiam obtulit , ipsam offerimus & nunc , sed quod nos agimus recordatio enst sacrificij : Nec causa suae infirmitatis reperitur , quia perficit hominem , sed nostrae , quia quotidie peccamus . Exhis colligitur esse sacrificium & dici quod agitur in altari , & Christum semel oblatum & quotidie offerri , sed aliter tunc , aliter nunc , & etiam quae sitvirtus huius sacramenti ostenditur : scilicet : remissio peccatorum venalium , & perfectiovirtutis . The Englishe hereof is this , After this it is asked whether that the priest doth , maye be sayde properlie a sacrifice or immolacion : & whether christ be daily īmolate or only ones ? Wherunto it may be shortly answered , that which is offred & consecrate of the priest , is called a sacrifice & oblacion , because it is a memorie & representacion of the true sacrifice & holy immolation done in th alter of the crosse . And Christ was ones dede on the Crosse & ther was offered in him selfe , but he is dayly immolate in the sacrament , because in the sacrament ther is made a memory of that is ones done , wherupon S. Augustine , we ar assured that Christ rysing from Rom. 6. death dieth not now . &c. Yet lest we shuld for get that is ones done , in our memory euery yere is done , viz: as often as the pascha is celebrate , is Christ as often killed ? only a yerly remembrance 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 in the sacrament which is thus to be vnderstanded , that in open shewing of his body & distinction of his membres he dede hange only ones vpon the crosse offring himself to god the father an host of redemption effectual for them whom he hath predestinate , also S. Ambrose : in christ the host was ones offred being of power to helth , what do we then ? 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 remembrance of the death of him , & the host is one , not many , how one & not many ? because christ is ones offred . This sacrifice is th exemple of that the same , & alwaies the same is offred therfor this is the same sacrifice , or els it may be sayd because it is offered in manye places , ther be manye Christes , whiche is not so , but one Christ is eche where , & here full and their ful , so as that which is offered euery where is one body , & so also one Sacrifice : Christ hath offred the host , we do offre the same also now : But that we do , is a remembraunce of the sacrifice , Nor their is no cause found 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 th altare , and Christ to be ones offered & daylie offered , but otherwise then , & otherwise nowe , & also it is shewed what is the vertue of this Sacrament , that is to saye , remission of ver●al synne & perfection 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 imperfection in the first offring , but because we dailie fall . And by Petrus iudgement 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 notect Hom●l . de cowore et Sanguine domini . to be wrought by the power of the inuisible priest . By Petrus Lombardus also , ( if his iudgement be true as it is in dede ) and th auctor confesseth it so to be ) that is done in th aulter is not onlie called a sacrifice but also is so , & the same that is offered ones and dailie to be the same , but otherwise then offerid & otherwise nowe . But to the purpose , if th auctor will stande to the iudgement of Petrus Lombardus , 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 consider brefly therin the great charitie of God towardes vs declared in Christ . The Catholique doctrine teacheth the dailye sacrifice to be the same in essence that was of fered on the Crosse ones , assured thereof by Christes wordes when he saide : This is my body that shal be betrayed for you . The offring on the Crosse was & is propiciatorye & satisfactorie for our redemption & remission of sinne , wherby to destroye the tyranny of sinne , th effect wherof is geuen and dispensed in the sacrament of Baptisme , ones likewise ministred & neuer to be it erate , no more than Christ can be crucified again , & yet by vertue of the same offering such as fal be reieued in the sacrament of penance . The daylie offering is propitiatorie also , but not in that degre of propitiation , as for redemption , regeneracion , or remission of deadlye sinne which was ones purchassed , & by force therof is in the sacraments ministred , but for the encrease of gods fauor , the mitigacion of gods displeasure prouoked by our infirmities , the subduyng of temptacions & the perfection of vertue in vs . All good workes , good thoughtes & good meditacions may be called sacrifices & the same be called sacrifices propitiatorie also , for so much as in ther degre god accepteth , and taketh them throughe the effecte and strenghte of the verye Sacrifice of Christes death , whiche is the reconciliacion betwene God and man , ministred & dispensed particularlye as God hath appoynted , in suche measure as he knoweth . But Saincte Paul to the Hebrues exortyng men to charitable Hebr. 13. deades saith , with suche sacrifices God is made fauorable , or God is propitiate , if we shall make new Englishe . Wherupon it foloweth because the Prieste in the daylye Sacrifice doth as Christ hath ordered to be done for shewynge forthe and remembraunce of Christes death , that acte of the Priest done accordynge to goddes commauudement must nedes be propitiatorye and prouoke goddes fauour , and ought to be trusted one , to haue a propitiatorye effecte with God to the membres of Christes bodye , particularly , beynge the same done for the whole bodye in suche wise as God knoweth the dispensacion to be mette and conuenient , accordynge to whiche measure , God worketh most iustlye and most mercyfullye , otherwise then man can by his iudgement discusse and determine . To cal the daylye offeryng a Sacrifice satisfactory must haue an understanding that signifieth not the action 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 significacion & meanyng , as it hath sometyme that declareth th acceptiō of the thynge done , & not the propre contreuaile of thaction , after which sorte man maye satisfie God that is so mercifull as he will take in good worthe for Christes sake mannes imperfite endeuor , & so the dailie offeryng may be called a sacrifice satisfactorie , because God is pleased with it beynge a maner of worshipping of Christes passion accordyng to Christes institution . But otherwise the dailie sacrifice in respect of the action 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 , than by captius vnderstandyng brought in slander when it is vsed , and this speache to be frequentide that thonlie immolacion of Christ in him selfe vpon th aulter of the Crosse is the very satisfactorye Sacrifice for reconciliacion of man kynde to the fauor of God . And I haue not red , the daylye sacrifice of Christes most precious body to be called a sacrifice satisfactorye , but this speache hath in dede bene vsed , that the Priest shoulde synge satisfactorye , whiche they vnderstande in the satisfaction of the Priestes duetye , to attend the prayer he was required to make , and for a distinction 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 from him to an other . This wordes thus framed be not the simple & sincere expression of the trueth of the texte . Whiche sayth that Christ hath a perpetuall Prieasthode , and the greke hathe a worde ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) whiche the greke scholes expresse & exponde by the worde ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) signifiyng the Priesthode of Christe endeth not in him to go to an other by succession as in the tribe of leui , where was among mortall men succession in th office 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 Titum . 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 omnipotencye 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 th auctor woulde auoyde all the testimonye of the fathers by presence yt should be but a maner of speach , the Canon of the Councell of Nice before rehersed and the wordes of it , where mysteries be spoken of in propre termes for doctrine , auoydeth all that shifte and it hath no absurditie to confesse that Christ in his supper did institute for a remembrance of the only sacrifice the presence of the most precious substance 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 th encrease 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 th olde churche other commenly termed the same and among other Chrisostome whom th auctor 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 , th understanding 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 & consummate to finish all sacrifices after th ordre of Aaron , is now only remembred accordyng to Christes institucion but in such wise as the same bodie is offred dailie on th alter that was ones offred on th alter of the Crosse , but the same maner of offeryng is not daylie , that was on th aulter of the crosse , for the dayly offeryng is without bloudshed & is termed so to signifie that bloud sheding ones done to be sufficient . And as Chryyostome openeth it by declaracion of what maner our sacrifice is , that is to say , this daylie offering to be a remembrance of the other maner of sacrifice ones done , & therfore sayth rather we make a remembrance 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 th alter , & 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 remembred & not againe iterate . And wher th auctor saith th old fathers callyng the supper of our . Lorde a sacrifice , ment a Sacrifice of laude & thankes 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 ( viuificum ) 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 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 th effecte of this booke sufficient to haue encountred the chefe poyntes of th auctors doctrine with such contradiction to them as the Catholique doctrine doth of necessitie require , the more particulare confutacion of that is vntrue of th aduersarie parte , and confirm acion 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 heauen with the sonne and holy gost in one vnitie of godhed reignyng without ende .

Amen .