these wordes Let vs marke that the bread which the Lord brake and gaue to his disciples was the body of our Sauiour Christ as he sayd vnto them Take and eate this is my body And S. Augustine also sayth that although we may set forth Christ by mouth by writing and by the sacrament of his body and bloud yet we call neither our toung nor words nor inke letters nor paper the body and bloud of christ but that we call the body and bloud of Christ which is taken of the fruite of the earth and consecrated by misticall prayer And also he sayth Iesus called meat his body and drynke his bloud Moreouer Cyrill vpon S. Iohn saith that Christ gaue to his disciples peces of bread saying Take eate this is my body Likewise Theoderetus saith When Christ gaue the holy misteries he called bread his body and the cuppe myxt with wine and water he called his bloud By all these foresayd authours and places whith many mo it is playnly proued that when our sauiour Christ gaue bread vnto his Disciples saying Take and eate this is my body And likewise when he gaue them the cuppe saying Diuide this among you and drinke you all of this for this is my bloud he called then the very materiall bread his body and the very wine his bloud That bread I say that is one of the creatures here in earth among vs and that groweth out of the earth and is made of many graynes of corne beaten into flower and mixed with water and so baken aud made into bread of such sort as other our bread is that hath neither sence nor reason and finally that feedeth and nourisheth our bodies such bread Christ called his body when he sayd This is my body And such wine as is made of grapes pressed togither and thereof is made drinke whiche nourishe the body such wine he called his bloud This is the true doctrine confirmed as well by the holy scripture as by all auncient authours of Christes Church both Greekes and Latines that is to say that whē our Sauiour Christ gaue bread and wine to his disciples spake these words This is my body This is my bloud it is very bread wine which he called his body and bloud Now let the Papistes shew some authority for their opinion either of scripture or of some aunciant author And let them not constrayne all men to follow their fond deuises only because they say It is so without any other groūd or authoritie but their owne bare wordes For in such wise credite is to be geuen to Gods word only and not to the word of any man As many of them as I haue red the byshop of Winchester onely excepted do say that Christ called not bread his body nor wine his bloud when he sayd This is my body This is my bloud And yet in expoūding these wordes they vary among them selues which is a token that they be vncertaine of their own doctrine For some of them say that by this pronoune demonstratiue this Christe vnderstoode not the bread and wine but his body and bloud And other some say that by the pronoune this he ment neither the bread nor wine not his body nor bloud but that he ment a particuler thyng vncertain which they call Indiuiduum vagum or Indiuiduum in genere I trowe some Mathematicall quiditee they can not tell what But let all these Papistes togyther shew any one authoritie eyther of scripture or of auncient author either Greke or Latine that sayth as they say that Christ called not bread and wine his body and bloud but Indiuiduum vagum and for my part I shall gyue them place and confesse that they say true And if they can shew nothing for them of antiquitie but onely theyr own bare wordes then it is reason that they geue place to the trueth confirmed by so many authorities bothe of scripture and of auncient writers which is that Christ called very materiall bread his body and very wine made of grapes his bloude Winchester After this the author occupieth a great number of leaues that is to say from the lvii leafe vnto the lxxiiii to proue Christs words This is my body to be a figuratiue spech Sleight and shift is vsed in the matter without any offectuall consecution to him that is learned First the author sayth Christ called bread his body Confessed bread his body To this is aunswered Christes calling is a making as S. Paule sayth Vocat ea quae non sunt tanque ea quae sint He calleth that be not as they were And so his calling as Chrisostome and the greke commentaries say is a making which also the Catechisme teacheth trnslated by Iustus Ionas in Germany and after by this author in english Tertullian saith Christ made bread his body it is all one spech in Christ being god declaring his ordinaunces whither he vse the word call or make for in his mouth to call is to make Cypryan saith according hereunto how 's bread is by Gods omnipotency made fleshe whereupon also this spech bread is flesh is as much to say as made flesh not that bread beyng bread is flesh but that was bread is flesh by Gods omnipotency and so this author entreating this matter as he doth hath partly opened the fayth of transubstantiaon For in dede bread beyng bread is not Christes body but that was bread is nowe Christes body because bread is made Christes body and because Christ called bread his body which was in Christ to make bread his body When Christ made water wine the spech is very proper to say water is made wine For after like manner of spech we say Christ iustifieth a wicked man Christ saueth sinners the phisitiō hath made the sicke man whole suche dyet will make an whole man sicke Al these speches be proper and playn so as the construction be not made captious and Sophisticall to ioin that was to that now is forgetting the meane worke When Christ said This is my body there is necessitie that the demonstration this should be referred to the outwarde visible matter but may be referred to the inuisible substaunce As in the spech of God the father vpō Christ in Baptisme This is my son And here whē this auctor taketh his recreation to speak of the fainyng of the papists I shal ioyn this Issue in this place that he vnderstandeth not what he saith and if his knowledge be no better then is vttered herein the penne to be in this point clerly cōdēned of ignoraunce Caunterbury HEre is an other sleight such as the like hath not lightly bene sene For where I wrote that when Christ sayd This is my body it was bread that he called his body you turne the matter to make a descant vpon these 2. wordes calling and making that the nundes of the readers should be so occupied with the discussion of these 2. wordes that in
may be also here in the blessed Sacrament of the aultar I am not so ignorant but I know that Christ appeared to S. Paule and sayd to him Saule Saule why doest thou persecute me But S. Augustin sayth that Christ at his Ascention spake the last wordes that euer he speake vpon earth And yet we finde that Christ speaketh sayth he but in heauen and from heauen and not vpon earth For he spake to Paule from aboue saying Saule Saule why doest thou persecute me The head was in heauen and yet he sayd why doest thou persecute me bycause he persecuted his members vpon earth And if this please not Maister Smith let him blame S. Augustin and not me for I fayne not this my selfe but onely alledge S. Augustin And as the father spake from heauen whan he sayd This is my beloued sonne in whom I am pleased and also S. Stephen saw Christ sittyng in heauen at his fathers right hand euen so ment S. Augustin that S. Paule and all other that haue sene and heard Christ speake since his Ascention haue sene and heard him from heauen NOw when this Papist goyng forward with his woorkes seeth his building so feeble weake that it is not able to stand he returneth to his chief foūdation the Church and Councels generall willyng all men to stay thereupon to leaue disputyng reasonyng And chiefly he shoareth vp his house with the Councell Lateranence whereat sayth he were xiij hundred Fathers xv But he telleth not that viij hundred of them were Monkes Friers and Chanons the Byshop of Romes owne deare deare-lynges chief champions called together in his name not in Christes From which broode of vypers Serpentes what thyng can be thought to come but that dyd proceede frō the spirite of their most holy father that first begat them that is to say from the spirite of Antichrist And yet I know this to bee true that Christ is present with his holy Churche whiche is his holy elected people and shall be with them to the worldes end leadyng gouernyng them with his holy spirite teachyng them all truth necessary for their saluation And when so euer any such be gathered together in his name there is he among them he shall not suffer the gates of hell to preuaile agaynst them For although he may suffer them by their owne frailenes for a tyme to erre fall and to dye yet finally neither sathan hell sinne nor eternall death shall preuaile agaynst them But it is not so of the Church and sea of Rome whiche accompteth it selfe to be the holy Catholicke Churche and the Byshop therof to be most holy of all other For many yeares ago Sathan hath so preuailed agaynst that stinkyng whore of Babylon that her abhominations be knowen to the whole world the name of God is by her blasphemed and of the cup of her dronkennes and poyson haue all nations tasted AFter this cōmeth Smith to Berēgarius Almericus Carolostadius Oecolampadius Zuinglius affirmyng that the Church euer sithens Christes tymes a thousand fiue hūdreth yeares and moe hath beleued that Christ is bodily in the Sacrament and neuer taught otherwise vntill Berengarius came about a thousand yeares after Christ whom the other folowed But in my booke I haue proued by Gods word the old auncient Authors that Christ is not in the sacrament corporally but is bodily corporally ascended into heauen there shall remaine vnto the worldes end And so the true Church of Christ euer beleued from the beginnyng with out repugnaunce vntill Sathan was let louse and Antichrist came with his Papistes which fayned a new and false doctrine contrary to Gods word and the true Catholicke doctrine And this true fayth God preserueth in his holy church still and will doe vnto the worldes end maugre the wicked Antichrist and all the gates of hell And almighty God from time to time hath strēgthened many holy Martirs for this fayth to suffer death by Antichrist and the great harlot Babilon who hath embrewed her handes and is made drunken with the bloud of Martyrs Whose bloud God will reuēge at length although in the meane time he suffer the patiēce and fayth of his holy Saynts to be tried ALl the rest of his Preface contayneth nothing els but the authority of the Church which Smith sayth cannot wholy erre and he so setteth forth and extolleth the same that he preferreth it aboue Gods word affirming not onely that it is the piller of truth and no lesse to bee beleued then holy scripture but also that we should not beleue holy scripture but for it So that he maketh the word of men equall or aboue the word of God And truth it is in deed that the church doth neuer wholy erre for euer in most darcknes God shineth vnto his elect and in the midst of all iniquity he gouerneth them so with his holy word and spirite that the gates of hell preuayle not agaynst them And these be knowne to him although the world many times know them not but hath them in derision and hatred as it had Christ and his Apostles Neuerthelesse at the last day they shal be knowen to all the whole world when the wicked shal wonder at their felicity and say These be they whom we sometime had in verision and mocked We fooles thought their liues very madnes and their end to be without honour But now loe how they be accounted among the children of God and theyr portion is among the sayntes Therfore we haue erred frō the way of truth the light of righteousnesse hath not shined vnto vs we haue wearyed our selues in the way of wickednes and destruction But this holy church is so vnknowne to the world that no mā can discerne it but God alone who onely searcheth the hartes of all men knoweth his true children from other that be but bastardes This church is the piller of trueth because it resteth vpon Gods word which is the true and sure foundation wil not suffer it to erre fall But as for the opē knowne church the outward face therof it is not the piller of truth otherwise thē that it is as it were a register or treasory to keepe the bookes of Gods holy will testament to rest onely thereupon as S. Augustine and Tertullian meane in the place by M. Smith alleadged And as the register keepeth all mens wils and yet hath none authority to adde change or take away any thing nor yet to expound the wils further then the very words of the will extend vnto so that he hath no power ouer the will but by the will euen so hath the church no further power ouer the holy scripture which conteyneth the will and testamēt of god but onely to keepe it and to see it obserued and kept For if the Church proceede further to make any new Articles of the fayth besides the Scripture
tyme to the entent he may be there quiet to accomplish my request let him lacke neither bookes ne any thing requisite for his study And thus after the kynges departure Doct. Cranmer went with my Lord of Wiltshyre vnto his house where he incontinent wrote his mynde concernyng the kynges question addyng to the same besides the authorities of Scriptures of generall Councels and of auncient writers also his opinion which was this that the Byshop of Rome had no such authoritie as wherby he might dispence with the word of God and the Scriptures When Doct. Cranmer had made this booke and committed it to the kyng the kyng sayd to him will you abide by this that you haue here written before the Bishop of Rome That will I do by Gods grace quoth Doct. Cranmer if your Maiestie do send me thether Mary quoth the kyng I will send you euen to him in a sure Ambassage And thus by meanes of Doct. Cranmers handlyng of this matter with the kyng not onely certaine learned men were sent abroad to the most part of the Uniuersities in Christendome to dispute the question but also the same beyng by Commission disputed by the Diuines in both the Uniuersities of Cambridge and Oxford it was there concluded that no such Matrimony was by the word of God lawfull Wherupon a solēne Ambassage was prepared and sent to the Byshop of Rome then beyng at Bonony wherein went the Earle of Wiltshyre Doct. Cranmer Doct. Stokesly Doct. Carne Doct. Bennet and diuers other learned men and Gentlemen And when the tyme came that they should come before the Bishop of Rome to declare the cause of their Ambassage the Byshop sittyng on high in his cloth of estate and in his rich apparell with his sandales on his féete offeryng as it were his foote to be kissed of the Ambassadours the Earle of Wiltshyre with the rest of the Ambassadours disdainyng thereat stoode still made no coūtenaunce thereunto and so kept them selues from that Idolatry In fine the Pontificall Byshop seyng their constancie without any farther ceremonie gaue eare to the Ambassadours Who entryng there before the Byshop offered on the kynges behalfe to be defended that no man Iure diuine could or ought to mary his brothers wife and that the Byshop of Rome by no meanes ought to dispence to the contrary Diuers promises were made and sundry dayes appointed wherein the question should haue bene disputed and when our part was ready to aunswere no mā there appeared to dispute in that behalfe So in the end the Byshop makyng to our Ambassadours good countenaunce and gratiffyng Doctour Cranmer with the Office of the Penitentiarishyp dismissed them vndisputed withall Wherupon the Earle of Wiltshyre and other Commissioners sauyng Doct. Cranmer returned home agayne into England And forthwith Doct. Cranmer went to the Emperour beyng in his iourney towardes Vienna in expedition agaynst the Turke there to aunswere such learned men of the Emperours Coūsaile as would or could say any thyng to the contrary part Where amongest the rest at the same tyme was Cornelius Agrippa an high Officer in the Emperours Court who hauyng priuate conference with Doct. Cranmer in the question was so fully resolued and satisfied in the matter that afterwardes there was neuer disputation openly offered to Doct. Cranmer in that behalfe For through the perswasion of Agrippa all other learned men there were much discouraged This matter thus prosperyng on D. Cranmers behalfe aswell touchyng the kynges questiō as concernyng the inualiditie of the Byshop of Romes authoritie Byshop Warrham then Archbyshop of Caunterbury departed this transitorie lyfe wherby that dignitie then beyng in the kynges gift and disposition was immediatly giuen to Doct. Crāmer as worthy for his trauaile of such a promotiō Thus much touchyng the prefermēt of Doct. Cranmer vnto his dignitie and by what meanes he atchiued vnto the same not by flattery nor by bribes nor by none other vnlawfull meanes whiche thyng I haue more at large discoursed to stoppe the raylyng mouthes of such who beyng them selues obscure and vnlearned shame not so to detract a learned mā most ignominiously with the surname of an Hostler whom for his godly zeale vnto sincere Religion they ought with much humilitie to haue had in regard and reputation Now as concernyng his behauiour and trade of lyfe towardes God and the world beyng entered into his sayd dignitie True it is that he was so throughly furnished withall properties qualities and conditions belongyng to a true Byshop as that it shal be very hard in these straunge dayes to finde many that so nearely resemble that liuely exemplar described by S. Paule the Apostle in his seueral Epistles to Titus and Timothée So farre he swarued from the common course of common Byshops in his tyme. But bicause the same is very well decipbred in the story at large it shall not be so néedefull to discourse all the partes therof in this place Yet may not this be forgotten That notwithstandyng the great charge now cōmitted vnto him The worthy Prelate gaue him selfe euermore to continuall study not breakyng the order that he vsed commonly in the Uniuersitie To wit by v. of the clocke in the mornyng in his study and so vntill ix continuyng in prayer and study From thence vntill dyner tyme to heare suters if the Princes affaires did not call him away committyng his temporall affaires aswell of houshold as other foreine busines to his officers For the most part hee would occupy him selfe in reformatiō of corrupt Religion and settyng forth true and sincere doctrine wherein he would associate him selfe alwayes with learned men for the siftyng boultyng out one matter or other for the commoditie and profite of the Church of England After dynner if any suters were he would diligently heare them and dispatch them in such sort as euery man commended his lenitie and gentlenes That done to his ordinary study agayne vntill fiue of the clocke whiche houre hee bestowed in hearyng common prayer After Supper he would consume an houre at the least in some godly conference and then agayne vntill it of the clocke at one kynde of study or other So that no houre of the day was spent in vayne but was bestowed as tended to Gods glory the seruice of his Prince or the commoditie of the Church As touching his affabilitie easines to be entreated it was such as that in all honest causes wherin his letter counsell or speach might gratifie either nobleman Gentlemā meane man or poore man no mā could be more tractable or sooner wonne to yeld Onely in causes appertainyng to God and his Prince no man more stoute more constant or more hard to be wonne as in that part his earnest defence in the Parlamēt house aboue thrée dayes together in disputyng agaynst the vi Articles of Gardiners deuise cā testifie And though the kyng would néedes haue them vpon some
remayne still in the nature and also how besides the outward receauing of bread and wine Christ is inwardly by fayth receaued in our heartes all this I say he doth so playnly set out that more playnnesse can not be reasonably desired in this matter For he sayth that the conuersion of the visible creatures of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ is like vnto our conuersion in baptisme where outwardly nothing is chaunged but remayneth the same that was before but all the alteration is inwardly and spiritually If thou wilt know sayth he how it ought not to seme to thee a new thing and impossible that earthly and corruptible thinges be turned into the substance of Christ looke vpon thy selfe which art made new in baptisme when thou wast farre from life and banished as a stranger from mercy and from the way of saluation and inwardly wast deade yet sodenly thou beganst an other life in Christ wast made new by holsome misteries wast turned into the body of the church not by seeing but by beleuing and of the child of damnation by a secret purenes thou wast made the chosen sonne of God Thou visibly diddest remayne in the same measure that thou haddest before but inuisibly thou wast made greater without any increase of thy body Thou wast the selfe same person and yet by the increase of fayth thou wast made an other man Outwardly nothing was added but all the change was inwardly And so was man made the sonne of Christ and Christ fourmed in the mind of man Therfore as thou putting away thy former vilenes diddest receaue a new dignite not feeling any change in thy body and as the curing of thy disease the putting away of thine infection the wiping away of thy filthines be not sene with thine eyes but are beleued in thy mind so likewise when thou doest go vp to the reuerend altar to feede vpon spirituall meate in thy fayth looke vpon the body and bloud of him that is thy God honor him touch him with thy mind take him in the hand of thy hart and chiefly drincke him with the draught of thy inward man Hitherto haue I rehersed the sayinges of Eusebius which be so playne that no man can wish more playnly to be declared that this mutation of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ is a sacramentall mutation and that outwardly nothing is changed But as outwardly we eate the bread and drincke the wine with our mouthes so inwardly by fayth we spiritually eate the very flesh and drincke the very bloud of Christ. Winchester As touching Emissene by whose wordes is expressely testified the truth of the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament and also the sence of the doctrine of Transubstantiation this author maketh himselfe bold ouer him and so bold that he dare corrupt him which Emissene writeth not that man is turned into the body of the church And here I make an issue with this author that Emissene hath not that word of turning in that place and man to be turned into the body of the church is no conuenient speach to signifie a change in him that is regenerat by baptisme He in dede that is thrust out of the chauncell for his misdemeanour in seruise tyme may be sayd turned into the body of the church But Emissene speaketh not so here but bicause the same Emissene declaring the mistery of the Sacramēt sayth the visible creatures be turned into the substance of the body of Christ this author thought it would sound gayly well to the confusion of that true doctrine of turning to speake in Baptisme of the turning of a man into the body of the church And it may be commonly obserued in this author when he alleadgeth any authority of others he bringeth forth the same in such forme of wordes as he would haue them and not as they be for the most part or very often and once of purpose were ouer often in so high a matter as this is And yet in this Emissens authority after all the payne taken to reforge him Emissens doctrine playnly confoundeth this Authors teaching This author maketh a note that there is in man baptised nothing changed outwardly and therfore in the Sacrament neyther and it must be graunted For the doctrine of transubstantiation teacheth not in the Sacrament any outward change For the substance of the bread and wine is an inward nature and so is substance of one defined And to speake of the thing changed then as in man the change is in the soule which is the substance of man So for the thing changed in the visible creatures should be also changed and is changed the substance of the bread and wine to answere therein to the other And we must consider how this comparison of the two changes is made as it were by proportion wherein ech change hath his speciall end and terme whereunto and therfore according to the terme and end hath his worke of change speciall and seuerall both by gods worke Thus I meane The visible creatures hath there ende and terme wherunto the change is made the very body and bloud of Christ which body being a true body we must say 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 each changers is of like truth and then it followeth that if the change of mans soule in Baptisme be true and not in a figure the change likewise in the sacrament is also true and not in a figure And if mans soule by the change in Baptisme be in deede that is to say really made the sonne of God then is the substance of the bread which is as it were the soule of the bread I am bolde here in speach to vse the word soule to expresse proportion of the comparison but euen so is the inward nature of the bread which is substance turned and changed in to the body of Christ being the terme and ende of that change And here I say so not to declare the manner but the truth of the ende that is to say as really and in deede the change is in the substance of bread as in the soule of man both these changes be meruaylous and both be in the truth of there change wherunto they be changed of like truth and realty to be done indeede they resemble one an other in the secrecie of the mistery and the ignorance of our senses for in neither is any outward change at all and therfore there was neuer man tripped himselfe more handsomly to take a fall then this author doeth in this place not onely in corrupting euidently and notably the words of Emissene without purpose wherby neuerthelesse he shewed his good will but also by setting forth such matter as ouerturneth all his teaching at once For now the author must
of the Cardinalles Colledge in Oxford refused it Question of the kynges diuorce with Katherine Dowager Doct. Stephens and Doct. Foxe chief furtherers of the kynges diuorce Doct. Stephens D. Foxe Doct. Cranmer coÌ„ferryng together of the kynges cause Doct. Cranmers aunswere in the question of the kynges diuorce Doct. Cranmers deuise well lyked of The king troubled about the cause of his diuorce Doct. Cranmer sent for to the kyng in post Talke betwene the kyng and Doct. Cranmer The king troubled in coÌ„scieÌ„ce Doct. Cranmer excusing and disabling himselfe to the kyng Doct. Cranmer assigned by the kyng to searche the Scriptures in the cause of his diuorce The kyng first geuen to vnderstand that the Pope hath no authoritie to dispence with the word of God The kynges matter remoued from the popes Canon law to the triall of the Scriptures The kynges Mariage fouÌ„de by Gods word vnlawfull Doct. Cranmer with other sâ—nt to Rome Ambassadour to the Pope Arguing to the popes face that contrary to the word of God he had no power to dispense Doct. Cranmer made the popes Penitentiary Doct. Cranmer Ambassadour to the Emperour Conference betwene Byshop Cranmer and Cornelius Agrippa Doct. Cranmer made Archbyshop of Cant. 1. Tim. 3. Titus 1. The order of Doct. Cranmers study The gentle nature of Doctour Cranmer Doct. Cranmer stoute and constant in Gods cause Doct. Cranmer a stoute enemy agaynst the sâ—â— Articles Of this commyng of the I. Cromwell and the two Dukes to the Archbyshop ExaÌ„ple for Ecclesiasticall Pastours Archb. CraÌ„mer in displeasure about the imployng of Chauntrey landes The singular patience of this Archbyshop A story betwen the Archb. of Caunterbury a popish Priest his enemy The rayling of a popish Priest agaynst Doct. Cranmer Chersey â—â—yng for his kynseâ—â— to the Archb. The Priest sent for to the Archbyshop The Archbyshops wordes vnto the Parson The Priest coÌ„fesseth his fault to the Archb. The raâ—he tâ—â—ngeâ— of men sclaunderously speakyng â—uill by meÌ„ whoÌ„ they neuer knew nor saw before The Priestest aunswere The Masse Priest ignoraunt in the Scripture The giâ—e of popish Priests when they fauour not the Religion of a man they sclauÌ„der his person Euill will neuer sayd well The Archbyshop forgâ—â—eth and dismisseth the Priest The liberall doynges of this Archbyshop The Archbyshop clearyng all his debtes before his attainder The Archb. Cranmer euer constant in defence of Christs truth and Gospell The Archb. alone standeth in defence of the truth Bishop Heath and Byshop Skippe forsake the Archb. in the playne field The Archb. incensed by B. Heath and B. Skippe to geue ouer the defence of the Gospell The aunswere of the Archb. to Doct. Heath Skippe The Papistes busie to bryng the Archb. out of credit with the kyng The Archbyshop agayne accused to the kyng The kyng sent Syr Antony Deny at midnight for the Archb. The kynges wordes and aduise for the supportation of the Archbyshop The Archbyshops auÌ„swere to the kyng The kyngs fauourable care consideration towarde the Archb. of Cant. The kyng sendeth his â—â—gnet in the behalfe of the Archb. of Canterbury The Archbyshop beyng one of the Counsell made to staÌ„d at the Counsell chamber doore waityng Doct. Buttes the kings Phisition a frend of the Archb. The Archbyshop called before the Counsell The CouÌ„sel beyng set agaynst the Archb. hee sheweth the kyngs Kyng appealeth from them The kynges wordes to the Counsell in defence of the Archbyshop The Lordes of the Counsell glad to be freÌ„ds againe with the Archbyshâ—p The kyng a great supporter of Cranmer The Lord CroÌ„wels wordes to the Archbyshop The true and goâ—ly doctrine of the Sacrament in fiue bookes set forth by the Archb. of Canterbury An explication of StepheÌ„ Gardiner agaynst Cranmer Archbyshop of CaÌ„t. Manâ—taltameÌ„te repostum Iudicium paridis spraetaeque inniria matris Virg. AEneid 1. This Doctour Thornton was after the Byshop of Douer a cruell wicked persecuter This Byshop was Doctour Heath Byshop after of Yorkâ— Cranmer condemned of treason Cranmer released of treason and accused of heresie Cranmer had to Oxford Of this condeÌ„nation read in the last 〈◊〉 pag. 1554. The Archbyshop contented to recant Causes mouyng the Archbyshop to geue with the tyme. The Queenâ—s hart set agaynst Cranmer The Queene conferreth with Doct. Cole about Cranmers burnyng L. William of Thame L. ShaÌ„doys Syr Thomas Bridges Syr Iohn Browne appourted to be at Cranmers execution Cranmer writteth subscribeth the Articles with his owne handes Doct. Cranmer brought to D. Coles SerinoÌ„ Doct. Cranmer set vpoÌ„ a stage Doct. Coles Sermon deuided into three partes The summe effect of Doct. Coles Sermon at Oxford If Cole gaue this iudgement vpon Cranmer wheÌ„ hee had repented what iudgement is then to be geueÌ„ of Cole whiche alwayes hath pâ—â—dured in errour and neuer yet repented If all heretickes in England should be burned where should Doct. Cole haue bene ere now Lex non aequalitatis sed iâ—iquitatis No state in this earth so hye nor so sure but it may fall Doct. Cole encourageth the Archb. to take his death patiently 1. Cor. 10. Doct. Cole reioyseth in the Archbyshops conuersion bâ—t that reioysing lasted not long Dirâ—ges and Masses promised for Cranmers soule The teares of the Archb. Cranmer required to declare his fayth CraÌ„mer willing to declare his fayth The wordes of the Archb. to the people The Prayer of the Archb. The last words of exhortatioÌ„ of the Archb. to the people Exhortation to contempt of the world Exhortation to obedience Exhortation to brotherly loue Exhortation to rich meÌ„ of this world mouyng them to charitable almes Luke 18. 1. Iohn 3. The Archb. declareth the true coÌ„fession of his fayth without all colour or dissemblyng The Archb. reuoketh his former recantation and repenteth the same The Archb. refuseth the Pope as Christes enemy and Antichrist The Archb. standeth to his booke written agaynst Wincester The expectation of the Papistes deceaued The Popistes in a great chaffe agaynst the Archbyshop Cranmers aunswere to the Papistes Cranmer pulled downe from the stage Cranmer led to the fire The Archb. brought to the place of execution M. Ely refuseth to geue his haÌ„d to the Archb. The Archb. tyed to tht â—â—â—ke Cranmer putteth his right haÌ„d which subscribed first into the â—râ— The last wordâ— of Cranmer at his death The Friers lying report of Cranmer I would as much as may be do my due to the matter and him also The craft of winchester in the beginnyng The summe of the booke Because the author pretendeth a defence of the catholick faith it were reason to know what it is The effect of that this author calleth his faith Untrue report Bread wine water be not holy but holy tokens They be not bare tokens Christ is preseÌ„t in his sacramentes A catholike fayth Thus authors fayth hath no point of a catholike fayth Untrue report Scripture in letter fauoureth not thus autors fayth My doctrine is catholike by your owne description
vp in the study of Schoole Authours without regard had to the authoritie of Scriptures were coÌ„monly reiected by him so that he was greatly for that his seuere examination of the Religious sort much hated and had in great indignation and yet it came to passe in the end that diuers of them being thus compelled to study the Scriptures became afterwardes very well learned and well affected in so much that when they procéeded Doctours of Diuinitie could not ouermuch extoll and commende Maister Doct. Cranmers goodnes towardes them who had for a tyme put them backe to aspire vnto better knowledge and perfection Amongest whom Doct. Barret a white Frier who afterwardes dwelt at Norwich was after that sort handled giuyng him no lesse commeÌ„dation for his happy reiecting of him for a better amendement Thus much I repeate that our Apish and Popish sorte of ignoraunt Priestes may well vnderstand that this his exercise kynde of life and vocation was not altogether Hostelerlike I omit here how Cardinall Wolsey after the foundation of his Colledge in Oxford hearyng the fame of his learnyng vsed all meanes possible to place him in the same which he refused with great daunger of indignation conteÌ„tyng him selfe with his former Felowship in Cambridge Untill vpon occasion of the plague being in Cambridge he resorted to WalthaÌ„ Abbey and soiourned with one M. Cressey there whose wife was Doct. Cranmers niece and two of her children his pupilles in Cambridge Duryng this tyme the great and weightie cause of kyng Henry the viij his diuorce with the Lady Katherine Dowager of Spayne was in questioÌ„ Wherein two Cardinals Campeius Wolsey were appointed in Commission from the Pope to heare and determine the controuersie betwene the Kyng and the Quéene who by many dilatories dallying delaying the whole sommer vntill the moneth of August taking occasioÌ„ to finish their CoÌ„mission so moued the patience of the kyng that in all hast he remoued from London to WalthaÌ„ for a night or twaine whiles the Dukes of Northfolke and Suffolke dispatched Cardinall Campeius home agayne to Rome By meanes wherof it chaunced that the kynges herbengers lodged Doct. Stephens Secretary and Doct. Foxe Almosiner who were the chief furtherers preferrers defenders of the foresayd cause in the kyngs behalfe in the house of the sayd M. Cressey where Doct. Cranmer was also resiaunt as before When Supper tyme came and all thrée Doctours mette together being of old acquaintaunce they entertayned eche other familiarly and the sayd Doct. Stephens and Doct. Foxe takyng occasion of their happy méetyng together began to conferre with Doct. Cranmer concernyng the kynges cause requestyng him to declare his opinion therein Whereunto Doct. Cranmer aunswered that he could say litle in the matter for that he had not studied nor looked for it Notwithstandyng he sayd to them that in his opinioÌ„ they made more adde in prosecutyng the lawes Ecclesiasticall then néeded It were better as I suppose quoth Doct. Cranmer that the question whether a man may mary his brothers wife or no were decided and discussed by the Diuines and by the authoritie of the word of God whereby the conscience of the Prince might be better satisfied and quieted then thus from yeare to yeare by frustratory delayes to prolong the tyme leauing the very truth of the matter vnbuâ—ted out by the word of God There is but one truth in it which the Scripture will soone declare make open manifest beyng by learned men well handled that may be aswell done in England in the Uniuersities here as at Rome or els where in any foreine nation the authoritie wherof will compell any Iudge soone to come to a diffinitiue sentence therfore as I take it you might this way haue made an end of this matter long sithens When Doct. Cranmer had thus ended his tale the other two wel liked of his deuise and wished that they had so procéeded afore tyme and thereupon conceiued some matter of that deuise to instruct the kyng withall who then was mynded to send to Rome agayne for a new Commission Now the next day when the kyng remoued to Grenewich like as he tooke him selfe not well handled by the Cardinals in thus differryng his cause so his mynde beyng vnquieted desirous of an end of his long tedious sute he called to him this his ij principall doers of his sayd cause namely the said Doct. Stephens and D. Foxe saying vnto theÌ„ What now my Maisters quoth the kyng shall we do in this infinite cause of mine I sée by it there must be a new CoÌ„mission procured from Rome and when we shall haue an end God knoweth and not I. When the kyng had sayd somewhat his mynde herein the Almosiner Doct. Foxe sayd vnto the kyng agayne we trust that there shal be better wayes deuised for your Maiestie then to make trauaile so farre to Rome any more in your highnes cause which by chaunce was put into our heades this other night beyng at Waltham and so discouered to the kyng their méetyng and conference with Doct. Cranmer at M. Cresseys house Wherupon Doct. Cranmer was sent for in post beyng as then remoued from Waltham towardes his frendes in Lincolne shyre and so brought to the Court to the kyng Whom the noble Prince benignely acceptyng demauÌ„ded his name and sayd vnto him Were you not at Waltham such a tyme in the company of my Secretary and my Almosiner Doct. Cranmer affirmyng the same the kyng sayd agayne had you not conference with them concernyng our matter of diuorce now in question after this sort repeatyng the maner and order therof That is right true if it please your highnes quoth Doct. Cranmer Well sayd the kyng I well perceiue that you haue the right scope of this matter You must vnderstand quoth the kyng that I haue bene long troubled in coÌ„science and now I perceiue that by this meanes I might haue bene long agoe releaued one way or other from the same if we had this way procéeded And therfore Maister Doctour I pray you and neuertheles because you are a subiect I charge and commauÌ„de you all your other busines affaires set apart to take some paynes to sée this my cause to be furthered accordyng to your deuise asmuch as it may lye in you with many other wordes in commendation of the Quéenes Maiestie Doct. Cranmer much disablyng him selfe to medle in so weightie a matter besought the kynges highnes to commit the triall and examinyng of this matter by the word of God vnto the best learned meÌ„ of both his Uniuersities Cambridge and Oxford You say well sayd the kyng and I am content there with But yet neuertheles I will haue you specially to write your mynde therein And so callyng the Earle of Wiltshyre to hym sayd I pray you my Lord let D. Cranmer haue intertaynement in your house at Durham place for a
vnlikely thyng it was and contrary to all maner of reason that a Prince hauyng two Uniuersities within his realme of well learned men and desirous to be resolued of as doubtfull a questioÌ„ as in these many yeares was not moued the like within ChristeÌ„dome should be driuen to that necessitie for the defence of his cause to send out of his Realme an Hostler beyng a man of no better knowledge then is a goslyng in an Ambassade to aunswere all learned men both in the Court of Rome and in the Emperours Court in so difficult a question as toucheth the kynges Matrimony and the diuorce therof I say if you were men of any reasonable consideration you might thinke it both vnséemely and vncomely for a Prince so to But looke where malice raigneth in men there reason can take no place and therfore I sée by it that you all are at a point with me that no reason or authoritie can perswade you to fauour my name who neuer ment euill to you but your both commoditie and profite Howbeit God amend you all forgeue you and send you better myndes With these wordes the Priest séemed to wéepe and desired his Grace to pardon his fault and frayltie so that by his meanes he might returne to his Cure agayne and he would sure recant those his foolishe wordes before his Parishioners so soone as he came home and would become a new man Well sayd the Archbyshop so had you néede And geuyng him a godly admonition to refuse the hauntyng of the Alâ—house and to bestow his tyme better in the continuall readyng of the Scriptures hee dismissed him from the Fléete How litle this Prelate we speake of was infected with filthy desire of lucre and how he was no niggard all kynde of people that knew him aswell learned beyond the Seas and on this side to whom yearely he gaue in exhibition no small summes of money as other both Gentlemen meane men and poore men who had in their necessitie that which he could conueniently spare lende or make can well testifie And albeit such was his liberalitie to all sortes of men that no man did lacke whom he could do for either in giuyng or lendyng yet neuertheles such was agayne his circumspection that when he was apprehended committed by Quéene Mary to the Tower he ought no maÌ„ liuyng a peny that could or would demaunde any duetie of him but satisfied euery man to the vttermost where els no small summes of money were â—wyng to him of diuers persons which by breakyng their billes and obligations hee fréely forgaue and suppressed before his attainter In somuch that when he perceiued the fatall end of kyng Edward should worke to him no good successe touchyng his body and goodes he incontinently called his Officers his Steward and other commaundyng them in any wise to pay where any peny was owyng which was out of hand dispatched In which Archbyshop this moreouer is to be noted with a memorandum touchyng the reliefe of the poore impotent sicke and such as then came from the warres at Bullein and other partes beyond the seas lame wounded and destitute for whom he prouided besides his mansion house at Beckisborne in Kent the Personage barne well furnished with certaine lodgynges for the sicke and maymed Souloiours To whom were also appointed the Almosiner a Phisicion and Surgion to attend vpon them and to dresse and cure such as were not able to resort to their countreys hauyng dayly from the Byshops kitchin hoate broth and meate for otherwise the common Almes of the houshold was bestowed vpon the poore neighbours of the shyre And when any of the impotent did recouer and were able to trauaile they had conueÌ„ient money deliuered to beare their charges accordyng to the number of myles from that place distant And this good example of mercy and liberall benignitie I thought here good not in silence to bee suppressed wherby other may be moued accordyng to their vocation to walke in the steps of no lesse liberalitie then in him in this behalâ—e appeared Amongest all other his vertues his constancy in Christes cause and settyng forth the Gospell purely and sincerely was such that he would neither for dread or méede affection or fauour to swarâ—e at any tyme or in any poynt from the truth as appeared by his sundry trials wherein neither fauonr of his Prince nor feare of the indignatioÌ„ of the same nor any other worldly respect could alienate or chaunge his purpose grounded vppon that infallible doctrine of the Gospell Notwithstandyng his constant defence of Gods truth was euer ioyned with such méekenesse toward the kyng that he neuer tooke occasion of offence agaynst him At the setting forth of the vi Articles mention was made before in the story of kyng Henries tyme how aduenturously this Archbyshop Thomas Cranmer did oppose him selfe standyng as it were post alone agaynst the whole Parlament disputyng and replyng thrée dayes together agaynst the sayd Articles in somuch that the kyng when neither he could mislike his reasons and yet would néedes haue these Articles to passe required him to absent him selfe for the tyme out of the chamber while the Acte should passe as is already declared before And this was done duryng yet the state and tyme of the Lord Cromwels authoritie And now that it may appeare likewise that after the decay of the Lord Cromwell yet his constancie in Christes cause did not decay you shall heare what followed after For after the apprehension of the Lord Cromwell when the aduersaries of the Gospell thought all thynges sure now on their side it was so appointed amongest them that x. or xij Byshops and other learned men ioyned together in Commission came to the said Archb. of Canterbury for the establishyng of certaine Articles of our Religion whiche the Papistes then thought to winne to their purpose agaynst the sayd Archbyshop For hauyng now the Lord Cromwell fast and sure they thought all had bene safe and sure for euer As in déede to all mens reasonable consideration that tyme appeared so daungerous that there was no maner hope that Religion reformed should any one wéeke loÌ„ger stand such accompt was then made of the kings vntowardnes thereunto in somuch that of all those Commissioners there was not one left to stay on the Archbyshops part but he alone agaynst them all stoode in defeÌ„ce of the truth those that he most trusted to namely Byshop Heath and Byshop Skippe left him in the playne field who then so turned agaynst him that they tooke vpon them to perswade him to their purpose and hauyng him downe from the rest of the Commissioners into his garden at Lambeth there by all maner of effeâ—â—uall perswasions entreated him to leaue of his ouermuch constancie and to encline vnto the kinges intent who was fully set to haue it otherwise then he then had penned or ment to haue set abroad When those two his familiars with one or
from the begynnyng hee tooke occasion by and by to turne his tale to Cranmer and with many hoâ—e wordes reproued him that once he beyng endued with the fauour and féelyng of holesome and Catholicke doctrine fell into the contrary opinioÌ„ of pernitious errour which he had onely defended by writynges and all his power but also allured other men to the like with great liberalitie of giftes as it were appointyng rewardes for errour and after he had allured them by all meanes did cherish them It were to long to repeate all thyngs that in long order were then pronounced The summe of this tripartite declamation was that hee sayd Gods mercy was so tempered with his Iustice that he did not altogether require punishment according to the merites of offenders nor yet sometymes suffered the same altogether to goe vnpunished yea though they had repeÌ„ted As in Dauid who wheÌ„ he was bidden chuse of thrée kyndes of punishments which he would he had chosen Pestilence for thrée dayes the Lord forgaue gaue him halfe the tyme but didnt release all And that the same thyng came to passe in hym also to whom although pardon and reconciliation was due accordyng to the Canons seyng hee repented from his errours yet there were causes why the Quéene and the Counsell at this tyme iudged hym to death of whiche lest hee should maruell to much he should heare some First that beyng a traytour he had dissolued the lawfull Matrimonie betwene the kyng her father and mother besides the driuyng out of the Popes authoritie while he was Metropolitane Secondly that he had bene an hereticke from whom as from an Authour and onely fountaine all hereticall doctrine and schismaticall opinions that so many yeares haue preuailed in England did first rise and spryng of which he had not bene a secret fauourer onely but also a most earnest defender euen to the end of his life sowyng them abroad by writynges and Argumentes priuately and openly not without great ruine and decay of the Catholicke Church And further it séemed méete accordyng to the law of equalitie that as the death of the Duke of Northumberland of late made euen with Thomas More Chauncellour that dyed for the Churche so there should be one that should make euen with Fisher of Rochester and because that Ridley Hoper Farrar were not able to make euen with that man it séemed méete that Cranmer should be ioyned to them to fill vp this part of equalitie Beside these there were other iust weightie causes which séemed to the Quéene the Counsell whiche was not méete at that tyme to be opened to the common people After this turnyng his tale to the hearers he bad all men beware by this mans example that among men nothyng is so high that can promise it selfe safetie on the earth and that Gods vengeauÌ„ce is equally stretched agaynst all men spareth none therfore they should beware and learne to feare their Prince And seyng the Quéenes Maiestie would not spare so notable a man as this much lesse in the like cause she would spare other men that no man should thinke to make thereby any defence of his errour either in riches or any kynde of authoritie They had now an example to teach them all by whose calamitie euery man might consider his owne fortune who from the top of dignitie none being more honorable then he in the whole Realme and next the kyng was fallen into so great miserie as they might now sée beyng a man of so high degrée sometyme one of the chiefest Prelates in the Church and an Archbishop the chief of the CouÌ„sell the second person in the Realme of long tyme a man thought in greatest assurauÌ„ce hauyng a kyng on his side notwithstandyng all his authoritie and defence to be debased from high estate to a low degrée of a Counsellour to become a caitiffe and to be set in so wretched a state that the poorest wretch would not chaunge condition with him briefly so heaped with miserie on all sides that neither was left in him any hope of better fortune nor place for worse The latter part of his Sermon he conuerted to the Archbishop whom he comforted and encouraged to take his death well by many places of Scripture as with these and such like hiddyng him not mistrust but he should incontinently receiue that the théefe did to whom Christ sayd Hodie mecum eris in Paradiso that is This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise And out of S. Paule he armed him agaynst the terrour of the fire by this Dominus fidelis est non sinet vos tentari vltra quà m ferre potestis that is The Lord is faythful which will not suffer you to be tempted aboue your strength by the example of the thrée children to whom God made the flame to séeme like a pleasaunt dew addyng also the reioysing of S. Andrew in his Crosse the patience of S. Laurence on the fire assuryng him that God if he called on him and to such as dye in his fayth either would abate the furie of the flame or geue him strength to abide it He glorified God much in his conuersion because it appeared to be onely his worke declaryng what trauell and conference had bene with him to conuert him and all preuayled not till that it pleased God of his mercy to reclayme him and call him home In discoursing of which place he much commended Cranmer and qualified his former doynges thus temperyng his iudgement and talke of him that while the tyme sayd he he flowed in riches and honour he was vnworthy of his lyfe and now that he might not liue he was vnworthy of death But lest he should cary with him no comfort he would diligently labour hee sayd and also hee did promise in the name of all the Priestes that were present immediately after his death there should be Diriges Masses and funerals executed for him in all the Churches of Oxford for the succour of his soule Cranmer in all this meane tyme with what great grief of mynde he stoode hearyng this Sermon the outward shewes of his body and countenaunce did better expresse theÌ„ any man can declare one while liftyng vp his handes and eyes vnto heauen and then agayne for shame lettyng theÌ„ downe to the earth A maÌ„ might haue sene the very image and shape of perfite sorrow liuely in him expressed More then twentie seuerall tymes the teares gushed out aboundantly dropped downe marueilously from his fatherly face They which were present doe testifie that they neuer saw in any child more teares theÌ„ brast out from him at that tyme all the Sermon while but specially when hee recited his Prayer before the people It it is marueilous what commiseration and pitie moued all mens hartes that beheld so heauie a countenaunce and such aboundaunce of teares in an old man of so reuerend dignitie Cole after he had ended his Sermon called
much as you say that it liketh me to reporte this most vntruely reade what the glose saith vpō the chapter Tribus gradibus de Consecrat dist a there you shall finde these words Certum est quod species quam citó dentibus teruntur tam citó in Coelum rapitur corpus Christi And if this glose be false and erroneous why was it published and set out by the authority of the Papistes Why hath it been writtē and printed in so many countreis and so many yeares without reprofe of any fault found therein by any man But here may wise men learn to beware of your doctrine For you reproue those Papistes which haue written of this matter 4. or 5. hundreth yeares past and doe inuent a new deuise of your own And therefore wise men when they see you teach one doctrine and the Papistes that were before your time teach another they will beleeue none of you all And where you say that in the beleefe of this mistery is great benefitte and consolation What benefitte I beseech you is it to vs if Christ be really and corporally in the formes of bread and wine a moneth or two or a yeare or two And if we receaue him really and corporally with the bread and wine into our mouthes or stomackes and no further and there he tarieth not in that sorte but departeth away from vs by and by agayn what great benefit or comforte I pray you is such a corporall presence vnto vs And yet this is the teaching of all the Papistes although you seeme to vary from them in this last point of Christes sodayne departure But when the matter shall be throughly answered I weene you will agree with the rest of the Papistes that as concerning his carnall presence Christ departeth from vs at the least wheu the formes of bread and wine be altered in the stomack And then I pray you declare what comfort and benefitte we haue by this carnall presence which by and by is absent and taryeth not with vs Such comfort haue weake and sick consciences at the Papistes handes to tell them that Christ was with them and now he is gone from them Neuerthelesse in the beleef of this mistery if it be vnderstāded according to Gods word is great benefit and consolation but to beleeue your addition vnto Gods word is neither benefit nor wisedome And I pray you shew in what place the Scripture saith that vnder the formes of bread and wine is the body of Christ really corporally and naturally or els acknowledge them to be your own additiō beside Gods word and your stout assertion herein to be but presumptuous boldnesse and wicked temeritie affirming so arrogantly that thing for the which you haue no authority of Gods word And where you seeme to be offended with the discussion of this matter what hurte I pray you can gold catch in the fire or truth with discussing Lyes onely feare discussing The Deuill hateth the light because he hath been a lyar from the beginning and is loth that his lies should come to light and triall And all Hipocrites and Papistes be of a like sorte afraide that their doctrine should come to discussing whereby it may euidently appeare that they be indued with the spirite of error and lying If the Papists had not feared that their doctrines should haue bene espied and their opions haue come to discussing the scriptures of God had bene in the vulgare and English tounge many yeares ago But God be praysed at the length your doctrine is come to discussing so that you can not so craftely walke in a cloude but the light of Gods word will alwaies shew where you be Our Sauiour Christ in the fifth of Iohn willeth vs to search the scriptures and to trie out the trueth by them And shall not we then with humble reuerence search the trueth in Christes Sacramentes And if we can not tel how Christ is present why do you then say that he is substantially present corporally present naturally and carnally present And how sure be you that Christ is in substaunce present because he is truely present Are you assured that this your doctrine agreeth with Gods word Doth not Gods word teach a true presence of Christ in spirit where he is not present in his corporall substance As when he saith Where two or three be gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them And also when he sayth I shall be with you till the end of the world Was it not a true presence that Christ in these places promised And yet can you not of this true presence gather such a corporall presence of the substance of Christs manhod as you vnlearnedly contrary to the scriptures◠go about to proue in the Sacramēt For when Christ said This is my body it was bread which is called his body in a figuratiue speach as all olde authors teach and as I haue proued in my third booke the 8 and 11 chap. And the manner how Christ caried himfelfe in his own handes sainct Augustine declareth it to be figuratiuely And because you can finde no repugnaunce betweene the two partes of this comparison to make them more plaine I shall fill them vp with more wordes as I did the other comparisons before This therefore shall be the comparison They say that Christ is really and corporally in the sacramentall bread beyng reserued so long as the forme of bread remayneth although it be an whole years and more but after the receiuing thereof he flyeth vp from the receauer into heauen as sone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or digested in the stomacke But we say that after what manner Christ is receaued of vs in the same wise he remaineth in vs so long as we remaine the members of Christ. And where in the end you admonish the reader that what so euer you affirme or precisely deny you meane within the compasse of your knowledge and of publicke doctrine and of doctrine by consent receaued what do you here else but deuise certayne sleightes and prepare for your selfe priuy holes to start out at when so euer you should be taken with a manifestly So that you should not be cōpelled to abide by any word that you say For by these crafty sleightes and shifts of the compasse of your knowledge and of publick doctrine and of doctrine by common consent receaued you meane to say euer what you list And though neuer so manyfest a lye or vntruth be layd to your charge yet shall no manne neuer be able to proue it so manifestly against you but you shall haue one of these thre shiftes to flee out at for your defence Now foloweth in my booke the fift comparison They say that in the Sacrament the corporall members of Christ be not distant in place one frō an other but that where so euer the head is there be the feete and where so euer
them by Manna was geuen the same thing that now is geuen to vs in the sacramentall bread And if I would graunt for your pleasure that in theyr sacrameÌ„ts Christ was promised and that in ours he is really geuen doth it not then followe aswell that Christ is geuen in the sacrament of Baptisme as that he is geuen in the Sacrament of his flesh and bloud And S. Augustin contra Faustum esteemeth them madde that think diuersity betweene the things signified in the old and new testament because the signes be diuers And expressing the matter playnely sayth that the flesh and bloud of our sacryfice before Christs comming was promised â— y sacryfices of similitudes in his passion was geuen indeed after his asâ—â—ntion is solemnly put in our memory by the Sacrament And the thing which you say S. Augustine noteth to be geuen in the sacraments of the new testament and to be promised in the sacramentes of the olde S. Augustine expresseth the thing which he ment that is to say saluation and eternall lyfe by Christ. And yet in thys mortall lyfe we haue not eternall lyfe in possession but in promise as the prophets had But S. Augustine sayth that we haue the promise because we haue Christ all ready come which by the Prophets was promised before that he should come therefore S. Iohn the Baptist was called more then a Prophet because he said Here is the lamb of God already preset which the Prophets taught vs to looke for vntill he came The effect therfore of S. Augustins words plainly to be expressed was this that the prophets in the old testament Promised a sauiour to come redeem the world which the sacraments of that tyme testified vntill hys comming but now he is already come and hath by his death performed that was promised which our sacramentes testifie vnto vs as S. Augustine declareth more playnely in his booke De fide ad Petrum the xix chapter So that S. Augustine speaketh of the geuing of Christ to death which the sacraments of the old testament testified to come and ours testify to be done and not of the geuing of him in the sacraments And forasmuch as S. Augustine spake generally of all the sacraments therefore if you will by his words proue that Christ is corporally in the sacrament of the holy communion you may aswell proue that he is corporally in baptisme For saint Augustine speaketh no more of the one then of the other But where saint Augustin speaketh generally of al the sacraments you restrayne the matter particularly to the sacrament of the Lords supper onely that the ignoraunt reader should thinke that saynt Augustine spake of the corporall presence of Christ in the sacramentes and that onely in the sacraments of bread and wine where as saynt Augustine himself speaketh onely of our saluation by Christ and of the sacraments in generall And neuerthelesse as the fathers had the same Christ and mediator that we haue as you here confesse so did they spiritually eat his fâ—esh and drinke his bloud as we doe and spiritually feed of him and by faith he was present with theÌ„ as he is with vs although carnally and corporally he was yet to come vnto theÌ„ and from vs is gon vp to his father into heauen This besides saynt Augustine is plainely set out by Bertrame aboue 6. hundreth yeares passed whose iudgement in this matter of the sacrament although you allow not because it vtterly coÌ„demneth your doctrine therein yet forasmuch as hytherto his teaching was neuer reproued by none but by you alone and that he is commeÌ„ded of other as an excellent learned man in holy scripture and a notable famous man aswell in liuing as learning and that among his excellent works this one is specially praised which he wrot of the matter of the SacrameÌ„t of the body and bloud of our Lord therfore I shall reherse his teaching in this point how the holy fathers and Prophets before the comming of Christ did eat Christes flesh and drink his bloud So that although Bertrams saying be not estemed with you yet the indifferent reader may see what was written in this matter before your doctrine was inuented And although his authority be not receiued of you yet his words may serue against Smyth who herein more learnedly and with more iudgement then you approueth this author This is Bertrams doctrine S. Paule saith that all the old fathers did eat the same spirituall meat and drinke the same spiritual drink But peraduenture thou wilt ask Which the same Euen the very same that christen people do daily eat and drinke in the church For we may not vnderstand diuers things when it is one and the self same Christ which in times past did feed with his flesh and made to drink of his bloud the people that were baptised in the cloude and sea in the wildernes and which doth now in the church feed christen people with the bread of his body and giueth theÌ„ to drink the floud of his bloud When he had not yet taken mans nature vpon him wheÌ„ he had not yet tasted death for the saluation of the world not redemed vs with his bloud neuertheles euen then our forefathers by spiritual meat and inuisible drink did eat his body in the wildernes and drink his bloud as the Apostle beareth witnesse saying The same spiritual meat the same spiritual drink For he that now in the church by his omnipotent power doth spiritually conuert bread wine into the flesh of his body and into the floud of his owne bloud he did theÌ„ inuisibly so worke that Manna which came from heauen was his body and the water his bloud Now by the thinges here by me alledged it euidently appereth that this is no nouelty of speech to say that the holy fathers and Prophets did eat Christes flesh and drink his bloud For both the scripture and old authors vse so to speake how much soeuer the spech mislike them that like no fashion but their own And what doth this further the pestilent heresy of Ione of Kent Is this a good argument The fathers did eat Christes flesh and drinke his bloud spiritually before he was borne ergo after he was not corporally borne of his mother Or because he was corporally borne is he not therefore dayly eaten spiritually of his faithfull people Because he dwelt in the world corporally from his incarnation vnto his ascention did he not therfore spiritually dwell in his holy members before that tyme and hath so done euer sithens and will do to the worldes end Or if he be eaten in a figure can you induce thereof that he was not borne without a figure Do not such kynde of argumentes fauour the errour of Ione of Kent Yea do they not manifestly approue her pestiferous heresy if they were to be alowed What man that meaneth the trueth would bring in such manner of resoning to deface the truth
his owne glose to exclude the truth of the eating of Christes flesh in his supper And yet for a shifte if a man would ioyne issue with him putteth to his speach the wordes grossely and carnally which wordes in such a rude vnderstanding be termes méeter to expresse how dogges deuoure paunches then to be inculked in speaking of this high mystery Wherein I will make the issue with this author that no catholike teaching is so framed with such termes as though we should eate Christs most precious body grossely carnally ioyning those wordes so together For els carnally alone may haue a good signification as Hillary vseth it but contrariwise speaking in the Catholique teaching of the maner of Christes presence they call it a spirituall maner of presence and yet there is present by gods power the very true naturall body and bloud of Christ whole God man without leauing his place in heauen and in the holy supper men vse their mouthes and téeth following Christes commaundement in the receiuing of that holy Sacrament being in fayth sufficiently instruct that they can not ne do not teare consume or violate that most precious body and bloud but vnworthely receiuing it are cause of their owne iudgement and condemnation Caunterbury EAting and drinking with the mouth being so playne a matter that yong babes learne it and know it before they cā speake yet the Cut till here with his blacke colours and darke speaches goeth about so to couer and hyde the matter that neither yong nor olde learned nor vnlearned should vnderstand what he meaneth But for all his masking who is so ignoraunt but he knoweth that eating in the propper and vsuall signification is to bite and chaw in sunder with the teeth And who knoweth not also that Christ is not so eaten Who can then be ignorant that here you speake a manifest vntruth when you say that Christes body to be eaten is of it selfe a propper speach and not figuratiue Which is by and by confessed by your selfe when you say that we do not eate that heauēnly meat as we do other carnall meates which is by chawing and deuiding with the mouth and teeth And yet we receaue with the mouth that is ordeined to be receiued with the mouth that is to say the Sacramentall bread and wine esteming them neuerthelesse vnto vs when we duly receiue them according vnto Christes wordes and ordinaunce But where you say that of the substaunce of Christes body no good man iudgeth carnally ne discusseth the vnfaythful question how you charge your selfe very sore in so saying and seeme to make demonstration vpon your selfe of whom may be sayd Ex ore tuo te iudico For you both iudge carnally in affirming a carnall presence and a carnall eating and also you discusse this question how when you say that Christes body is in the sacrament really substauncially corporally carnally sensible and naturally as he was born of the virgin Mary and suffered on the cros And as concerning these wordes of Christ The wordes which I doe speake be Spirite and lyfe I haue not wrested them with myne owne glose as you misreport but I haue cited for me the interpretation of the catholik doctors and holy fathers of the church as I refer to the iudgement of the reader But you teach such a carnall grosse eating and drinking of Christes flesh bloud as is more meet to expresse how dogges deuoure paunches then to sette forth the high mistery of Christes holy supper For you say that Christes body is present really substauncially corporally and carnally and so is eaten and that we eate Christes body as eating is taken in common speach but in common speach it is taken for chawing and gnawing as doges do paunches wherfore of your saying it followeth that we do so eate Christes body as dogges eate paunches which all christian eares abhore for to heare But why should I ioyne with you here an issue in that mater which I neuer spake For I neuer read nor hard no man that sayd sauing you alone that we do eate Christ grossely or carnally or as eating is taken in common speach without any figure but all that euer I haue hard or read say quite cleane contrary But you who affirme that we eate Christ carnally and as eating is taken in common speach which is carnally grossely to chaw with the teeth must nedes consequently graunt that we eat him grossely and carnally as dogges eate paunches And this is a strange thing to heare that where before you sayd that Christ is present but after a spirituall maner now you say that he is eaten carnally And where you say that in the holy Supper men vse their mouth and teeth truth it is that they so do but to chawe the Sacramēt not the body of Christ. And if they doo not teare that most precious body and bloud why say you then that they eate the body of Christ as eatyng is taken in cōmon speech And wherefore doth that false Papisticall fayth of Pope Nicolas which you wrongfully call Catholike teach that Christs body is torne with the teeth of the faythfull De consecr dist 2. Ego Now folowe the particular authorities which I haue alleaged for the interpretation of Christes wordes which if you had well considered you would not haue sayd as you doe that I wrasted Christes wordes with mine owne glose For I beginne with Origene saying And Origene declaring the sayd eating of Christes flesh and drinking of his bloud not to be vnderstand as the wordes doe sound but figuratiuely writeth thus vpon these wordes of Christ Except you eate my flesh and drinke my bloud you shall not haue lyfe in you Consider sayth Origen that these thinges written in Godes bookes are figures and therefore examine and vnderstand them as spirituall and not as carnall men For if you vnderstand them as carnall men they hurt you and feede you not For euen in the Gospels is there foūd letter that killeth And not onely in the old Testament but also in the new is there found letter that slayeth hym that dooth not spiritually vnderstand that which is spoken For if thou follow the letter or wordes of this that Christ sayd Except you eat my flesh and drink my bloud this letter killeth Who can more playnely expresse in any wordes that the eating drinking of Christes flesh and bloud are not to be taken in common signification as the wordes pretend and sound then Origene dooth in this place Winchester Now I will touch shortly what may be sayd to the particular authorities brought in by this author Origen is noted among other writers of the church to draw the text to all egories who doth not therby meane to destroy the truth of the letter and therefore whē he speaketh of a figure sayth not there is onely a figure which exclusiue only being away as it is not found by any author Catholick taught that the spéech
supper the gospell red or himself or an other saying his Crede which in words signify as much as the bread doth if it be but a signification And Peter Martyr sayth that wordes signify more clerely then these signes do and sayth further in his disputation with Chedsay that we receiue the body of Christ no lesse by wordes then by the Sacramentall signes which teaching if it were true why should this Sacrament be trembled at But because this author noteth the Epistle of Clement to be fayned I will not make with him any foundation of it but note to the reader the third note gathered by this author of Clementes wordes which is that Priestes ought not to receiue alone which the words of the epistle proue not It sheweth in déed what was done and how the feast is indéed prepared for the people as well as the Priest And I neuer red any thing of order in law or ceremony forbidding the people to coÌ„municate with the Priest but all the old prayers and ceremonies sounded as the people did communicate with the Priest And when the people is prepared for and then come not but fearyng and treÌ„bling forbeare to come that then the Priest might not receiue his part alone the words of this epistle shew not And ClemeÌ„t in that he speaketh so of leauings semeth to thinke of that case of disappointment of the people that should come prouiding in that case the clearkes to receiue the residue whereby should appeare if ther we no store of clerkes but onely one clearke as some poore churches haue no mo then a man might rather make a note of clements mind that in that case one Priest myght receiue all allone and so vpon a chaunce kepe the feast allone But what soeuer we may gather that note of this author remayneth vnproued that the priest ought not to receiue alone And here I dare therefore ioyne an issue with this author that none of his thrée fained notes is grounded of any wordes of this that he noteth a fayned Epistle taking only wordes that he alleageth here This author vpon occasion of this epistle which he calleth fayned speaketh more reuerently of the Sacrament then he doth in other places which me think worthy to be noted of me Here he sayth that very Christ himselfe is not onely represented but also spiritually geuen vnto vs in this table for so I vnderstand the word wherein And then if very Christ himselfe be represented and geuen in the table the author meaneth not the materiall table but by the word table the meat vpon the table as the word Mensa a table doth signify in the xvi of the artes the x. of the Corinth Now if very Christ himself be geuen in the meat then is he preseÌ„t in the meat to be geuen So as by this teaching very Christ himself is not onely figuratiuely in the table that is to say the meat of the table which this author now calleth representing but is also spiritually geuen in the table as these wordes sound to me But whether this author wil say very Christ himself is geuen spiritually in the meat or by the meat or with the meat what scripture hath he to proue that he sayth if the wordes of Christ be onely a figuratiue spech and the bread onely signify Christes body For if the wordes of the institution be but in figure man cannot adde of his diuise any other substance or effect then the words of christ purport so this supper after this authors teaching in other places of his book where he would haue it but a signification shall be a bare memory of Christs death and signify onely such communication of Christ as we haue otherwise by fayth in that benefite of his passion without any speciall communication of the substaunce of his flesh in this Sacrament beyng the same onely a figure if it were true that this author would persuade in the conclusion of this booke although by the way he saith otherwise for fear percase and trembling that he conceiueth euen of an Epistle which he himself saith is fayned Canterbury IT is no maruayle though this Epistle fayned by the Papistes many yeres passed doe vary from the Papistes in these latter dayes For the Papisticall church at the beginning was not so corrupt as it was after but from time to tyme encreased in errours and corruption more more and still dooth acording to S. Paules saying Euill men and deceiuers waxe euer worse both leading other into errour and erring them selues For at the first beginning they had no priuate Masses no pardons in purgatory no reseruation of the bread they knew no masses of Scala coeli no Lady psalters no transubstantiation but of latter dayes all these and an infinite number of errors besides wer inuented and deuised without any aucthority of Gods word As your selfe haue newly inuented a great sort of new deuises contrary to the Papists before your tyme as that Christ is in the sacrament carnally and naturally that the demonstration was made vpon the bread when Christ sayd This is my body that the word satisfactorie signifyeth no more but the Priest to do his duety with many other things which here for shortnes of tyme I will omit at this present purposing to speake of them more hereafter And the epistles of Clement were fayned before the Papistes had run so far in errors as they be now For yet at that tyme was not inuented as I sayd the error of transubstantiation nor the reseruation of the sacrament nor the priestes did not communicate alone without the people But that the sayd epistle of Clement was fayned be many most certayne arguments For there be v. epistles of ClemeÌ„t so knit together and referring one to an other that if one be fayned all must needes be fayned Now neither Eusebius in Ecclesiastica historia nor S. Hierom nor Gennadius nor any other old writer maketh any meâ—tion of those epistles which authors in rehersing what workes Clement wrotte not leauing out so much as one epistle of his would surely haue made some mention of the v. Epistles which the papistes long before our tyme fayned in his name if there had ben any such in their time Moreouer those Epistles make mention that Clement at Iames request wrot vnto him the maner of Peters death but how could that be seyng that Iames was dead vii yeres before Peter For Iames died the vii yere And Peter the xiiii yere of Nero the Emperour Thirdly it is contayned in the same epistles that Peter made ClemeÌ„t his successor which could not be true forasmuch as next to Peter succeeded Linus as all the histories tel Fourthly the author of those Epistles sayth that he made the booke called Itenerarium Clementis which was but fayned in Clements name as it is declared dist 15. Sancta And then it followeth likewise of the other Epistles Fiftely the author of those Epistles taketh vpon him
more then the assertion of this Author specially when thou hast red how he hath handled Hilray Cyrill Theophilact and Damascene as I shall hereafter touch Caunterbury WHether I make an exposition of Cyprian by myne own deuise I leaue to the iudgement of the indifferent reader And if I so doe why do not you proue the same substancially agaynst me For your own bare words without any proofe I trust the indifferent reader will not allow hauing such experience of you as he hath And if Cyprian of all other had writ most plainly agaynst me as you say without profe who thinketh that you would haue omitted here Cyprians wordes and haue fled to Melancthon and Epinus for succor And why do you alleage their authority for you which in no wise you admit when they be brought agaynst you But it semeth that you be faint harted in this mater and beginne to shrinke and like one that refuseth the combat and findeth the shift to put an other in his place euen so it semeth you would draw backe your selfe from the daunger and set me to fight with other men that in the meane tyme you might be an idle looker on And if you as graund capitayne take them but as meane souldiours to fyght in your quarell you shall haue little ayd at their hands for their writings declare opēly that they be agaynst you more then me although in this place you bring them for your part and report them to say more and otherwise then they say indeed And as for Cyprian and S. Augustine here by you alleaged they serue nothing for your purpose nor speake nothing against me by Epinus own iudgement For Epinus sayth that Eucharistia is called a sacrifice because it is a remembrance of the true sacrifice which was offred vpon the cros and that in it is dispensed the very body and bloud yea the very death of Christ as he alleadgeth of S. Augustine in that place the holy sacrifice wherby he blotted out and canceled the obligation of death which was against vs nayling it vpon the crosse and in his owne person wanne the victory and tryumphed agaynst the princes powers of darknesse This passion death and victory of Christ is dispēsed and distributed in the Lords holy supper and dayly among Christs holy people And yet all this requireth no corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament nor the words of Cypriā ad Quirinum neither For if they did then was Christes flesh corporally present in the sacrifice of the old testament 1500. yeares before he was borne for of those sacrifices speaketh that text alleaged by Cyprian ad Quirinum whereof Epinus and you gather these wordes that the body of our Lord is our sacrifice in flesh And how so euer you wrast Melancthon or Epinus they condemne clearely your doctrine that Christes body is corporally contayned vnder the formes or accidents of bread and wine Next in my book of Hilarius But Hylarius thinke they is playnest for them in this matter whose words they translate thus If the word were made very flesh and we verely receaue the word beyng flesh in our lords meat how shal not Christ be thought to dwel naturally in vs Who beyng borne man hath taken vnto him the nature of our flesh that can not be seuered hath put together the nature of his flesh to the nature of his eternity vnder the sacrament of the communion of his flesh vnto vs. For so we be all one because the father is in Christ and Christ in vs. Wherfore whosoeuer will deny the father to be naturally in Christ he must deny fyrst eyther himselfe to be naturally in Christ or Christ to be naturally in him For the beyng of the father in Christ and the being of Christ in vs maketh vs to be one in them And therfore if Christ haue taken verily the flesh of our body and the man that was verily born of the virgin Mary is Christ and also we receaue vnder thè true mistery the flesh of his body by meanes wherof we shal be one for the father is in Christ and Christ in vs how shall that be called the vnity of will when the naturall property brought to passe by the Sacrament is the sacrament of vnity Thus doth the Papists the aduersaries of Gods word of his truth alleage the authority of Hilarius eyther peruersely and purposely as it semeth vntruely reciting hym and wrasting his words to their purpose or els not truely vnderstanding him For although he sayth that Christ is naturally in vs yet he sayth also that we be naturally in him And neuerthelesse in so saying he ment not of the natural and corporall presence of the substaunce of Christes body and of ours for as our bodyes be not after that sort within his body so is not his body after that sort within our bodies but he ment that Christ in his incarnation receyued of vs a mortal nature and vnited the same vnto his diuinity and so be we naturally in him And the sacraments of Baptisme of his holy supper if we rightly vse the same do most assuredly certify vs that we be partakers of his godly nature hauing geuen vnto vs by him immortality and life euerlasting and so is Christ naturally in vs. And so be we one with Christ and Christ with vs not onely in will and mind but also in very naturall properties And so concludeth Hylarius agaynst Arrius that Christ is one with his father not in purpose and will onely but also in very nature And as the vnion betwene Christ and vs in baptisme is spirituall and requireth no real and corporall presence so likewise our vnion with Christ in his holy supper is spirituall and therfore requireth no reall and coporall presence And therfore Hilarius speaking therof both the sacraments maketh no difference betwene our vnion with Christ in baptisme and our vnion with him in his holy supper And sayth further that as Christ is in vs so be we in him which the Papistes cannot vnderstand corporally and really except they will say that all our bodyes be corporally within Christes body Thus is Hylarius answered vnto both playnly and shortly Winchester This answere to Hylary in the lxxviii leafe requyreth a playne precise issue worthy to be tried apparant at hand The allegation of Hylary toucheth specially me who do say and mayntayne that I cited Hylary truely as the copy did serue and translate him truely in English after the same words in latin This is one issue which I qualyfy with the copy because I haue Hilary now better correct which better correctiō setteth forth more liuely the truth then the other did and therfore that I did translate was not so much to the aduantage of that I aledged Hylary for as is that in the book that I haue now better correct Hilaries words in the booke newly corrected be these Si enim verè verbum caro factum est nos
let vs consider what speches of S. Ambrose this author bringeth forth wherewith to alter the truth of the very playne proper speech of S. Ambrose saying It is bread before the consecration after it is Christes body S. Ambrose as this author saith in an other place sayth thus Before the Benediction of the heauenly words it is called an other kind of thing but after the consecration is signifyed the body and bloud of Christ. And an other speach thus Before the consecration it is called an other thing but after the consecration it is named the bloud of Christ and yet a third speech where the word call is vsed before and after both as thou reader maist sée in this authors booke in the 83. leafe Now good reader was there euer man so ouersene as this author is who seeth not S. Ambrose in these thre latter speaches to speake as playnely as in the first For in the last speach S Ambrose saith it is called bread before the consecration and called the body of Christ after the consecration And I would demaund of this author doth not this word call signify the truth that is bread in deed before the coÌ„secration which if it be so why shal not the same word cal signify also the very truth added to the wordes of the body of Christ after the consecration And likewise when he sayth speaking of the body of Christ the word signified or named which is as much as call The body of Christ is signifyed there for Christ sayd this is my body c. vsyng the outward signes of the visible creatures to signify the body bloud present not absent Was not Christ the true sonne of God because the angell said he shal be called the sonne of God But in these places of S. Ambrose to expresse plainely what he ment by calling he putteth that word call to the bread before the consecratioÌ„ aswell as to the body of Christ after the consecration thereby to declare how in his vnderstanding the word call signifieth as much truth in the thing where unto it is added after consecration as before and therfore as it is by S. Ambrose called bread before consecration signifâ—ing it was so indéed so it is called signifyed or named which thrée thus placed be all one in effect the body of Christ after the consecration and is so in deed agreable to the playne spech of S. Ambrose where he sayth It is bread before consecration and it is the body of Christ after consecration As touching the spirituality of the meat of Christes body I haue spoken before but where this author addeth it requireth no corporall presence he speaketh in his dreame beyng oppressed with slepe of ignorance and can not tell what corporall meaneth as I haue opened before by the authority of Cyril Now let vs see what this author sayth to Chrysostome Caunterbury IT is not I that wrastle with S. Ambrose but you who take great payne to wrast his wordes cleane contrary to his intent and meaning But where you aske this question What can be more playne then these wordes of S. Ambrose It is bread before consecration and after it is Christes body These words of S. Ambrose be not fully so playne as you pretend but cleane contrary For what can be spokeÌ„ eyther more vnplayn or vntrue then to say of bread after consecration that it is the bodye of Christ vnles the same be vnderstand in a figuratiue spech For although Christes bodye as you say be there after consecration yet the bread is not his body nor his body is not made of itby your confession And therfore the saying of S. Ambrose that it is Christes body can not be true in playne spech And therfore S. Ambrose in the same place where he calleth it the body and bloud of Christ he sayth it is a figure of his body and bloud For these be his words Quod ex figura corporis sanguinis domini nostri Iesu Christs And as for the word consecration I haue declared the signification therof according to the mind of the old authors as I will iustify And for the writing of Melancthon to Decolampadius you remayne still in your old error taking Myconius for Decolampadius And yet the change of bread and wine in this sacrament which Melancthon speaketh of is a sacramental change as the nature of a sacrameÌ„t requireth signifying how wonderfully almighty God by his omnipoteÌ„cy worketh in vs his liuely members and not in the dead creatures of bread and wine And the chaunge is in the vse and not in the elements kept and reserued wherein is not the perfection of a sacrament Therefore as water in the fonte or vessell hath not the reason and nature of a sacrament but when it is put to the vse of christening and then it is changed into the proper nature and kinde of a sacrament to signifye the wonderfull chaunge which almighty God by his omnipotency worketh really in them that be baptised therewith such is the chaunge of the breade and wine in the Lordes supper And therefore the bread is called Christes bodye after consecration as S. Ambrose sayth and yet it is not so really but sacramentally For it is neither Christes misticall body for that is the congregation of the faythfull dispersed abroad in the world nor hys naturall bodye for that is in heauen but it is the sacrament both of his true naturall body and also of his misticall body and for that consideration hath the name of his body as a sacrament or signe may beare the name of the very thing that is signified and represented therby And as for the foresayd books intituled to S. Ambrose if I ioyned Ambrose with Clement should say that the sayd bookes intiuled in the name of S. Ambrose de sacramentis de misterijs iniciandis were none of his I should say but as I thinke and as they do thinke that be men of most excellent learning and iudgement as I declared in my second book which speaketh of transubstantiation And so dooth iudge not onely Erasmus but also Melancthon whom you alleadge for authority when he maketh for your purpose suspecteth the same And yet I playnly denye not these bookes to be his for your pleasure to geue you asmuch aduauntage as you can aske and yet it auaileth you nothing at all But here I cannot passeouer that you be offended because I say that bread wine be called holy when they be put to an holy vse not that they haue any holines in them or be partakers of any holinesse or godlines I would fayne learn of Smith and you when the bread and wine be holy For before they be holowed or consecrated they be not holy by your teaching but be common bakers bread and wine of the tauerne And after the consecration there is neyther bread nor wine as you teach at what tyme then should the bread and wine be holy But the
figure onely of Christes body but it is chāged into the very body of Christe For Christ sayth The bread which I will geue you is my flesh Neuertheles the flesh of Christ is not seene for our weakenes but bread and wine are familiar vnto vs. And surely if we should visibly see flesh and bloud we could not abide it And therfore our lord bearing with our weakenes doth retayn and kepe the forme and apparaunce of bread and wine but he doth turne the very bread and wine into the very flesh and bloud of Christ. These be the wordes which the papistes do cite out of Theophilus vpon the gospell of S. Mark But by this one place it appeareth euidently eyther how negligent the Papistes be in searching out and examining the sayinges of the authors which they alleadge for theyr purpose on els how false and deceitfull they be which willingly and wittingly haue made in this one place and as it were with one breth two loud and shamefull lyes The first is that because they would geue the more authoritie to the wordes by them alleadged they like false poticaries that fell quid pro quo falsefy the authors name fathering such sayings vpon Theophilus Alexandrinus an old and auncient author which were in deed none of his wordes but were the wordes of Theophilactus who was many yeares after Theophilus Alexandrinus But such hath euer bene the Papisticall subtelties to set forth theyr owne inuentions dreames and lyes vnder the name of antiquitie and auncient authors The second lye or falsehod is that they falsely the authors wordes and meaning subuerting the truth of his doctrine For where Theophilactus according to the catholike doctrine of auncient authors sayth that almighty God condescending to our infirmitie reserueth the kind of bread and wine and yet turneth them into the vertue of Christes flesh and bloud They say that he reserueth the formes and apparaunces of bread and wine and turneth them into the veritie of his flesh and bloud so turning and altering kindes into formes and apparaunces and vertue into veritie that of the vertue of the flesh and bloud they make the veritie of his flesh and bloud And thus they haue falsefied as well the name as the wordes of Theophilactus turning veritie into playne and flatte falsitie But to sette forth playnly the meaning of Theophilactus in this matter As hot and burning yron is yron still and yet hath the force of fyer and as the flesh of Christ still remayning flesh geueth life as the flesh of him that is good so the sacramentall bread and wine remayne still in theyr proper kindes and yet to them that worthely eate and drink them they be tourned not into the corporall presence but into the vertue of Christes flesh and bloud And although Theophilactus spake of the eating of the very body of Christ and the drinking of his very bloud and not onely of the figures of them and of the conuersion of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ yet he meaneth not of a grosse carnall corporall and sensible conuersion of the bread and wine nor of a like eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud for so not onely our stomackes would yern and our hartes abhorre to eate his flesh to drincke his bloud but also such eating and drinking could nothing profite or auayle vs but he spake of the celestiall and spirituall eating of Christ and of a sacramentall conuersion of the bread calling the bread not onely a figure but also the body of Christ geuing vs by these wordes to vnderstand that in the sacrament we do not onely eat corporally the bread which is a sacrament and figure of Christes body but spiritually we eate also his very body and drink his very bloud And this doctrine of Theophilactus is both true godly and comfortable Winchester Now followeth as it is intitled Theophilact being the wordes in deed not of Theophilact as he writeth vpon Marke and therfore they were not alleaged as his wordes but as the wordes of Theophilus Alexandrinus wherin this author trauerseth a falshod on thallegers parte to wrong name the author In which allegacion I say if therbe a fault as I know none it is no lye but a probable errour for a man to beleue an other better learned then him selfe and as I found it alleaged I reported it agayne so as hauing mine author learned whome I folowed I am discharged of malice being the author such whome I followed as might possibly haue had such a worke of Theophilus contayning those wordes as they be alleaged the negatiue wherof how this author should proue I can not tell because of the common saying Bernardus non vidit omnia and therfore there may be a theophilus Alexandrinus hauing these words alleadged in theyr forme for any demonstratiou this author can make to the contrary Whither therbe or no any such to be shewed it is not materiall being so many testimonies besides As for Theophilacts wordes I graunt they be not for he wrote his mynde more playnly in an other place of his workes as I shall hereafter shew and by the way make an issue with this author that no catholike writer among the greekes hath more playnly set forth the truth of the presence of Christes body in the sacrament then Theophilact hath as shall apeare by and by after I haue noted to the reader this how of Germany about a two yeare before he impugned the truth of Christes presence in the sacrament he translated out of Greeke into Latine the workes of the sayd Theophilact and gaue the Latine church therby some weapon wherwith to destroy his wicked folly afterwarde not vnlike the chance in this author translating into inglish two yeares bye past the Cathechisme of Germany And as Oecolampadius hath since his folly or madnes agaynst the sacrament confessed as appeareth that he did translate Theophilacte so as we neede not doubt of it So this author hath now in this worke confessed the translation of the catechisme which one in communication woulde needes haue made me beleue had beene his mannes doinge and not his Heare now reader how playnly Theophilact speaketh vpon the Gospell of Saynt Iohn expounding the vi Chapter Take hede that the bread which is eaten of vs in the misteries is not onely a certayne figuration of the flesh of our Lord but the flesh it selfe of our Lord for he sayd not The bread which I shall geue is the figure of my flesh but it is my flesh For that bread by the mysticall benedictiō is transformed by the misticall 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 flesh for whilest our lord walked in flesh and recaued nourishment of bread that bread he did eat was changed into his body and was made like to his holy flesh and as it is costomably in mans feeding
not the flesh appeare He should haue aunswered say you that the flesh is not there in deed but the vertue of the flesh I pray you doth not he aunswer playnly the same effect Is not his aunswer to that question this as you confesse your selfe that the fourmes of bread and wine be chaunged into the vertue of the body of Christ And what would you require more Is not this as much to say as the vertue of the flesh is there but not the substaunce corporally and carnally And yet another third errour is committed in the same sentence because one sentence should not be without three errours at the least in your translation For wheras Theophilact hath but one accusatiue case your put therto other two mo of your owne heade And as you once taught Barnes so now you would make Theophilact your scholer to say what you would haue him But that the truth may appeare what Theophilact sayd I shall reherse his owne wordes in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wordes translated into latine be these Condescendens nobis benignus Deus speciem quidem panis et vini seruat in potestatem autemcarnis et sanguinis transelementat And in English they be thus much to say The mercifull God condesending to our infermitie conserueth still the kind of bread and wine but turneth them into the vertue of his flesh and bloūd To this sentence you do adde of yonr owne authoritie these wordes the bread wine which wordes Theophilact hath not which is an vntrue parte of him that pretendeth to be a true interpretour And by adding those wordes you alter clearly the authors meaning For wheare the authors meaning was that we should abhore to eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud in theyr propre forme and kind yet almighty God hath ordeyned that in his holy supper we should receaue the fourmes and kindes of bread and wine and that those kindes should be tourned vnto them that worthely receaue the same into the vertue and effecte of Christes very flesh and bloud although they remayne still in the same kynd and fourme of bread and wine And so by him the nature and kinde of bread and wine remayne And yet the same be tourned into the vertue of flesh and bloud So that the word fourmes is the accusatiue case aswell to the verbe tourneth as to the verbe conserueth but you to make Theophilact serue your purpose adde of your own head two other accusatiue cases that is to say bread and wine besides Theophilactes words wherin all men may consider how little you regarde the truth that to mayntayne your vntrue doctrine once deuised by your selues care not what vntruth you vse besides to corrupt all doctours making so many faultes in translation of one sentence And if the wordes alleaged vpon marke were not Theophilactes wordes but the wordes of Theophilus Alexandrinus as you say at the least Theophilact must borow them of Theophilus bycause the wordes be all one xvi lynes together sauing this word Ueritie which Theophilact tourneth into vertue And then it is to be thought that he would not alter that word wherin all the contention standeth without some consideration And specially when Theophilus speaketh of the veritie of Christes body as you say if Theophilact had thought the body had bene there would he haue refused the word and changed veritie into vertue bringing his owne fayth into suspition and geuing occasion of errour vnto other And where to excuse your errour in translation you say that the wordes by you alleaged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus be not Theophilactes wordes and I deny that they be Theophilus wordes so then be they no bodies wordes which is no detriment to my cause at all bycause I tooke him for none of my witnes but it is in a maner a clere ouerthrow of your cause which take him for your cheif principall witnesse saying that no catholike writer among the Grekes hath more playnly set forth the truth of the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament then Theophilactus hath and here vpon you make your issue And yet haue I a good cause to call thē Theophilactes wordes for as much as I finde them in his workes printed abrode sauing one word which you haue vntruly corrupted bycause that worde pleaseth you not And yet am I not bound to admit that your witnesse is named Theophilus except you haue better proofes therof then this that one sayth he hath him in a corner and so alleadgeth him It is your parte to proue your owne witnes and not my parte that stand herein only at defence And yet to euery indiferent man I haue shewed sufficient matter to reiect him Heare now my answer to S. Hierom. Besydes this our aduersaries do alleadge S. Hierom vpō the epistle Ad titū that there is as great difference betwene the Loues called Panis propositionis and the body of Christ as there is betwene a shadow of a body and the body it self and as there is betwene an image and the thing itselfe and betwene an example of thinges to come and the thinges that be prefigured by them These wordes of S. Hierom truly vnderstand serue nothing for the intent of the Papists For he ment that the Shew bread of the law was but a darke shadow of Christ to come but the sacrament of Christes body is a cleare testimony that Christ is already come and that he hath performed that which was promised and doth presently comfort and feede vs spiritually with his precious body and bloud notwithstanding that corporally he is assended into heauen Winchester This Author trauayleth to aunswer S. Hierom and to make him the easier for him to deale with he cutteth of that followeth in the same S. Hierom which should make the matter open and manifest how effectually S. Hierom speaketh of the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud There is sayth S. Hierome as greate difference betwene the loaues called Panes propositionis 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 thing it selfe and betwene an example of thinges to come and the thinges that be prefigured by them Therfore as mekenes pacience sobrietie moderation abstinence of gayne hospitalitie also and liberalitie should be chiefly in a Bishop and among all layemen an excellency in them so there should be in him a speciall chastitie and as I should say chastitie that is priestly that he should not onely absteyne from vncleane worke but also from the caste of his eye and his mynde free from errour of thought that should make the body of Christ. These be S. Hieroms wordes in this place By the latter parte whreof appeareth playnly how S. Hierome meaneth of Christes body in the Sacrament of which the loaues that were Panes propositionis were a shadow as S. Hierome sayth that bread being the image and this the truth that the
presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament so I trust to shew this author ouerseene in the article of transubstantiation For enter wherunto first I say this that albeit the word Transubstantiation was first spoken of by publique authority in that assemble of learned men of Christendome in a generall counsaile where the Bishop of Rome was present yet the true matter signified by that word was older and beleued before vpon the true vnderstanding of Christes wordes and was in that counsayle confessed not for the authority of the Bishop of Rome but for the authority of truth being the article such as toucheth not the authority of the Bishop of Rome but the true doctrine of Christes mistery and therfore in this realme the authority of Rome cessing was also confessed for a truth by all the clergy of this realme in an open counsayle specially discussed and though the hardenes of the law that by parliament was established of that and other articles hath bene repelled yet that doctriue was neuer hitherto by any publique counsayle or any thing set forth by authority empayred that I haue hard wherfore me thinketh this author should not improue it by the name of the Bishop of Rome seing we read how truth was vttered by Balsaam and Caiphas also and S. Paule teacheth the Philippenses that whither it be by contention or enuy so Christ be preached the person should not empayre the opening of truth if it be truth which Luther in deed would not alow for truth impugning the article of Transubstantiation not meaning therby as this author doth to empayre the truth of the very presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament of the aniter as is afore sayd in the discussion of which truth of Transubstantiation I for my part should be speciall defended by two meanes wherwith to auoyd the enuious name of Papist One is that Zuinglius himselfe who was no Papist as is well knowen nor good christen man as some sayd neither sayth playnly 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 necessity Transubstantiation also Wherfore seing by Luthers trauayle who fauored not the Byshops of Rome neither and also by euidence of the truth most certayne and manifest it appeareth that according to the true catholqiue sayth Christ is really present in the sacrament it is now by Zuinglius iudgement a necessary consequence of that truth to say there is TransubstantiatioÌ„ also which shal be one meane of purgation that I defend not Transubstantiation as depending of the Bishop of Romes determination which was not his absolutely but of a necessity of the truth howsoeuer it liketh Duns or Gabriell to write in it whose sayinges this author vseth for his pleasure An other defence is that this author himselfe sayth that it is ouer great an absurdity to say that bread insensible with many other termes that he addeth should be the body of Christ and therfore I thinke that the is that is to say the inward nature and essence of that Christ deliuered in his supper to be eaten and dronken was of his body and bloud and not of the bread and wine and therfore can well agree with this author that the bread of wheate is not the body of Christ nor the body of Christ made of it as of a matter which considerations will enforce him that beleueth the truth of the presence of the substaunce of Christes body as the true catholique â—ayth teacheth to assent to Transubstantiation not as determined by the church of Rome but as a consequent of truth beleued in the mistery of the Sacrament which Transubstantiation how this author would impugne I will without quarell of enuious wordes consider and with true opening of his handeling the matter doubt not to make the reader to see that he fighteth agaynst the truth I will passe ouer the vnreuerent handling of Christes wordes This is my body which wordes I heard this Author if he be the same that is named once reherse more seriously in a solemne and open audience to the conuiction and condemnation as followed of one that erroniously mayntayned agaynst the sacrament the same that this author calleth now the catholique fayth Caunterbury IN this booke which answereth to my second booke rather with taunting wordes then with matter I will answere the chief poyntes of your intent and not contend with you in scolding but will geue you place therin First I charge none with the name of papistes but that be well worthy therof For I charge not the hearers but the teachers not the learners but the inuenters of the vntrue doctrine of Transubstantiation not the kinges faythfull subiects but the Popes darlinges whose fayth and belefe hangeth of his onely mouth And I call it their doctrine not onely bycause they teach it but bycause they made it and were the first fynders of it And as in the third booke concerning the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament you haue not shewed myne ignorance or wilfulnes but your owne so do you now much more in the matter of Transubstantiation Which word say you albeit the same was fyrst spoken of in the generall counsell where the Byshop of Rome was present yet the true matter signified by that word was older Here at the first brunt you confesse that the name of Transubstantiation was giuen at the counsell So that either the matter was not before as it was not in deed or at the least it was before a namelesse child as you do graunt vntill the holy father Innocent the thyrd which begat it assembled a company of his frendes as godfathers to name the child And by what authority the counsayle defined the matter of Transubstantiation it may easely appeare For authority of scripture haue they none nor none they do alleadge And what the authority of the Pope was there all men may see being present in the same no lesse then .800 Abbottes and Priours who were all the Popes owne chyldren of him created and begotten And as for the confession of all the clergy of this Realme in an open counsell the authority of Rome ceasing you speake here a manifest vntruth wittingly agaynst your conscience For you know very well and if you will denie it there be enough yet aliue can testify that diuers of the clergy being of most godly liuing learning and iudgement neuer consented to the articles which you speake of And what meruayle was it that those articles notwithstanding diuers learned men repugning passed by the most voyces of the Parliament seing that although the authority of Rome was then newely ceased yet the darkenes and blindnes of errours and ignoraunte that came from Rome still remayned and ouershadowed so this Realme that a great number of the Parliament had not yet theyr eyes opened to see the truth And yet how that matter was enforced
by some persons they know right well that were then present But after when it pleased almighty God more clearly to shine vnto vs by the light of this word our eyes by his goodnes were opened darkenes discussed and that which was done in ignoraunce and darkenes was by knowledge and light in publique Counsell rehersed and taken away as well concerning the doctrine as the hardnes of the law For if the doctrine had bene true and godly there is no christen harted man but he would haue desired the establishment and continuaunce therof But the doctrine being false and such as came onely from Rome they be not worthy to be likened to those truthes which came from God and were vttered by Balaam and Cayphas but to be numbred among those lyes which came from his vicar who when he speaketh lyes ex proprijs loquitur he speaketh properly of himselfe And the Byshop of Rome was not cleane gone out of England as sone as the lawes were made agaynst his authority but remayned still by his corrupt doctrine as I feare me he doeth yet in some mennes hertes who were the chief procurers and setters forthward of the foresayd law But yet is all togither to be imputed to the Byshop of Rome forasmuch as from thens came all the foresayd errours ignorance and corruption into these parties Now where you take vpon you here to purge your selfe of Papistry by me and Zuinglius if you haue no better compurgators then vs two you be like to fayle in your purgation For neyther of vs I dare say durst swere for you in this matter though Zuinglius were aliue Or if your purgatioÌ„ stand to this poynt that Christ called not bread made of wheat his body although in a formall and proper speach bread is not in deede his body you may be as rancke a Papist as euer was for any purgation you can make by this way For Christ called bread made of wheate his body as the wordes of the Euangelistes playnly declare and all old writers teach and in your booke of the deuils sophistrie you haue confessed saying that Christ made demonstration of bread when he sayd This is my body And therfore bring some better purgation then this or els had you bene better not to haue offered any purgation in a matter that no man charged you withall than by offering a purgation aud fayling therin to bring your selfe into more suspition And where as in fortification of your matter of Transubstantiation you make your argument thus That forasmuch as the body of Christ is really in the sacrament there is of necessity TransubstantiatioÌ„ also This your argument hath two great faultes in it The first is that your antecedent is false and then you can not conclude therof a true consequent The second fault is that although the autecedent were graunted vnto you that the body of Christ is really in the sacrament yet the consequent can not be inferred therof that there is of necessity Transubstantiation For Christ can make his body to be present in the Sacrament as well with the substance of the bread as without it and rather with the substance of bread then with the accidents forasmuch as neyther Christes body there occupieth any place as you say yourselfe nor no more doth the substance of bread by it selfe but by meanes of the accidentes as you say also Now forasmuch as you say that you will passe ouer the vnreuerent handling of Christes wordes which you heard me once more seriously reherse in solemne open audience I knowledge that not many yeares passed I was yet in darkenes concerning this matter being brought vp in scholasticall and Romish doctrine wherunto I gaue to much credite And therfore I graunt that you haue heard me stand and defend the vntruth which I then tooke for the truth and so did I heare you at the same tyme. But prayse be to the euerliuing God who hath wiped away those Saulish scales from myne eyes and I pray vnto his diuine maiesty with all my hart that he will likewise do once the same to you Thy will be fulfillid O Lord. But forasmuch as you passe ouer my handling of Christes wordes as you vse commonly to passe in post when you haue no direct answer to make I shall here repete my wordes agayne to the intent that the indifferent reader may presently see how I haue handled them and then iudge whether you ought so slenderly to pas them ouer as you do My wordes be these ¶ The second booke THus haue you heard declared fower thinges wherin chiefly the Papisticall doctrine varieth from the trew word of God and from the olde catholique Christian fayth in this matter of the Lordes supper Now least any man should thinke that I fayne any thing of myne owne head without any other grounde or authority you shall heare by Gods grace as well the errors of the Papistes confâ—ted as the catholique truth defended both by gods most certayne word and also by the most old approued authors and Martirs of Christes Church And first that bread and wine remayne after the wordes of consecration and be eaten and drunken in the Lordes supper is most manifest by the playn wordes of Christ himselfe when he ministred the same supper vnto his desciples For as the Euangilistes write Christ tooke bread and brake it and gaue it to his disciples and sayd Take eate this is my body Here the Papistes triumph of these wordes when Christ sayd This is my body which they call the wordes of Consecration For say they assone as these wordes be fully ended there is no bread left nor none other substance but onely Christes body When Christ sayd this the bread say they remayned And when he sayd is yet the bread remayned Also whan he added my the bread remayned still And when he sayd bo yet the bread was there still But when he had finished the whole sentence This is my body then say they the bread was gone and there remayned no substance but Christes body as though the bread could not remayne when it is made a Sacrament But this negatiue that there is no bread they make of theyr owne braynes by their vnwritten verities which they most highly esteme Oh good Lord how would they haue bragged if Christ had sayd This is no bread but Christ spake not that negatiue This is no bread but sayd affirmingly This is my body not denying the bread but affirming that his body was eaten meaning spiritually as the bread was eaten corporally And that this was the meaning of Christ appeareth playnly by S. Paule in the tenth chap. to the Corinth the first epistle where he speaking of the same matter sayth Is not the bread which we breake the communion of the body of Christ Who vnderstood the mynd of Christ better then S. Paule to whom Christ shewed his most secret counsailes And S. Paule is not afrayd for our better
no whit darkened by any thing this Author hath brought As for naturall operation is not in all mens iudgements as this Author taketh it who semeth to repute it for an inconuenience to say that the accidents of wine do sower and ware viniger But vlpian a man of notable learning is not afrayd to write in the law In venditionibus de contrahenda emptione in the Pandeas that of wine and viniger there is prope eadem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in manner one substance wherin he sheweth him selfe farre agaynst this Authors skill which I put for an example to shew that naturall operations haue had in naturall mens iudgements diuers considerations one sometime repugnant to an other and yet the Authors of both opinions called Philosophers all Among which some thought for example they spake wisely that estemed all thing to alter as swiftly as the water runneth in the streme and thought therfore no man could vtter a word being the same man in the end of the word that he was when he began to speake and vsed a similitude Like as a man standing in one place can not touch the same one water twise in a running streame no more can a man be touched the same man twise but he altereth as swiftely as both the streame These were laughed to skorne yet they thought themselues wise in naturall speculation Aristotle that is much estemed and worthely fansied a first matter in all thinges to be one in which consideration he semeth to be as extreame in a stay as the other fond Philosophers were in mouing By which two extremeties I condemne not naturall speculation wherwith I thinke God pleased for man to meruayle in contemplation of his inferiour workes and to tame his rash wit in the inexplicable variety of it but to vse it so as to make it an open aduersary to religion it is me semeth without all purpose The doctrine of Transubstantiation doth not teach no earthly thing to remayne in the Sacrament but contrarywise that the visible forme of bread and wine is there as the visible figure of the Sacrament and to be the same in greatnes in thicknes in wayght in sauor in tast in propriety also to corrupt putrifie and nourish as it did before and yet the substance of those visible creatures to be conuerted into the substance as Emissene sayth of the body of Christ. And here will reason do seruice is sayth to say if there be a conuersion in deede as fayth teacheth and none of the accidents be conuerted then the substance is conuerted for in euery thing all is substance and accidents but the accidents be not chaunged and yet a change there is it must nedes be then that substance is changed Which deduction reason will make and so agree with Transubstantiatiō in conuenient due seruice And thus I haue gotten reasons good will whatsoeuer this author sayth and from the ground of fayth haue by reason deduced such a conclusion to proue transubstantiation as vnles he destroy the true fayth of the presence of Christes very body which he can not must nedes be allowed And as for naturall operation of putrifying engendring wormes burning and such experiences which being the substance of bread absent this Author thincketh can not be so when he hath thought throughly he can of his thought conclude it onely to be a meruayle and it be so as agaynst the common rules of philosophy wherin as me semeth it were a nearer way as we be admonished to leaue searching of how of the worke of God in the mistery of Christes presence being that the celestiall parte of the sacrament so not to search how in the experience of the operation of nature of the visible earthly part of the Sacrament When God sent Manna in desert the people saw many meruayles in it besides the common operation of nature and yet they neuer troubled them selues with howe 's And as one very well writeth it is consonant that as there is a great miracle in the worke of God to make there present the substance of the body of Christ to likewise to knowledge the miracle in the absence of the substance of bread and both the heauenly and earthly part of the sacramēt to be miraculous and so many miracles to be ioyned together in one agreeth with the excelency of the Sacrament As for the obiections this Author maketh in this matter be such as he findeth in those scholasticall writers that discusse as they may or labour thereaboute wherwith to satisfie idle imaginations and to make learned men prompt and ready to say sumwhat to these trifles whose arguments this author taketh for his principall foundation For playne resolution and auoyding wherof if I would now for my parte bring forth their solutions and answers there were a part of schole Theologie so brought into English to no great prayse of eyther of out learninges but our vayne labour to set abrode other mens trauayles to trouble rude wittes with matter not necessary and by such vnreuerent disputing and alteration to hinder the truth Finally all that this Author reherseth of absurdity repugneth in his estimation onely is the conclusion of philosophie which should nothing moue the humble simplicite of sayth in a christen man who meruayleth at Gods workes and reputeth them true although he can not comprehend the wayes and meanes of them Caunterbury HEre in the beginning of this chapiter it is a strange thing to me that you should thinke strangenes in my saying that naturall reason and operation ioyned to Gods word should be of great moment to confirme any truth not that they adde any authority to Gods word but that they helpe our infirmity as the sacraments do to Gods promises which promises in themselues be most certayne and true For did not the eating and drincking of Christ his laboring and sweating his agony and pangs of death confirme the true fayth of his incarnation And did not his eating with the Apostles confirme and stablish their fayth of his resurrection Dyd not the sight of Christ and feeling of his woundes induce Thomas to beleue that Christ was risen When neyther the report of the deuout woman nor yet of the Apostles which did see him could cause him to beleue Christes resurrection And when they tooke our Sauiour Christ for a spirite did not he cause them by their sight and feeling of his flesh and bones to beleue that he was very man and no spirite as they phantasied Which sensible profes were so farre from derogation of fayth that they were a sure establishment therof Wherfore if your vnderstanding can not reach this doctrine it is indede very slender in godly thynges And as for my reason of vacuum you haue not yet answered thereto for nature suffereth not any place to be without some substance which by meanes of his quantity filleth the place And quantity without substance to fill any place is so fare from the rulers of nature that by order of
as touching the belefe of S. Thomas although he beleued certaynly that Christ was a man yet he beleued not that Christ was risen and appeared to the Apostles but thought rather that the Apostles were deceaued by some vision or spirit which appeared to them in likenes of Christ which he thought was not he indede And so thought the Apostles themselues vntill Christ sayd Videte manus meas pedes quia ego ipse sum Palpate videte quia spiritus carnem ossa non habent sicut me videtis habere See my handes and my feete for I am euen he Grope and see for a spirite hath no flesh and bones as you see that I haue And so thought also S. Thomas vntill such tyme as he put his handes into Christes side and felt his woundes and by his sense of feeling perceaued that it was Christes very body and no spirite nor phantasy as before he beleued And so in S. Thomas the truth of feeling depended not vpon the true belefe of Christes resurrection but the feeling of his senses brought him from misbelefe vnto the right and true fayth of that matter And as for S. Gregory he speaketh no such thinges as you report that the glorified body of Christ was of the owne nature neither visible nor palpable but he sayth cleane contrary that Christ shewed his glorified body to S. Thomas palpable to declare that it was of the same nature that it was of before his resurrection whereby it is playne after S. Gregories minde that if it were not palpable it were not of the same nature And S. Gregory sayth further in the same homely Egit miro modo superna clementia vt discipulus ille dubitans dum in magistro suo vulnera palparet carnis in nobis vulnera sanaret infidelitatis Plus enim nobis Thomae infidelitas ad fidem quam fides credentium discipulcrum profuit quia dum ille ad fidem palpando reducitur nostra mens omni dubitatione postposita in fide solidatur The supernall clemency wrought meruaylously that the disciple which doubted by groping the woundes of flesh in his master should heale in vs the woundes of infidelity For the lacke of fayth in Thomas profited more to our fayth then did the fayth of the disciples that beleued For when he is brought to fayth by groping our minde is stablished in fayth without all doubting And why should S. Gregory write thus if our sences auayled nothing vnto our fayth nor could nothing iudge of substances And do not all the olde catholike authors proue the true humanity of Christ by his visible conuersation with vs here in earth that he was heard preach seene eating and drincking labouring and sweatting Do they not also proue his resurrection by seing hearing and groping of him which if it were no proofe those arguments were made in vayne agaynst such Heretikes that denied his true incarnation And shall you now take away the strength of their arguments to the maintenance of those olde condemned heresies by your subtill sophistications The touching and feeling of Christes handes feete and wounds was a proofe of his resurrection not as you say to them that beleued but as S Gregory sayth to them that doubted And if all thinges that Christ did and spake to our outward senses proue not that he was a naturall man as you say with Martion Menander Ualentinus Apolinaris withother like sort thē I would know how you should confute the sayd heresies Marty will you say peraduenture by the scripture which sayth playnly Verbum caro factumest But if they would say agayne that he was called a man and flesh bicause he tooke vpon him the forme of a man and flesh and would say that S. Paule so declareth it saying Forinam serui accipiens and would then say further that forme is the accidence of a thing and yet hath the name of substance but is not the substance indeede what would you then say vnto them if you deny that the formes and accidences be called substances then go you from your owne saying And if you graunt it then will they auoyde all the scriptures that you can bring to proue Christ a man by this cauilation that the apparances formes and accidences of a man may be called a man aswell as you say that the formes and accidences of bread be called bread And so prepare you certayne propositions and groundes for heretikes to build their errours vpon which after when you would you shall neuer be able to ouerthrowe And where you say that Thomas touched truely Christes body glorified how could that be whē touching as you say is not of y◠substance but of the accidents only and also Christes body glorified as you say is neyther visible nor palpable And where as indeede you make Christs actes illusiōs and yet in wordes you pretend the contrary call you not this illusiō of our sēses whē a thing apeareth to our sēces which is not the same thing indeede When Iupiter Mercury as the comedy telleth apeared to Alcumena in the similitude of Amphitrio Sosia was not Alcumena deceaued therby And Poticaries that sell Ieniper buries for pepper being no pepper indeede deceaue they not the biers by illusion of their sences Why then is not in the ministration of the holy communion an illusion of our senses if our senses take for bread and wine that which is not so indeede Finally where as I required earnestly all the Papistes to lay their heades togither and to shew one article of our fayth so directly contrary to our senses that all our senses by dayly experience shall affirme a thing to be and yet our fayth shall teach vs the contrary therunto where I say I required this so earnestly of you and with such circumstances and you haue yet shewed none I may boldly conclude that you can shew none For sure I am if you could being so earnestly prouoked therunto you would not haue fayled to shew it in this place As for the article of our resurrection and of the feeding of angels serue nothing for this purpose For my saying is of the dayly experience of our senses and when they affirme a thing to be but the resurrection of our flesh and the feeding of angels be neither in dayly experience of our senses nor our senses affirme them not so to be Now after the matter of our senses followeth in my booke the authorities of ancient writers in this wise Now for as much as it is declared how this Papisticall opinion of Transubstantiation is agaynst the word of God agaynst nature agaynst reason and agaynst all our senses we shall shew furthermore that it is agaynst the fayth and doctrine of the olde authors of Christes church beginning at those authors which were nearest vnto Christes time and therfore might best know the truth herein First Iustinus a great learned man and an holy martyr the oldest author
that this day is knowne to write any treaty vpon the sacraments and wrote not much after one hundred yeares after Christes Ascention He writeth in his second Apology that the bread water and wine in this Sacrament are not to be taken as other common meates and drinckes be but they be meates ordeined purposely to geue thankes to God and therfore be called Eucharistia and be called also the body and bloud of Christ. And that it is lawfull for none to eate or drincke of them but that professe Christ and liue according to the same And yet the same meate and drincke sayth he is changed into our flesh and bloud and nourisheth our bodies By which saying it is euident that Iustinus thought that the bread and wine remayned still for els it could not haue bene turned into our flesh and bloud to nourish our bodies Winchester I will spend no mo wordes herein but hauing auoyded this authors reasoning against Transubstantiation Now let vs examine his authorities First he beginneth with Iustine the Martyr Whose wordes be not truly by this author here reported which be these truely translate out of the Greke When the priest hath ended his thankes geuing and prayers and all the people hath sayd Amen they whom we call Deacons geue to euery one then present a parte of the bread and of the wine and water consecrated and cary part to those that be absent and this is that foode which is among vs called Eucharistia wherof it is lawfull for no man to be partaker except he be perswaded those thinges to be true that be taught vs and be baptized in the water of regeneration in remission of sinnes and ordreth his life after the manner which Christ hath taught For we do not take these for common bread or drincke but like as Iesus Christ our sauiour incarnate by the word of God had flesh and bloud for our saluation euen so we be taught the foode wherwith our flesh and bloud be nourished by alteration when it is consecrate by the prayer of his word to be the flesh and bloud of the same Iesus incarnate For the Apostles in those their workes which be called gospels teach that Iesus did so commaund them and after he had taken the bread and ended his thankes geuing sayd Do this in my remembrance This is my body And likewise taking the cup after he had geuen thankes sayd This is my bloud and did giue them to his Apostles onely And here I make an issue with this author that he wittingly corrupteth Iustine in the allegation of him who writeth not in such forme of wordes as this author alleageth out of his second Apology nor hath any such speach The bread water and wine in this sacrament are meates ordeined purposely to giue 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 playne wordes that we be taught this foode consecrate by gods word to be the flesh and bloud of Christ as Christ in his incarnation tooke flesh and bloud nor hath not this forme of wordes placed to haue that vnderstanding how the same meate and drincke is changed into our flesh and bloud For the wordes in Iustine speaking of alteration of the foode haue an vnderstanding of the foode as it is before the consecration shewing how Christ vsed those creatures in this mistery which by alteration nourish our flesh and bloud For the body of Christ which is the very celestiall substance of the host consecrate is not changed but without all alteration spiritually nourisheth the bodies and soules of them that worthely receaue the same to immortality wherby appeareth this authors conclusion that bread and wine remayne still which is tourned into our flesh and bloud is not deduced vpon Iustines wordes truely vnderstanded but is a glose inuented by this author and a peruerting of Iustines wordes and their true meaning Wherupon I may say and conclude euen as this author erreth in his reasoning of mother wit agaynst Transubstantiation euen so erreth he in the first allegation of his authorities by playne misreporting let it be further named or thought one as the thing deserueth Caunterbury IN this holy Martire Iustinus I do not goe about to be a translator of him nor I bynde not my selfe precisely to follow the forme of his wordes which no translatour is bound vnto but I set forth onely his sence and meaning For where Iustine hath a good long processe in this matter I take no more but that is directly to the purpose of Transubstantiation which is the matter being here in question And the long wordes of Iustine I knit vp togither in as fewe wordes as I can rendring the sense truly and not varying farre from the wordes And this haue I done not willingly to corrupt Iustine as you maliciously depraue and therupon wil I ioyne with you in your issue but I do it to recite to the reader Iustines mind shortly and playnly where as you professing to obserue scrupulously the wordes obserue in dede neither the wordes nor the sentence of Iustine But this is your fashion when you lacke good matter to answere then to finde something to fill vp your booke you turne the matter into trifling and cauilation in wordes You say that Iustine hath not this speach the bread water and wine in this Sacrameut are meates ordeined purposely to giue thankes to God and yet by your owne translation he hath the same thing in effect and yet in deede the wordes be neither as you nor as I say and as they be in greeke they cannot be expressed in English but by a paraphrasis The wordes be these in greke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in our tongue as nere as may be englished signify thus The bread and wine and water of thankes giuing or as Ireneus sayth In which thankes be giuen And neither hath Iustine this word Sacrameut as I say nor this word Consecrated as you say May not all men therfore euidently see that your chief study is to make cauilations daylying in wordes◠And all the rest of my sayinges which you deny to be in Iustine be there very playnly in sense as I will be iudged by the indifferent reader And what neede I willingly to corrupt Iustine when his wordes after your allegation serue more for my purpose agaynst your fayned transubstantiation then as I alleadge them my selfe For if the Deacons giue to euery one present a part of the bread wine and water consecrated and send parte to them that be absent as you reporte Iustines wordes do not then bread wine and water remayne after consecration seing that they be distributed to diuers men in partes For I thincke you will not say that the body of Christ is deuided into partes so that one man receaueth an hand and an other a legge And Iustine sayth further that the same foode of bread wine and water called
Eucharistia nourisheth our flesh and bloud by alteration which they could not do if no bread wine nor water were there at all But here is not to be passed ouer one exceeding great craft and vntruth in your translation that to cast a mist before the readers eyes you alter the order of Iustines wordes in that place where the pith of the matter standeth For where Iustine sayth of the foode of bread wine and water after the consecration that they nourish our flesh and bloud by alteration the nourishment which Iustine putteth after consecration you vntruly put it before the consecration and so wilfully and craftely alter the order of Iustinus wordes to deceaue the reader and in this poynt will I ioyne an issue with you Is such craft and vntruth to be vsed of Bishoppes and then in matters of fayth and religion wherof they pretend and ought to be true professors But I meruayle not so much at your sleights in this place seeing that in the whole booke through out you seeke nothing lesse then the truth And yet all your sleightes will not serue you for how can the foode called Eucharistia nourish before the consecration seeing it is not eaten vntill after the consecration The next author in my booke is Irene whome I alleadge thus Next him was Irenaeus aboue 150. yeares after Christ who as it is supposed could not be deceaued in the necessary poyntes of our fayth for he was a disciple of Policarpus which was disciple to S. Ihon the Euangelist This Irenaeus followeth the sense of Iustinus wholy in this matter and almost also his wordes saying that the bread wherein we geue thankes vnto God although it be of the earth yet when the name of God is called vpon it it is not than common bread but the bread of thankes geuing hauing two thinges in it one earthly and the other heauenly What ment he by the heauenly thing but the sanctification which cōmeth by the inuocation of the name of God And what by the earthly thing but the very bread which as he sayd before is of the earth and which also he sayth doeth nourish our bodies as other bread doth which we do vse Winchester Next Iustine is Irene in the allegation of whome this author maketh also an vntrue reporte how hath not this for mē of wordes in the forth booke contra Valentinum that the bread wherein we geue thankes vnto God although it be of the earth yet when the name of god is called vpon it is not thru common bread but the bread of thankes giuing hauing two thinges in it one earthly and the other heauenly This is Irene alleadged by this author who I say writeth not in such forme of wordes For his wordes be these Like as the bread which is of the earth receauing the calling of God is now no common bread but Eucharistia consisting of two thinges earthly and heauenly so our bodies receauing Eucharistian be no more corruptible These be Irenes wordes where Irene doth not call the bread receauing the calling of God the bread of thankes giuing but Eucharistia and in this Eucharistia he sheweth how that that he calleth the heauenly thinges is the body and bloud of Christ and therfore sayth in his fift booke When the chalice mixt and the bread broken receaue the word of God it is made Eucharistia of the body and bloud of Christ of which the substance of our flesh is stayed and increased And how say they that our flesh is not able to receaue gods gift who is eternall life which flesh is nourished with the body and bloud of Christ These be also Irenes wordes wherby appeareth what he ment by the heauenly thing in Eucharistia which is the very presence of Christes body and bloud And for the playne testimony of this fayth this Irene hath bene commonly alleadged and specially of Melancton to Decolampadius as one most auncient and most playnly testifying the same So as his very wordes truly alleadged ouerthrow this author in the impugnation of Christes reall presence in the Sacrament and therfore can nothing help this authors purpose agaynst Transubstantiation Is not this a goodly and godly entre of this Author in the first two authorities that he bringeth in to corrupt them both Caunterbury WHo seeth not that as you did before in Iustine so agayne in Irene you seeke nothing els but meare cauilations and wrangling in wordes Is not Eucharistia called in english thankes giuing If it be not tell you what it is called in English And doth not Iren say Panes in qup gratiae actae sunt that is so say bread wherein thankes be giuen what haue I offended then in englishing Eucharistiam thankes giuing Do not I write to English men which vnderstand not what this greeke word Eucharistia meaneth what greate offence is it then in me to put it into English that English men may vnderstaud what is sayde Should I do as you do put greeke for English and write so obscurely that English men should not know the authors meaning And do you not see how much the words of Ireneus by you aleadged make agaynst your selfe These be his wordes after your citation When the chalice mixt and the bread broken receaue the word of God it is made Eucharistia of the body and bloud of Christ of which the substance of our flesh is stayd and encreased Doth not Irene say here playnly that the chalice mixt and the bread broken after the word of God which you call the wordes of consecration is made Eucharistia of the body and bloud of Christ and not the body and bloud of Christ And sayth he not further that they stay and increase the substance of our bodies But how can those thinges stay and increase our bodies which be transubstantiated and gone before we receaue them And haue you forgotten now in Irene what you sayd in the next leafe before in Iustine that the alteration and nourishment by the foode of bread and wine was vnderstande before the consecration which you confesse now to be after the consecration And when you thus obscure the authors wordes peruerting and corrupting both the wordes and sences yet shall you conclude your vntrue dealing with these wordes concerning me Is not this a goodly and godly entres of this author in the first two authorities that he bringeth in to corrupt them both Now followeth Origene next in my booke Shortly after Ireneus was Origene about 200. yeares after Christs ascension Who also affirmeth that the materiall bread remayneth saying that the matter of the bread auayleth nothing but goeth downe into the bealy and is auoyded dounward but the word of God spoken vpon the bread is it that auayleth Winchester As for Origene in his owne wordes sayth the matter of the bread remayneth which as I haue before opened it may be graunted but yet he termeth it not as this author doeth to call it materiall bread When God formed Adam of clay
himselfe in his owne wordes But that S. Augustine sayth touching the nature of bread and the visible element of the Sacrament without wresting or writhing may be agreed in couenient vnderstanding with the doctrine of Transubstantiation and therfore is an authority familiar with those writers that affirme Transubstantiation by expresse wordes out of whose quiuer this author hath pulled out his bolt and as it is out of his bow sent turneth backe and hitteth himselfe on the forehead and yet after his fashion by wrong and vntrue translation he sharpened it somewhat not without some punishment of God euidently by the way by his owne wordes to ouerthrow him selfe In the second columne of the 27. leafe and the first of the 28. leafe this author maketh a processe in declaration of heresies in the person of Christ for conuiction wherof this author sayth the olde fathers vsed arguments of two examples in eyther of which examples were two natures togither the one not perishing ne confounding the other One example is in the body and soule of man An other example of the Sacrament in which be two natures an inward heauenly and an outward earthly as in man there is a body and a soule I leaue out this authors owne iudgement in that place and of thée O reader require thine whether those fathers that did vse both these examples to the confutation of heretikes did not beleeue as apeareth by the processe of their reasoning in this poynt did they not I say beleeue that euen as really and as truely as the soule of man is present in the body so really and 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 els and the body of Christ were not as truely and really present in the Sacrament as the soule is in mans body that argument of the Sacrament had not two thinges present so as the argument of the body and soule had wherby to shew how two thinges may be togither without confusion of eyther ech remayning in his nature for if the teaching of this author in other partes of this booke were true than were the Sacrament like a body lying in a traunce whose soule for the while were in heauen and had no two thinges but one bare thing that is to say bread and bread neuer the holier with signification of an other thing so farre absent as is heauen from earth and therfore to say as I probably thinke this part of this second booke agaynst Transubstantiation was a collection of this author when he minded to mayntayne Luthers opinion agaynst Transubstantiation onely and to striue for bread onely which not withstanding the new enterprise of this author to deny the reall presence is so fierce and vehement as it ouerthroweth his new purpose ere he cōmeth in his order in his booke to entreate of For there can no demonstration be made more euident for the catholike fayth of the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament then that the truth of it was so certaynly beleued as they tooke Christes very body as verely in the sacrament euen as the soule is present in the body of man Caunterbury WHen you wrote this it is like that you had not considered my third booke wherin is a playne and direct answer to all that you haue brought in this place or els where concerning the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament And how slender proofes you make in this place to proue the reall presence because of the Sacrifice euery man may iudge being neyther your argument good nor your antecedent true For S. Augustine sayth not that the body and bloud of Christ is the sacrifice of the church and if he had so sayd it inferreth not this conclusion that the body of Christ should be really in the bread and his bloud in the wine And although S. Augustine sayth that bread is Christes body yet if you had well marked the 64.65 66. leaues of my booke you should there haue perceaued how S. Augustine declareth at length in what manner of speach that is to be vnderstand that is to say figuratiuely in which speach the thing that signifieth and the thing that is signified haue both one name as S. Ciprian manifestly teacheth For in playne speach without figure bread is not the body of Christ by your owne confession who do say that the affirmation of one substance is the negation of an other And if the bread were made the body of Christ as you say it is then must you needes cōfesse that the body of Christ is made of bread which before you sayd was so foolish a saying as were not tollerable by a scoffer to be deuised in a play to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part And seeing that the bread is not adnihilate and consumed into nothing as the schoole authors teach then must it needes follow that the body of Christ is made of the matter of bread for that it is made of the forme of bread I suppose you will not graunt And as touching the second place of S. Augustine he sayth not that the body and bloud of Christ be really in the Sacrament but that in the Sacrifice of the church that is to say in the holy administration of the Lordes supper is both a Sacrament and the thing signified by the Sacrament the Sacrament being the bread and wine and the thing signified and exhibited being the body and bloud of Christ. But S. Augustine sayth not that the thing signified is in the bread and wine to whome it is not exhibited nor is not in it but as in a figure but that it is there in the true ministration of the Sacrament present to the spirite and fayth of the true beleuing man and exhibited truely and indeede and yet spiritually not corporally And what neede any more euident proofes of S. Augustines mynd in this matter how bread is called Christes body then S. Augustines owne wordes cited in the same place where the other is de consecratione dist 2. Hoc est quod dicimus These be S. Augustines wordes there cited Sicut coelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cum re uera sit sacramentum corporis Christi illius videlicet quod visibile quod palpabile mortale in cruce positum est vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio non rei veritate sed significanti misterio sic Sacramentum fidei quod baptismus intelligitur fides est As the heauenly bread which is Christes flesh after a manner is called the body of Christ where in very deede it is a sacrament of Christes body that is to say of that body which being visible palpable mortall was put vppon the crosse And as that offering of the flesh which is done by the priestes handes
agayne once assended into heauen and there sitteth and shall sit at the right hand of his father euermore although spiritually he be euery day amongst vs and who so euer come togither in his name he is in the middest among them And he is the spirituall pasture and food of our soules as meat and drincke is of our bodyes which he signifieth vnto vs by the institution of his most holy supper in the bread and wine declaring that as the bread and wine corporally comfort and feed our bodyes so doth he with his flesh and bloud spiritually comfort and feed our soules And now may be easely answered the Papistes argument wherof they do so much boast For bragge they neuer so much of their conuersion of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ yet that conuersion is spirituall and putteth not away the corporall presence of the materiall bread and wine But for as much as the same is a most holy sacrament of our spirituall norishment which we haue by the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ there must needes remayne the sensible element that is to say bread and wine without the which there can be no sacrament As in our spirituall regeneration there can be no sacrament of baptisme if there be no water For as baptisme is no perfect sacrament of spirituall regeneration without there be aswell the element of water as the holy ghost spiritually regenerating the person that is baptised which is signified by the sayd water euen so the supper of the Lord can be no perfect Sacrament of spirituall food except there be as well bread and wine as the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ spiritually feeding vs which by the sayd bread and wine is signified And how so euer the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ be there present they may as well be present there with the substance of bread and wine as with the accidents of the same as the scholeauthors do confesse them selues and it shall be well proued if the aduersaries will deny it Thus you see the strongest argument of the Papistes answered vnto and the chiefe foundation wherupon they buyld their errour of Transubstantiation vtterly subuerted and ouerthrowen Winchester Wherein this author not seeing how little he hath done concludeth yet as constantly as though he had throwen all downe afore him entending to shew that the doctrine of Transubstantiation dependeth onely of authority which is not so using the sayinges of Duns and Gabriell as he reporteth them for his purpose bicause they as he sayth boast themselues what they could doe if the determination of the counsaile were not and thus euery idle speach may haue estimation with this author agaynst the receaued truth And from this poynt of the matter the author of this booke maketh a passage with a litle sport at them he fanâ—â—eth or liketh to call so English Papistes by the way to enterprise to answere all such as he supposeth reasons for Transubstantiation and authorities also First he findeth himselfe mirth in divissing as he calleth them the Papistes to say that Christ is made a new which fansie if it were so is agaynst the reall presence as well as transubstantiation In which wordes bicause euery wise reader may see how this author playeth I will say no more but this Christ is not made a new nor made of the substance of bread as of a matter and that to be the Catholique doctrine this author if he be right named knoweth well enough and yet spendeth two leaues in it Caunterbury WHen I haue proued most euidently as well by the testimony of the scripture as by the consent of the olde authors of Christes church both greekes and Latines from the beginning continually from tyme to tyme that transubstantiation is agaynst gods most holy word agaynst the olde church of Christ agaynst all experience of our sences agaynst all reason and agaynst the doctrine of all ages vntill the Bishops of Rome deuised the contrary therfore I conclude that the sayd doctrine of Transubstantiation may iustely be called the Romish or papisticall doctrine And where I haue shewed further that the chiefe pillers of the papisticall doctrine as Duns Gabriell Durand with other do acknowledge that if it had not bene for the determination of the church of Rome they would haue thought otherwise which is a most certayne argument that this doctrine of Transubstantiation came from Rome and therfore is worthely called a papisticall doctrine all this must be answered with these wordes as this author reporteth and Duns and Gabriell boast what they could do wheras neither Duns nor any of the other eyther bragge or bost but playnly and franckely declare what they thinke And if I report then otherwise then they say reproue me therfore and tell me wherin But these be but shiftes to shake of the matter that you cannot answer vnto Therfore vntill you haue made me a more full and direct answer I am more confirmed in my assertion to call transubstantiation a papisticall doctrine then I was before But here you put me in remembrance of an ignorant reader whose scholler I was in Cambridge almost forty yeares passed who when he came to any hard chapiter which he well vnderstoode not he would find some preaty toy to shift it of and to scip ouer vnto an other chapiter which he could better skill of The same is a common practise of you through out your whole booke that when any thing in my booke presseth you so sore that you cannot answere it then finely with some mery iest or vnsemely taunt you passe it ouer and go to some other thing that you perswade yourselfe you can better answere which sleight you vse here in ii matters togither the one is where I proue the doctrine of Transubstantiation to come from Rome the other is that of your sayd doctrine of Transubstantiation it followeth that Christ euery day is made a new and of a new matter In which ii matters you craftely slide away from myne arguments and answere not to one of them Wherfore I referre to the iudgement of the indifferent reader whither you ought not to be taken for conuinced in these ii poyntes vntill such tyme as you haue made a full answere to my profes and arguments For where you say that Christ is not made of the substaunce of bread as of a matter this is but a slippery euasion For if Christ be made of bread eyther he is made of the matter of bread or of the forme therof But the fourme say you remayneth and is not turned into Christes body Therfore if Christ be made of bread you must needes graunt that he is made of the matter of bread Now for the the answere to the second reason of the Papistes my booke hath thus An other reason haue they of like strength If the bread should remayne say they than should follow many absurdities and chiefly that Christ hath taken the
mutation brought in by S. Ambrose the substances neuertheles remayned the same that skilleth not for the wonder of those meruayles serue for an induction to releeue the weake fayth of man in this miracle of the Sacrament and to represse the arrogancy of reason presuming to search such knowledge in Gods secret workes whereof if there might be a reason geuen it néeded no fayth And where there is a like there is no singularity as this miracle in the sacrament is notably singuler and therefore none other found like vnto it The Sacramentall mutation which this author newly so termeth is a mere shift to auoyd among such as be not learned the truth of Gods miracle in this chaunge which is in déed such as S. Ambrose speaketh of that of bread is made the body of Christ which S. Ambrose in an other place termeth it the grace of the body of Christ and all is one for it is a great grace to haue the body of Christ for our food present there And out of Christes mouth calling the bodye of Christ is making the body of Christ which wordes calling signifying naming vsed in S. Ambrose writinges do not limitte Christes wordes and restraynt them to an onely calling an onely signifiyng or an onely naming but geue an vnderstanding agréeable to other of S. Ambrose wordes that shew the bread after consecration to be the body of Christ the calling to be vnderstanded a real calling of the thing that so is made and likewise a reall signifying of the thing in déed present and a reall naming as the thing is in déed As Christ was named Iesus because he is the sauiour of his people in déede And thus perusing this authors answeres I trust I haue noted to the reader with how smal substaunce of matter this author impugneth transubstantiation and how slenderly hée goeth about to aunswere such authors as by their seuerall writinges confyrme the same besydes the consent of Christendome vniuersally receiuing the same And how in the meane way this author hath by his owne handes pulled downe the same vntrue doctrine of the fyguratiue speach that himselfe so lately hath deuised or rather because this matter in his booke goeth before he hath in his second booke marred his frame or euer be commeth to the third booke to set it vp Caunterbury OH what a capitall cryme is here committed that I haue englished this word conficere to do whose proper signification is to accomplish or make an end of a thing which being once brought to passe we vse in common spech to say I haue done as I haue done my house I haue done my booke I haue done my worke I haue done my dayes iourney that is to say I haue perfectly done and finished And is not this fully as much in spech as to say I haue made my dayes iourney or I haue made my house or my booke But some fault you must finde where none is partly to keep in vse your old custome of calumniatiō and partly to satisfy a new toy that you haue in your head that making is in the substaunce of the sacrament and doing is in the effect But whether it be translate making or dooing S. Ambrose spake of the wonderfull effectuall working of God in the vse and ministration of the sacramentes and that as well in baptisme as in the Lordes supper and not of his working in the substaunces of the elementes reserued As for the authority of the booke I stand not in it so that all your wordes therein be more then nedeth but to length your book and yet was the book neuer allowed amongst men learned and of iudgement to be S. Ambroses And Melancthon whome you alleage for the allowaunce of it geueth it two nips which you haue left out of purpose to serue your affection For he saith not as you report that it seemeth not to him vnlike but that it seemeth not to him farre vnlike and yet he confesseth that it is confusedly written which is a slender approbation that it should be S. Ambroses And where you confesse that S. Ambrose sayth not in wordes that the substances of bread and wine be gone and yet sayth so in effect because he speaketh of chaunge either you know that your argument is naught and yet bring it in purposely to deceiue some simple reader or your ignoraunce is more then I would haue thought that of this word chaunge woulde argue chaunge in substaunce as though there could be no chaunge but it must be in substaunce But if you had well considered the examples of S. Ambrose by me alleadged which he bringeth forth for the proofes and similitudes of the chaunge of bread and wine in the sacrament you should haue found that in all the sayd examples remayne the substaunces notwithstanding the chaunge As in the water of Iordane staying to runue after the naturall course in the dry stone that contrary to his nature flowed out water in the bitter water of Marath that was turned into sweetnesse in the yron that contrary to nature swame aboue the water in the spirituall generation of man aboue all naturall operation in the sacramētall mutation of the water of baptisme and in the incarnation of our sauiour Christ which all being brought by S. Ambrose for example of the chaunge in bread and wine as in them the substaunces remayned notwithstanding the chaunges so is it in the bread and wine whereof other were brought for examples But in your handling here of S. Ambrose you seem to be vtterly ignoraunt and not to know difference betweene sacramentall signes in the vse whereof almighty God inwardly worketh and other vayne signes which be nothing els but outward shewes to the eye For if you vnderstood the matter would you resemble a knaue playing in a princes coate in whom nothing is inwardly wrought or altered vnto a man beyng baptised in water who hath put vpō him outwardly water but inwardly is aparelled with Christ and is by the omnipotent working of God spiritually regenerated and chaunged into a new man Or would you compare him that banketeth at a feast to represent an anniuersary or tryumph vnto that man that in remembraunce of Christes death eateth and drinketh at his holy supper geuing thankes for his redemption and comforting himselfe with the benefyte thereof If you haue this opinion and veneration of the sacramentes it is well knowen what spirite you haue how ignoraunt you be and what is to be iudged of you And if you haue no such opinion becommeth it you then to dally with such profane examples tending to the profanation of the Sacraments and deceiuing of the readers And as for the holines of bread I say now as I said before that neither bread wine nor water haue any capacity of holinesse but holines is onely in the receauers and by the bread water and wine is sacramentally signified And therefore the marueilous alteration to an hyer estate nature and condition is chiefly
Chrisostome declaryng at length that the priestes of the old law offered euer new Sacrifices and chaunged them from tyme to tyme and that Christian people do not so but offer euer one Sacrifice of Christ yet by and by least some might be offended with this speach he maketh as it were a correction of his wordes saying But rather we make a remembraunce of Christes sacrifice As though he should say Although in a certaine kinde of speach we may say that euery day we make a sacrifice of Christ yet in very deede to speake properly we make no sacrifice of him but onely a commemoration and remēbraunce of that sacrifice which he alone made and neuer none but he Nor Christ neuer gaue this honour to any creature that he should make a sacrifice of him nor did not ordaine the Sacrament of his holy Supper to the intent that either the priest or the people should sacrifice Christ agayne or that the priestes should make a sacrifice of him for the people but his holy Supper was ordeined for this purpose that euery man eatyng and drinkyng therof should remember that Christ dyed for him and so should exercise his fayth and comfort him selfe by the remembraunce of Christes benefites and so geue vnto Christ most harty thankes and geue him selfe also clearely vnto him Wherfore the ordinaunce of Christ ought to be folowed the priest to minister the Sacrament to the people and they to vse it to their consolation And in this eatyng drinkyng and vsing of the Lordes Supper we make not of Christ a new sacrifice propitiatory for remission of sinne But the humble confession of all penitent hartes their knowledgyng of Christes benefites their thankes giuyng for the same their fayth and consolation in Christ their humble submission and obedience to Gods will and commaundements is a sacrifice of laude and prayse accepted and allowed of God no lesse then the sacrifice of the priest For almighty God without respect of person accepteth the oblation and sacrifice of priest and lay person of kyng and subiect of maister and seruaunt of man and woman of young and old yea of English French Scot Greeke Latin Iew and Gentile of euery man accordyng to his faythfull and obedient hart vnto him and that through the sacrifice propitiatory of Iesu Christ. And as for the saying or singyng of the Masse by the priest as it was in tyme passed vsed it is neither a sacrifice propitiatory nor yet a sacrifice of laude and prayse nor in any wise alowed before God but abhominable and detestable and therof may well be verified the saying of Christ That thyng which seemeth an high thing before men is an abhomination before God They therfore which gather of the Doctours that the Masse is a sacrifice for remission of sinne and that it is applyed by the priest to them for whom he sayth or singeth they which so gather of the Doctours do to them most greuous iniury and wrong most falsely belyeng them For these monstrous thynges were neuer sene nor knowen of the old and primitiue Church nor there was not then in one Church many Masses euery day but vpon certaine dayes there was a common Table of the Lordes Supper where a number of people did together receaue the body and bloud of the Lord but there were then no dayly priuate Masses where euery priest receiued alone like as vntill this day there is none in the Greeke Churches but one common Masse in a day Nor the holy Fathers of the old Church would not haue suffered such vngodly and wicked abuses of the Lordes Supper But these priuate Masses sprang vp of late yeares partly through the ignoraunce and superstition of vnlearned Monkes and Friers whiche knew not what a sacrifice was but made of the Masse a sacrifice propitiatory to remit both sinne and the payne due for the same but chiefly they sprang of lucre and gayne when priestes founde the meanes to sell Masses to the people whiche caused Masses so much to encrease that euery day was sayd an infinite number and that no priest would receiue the Communion at an other priestes hand but euery one would receiue it alone neither regardyng the godly decree of the most famous and holy Councell of Nice which appointed in what order priestes should be placed aboue Deacons at the Communion nor yet the Canons of the Apostles which commaund that when any Communion is ministred all the priestes togither should receiue the same or els be excommunicate So much the old Fathers mysliked that any priest should receiue the Sacrament alone Therfore when the old fathers called the Masse or Supper of the Lord a sacrifice they ment that it was a sacrifice of laudes and thankes geuyng and so aswell the people as the priest do sacrifice or els that it was a remembraunce of the very true sacrifice propitiatory of Christ but they ment in no wise that it is a very true sacrifice for sinne and applicable by the priest to the quicke and dead For the priest may well minister Christes woordes and Sacramentes to all men both good and bad but he can apply the benefite of Christes passion to no man beyng of age and discretion but onely to such as by their owne fayth do apply the same vnto them selues So that euery man of age and discretion taketh to him selfe the benefites of Christes passion or refuseth them him selfe by his owne fayth quicke or dead That is to say by his true and liuely fayth that worketh by charitie he receiueth them or els by his vngodlynes or fayned fayth reiecteth them And this doctrine of the Scripture clearely condemneth the wicked inuentions of the Papistes in these latter dayes which haue deuised a Purgatory to torment soules after this life and oblations of Masses sayd by the priestes to deliuer them from the sayd tormentes and a great number of other commodities do they promise to the simple ignoraunt people by their Masses Now the nature of man beyng euer prone to Idolatry frō the begynnyng of the world and the Papistes beyng ready by all meanes and police to defend and extoll the Masse for their estimation and profite and the people beyng superstitiously enamoured and doted vpon the Masse bicause they take it for a present remedy agaynst all maner of euils and part of the princes beyng blinded by papisticall doctrine part louyng quietnesse and loth to offend their Clergy and subiectes and all beyng captiue and subiect to the Antichrist of Rome the estate of the world remainyng in that case it is no wonder that abuses grew and encreased in the Church that superstition with Idolatry were taken for godlynesse and true Religion and that many thynges were brought in without the authoritie of Christ. As Purgatory the oblation and sacrificyng of Christ by the priest alone the applicatiō and appointyng of the same to such persons as the priest would sing or say Masse for and to such abuses as they
and sacramentes And where but a little before you had truely taught that the onely Immolation of Christ by himselfe vpon the alter of the crosse is the very satisfactory sacrifice for our reconciliation to God now in the end like a Cow that casteth downe her milke with her owne feete you ouerthrow all agayne in few wordes saying that priests make dayly the selfe same sacrifice that Christ made which is so foul an errour and blasphemy that as I sayd in mine other book if the priests daily make the selfe same sacrifice that Christ did himselfe and the sacrifice that he made was his death and the effusion of his most precious bloud vpon the crosse then followeth of necessity that euery day the priestes slea Christ and shed his bloud and be worse then the Iewes that did it but once Now followeth in your confutation thus Winchester And where the author would auoyd all the testimony of the fathers by pretence it should be but a manner of speach the Canon of the Councell of Nice before rehersed and the wordes of it where misteries be spoken of in proper termes for doctrine auoydeth all that shift and it hath no absurdity to confesse that Christ in his supper did institute for a remembraunce of the onely sacrifice the presence of the same most precious substaunce to be as the Canon of the Counsell in proper teacheth sacrificed by the Priestes to bée the pure sacrifice of the Church there offered for the effect of increase of life in vs as it was offered on the Crosse to atcheue life vnto vs. And S. Cyril who for his doctrine was in great authority with the counsell Ephesine writeth the very body and bloud of christ to be the liuely and vnbloudy Sacrifice of the church as like wise in the old church other commōly termed the same and among other Chrisostome whom the author would now haue semed to vse it but for a manner of speach which in déed Chrysostome doth not but doth truly open the vnderstāding of that is done in the church wherin by this sacrifice done after the order of Melchisedech Christes death is not iterate but a memory dayly renewed of that death so as Christes offering on the Crosse once done and consummate to fynish all sacrifyces after the order of Aaron is now onely remembred according to Christes institution but in such wise as the same body is offered dayly on the alter that was once offered on the alter of the Cros but the same manner of offering is not dayly that was on the aulter of the Cros for the dayly offering is without bloudshed and is termed so to signify that bloudshedding once done to be sufficient And as Chrisostome openeth it by declaration of what manner our sacrifice is that is to say this dayly offering to be a remembraunce of the other manner of sacrifice once done and therefore sayth rather we make a remembraunce of it This saying of Chrisostome doth not empayre his former wordes where he sayth the host is the same offered on the cros and on the aulter and therefore by him the body of Christ that died but once is dayly present in déed and as the councell of Nice sayth sacrificed not after the manner of other sacrifices and as chrisostome sayth offered but the death of that precious body onely dayly remembred and not agayne iterate Caunterbury FOr aunswere hereto reade the xiij chapter of my fifte booke and that which I haue written here a little before of Nicene councel And where you say that the effect of the sacrifice of Christes body made by the Priestes is to increase life in vs as the effecte of the sacrifice of the same bodye made by himselfe vpon the crosse is to geue life vnto vs this is not onely an absurdity but also an intollerable blasphemy agaynst Christ. For the sacrifice made vpon the crosse doth both geue vs life and also encrease and continue the same and the priestes oblation doth neither of both For our redemption and eternall saluation standeth not onely in geuing vs life but in continuing the same for euer As Christ sayd that he came not onely to geue vs life but also to make vs increase and abound therein And S. Paule sayd The life which I now liue in flesh I liue by the fayth of the sonne of God who loued me and gaue himselfe for me And therefore if we haue the one by the oblation of Christ and the other by the oblation of the priest then deuide we our saluation betwene Christ and the priest And because it is no lesse gift to continue life for euer then to geue it vs by thys your mad and furious blasphemy we haue our saluation and redemption asmuch by the sacrifice made by the priest as wee haue by sacrifice made by Christ himselfe And thus you make Christ to be like an vnkind and vnnatural mother who whē she hath brought forth her child putteth it to an other to nurse and maketh her self but half the mother of it And thus you teach christen people to halte on both sides partly worshipping God and partly Baall partly attributing our saluation to Christ the true perfect eternall priest and partly to Antichrist and his priestes And concerning Cyril he speaketh not of a sacrifice propitiatory in that place as I haue more playnely declared in mine aunswere to Doctour Smithes prologue And whereas you call the dayly sacrifice of the church an vnbloudy sacrifice here it were necessary if you would not deceiue simple people but teach them such doctrine as they may vnderstand that you should in playne termes set forth and declare what the dayly offering of the priest without bloud shedding is in what wordes deedes crosses signes or gestures it standeth and whether it be made before the consecration or after before the distribution of the sacrament or after and wherein chiefly resteth the very pith and substaunce of it And when you haue thus done I will say you meane franckly and walke not colourably in cloaked words not vnderstanded and then also shall you be more fully aunswered when I know better what you meane And to Chrysostome needeth no further aunswere then I haue made already in the xiij chapter of my fifte book But let vs heare the rest of your booke Winchester And where the author sayth the old fathers calling the supper of our Lord a sacrifice ment a Sacrifice of laud and thanksgeuing Hippinus of Hamborugh no Papist in hys booke dedicate to the kinges Maiesty that now is fayth otherwise and noteth how the old fathers called it a Sacrifice propitiatory for the very presence of Christes most precious body there thus sayth he which presence all Christen men must say requireth on our part lauds and thanksgeuing which may be and is called in Scripture by the name of Sacrifice but that Sacrifice of our laudes and thankes cannot be a Sacrifice geuing life as it
an accession after by merite and that he was conceiued onely man pag. 309. lin 12. Christ vseth vs as familiarly as he did his Apostles pag. 83. lin 54. Christ is not to be sayd conuersaunt in earth pag. 101. lin 16. ¶ Concessa ON what part thou Reader seest craft slyght shift obliquitie or in any one poynt an open manifestly there thou mayst consider what soeuer pretence be made of truth yet the victory of truth not to be there intended pag. 12. lin 19. When Christ had taught of the eatyng of him selfe being the bread descended from heauen declaryng that eatyng to signifie beleuyng then hee entred to speake of the geuyng of his flesh to be eaten pag. 27. lin 7. Christ must be spiritually in a man before he receiue the sacrament or he can not receiue the sacrament worthely pag. 48. lin 46. and pag. 140. lin vltima and pag. 172. lin 28. and 181. lin 28. How Christ is present pag. 61. lin 10. and pag. 71. lin 41. and pag. 90. lin 44. pag. 57. lin 17. and pag. 197. lin 30. By fayth we know onely the beyng present of Christes most precious body not the maner therof pag. 61. lin 43. What we speake of Christes body we must vnderstand a true body which hath both forme and quantitie pag. 71. lin 34. Although Christes body haue all those truth of forme and quantitie yet it is not present after the maner of quantitie pag. 71. lin 37. For the worthy receiuing of Christ we must come endued with Christ and clothed with him seemely in that garment pag. 92. lin 31. Really that is to say verely truly and in deede not in phantasie or imagination pag. 140. lin 21. All the old prayers and ceremonies sounde as the people did communicate with the Priest pag. 145. lin 9. Really and sensibly the old Authors in syllables vsed not for somuch as I haue read but corporally naturally they vsed speakyng of this sacrament pag. 155. lin 13. Christ may be called sensibly present pag. 155. lin 26. pag. 159. lin 10. By fayth Christ dwelleth in vs spiritually pag. 158. lin 16. Our perfect vnitie with Christ is to haue his fleshe in vs and to haue Christ bodily and naturally dwellyng in vs by his manhode pag. 166. lin 30. c. and pag. 17. lin 34. Euill men eate the body of Christ but sacramentally and not spiritually pag. 222. lin 47. Christes flesh in the sacrament is geuen vs to eate spiritually and therfore there may be no such imaginations to eate Christes body carnally after the maner hee walked here nor drinke his bloud as it was shed vpon the Crosse but spiritually vnderstanded it giueth lyfe pag. 241. lin 18. To eate onely in faith is specially to remember Christes flesh as it was visibly Crucified pag. 243. lin 28. We eate not Christ as he sitteth in heauen reignyng pag. 243. lin 32. The word Transubstantiation was first spoken of by publique authoritie in a generall Counsell where the Byshop of Rome was present pag. 250. lin 28. The word Nature signifieth both the substaunce and also propertie of the nature pag. 291. lin 27. The sensible thyng after the capacitie of common vnderstandyng is called substaunce but the inward nature in learnyng is properly called substaunce pag. 338. lin 31. In common bread the substaunce is not broken at all pag. 257. lin 32. The Catholicke doctrine teacheth not the dayly sacrifice of Christes most precious body and bloud to be an iteration of the once perfected sacrifice on the crosse but a sacrifice that representeth the sacrifice and sheweth it also before the faythfull eyes pag. 386. lin 20. The effect of the offeryng on the Crosse is geuen and dispensed in the Sacrament of Baptisme pag. 386. lin 30. By vertue of the same offeryng on the Crosse such as fall be releued in the sacrament of penaunce pag. ead lin 16. The dayly sacrifice of the Churche is also propitiatory but not in that degree of propitiation as for redēption regeneration or remission of deadly sinne which was once purchased and by force thereof is in the Sacramentes ministred but for the increase of Gods fauour the mitigation of Gods displeasure prouoked by our infirmities the subduyng of temptations and the perfection of vertue in vs. pag. 387. lin 15. c. All good workes good thoughtes and good meditations may be called sacrifices sacrifices propitiatory also for asmuch as in their degree God accepteth and taketh them through the effect and strength of the very sacrifice of Christes death pag. ead lin 19. c. To call the dayly offeryng a sacrifice satisfactory must haue an vnderstandyng that signifieth not the action of the Priest but the presence of Christs most precious body and bloud the very sacrifice of the world once perfectly offered beyng propitiatory and satisfactory for all the worlde pag. eadem lin 43. c. Or els the word satisfactory must haue a signification and meanyng that declareth the acception of the thyng done and not the propre counteruaile of the action For otherwise the dayly sacrifice in respect of the action of the Priest can not be called satisfactory and it is a worde in deede that soundeth not well so placed although it might be saued by a signification pag. eadem lin 46. c. I thinke this speach to be frequēted that the onely immolatiō of Christ in him selfe vpon the aultar of the Crosse is the very satisfactory sacrifice for the reconciliation of mankynd to the fauour of God pag. ead lin 50. I haue not read the dayly sacrifice of Christes most precious body to be called a sacrifice satisfactory pag eadem lin 52. But this speach hath in deede bene vsed that the Priest should sing satisfactory which they vnderstode of the satisfaction of the Priestes duety to attend the prayer he was required to make Ibid. lin 53. In the sacrifice of the Church Christes death is not iterated but a memory dayly renewed of that death so as Christes offeryng on the Crosse once done and consumate is now onely remembred pag. 391. lin 5. The same body is offered dayly on the aultar that was once offered vpon the Crosse but the same maner of offeryng is not dayly that was on the aultar of the Crosse. For the dayly offeryng is without bloudshedyng and is termed so to signifie that bloudshedyng once done to be sufficient pag. eadem lin 8. c. ¶ Matters wherein the Byshop varyeth from the truth and from the old Authours of the Church IF we eate not the fleshe of the sonne of man we haue not lyfe in vs bycause Christ hath ordered the Sacrament c. pag. 17. lin 12. When Christ sayd Take eate this is my body he fulfilled that which he promised in the vj. of Iohn that he would geue his flesh for the lyfe of the world pag. 27. lin 28. Mar. Ant. fol. 168. When Christ sayd the flesh profiteth nothyng he spake
be accursed But none could opē this matter wel but the clergy and that such of them as had read the popes lawes whereby the pope hath made himselfe as it were a God These seeke to maintayne the Pope whome they desired to haue their chiefe head to the intent they might haue as it were a kingdome and lawes within themselues distinct from the lawes of the crowne and wherewith the crowne may not meddle and so being exempted from the lawes of the crowne might liue in this realme like Lordes and Kinges without daminage or feare of any man so that they please their high and supreame head at Rome For this cōsideration I weene some that knew the truth held their peace at the Parliament whereas if they had done their dueties to the crowne and whole realme they should haue opened their mouthes declared the truth and shewed the perils an daungers that might ensue to the crowne and realme And if I should agree to allow such authority within this realme whereby I must needes confesse that your most gracious highnes and also your realme should euer cōtinue accursed vntill you shall cease from the execution of your owne lawes customes of your realme I could not thinke my selfe true either to your highnes or to this my naturall countrey knowing that I do know Ignoraūce I know may excuse other men but he that knoweth how preiudiciall and iniurious the power and authority which he chalengeth euery where is to the crowne lawes and customes of this Realme yet will allow the same I cannot set in any wise how he can keepe his due allegeaunce fidelity and truth to the crowne and state of this Realme An other cause I alleadged why I could not allow the authority of the pope which is this That by his authority he subuerteth not onely the lawes of this realme but also the lawes of God so that whosoeuer be vnder his authority he suffereth them not to be vnder Christes religion purely as Christ did commaund And for one example I brought forth that whereas by Gods lawes all Christian people bee boundeth diligently to learne his word that they may know how to beleue and liue accordingly for that purpose he ordayned holy dayes when they ought leauing apart all other busines to geue thēselues wholy to know and serue God Therefore Gods will and commaundement is that when the people be gathered together the Ministers should use such language as the people may vnderstand and take profite thereby or els hold their peace For as an harpe or lute if it geue no certayne sound that men may know what is stricken who can daūce after it for all the sound is in vaynes So is it vayne and profiteth nothing sayth almighty God by the mouth of S. Paule if the priest speake to the people in a language which they know not for els he may profite himselfe but profiteth not the people sayth S. Paule But herein I was aunswered thus that S. Paule spake onely of preaching that the preacher should speake in a tongue which the people did know or els his preaching auayleth nothing But if the preaching auaileth nothing being spoken in a language which the people vnderstand not how should any other seruice auayle them being spoken in the same language And that yet S. Paule mene not onely of preaching it appeareth playnely by his owne words for he speaketh by name expressely of praying singing lauding and thākyng of God and of all other things which the priestes say in the churches whereunto the people say Amen which they vsed not in preaching but in other diuine seruice that whether the Priestes rehearse the wonderfull workes of God or the great benefites of God vnto inankinde aboue all other creatures or geue thankes vnto God or make open profession of their fayth or humble confession of theyr sinnes with earnest request of mercy and forgeuenes or make sute or request vnto God for any thing then all the people vnderstanding what the Priestes say might ioyne their mindes and voyces with them and say Amen that is to say allow what the Priestes say that the rehearsall of Gods vniversall workes and benefites the geuing of thākes the profession of fayth the confession of sinnes and the requestes and petitions of the Priestes and the people might ascend vp into the eares of God altogether and be as a sweet sauor odour and incense in his nose And thus was it vsed many hundred yeares after Christes ascension But the aforesayd thinges cannot be done when the priestes speake to the people in a language not knowen and so they or their clarke in their name say Amen but they cānot tell whereunto where as S. Paule sayth how can the people say Amen to thy well saying when they vnderstand not what thou sayd And thus was S. Paule understanded of all interpretours both the Greekes and Latins old and new Scholeauthors others that I haue red vntill about xxx yeares past at which time one Eckius with other of hys sort began to deuise a new exposition vnderstanding S. Paule of preaching onely But when a good number of the best learned men reputed within this realme some fauouring the old some the new learning as they terme to where indeed that which they call the olde is the new and that which they call the new is indeed the old but when a great number of such learned men of both forces were gathered together at winsor for the reformation of the seruice of the Church It was agreed by both without controuersy not one saying cōtrary that the seruice of the Church ought to be in the mother tongue and that S. Paule in the 14. chapter to the Corinthians was so to be vnderstanded And so is S. Paule to be vnderstanded in the ciuill law more then a thousand yeares past where Iustinianus a most godly Emperour in a synode writeth on this maner Iubenius vt omnes Episcopi pariter prasbyteri non tacito modo sed clara vocequa a fidels populo exaudiantur sacram oblationem preces in sacro baptismate adhibitas celebrent quo maiori exinde deuotione in depromendis Domini Dei laudibus audientium animi efferātur Ita enim Diuus Paulus docet in Epistola ad Corinth Si solūmodo benedicat Spiritus quomodo it qui priuati locum tenet dicet ad gratiarum actionem tuam amen quandoquidem quid dicas non videt Tu quidem pulchre gratias agis alter autem non adificatur That is to say we commaunde that all Bishops and Priestes celebrate the holy oblation prayers vsed in holy baptisme not after a still and close maner but with a cleare loud voyce that they may be playnly heard of the faythfull people so as the hearers mindes may be lifted vp thereby with the greater deuotion in vttering the prayses of the Lord God For so Paule teacheth also in the Epistle to the Corinthians If